Talk:Heterodox Academy

Promotional Article / Objectivity

Reading through the article, it seems as if most of the text was imported straight from the group itself. It is generally positive in nature, includes no criticisms of the group, and outlines their publications with the same bylines as the original website. As written right now, it appears more like a promotional / propaganda article more than an objective article.

Some suggestions would be to include criticisms of the group, to remove words loaded with positive connotations, and to add more third person references to the group. If anyone has any other suggestions, please comment below. 128.189.73.93 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

There's at least some editing here against a conflict of interest, so it's no surprise.

Adding more third person references isn't enough. The article should be written from clearly independent sources, with other sources being used sparingly for additional details that are clearly encyclopedic in nature. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking further, I think we need to start with WP:Notability. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Bipartisan versus multipartisan

Would "multipartisan" be more accurate than "bipartisan" in the lead sentence? I think that "bipartisan" frames it in terms of the two major US political parties, and I'm under the impression that the group is interested in more than just US politics. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The word is taken straight from 2 out of the 3 sources used in the lead. I think we have to use it until other sources are introduced that describe it in some other way. FWIW, my searches came up with nothing usable so far for "multipartisan"+"Heterodox Academy". -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

February 2019 edits

Regarding this revert, I've rewritten the lead to make it unambiguous that it doesn't describe itself as conservative; but we need to rely on secondary sources to describe it, not primary ones, and they're generally pretty clear about what angle it's arguing from. Regarding the rest, no explanation was made for deleting the entire ideology section beyond WP:SYNTH and it not matching the sources -- please be more specific. It seems to summarize the cited sources very closely to me, but I can reword it to be more close if there are specific objections. Sweeping reverts to the entire page, though, aren't very helpful! The current article relies far too heavily on cites to Heterodox Academy itself or to sources that just quote it without describing or analyzing it directly, so we need a section like this and sources like the ones that this revert removed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted because your summaries of the cited sources are far afield from what they actually say. Point in fact is that you you wrote that it "seeks to correct what it sees as the left-wing ideological tilt" - a statement which is not supported by either of the sources you had listed (if even those sources are high-quality) as to what they document the group's state goal is which is "promoting 'political and ideological diversity'" (Observer) and "promotes 'viewpoint diversity on college campuses'" (Vox). Now, those authors and User:Aquillion may interpret this goal as being "conservative" or "anti-left-wing"... but those views have to be attributed to the opinion-makers themselves - not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. I wholesale reverted because there were wholesale lapses in your interpretation of the sources. Let's start over though - can you list out here what references you think are of highest quality to add to this article - in a general sense, not to support any particular point. -- Netoholic @ 22:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Added: In another lapse, you cited a Salon page, which right at the top points out that it is a reprint from the Niskanen Center (think tank) blog - again using a POV opinion and falsely stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributing it to its source. -- Netoholic @ 22:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the information based upon a quick review of the content and comments above.

I believe the references are reliable, but we can go over any that are disputed.

I think we must have independent descriptions of the organization if available, and those descriptions should be put above those of the organization itself if the sources are reliable for the information.

If there are V or OR problems, they should be addressed by changing the content to better fit the sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Netoholic, for identifying specific content within the article.

At a glance, they look like statements that may be overly generalized given what the sources state. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely have no objection to toning it down, making it more specific, rewriting it to attributed it more clearly as the positions of specific sources, or adding other sources that disagree with the ones I added to balance it out. But I think the perspective is well-cited enough that it belongs in the article in some form - previously the article was pretty much just what Heterodox Academy says about itself, which introduces WP:NPOV issues of its own when there are many sources that disagree with its self-description on key points. --Aquillion (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've not looked closely at the state of the article, but I'm wondering if we can simply state some of the common opinions from Vox and Observer in Wikipedia's voice. I'd prefer to have at least one more source of equal or better quality. --Ronz (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. This paper describes it as follows: But there is also the more main-stream Heterodox Academy, an online forum dedicated to pushing the academy to the political right because, the group’s members believe, liberal scholars teach orthodox ideas “without any real evidence.” --Aquillion (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• We can add more to that section about their self-description, or be more specific with in-line citations about who said what, but I don't think that requires removing the section entirely. Regarding the Salon piece, note that it is cited as opinion ("some commentators said...") rather than as fact; while I'd agree that we couldn't cite it even for opinion as a blog-post (I tend to be stricter about what qualifies for WP:RSOPINION than most people), being reposted in Salon means that definitely passes muster for citing as opinion. Whether it's WP:DUE is another matter, and I wouldn't object to being more clear about whose opinion it is, but none of these require deleting the entire section. And for the others (the ones we can cite as fact), while they contradict Heterodox Academy's self-description (and I noted the one specific place where Heterodox Academy unambiguously disputed Vox's description of them), we'd need secondary sources specifically disagreeing with them to present them as seriously contested. I don't agree that any of this is a "wholesale lapse" in my interpretation of the sources, though - the summaries I gave are ultimately the key takeaways from their conclusions. There's a lot of ways you could improve that section (it's just a starting point, and I outlined a lot of ways you could address the problems you mentioned above), but I feel we do have to have the article cover the central conflict over Heterodox Academy's purpose, mission, and rationale, since it is something that shows up prominently in many of the independent sources that have discussed it in depth. --Aquillion (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I dispute that "being reposted in Salon means that definitely passes muster for citing as opinion". The author is Jeffrey Adam Sachs (not to be confused with Jeffrey Sachs), who is a non-notable professor writing for a think tank. And while in this piece he claims there is no "free speech crisis", in a newer blog he says "The “Campus Free Speech Crisis” Ended Last Year", so I have to ask which of these claims is true (is/was there or is/was there not), and why is this person's opinion WP:DUE at all? He is a professor of Middle East politics - not an acknowledged expert in free speech or campus demographics. -- Netoholic @ 01:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That standard (being a recognized expert in the field) is necessary if we want to cite their self-published work. Once they're published in Salon, their opinion has Salon's weight behind it in terms of its relevance and notability. I would agree that we wouldn't want to give it WP:UNDUE weight (eg. I wouldn't extract quotes from it and cite them alone or anything like that), but here it's only being cited alongside other articles making the same argument; we're not putting excessive focus on this one person's opinion. It passes WP:RSOPINION for that minimal usage. And I strongly disagree with the way you changed the citation - the fact that it was published in Salon is the only reason we can cite it; the fact that it was previously published elsewhere does not diminish it as a source, since the publication in Salon still lends that publication's weight and reputation to it. By replacing the cite, you were replacing a stronger citation with a weaker one. --Aquillion (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

More cherry-picking here in this recent edit. A source was added to substantiate the line "Heterodox Academy has consistently been identified as advancing conservative viewpoints on college campuses by playing into or presenting the argument that such views are suppressed by left-wing bias". The Fuentes source only mentions HA briefly in the specific subject of biological racial differences - in other words it says nothing about left-wing bias or advancing conservative viewpoints. You are cherry-picking and misrepresenting the sources consistently here. -- Netoholic @ 01:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It says "But there is also the more main-stream Heterodox Academy, an online forum dedicated to pushing the academy to the political right because, the group’s members believe, liberal scholars teach orthodox ideas “without any real evidence.”, which I interpreted as reasonably summarizing to that statement. I can reword it slightly if you want (and have a better summary), but to me, "pushing the academy to the political right" parses to advancing conservative viewpoints, and "because, as the group's members believe, liberal scholars teach orthodox ideas “without any real evidence.”" parses to a belief in left-wing bias. --Aquillion (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you not see how VERY different that is compared to the line you're using it as a reference for? You're misrepresenting that source, not following the WP:SYNTH recommendations: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. Again we also have a question of WP:DUE for using the Fuentes mention (evolutionary biologists are not social scientist) and even if used, it should be attributed to them and stated in the terms they use, not cobbled with 2 other sources into something you think is vaguely similar. --Netoholic @ 01:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

...no? I just said, explicitly, that I thought the text parsed directly to what the source said, so obviously I do not see any significant difference. Is your objection to the word "consistently?" I could understand tweaking that word, but if that's the issue, you need to be more specific with your objections, or propose an alternate wording, because as it is I'm not understanding which part you find objectionable at all - you give the impression that you don't think it relates to any part of the statement, which seems absurd to me. Clearly that source directly paraphrases to stating that advancing conservative viewpoints on college campuses by playing into or presenting the argument that such views are suppressed by left-wing bias, and if that part is what you object to then I don't follow at all. By my reading, all of those sources directly and independently state the things they're being cited for, both there and with the Salon piece you're objecting to (both of which describe Heterodox Academy's position as being part of a moral panic.) Edit: Again, please offer some sort of alternative summary, if you think I got it wrong. Aside from "consistently", which I removed, I legitimately do not understand your objection here; if you could offer what you see as a more accurate summary of these sources, I might understand where you feel the disagreement between them is or in what ways you think they fail to support the statements I cited to them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, so we're just going to skip over the WP:DUE point I brought up? Before even discussing if you're "parsing" the source accurately (which I think is clear you aren't), I still want to here why a passing mention by an evolutionary biologist is even WP:DUE in this case. At best, the mention should be directly attributed to Carolyn Rouse (preferably with a direct quote), and only the part which could be considered her area of expertise - a dissent about the specific HA viewpoint that she quotes. Let me phrase it another way... if we used only the Fuentes/Rouse source, would that sentence in the article it references be written the same way? No of course not - and therefore it is WP:SYNTH because it states something which this source does not state. Your "parsing" of it is incorrect and misleading. Even if you don't think so, the fact that another editor might "parse" it differently points to the problem. I'd prefer no "parsing" which it comes to serious claims written in Wikipedia's voice. Now, let's please hear why you think this brief, passing mention in a source which doesn't even focus on HA and which is written by biologists is WP:DUE for this article. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Heterodox Academy's core thesis focuses on academia, which includes biology (as that source emphasizes, they have specific views that they'd want to see reflected in how academia covers biology); obviously, this makes such academics WP:DUE for establishing how Heterodox Academy is viewed by high-quality sources. In fact, they're some of the best sources to use. Heterodox Academy's focus, after all, extends far beyond just social sciences to encompass much of academia, so academic sources (rather than pop-culture news pieces or bare mentions of Heterodox Academy's activities, as much of the article relied on previously) are ideal for writing and structuring it. Regarding if we used only the Fuentes/Rouse source, would that sentence in the article it references be written the same way? Yes, absolutely. No question. I believe that that statement is a perfect summary of what it says, and I've now said so several times in several different ways. If you feel that there's an error in it, you will have to be specific - SYNTH is a very specific thing (X + Y = Z), so if you believe there's something in there that's not in the source, you will have to state it, ideally with a preferred summary of your own. But as it is (with the minor correction I made above), I stand by it 100% and feel that it's one of the closest summaries of a source that I've written. Normally, in a dispute like this, I would shrug and rewrite it to be as close of a parsing of the source as possible (since there's no sense in continuing the dispute if it can be easily fixed), but by my reading it's already as close of a summary of the source as it's possible to get without being a direct quote. If your argument is that turning the section into a series of direct quotes would be superior, I strenuously disagree; I don't feel that that sort of quotefarm is useful to readers. We should find prominent viewpoints held by many reliable sources, then condense and summarize them instead in order to give readers a general sense of the available strands of thought on the subject without giving WP:UNDUE weight to any one source. This is standard practice. --Aquillion (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean, first, that's a pretty bold assertion that just because someone is an academic, their off-hand comments are automatically WP:DUE. I agree about finding prominent viewpoints, and an off-hand comment like Rouse's doesn't cut it. You had to dig deep to find that, and its a weak source. -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It definitely isn't an offhand comment; it's a direct analysis of how Heterodox Academy approaches its core mission from an academic expert in a field they've included in their advocacy, in the context of --Aquillion (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, as an aside, the "like whom" in the lead is inappropriate - while we can and should go into more detail in the body, it is an accepted standard to combine multiple viewpoints into a general statement like that in the lead (see WP:WEASEL, which notes this.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I note that when you started editing this article recently, your first edit was to change the lead sentence and to add citations to that change. Now, that is backwards from the typical method, which should be to add content to the body of the article first and then later summarize the body into the lead. Doing it backwards could indicate that there is a particular conclusion you wish to present in the lead, and so are working backwards from that conclusion. Nothing in the disputed new section of this article is ready at all for summarization in the lead because we don't even have agreement on the accuracy or appropriateness of it in that section yet. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Naturally, when something important is omitted from the article (as it was, before), it needs to be addressed in both the article and the lead. I'm also not seeing particularly heavy disputes for that section - as far as I can tell, you're the only one who objects, and (while you've presented them in broader terms) your objections are mostly fairly minor nit-picks about wording or attribution. You haven't, as far as I can tell, seriously disputed the underlying point that Heterodox Academy's politics and goals are controversial or that it's sometimes seen as pressing a right-wing point of view; if you don't dispute that, then all we have are minor issues over wording and emphasis. (You haven't even, as far as I can tell, presented what secondary sources you feel disagree with the ones I added, which would be a much more useful starting place for this discussion, since we could then weigh the relative weight and consider how to structure that dispute, if it exists.) But if your objection is "you're just adding something you want to see in the article" - well, yes. I want the article to accurately reflect overall coverage of Heterodox Academy and how it is seen in top-quality news and academic sources, which I feel it clearly didn't before - it previously presented purely Heterodox Academy's own view of itself, which wasn't WP:NPOV. If you feel the same way about wanting to present what the sources say (but feel I'm wrong with regards to my assessment of that coverage), present alternative coverage and we can weigh it. But if your objection is "you're trying to add stuff that makes it look like there's a dispute over Heterodox Academy's views, goals, and results", well, yes, I believe that that's a major part of the coverage of it and therefore needs to be a major part of both the article and the lead - and if you disagree, you need to actually make that argument squarely rather than nit-picking. (Conversely, if you agree that there's such a dispute and agree that it's worth covering, but feel I'm overemphasizing it or wording it too harshly, you should propose a rewrite that you feel would cover it better.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "you're the only one objecting" line - a psychological tactic designed to make me feel isolated or "othered" in this discussion. But the WP:ONUS] is actually on you, the one that wants to add material, to demonstrate that it is valid, appropriate, and accurately represented. -- Netoholic @ 22:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have done so. The sources I've added are high-quality, reliable, relatively neutral, and (as far as I know) comprehensive on the subject of disputes over Heterodox Academy's tactics and ideology; the fact that you (despite your obvious distaste for my additions) have only been able to raise minor quibbles illustrates this - when I said I saw only minor objections, I was including your objections in that summary. If you still disagree with the sources, we can take them to WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN or the like; but I don't think you'll get very far, since these are high-quality sources, and they unequivocally support the things I'm citing to them. If you feel that there are other sources I missed, you can present them, but as I said... by my reading, the only concrete, actionable objections you've raised have been nit-picking. Beyond that, I'll note that you've removed controversy the lead again, but have yet to raise any concrete objections to it it its current form - it's not enough to say that you object; you need to provide specific, actionable examples of problems I can resolve, indicate what sort of sourcing would satisfy you, and so on. (Also, please be more cautious with edit-summaries; your recent edits made fairly drastic changes that weren't mentioned in the summaries. If you don't at least provide a summary, I'll have no way of knowing why you made your changes, or even if they were intentional given the edit conflicts involved.) --Aquillion (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean... the sources aren't awful, but they do include strongly partisan language. And while you might characterize it as "nit-picking", my dispute with your edits stems from your inaccurate "parsing" of those sources and your propensity towards POV editing style by writing a negative statement in Wikipedia's voice, and then tacking on sources to buttress that statement without attribution of opinions to their source. And the value of those opinions coming from non-notable staff writers of partisan sources should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't think you're taking a fair or neutral approach to this topic. -- Netoholic @ 06:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Discuss content, not editors. I feel I'm accurately summarizing what the sources say on a core aspect of the topic that was previously left out; and while I understand that it feels POV to you (because you clearly dislike or disagree with those sources, framing them as partisan), that is, in fact, a simple, straightforward content dispute. I can agree that some parts of the language I added could be toned town or refined, but that's what the editing process is about - using policy, sources, and discussion about them (eventually calling in external opinions if we reach an impasse) to hammer out disagreements over what the sources say, overall, about a topic, what we should include or exclude, and how we should word the things that we do include. Also, recognize that what reads as "strongly partisan language" to you might, in some cases, be because you strongly disagree with it yourself (ie. it can be reflective of your own views.) As I mentioned below, I particularly object to your characterization of the Observer piece - I would concede that Vox has a slight left lean (although they're still 100% a WP:RS), but that piece strikes me as firmly neutral. If we were going to assess pieces based on what they said (which I'm usually cautious about for the reason I mentioned below, ie. if you approach pieces with a preconception about what a neutral one will say, you're going to obviously reach your preconceived conclusion), I would be more concerned about the press-releasish pieces relied on elsewhere in the article, which simply repeat what Heterodox Academy says about itself without comment - those are not neutral, either. --Aquillion (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead section

This sentence was removed from the lead: while it identifies itself as non-partisan, some commentators have described it as advancing a conservative argument against what it sees as a left-wing tilt in academia. Does anyone dispute that this is an accurate summary of what the sources say, both there and in the section it summarizes? Although there are some disagreements, above, over how exactly to phrase the relevant section or which specific sources to include, I do not see any general disagreement on the existence or WP:DUE nature of the broad existence of such commentators, and the current trend of discussion for that section doesn't seem to be calling into question anything that would change that broad summary of it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You came to this article and started with your first edit being to the lead. This is evidence pointing to a highly POV editing style on your part... one that is more concerned with making a broad, negative statement up front to shame this organization, and then later doing the legwork to justify it. That's backwards. Let's get the ideology section to a more predictable state first, and THEN summarize it in the lead. Doing this means there isn't a fight in both places at once. Slow down a bit. -- Netoholic @ 06:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. Identifying an editor as POV and then seeking to oppose them based on that is WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct; if you have a conduct issue with me, take it to my talk page or WP:AE, don't try to hash it out here. If you're going to discuss content with me, though, you have to drop that preconception and focus on policy-based objections so we can hammer out our differing perceptions of what the sources say in order to reach a compromise. Now, do you have a specific content-based objection to the last version of the lead that you removed? As I've stated several times, I feel that it's an accurate summary of what the sources say, and as far as I can tell you haven't disagreed with that (or even presented any objection to it at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If my disagreement was not crystal clear - here you go. It is neither an accurate summary of the specific citations (Vox, "Red Pill, Rouse) you added, nor is it representative of the broader scope of coverage on this organization. The addition has primarily WP:DUE, and WP:SYNTH problems. The WP:ONUS is on you, as the editor that wishes this added, to work toward and demonstrate consensus to add these citations to both the body of the article and, if doing so adds value, perhaps someday, have the views summarized into the lead. As far as POV conduct issues are concerned, obviously you should likewise show good faith in return and demonstrate the ability to add content to the article which comes from any aspect - neutral, critical, or positive - as the need arises, and also be willing to work in good faith with your fellow editors. I asked you on your talk page for such a show of good faith to withdraw your reverts of some edits I made (which, in the course of doing, you made multiple demonstrable errors). So far. Silence on that from you. You keep saying you want "specific" feedback on your edits, but ignore or change the subject when such is given. So, who's in the BATTLEGROUND? -- Netoholic @ 08:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

All right, this is closer. What summary would you feel is more accurate? Here are some quotes that I feel summarize their conclusions:

• Although institutions like the Heterodox Academy do not directly call themselves conservative, or even centrist for that matter, their main objective lies in challenging the prevailing culture in academia monopolized by progressives, while promoting free speech from a diverse range of thinkers often viewed as marginalized. In this sense, they bear a similar mission to the conservative behemoth Turning Point USA in galvanizing opposition to university liberalism; the shrinkage of the Overton Window, the viewpoints and topics seen as socially mainstream, has clumped together unlikely bedfellows. (Observer)
• In the group’s own terms, then, the problem is that American campuses have become a “left-leaning tribal moral community” that suffer from a form of “orthodoxy” — wherein conservative voices are marginalized and shunned — due to a lack of “viewpoint diversity,” meaning a dearth of conservative faculty members on campus. (Vox)
• I would assume Heterodox Academy’s core staff are too principled to support such measures. But by working to promote the idea that liberal bias and, yes, political correctness is a crisis, they provide ammunition to supporters of such efforts. (Vox)
• ""But there is also the more main-stream Heterodox Academy, an online forum dedicated to pushing the academy to the political right because, the group’s members believe, liberal scholars teach orthodox ideas “without any real evidence.”" (Rouse)

Going over these, is your objection to the word 'conservative?' The Rouse piece unambiguously says they are dedicated to pushing the academy to the political right, while the Observer piece compares them to "the conservative behemoth Turning Point USA", but I could see an interpretation of them as saying that it is fighting against liberalism but not, intentionally, for conservatism. Now, beyond that, what parts of the argument I outlined above do you object to, specifically? Point to individual words or phrases you feel don't match up (I've even gone an identified one for you, which might be the crux of your disagreement - but is there anything else?) Regarding whether it's representative, the only way you're going to be able to make that argument is by producing other sources for comparison. If you feel that WP:ONUS frees you from any need to do so, I think that's a mistake; first, and most importantly, there's already a rough, limited, two-to-one consensus in favor of using my edits as the basis for future improvements to the article (though obviously we should try to hash out any problems first); second, it would be ideal for us to reach an agreement, which requires that you fully state your case (allowing me to refine my additions to reflect the sources you feel I'm neglecting); and third, since that rough and limited 'consensus' I mentioned is among so few people this will probably require an RFC if we can't reach perfect agreement. If / when we reach that point it would, again, be more useful if you laid out your argument in full, including the sources you feel I'm ignoring or minimizing. --Aquillion (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The Beauchamp Vox source is a response to a HxA response to a earlier Beauchamp article. Naturally, I don't begrudge an author from defending his work, but that no longer makes it a fresh, complete take. Beauchamp, though, in doing so takes the parts he quotes from a variety of sources. He says In the group’s own terms, then, the problem is that American campuses have become a “left-leaning tribal moral community” - this is simply not true. He links and is quoting a member of HxA, but not one speaking for the organization as a whole. His second section you quoted above says I would assume Heterodox Academy’s core staff are too principled to support such measures. But by working to promote the idea that liberal bias and, yes, political correctness is a crisis, they provide ammunition to supporters of such efforts is kind of obviously snarky and 100% Beauchamp's opinion. Neither of these lead to using this source in the way that you did. Beauchamp's opinion should only be used attributed to him, but then I have to ask why is his opinion worthy for inclusion? Lots of people have opinions - is Beauchamp an expert? Are we forced to now dig up any opinion, positive or negative, and include it? I've already responded above about the Rouse source, which falls into the same problem of "who cares?". The Observer is not as problematic, but I think your interpretation is. You equate the noted similarity to overtly conservative groups as if the author is saying the group is pushing right or conservative, when in fact he does not pass a particular judgement and actually himself puts forth the idea that there a "prevailing culture in academia monopolized by progressives". So here again, your read on it is the wrong take-away. Now, even after these misinterpretations, you mash all three together in a way which causes the WP:SYNTH issue. -- Netoholic @ 10:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The Vox article is not an opinion piece, so his interpretations of the situation are usable for statements of fact and have the weight of Vox's editorial controls and reputation behind them. Interpreting such situations are what we rely on sources of that nature for; whether you feel it's snarky or not, he's saying that they see left-wing views as the problem and that their position advances conservative arguments, in a reliable analysis of the topic. I don't agree with your assertion that looking at eg. who supports Heterodox Academy is necessarily an invalid way to make that assessment, but either way, we have to go with the sources. Regarding the Observer piece, as I said, that only raises an issue with the word 'conservative'; we can summarize Although institutions like the Heterodox Academy do not directly call themselves conservative, or even centrist for that matter, their main objective lies in challenging the prevailing culture in academia monopolized by progressives, while promoting free speech from a diverse range of thinkers often viewed as marginalized into "some commentators have described it as pushing back against what it sees as a left-wing tilt in academia" - I think it's fairly indisputable that all of these sources state that, at a bare minimum, and (aside from Heterodox Academy itself, whose disagreement is covered in the article) very few sources that actually address the topic seem to disagree. I'm not 100% happy with that construction (clearly the Vox and Rouse sources go beyond that, and the fact that the Observer describes their goals as aligning with Turning Point USA seems worth noting somewhere in the article, if not in the lead), but it seems like a decent compromise for now that trims things down to the bare, definite bones of what these sources say. --Aquillion (talk) 10:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Still using WP:SOME weasel word, and the "what it sees as a left-wing tilt" misrepresentation - the Vox source gives exactly one member of HxA that claims that, Rouse's opinion is that its so (who cares?), and Observer does not say the organization believes that, only that it acts in parallel in some ways with other groups that do. Still, SYNTHing to fit your desired statement - not reflecting what the sources actually say or are worth. -- Netoholic @ 10:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've explained, WP:SOME is acceptable in the lead; the policy says so specifically (The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.) We can specify who in the relevant section. You're mistaken in your analysis of how the Vox piece reaches its conclusion; it also cites the very first post on Heterodox Academy and their own mission statement (the argument leads in with This is a bit of a dodge. Sure, the phrase “political correctness” isn’t all that commonly used in Heterodox Academy pieces, but a fair reading of the group’s concerns would identify political correctness and the imposition of left-wing orthodoxy on campuses as an overriding concern for Heterodox Academy. Don’t take my word for it. Here’s the very first post on Heterodox Academy, from its founder and NYU psychologist Jonathan Haidt, defining the then-blog’s founding premise: Also from the first piece, You’re also involved with Jonathan Haidt’s Heterodox Academy, which tries to fight what it sees as a closed-minded, mostly left-leaning bias in academia. and The Observer piece does unambiguously say that the organization itself has challenging progressive culture as their mission Although institutions like the Heterodox Academy do not directly call themselves conservative, or even centrist for that matter, their main objective lies in challenging the prevailing culture in academia monopolized by progressives, while promoting free speech from a diverse range of thinkers often viewed as marginalized. The other part you're referring to is only in reference to the 'conservative' aspect, which my compromise would remove. And the Rouse piece is a published academic paper in the field of one of the topics Heterodox Academy focuses on; it passed academic review, and is therefore citable for fact, not just opinion. At this point I think I've answered all your objections. I imagine you still dislike citing Rouse, but you'll have to take that to WP:RSN if you really object. My points on the other two are, I think, indisputable - you simply misread the Vox piece, in particular, and seem to have misread the Observer piece as well without considering how my compromise removes the need to consider the second part (since they indisputably describe it as challenging the prevailing culture in academia monopolized by progressives.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No, WP:ONUS means its on you to take this RSN. -- Netoholic @ 11:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, another editor already supported my contributions (at least in a general sense); with only three people weighing in, that satisfies WP:ONUS, if tenuously. More importantly, though, you haven't addressed my answer to your other two points! --Aquillion (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you say anything that can't be immediately disproven? The last comments from User:Ronz (the other editor I presume you're speaking for) were in agreement that "they look like statements that may be overly generalized given what the sources state" and a request for better sources. He certainly doesn't seem to be agreeing with you. Consensus is either all sides being satisfied OR an outside person evaluating - as a participant you can't decide you've satisfied ONUS when its YOUR ONUS in question. -- Netoholic @ 12:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That was, by my reading, talking about the possibility of going from just attributed to them (in the most recent version at that point) to stating it as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice. But either way, I answered your other objections and you still haven't responded. --Aquillion (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Ideology section lead

Regarding this edit, I object to moving down the lead part of the sentence stating that Heterodox Academy does not formally define itself as conservative or centrist, and describes itself in nonpartisan terms. We could perhaps refine that a bit, but it's an accurate summary of a key point from the source Although institutions like the Heterodox Academy do not directly call themselves conservative, or even centrist for that matter..., and is necessary in context to establish their disagreement with the sentence further down. I think that that's a vital summary, since the key point of dispute here is their political outlook (and, of course, whether they have one.) A quote can be useful, but we still need a broad secondary summary of the section, and I think that (while we could find better sources or tweak the wording of that line) the fact that Heterodox Academy presents itself as non-partisan and rejects the label of conservative is uncontroversial. I particularly object to making a quote to Heterodox Academy the lead-in to the section; while we can and should present their view, we should rely on WP:SECONDARY sources for the summary. --Aquillion (talk) 04:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

This is about basic readability. I realize you may want to "promote the controversy", but to an average reader, it is simply better to present a paragraph describing what sources report the organization state's is purpose/goals/mission as... and then follow after that with the praise/support, criticsm/opposition, or just general commentary about that stated mission. You're also still vastly overWP:WEIGHTing both the Vox and "red Pill" pieces which, currently, are used in three separate locations. Certainly these are OK sources, but they are partisan, and aren't remotely the best or only ones out there. -- Netoholic @ 06:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the assertion that that quote is the main pull from that article or an accurate summary of what it says overall. It's from fairly far into it; it feels a bit cherry-picked to me. We can use it to illustrate what the group says about itself (it's actually from their website), but it isn't actually what the article focuses on. In fact, right above it is this: The goal of her group, said Mashek, is not to promote any political agenda — or demand some kind of “affirmative action” for conservatives on campus. That reinforces the idea that the controversy is central (since she felt the need to bring it up early on.) Beyond that, I also strenuously dispute your characterization of the Observer as partisan. The New York Observer is hardly known for a liberal bias (it was, until recently, owned by Jared Kushner), and the author has written for a wide range of outlets with differing views. If your position is "any source that says Heterodox Academy has a conservative POV is by definition biased", then your reasoning is obviously circular. And if you feel it's not the best, provide better ones! It's easier to weigh sources for something like this comparatively. There are a lot of sources that take no position on the subject, definitely, and a lot that take the cautious position of just quoting Heterodox Academy on itself, but the ones that do take a position seem to largely (as far as I can tell) come down as describing Heterodox Academy as favoring conservative or right-wing viewpoints, either intentionally or unintentionally. --Aquillion (talk) 07:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What? Totally off-topic - my comment was to hope to get some minor agreement on the simple ordering of presentation. I never said the quote was the "main pull from the article" - that's ridiculous. But it is a source which reports on the organization's mission. I would say if pressed that, in fact, the information about Executive director Debra Mashek (a key leadership role in the organization) is much more the "main pull" and is an extremely important element related to our coverage of this topic. But I see you've removed the Mashek mention... with no real justification. This is getting ridiculous. When is it ever acceptable to just erase the name of a leader of an organization in an article about the organization. -- Netoholic @ 07:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, it's not a Mashek quote; it's from their website. As the group says on its website: It's not quoting her in that part. If you want to mention her, we could do it elsewhere, but I don't think the source supports the idea that understanding her is central to understanding the topic or anything like that. And my point is, since it's not the "main pull from the article", it's not suitable to turn it into the lead of the section - the lead of the section should generally summarize the section as a whole, rather than privileging the subject's self-description above how it's described elsewhere. It (or some comparable quote) is clearly worth covering, which is why I left it in the section, but I don't feel it makes sense to lead into the section with it. That said, we could definitely add more to the lead of that section about their mission - I just object to pushing everything else down with an extensive quote directly from their website. --Aquillion (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We must have independent sources. The pov from Vox and the Observer are due and appear essential in order for this article to be something other than an outright POV and NOT violation. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Description in the lead.

We need to base our description of them in the lead on what WP:SECONDARY sources say about them rather than what they say about themselves; a non-profit organization comprised of professors, graduate students and administrators who aspire to promote viewpoint diversity and open inquiry on college campuses is promotional in tone, treating their viewpoint and self-description as factual when there are actually many sources that express skepticism or disagree. Similarly, the sources generally describe them as an advocacy group, not just as a nonprofit - they're relevant for what they do (ie. advocating changes to how political topics are handled on-campus and pushing for increased exposure for specific points of view that they argue are under-represented), not for being a non-profit. --Aquillion (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Response: The current language drew on articles that were explicitly critical of the organization, and exclusively articles that were critical of the organization. This is not a neutral presentation. Yet this interpretation by critics is presented as fact. One need not mirror their own language from their website, but neither should we mirror the language of their critics in this section. As a simple matter of fact they are a registered 501c3 nonprofit organization. All non-profits exist to serve some purpose, their having a purpose does not render them an advocacy organization. This language, and the sources they rely on, seem to be oriented towards poisoning the well against the organization rather than describing it in a neutral way --Moses102 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The lead needs to describe the subject the way secondary sources do; arguing "I feel these sources are critical, so we can't rely on them" is the same as saying "I don't like what these sources say, so we can't rely on them." It's WP:FALSEBALANCE. If you think it's important to describe it as a "registered 501c3 nonprofit organization" - ie. you think this is what makes it notable and is how it's generally described in secondary sources - you should be able to find secondary sources backing that up; if you feel that those sources are unusually critical, you can find other WP:SECONDARY / WP:INDEPENDENT sources to weigh them against. Finally, I disagree with your implicit assertion that calling it an "advocacy organization" is prejudicial or critical - that's what it is. It has a point of view about academia, and presses that view via advocacy. That's how it's generally described in coverage. "Registered 501c3 nonprofit organization" is meaningless - a nonprofit organization to do what? --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

History expansion

My objection to this edit is that most (all?) of the added sources don't mention Heterodox Academy. It reads like it's trying to make Heterodox Academy's argument in the text, ie. attempting to convince the reader that their goals are necessary and important or that they're correct in their assessment of academia; it also implicitly argues that these papers back Heterodox Academy's mission. But if we're going to say or imply that, we need sources that state as much specifically (ie. sources that actually mention Heterodox Academy.) --Aquillion (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Response: The sources don't mention Heterodox Academy because they predate it! They provide context on the study of the lack of ideological diversity in the academy, which began in the field of psychology, the same field Haidt came from. They merely establish that there is a longstanding literature on this topic which predates Haidt or Heterodox Academy. And the connection is real: Haidt explicitly drew from, in his 2011 SPSP talk (transcript provided in the Edge.org article), in the BBS paper (where many of these works were cited), and in many of the responses by others in the field to the BBS paper (such as the Inbar and Lammers piece also cited in this section). There is nothing intended to convince the reader that Heterodox Academy is correct, etc. as suggested above. The edits merely establish that there was a pre-existing literature on this issue and provide direct links to papers from the mid-60s through the early 2000s on this issue within the psychological literature. This is a useful contribution, and a neutral one.

--Moses102 (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The point is, you can't establish that yourself. If the connection is real, there should be WP:SECONDARY sources noting it, which you can rely on to make it for you. Our articles aren't supposed to be places for us to perform our own original research into the topic - we're supposed to rely on what sources say about it. If the connection is as clear as you say, it should be easy to find other sources talking about it without just drawing the lines yourself or dumping Haidt's citations in the article. There's also a WP:DUE weight issue to consider - while we can present Haidt's personal opinions on himself and his organization to an extent, the article needs to mostly be based on what others have said about him and his organization. --Aquillion (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Additional restructuring and expansion

Regarding this expansion:

"Criticism and controversy" sections are generally inappropriate per WP:POV.

Stringing together a bunch of their own publications, then contrasting it against independent sources [1] is also inappropriate per WP:NOT and POV.

This rewrite places their opinions over those of independent sources, violating NOT and POV.

This bit about debates might be salvageable in some form.

This expansion is based upon two primary sources, and is promotional. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, as I said when I reverted it the first time, "criticism and controversy" as a section header is generally inappropriate per WP:CSECTION. These sources pass WP:RS, and their descriptions of the group can be covered as fact - what we can do, of course, if people think they're unfair or biased, is to add other sources that disagree (but not just WP:PRIMARY sources from Heterodox Academy itself, ideally; we can present their take on their own mission, but we can't give it undue weight.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Membership

If the independent sources our outdated and no independent sources now cover the facts, the best solution may be to trim the section while retaining important historical facts and coverage. --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Heterodox Academy Guide to Colleges

Like the Membership section, it may be best trim and retain important historical facts and coverage if the independent sources are outdated. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

They stopped creating the guide after a few years, right? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not finding the announcement that they phased it out, so just added a link to the archived webpage for the guide which last announced the 2017 guide before the page was removed.

I also added their description. There's so little written about the guide beyond announcements that I thought it more specific and descriptive than anything written in independent sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Advocacy group linked in lede

I'm not clear if advocacy group belongs in the lede. I don't have access to the Quintana(2018) ref to confirm what it says. Can someone please quote it in enough context to make the meaning clear? Do other refs support it? --Ronz (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't access that one anymore either, but here's some additional sources referring to it as an advocacy group (note that a few of these are from opinion pieces clearly friendly to it):

• Star Tribune: The New York-based advocacy group, which was founded in 2015...
• The Australian: Many Australians are counted among more than 2500 academics who have joined the Heterodox Academy, an advocacy group committed to...
• The Chronicle of Higher Education: The advocacy group he helped found, Heterodox Academy...
• Fox News: Paros is the only remaining Evergreen educator on Heterodox Academy, an advocacy group of professors...

It's a common, uncontroversial descriptor for the group used by people on all sides of the dispute over it. --Aquillion (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That seems to settle it, unless there are equally prominent descriptions that are incompatible, in which case we should address both. --Ronz (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I see an editor has removed it again on the basis it's a 501c3. But according to the sources used in our article on 501c3 "Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, as a result of the Johnson Amendment enacted in 1954. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to limits on lobbying, having a choice between two sets of rules establishing an upper bound for their lobbying activities. Section 501(c)(3) organizations risk loss of their tax-exempt status if these rules are violated. An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot subsequently qualify for 501(c)(4) status."

If you read source 3 it appears that 501c3 organisations have a lot of leeway, and if you look at the real world they take advantage of it. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

And see Services & Advocacy for GLBT Elders. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

References

The quote

While I don't know if we can say it's their mission today, the quote can be found in a number of reliable sources, eg [2] Doug Weller talk 21:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Regarding the two attempts to place Heterodox Academy's POV, with a quote, over those of the Star Tribune [3]. While I'd prefer a more up to date source, independent sources are required to prevent WP:SOAP, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:POV problems. --Ronz (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to draw a distinction between the founding purpose, for which the original quote and source is better, and the current (as of 2019) statement, for which the current website is the place to go. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The source that Doug Weller provided is simply a quote. Are there any better sources?

In general, quotes add far too much emphasis on a single viewpoint, and risk WP:SOAP violations. I think that's the case here, that's why I'm asking for a reliable independent source that describes Heterodox Academy that is more recent.

Removing descriptions from independent sources tends to be a POV violation. Replacing such descriptions with the subjects' own only makes it worse.

We're not here to document every change in direction that an organization might take or want to publicize. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change to founders

Information to be added or removed: Founders should be changed to Jonathan Haidt and Chris C. Martin

Explanation of issue: The people who worked on creating Heterodox Academy as a website and blog were Jonathan Haidt, Chris C. Martin (me), and David Dobolyi. David Dobolyi worked on the Wordpress setup exclusively rather than content and is therefore generally not cited as a founder. It is true that Nicholas Rosencranz and others including Lee Jussim, Jarret Crawford, Charlotta Stern, John Chambers, Judith Curry, Joe Duarte, and Gerard Alexander were involved in email exchanges about starting the organization. In some public talks, people have talked the organization as having three founders: Haidt, Martin, and Rosencranz. However, the major foundational work was done by Haidt and Martin. Therefore, one should (a) just cite Haidt and Martin, or (b) cite the whole set of people involved.

References supporting change: For a published reference citing Haidt and Martin as the founders, see the 2019 book "Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities" by Eric Kaufmann. This excerpt on Google Books shows the relevant page:

https://books.google.com/books?id=F9mEDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT408&lpg=PT408&dq=%22jonathan+haidt+and+chris+martin%22&source=bl&ots=TC2krLPQOn&sig=ACfU3U1mbh1ZYwjudDa7uo9ks_PHxGArtw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC9Ij77qboAhUEVt8KHV1XAOYQ6AEwAHoECBEQAQ

Details: Imprint: Abrams Press Publication Date: February 5, 2019 ISBN: 978-1-4683-1697-1 EAN: 9781468316971

I also have private emails but these are not public sources and I do not want to share them publicly.

Chris (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for using an edit request.

I'm non longer able to access the chronicle.com ref. Can you quote what it says on the topic?

The thebestschools.org ref says, Together with a number of more senior scholars, Mr. Martin recently founded Heterodox Academy, an organization dedicated to promoting viewpoint diversity in U.S. colleges and universities.--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

In the provided source, Kaufmann, Eric (2020). Whiteshift: populism, immigration, and the future of white majorities. Abrams. ISBN 978-1-4197-4192-0., the author gives this qualification: "I'm pleased to be an early UK-based member" (of the Academy). Owing to that, please provide a neutral, independent source for this claim. Regards,  Spintendo  07:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

In further looking at the Academy's website, in addition to what is currently stated in the article, it's evident that 2 different creation stories are being put forth here. The website makes it (semi-) clear that the triumvirate of Martin, Haidt, and Rosencrantz were the founders: "After discovering each-other’s essays, the scholars started corresponding and decided: rather than trying to tackle this problem independently in psychology, sociology and law they should pool their resources and efforts to improve the quality and impact of social research more broadly. Heterodox Academy was born." 5 other names are mentioned, but not as prominently as these three.

However, that "birth" if you will is described a bit differently in the Wikipedia article, which assigns priorities differently: first Haidt's name, then Duarte and others, then Rosencrantz and then Martin are described. If priority is implied through when a name first appears in the text, this "birth" was attended to by more than just the three as implied by the website. Names are placed (in the Wikipedia article) in a sequence which leaves a lot to be desired: only rough dates are given, with the Wikipedia article using terms like "around the time of" and "then" instead of the more illustrative "on December 4th" etc. -- so we are really meant to suppose a priority here.

Now comes the COI editor who wishes to be placed in the Founder section of the infobox, proposing either 2 names or all 8. I'll wait to see how other editors feel, but I'm inclined to list all 8 in alphabetical order. My reasoning being that if Haidt had wished to be more clear about who was the founder, he would have been clear about it on the website. Since he is vague on purpose, we can assume that this is the way he wants it to be, with no one person (or two) taking priority. Regards,  Spintendo  12:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be a good solution. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Notes

The latest version of the website (https://heterodoxacademy.org/our-story/) lists the founders as Jonathan Haidt, Chris Martin, and Nicholas Rosenkranz in that order. Since this is now on the organization's website, can this be used as the order at the top of the page and in the Founder section? Chris (talk) 22:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Primary source and a conflict of interest. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

You're stating here that an organization's own page is not a reliable source for who founded an organization. Can you explain why you think that? Chris (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly right. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The page currently lists two people as founders at the top with no citation at all. Your argument here is that that is more valid than the organization's own page. I don't understand your reasoning so I'm filing a request for a third opinion here. Chris (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm working from the third opinion we already have above. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)\\

The third opinion above was given before Heterodox Academy launched their redesigned site with new content on their history page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismartin76 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

For the current "origin story", we strongly rely on the Goldstein source as the only independent one which covers the origin in detail. I can see how there might be disagreement as to who is a "founder" vs a "founding member" (an inaugural class, so to speak), but as Goldstein describes it: Over lunch in New York, Haidt and Rosenkranz, who had not previously met, speculated about the situation in other fields. By the end of the meal, they'd agreed to form a faculty group to promote political diversity in academe. They invited Haidt's co-authors from the journal article to join, along with Chris Martin .... To me, this reads as the two men started the (then unnamed) organization... and others being "invited...to join" indicates that the organization was, at least conceptually, already formed. At this point, I don't think there is enough other supporting material at this moment to make any change, but perhaps in the future there will be. I think this edit request should be fully closed, and the COI editor to be reminded that Wikipedia does not get involved or take sides in internal disputes or other matters of organizations we document - we just document what based on the best sources available. The book source that Chrismartin76 based this on is somewhat open to interpretation and by not mentioning Rosenkranz (where many other sources do) may be incomplete and unreliable on this point. -- Netoholic @ 15:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

I removed this entry because a third opinion was given here before it was listed on the third opinion noticeboard. I would normally suggest opening a thread at WP:DRN, but there appears to be some WP:IDHT going on (not to mention WP:COI). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 06:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Diversity

While Heterodox certainly wants to be seen as encouraging "diversity" their history and focus is all about finding ways to introduce and amplify conservative political viewpoints. At least that's what I'm seeing from the references, highlighted by the recent changes by @Grayfell: --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup. Jlevi (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The sources you've been using are opinion pieces. Not suitable for factual assertions. Loksmythe (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion.

I'm afraid you're incorrect. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The suggestion that Heterodox is about pushing conservative viewpoints mostly seems like Hipal/Ronz's opinion and/or original research. I also point out that the current wording of the contested section is "what they [heterodox] sees as.." which makes it more appropriate to go with what the organization says its goals are. The lead is supposed to summarize the body and simply saying "Conservative" is a tendentious summary of the article. I think the current restored version should stay until we come up with a better consensus version. I also think the soap tag which was just added should be removed. Just because you don't get the wording you want does not mean this is a promotional page. -Pengortm (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The tag in particular has nothing to do with WP:ADVERT and is text-book WP:Tag bombing. Loksmythe (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself, but we seem to have strayed from the topic and proper talk page usage: I'm following the sources, after seeing Grayfell's recent edits. Anyone want to comment? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Lets follow the sources:

• The Observer: "Although institutions like the Heterodox Academy do not directly call themselves conservative, or even centrist for that matter, their main objective lies in challenging the prevailing culture in academia monopolized by progressives, while promoting free speech from a diverse range of thinkers often viewed as marginalized. In this sense, they bear a similar mission to the conservative behemoth Turning Point USA in galvanizing opposition to university liberalism; the shrinkage of the Overton Window, the viewpoints and topics seen as socially mainstream, has clumped together unlikely bedfellows."
• Vox: "Sure, the phrase 'political correctness' isn’t all that commonly used in Heterodox Academy pieces, but a fair reading of the group’s concerns would identify political correctness and the imposition of left-wing orthodoxy on campuses as an overriding concern for Heterodox Academy."
• The American Conservative: "This is a particular instance of a broader point that the Heterodox Academicians hammer home every day: that academic institutions are also corrupted by politically correct fear, and a concomitant desire either to fix the data around the ideologically preferable conclusions, or to ignore research, or areas of research, that undermine those conclusions."
• Chicago Maroon (note: college paper): "It is strange then that a later section of the same methodology reveals Heterodox Academy advocates the creation of intellectual safe spaces for conservative and libertarian students."
• National Affairs: "...Heterodox Academy, an organization that is expressly concerned with the absence of center-right thinkers in many areas of the social sciences and humanities."

This collection makes clear that, in practice, the orientation over conservative perspectives in particular is supported by at least a significant chunk of the sources. Jlevi (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I was simply going to point out that the lede summarizes the article, which says again and again that their purpose is to give more voice to conservative political views. Not mentioning this in the lede is a POV and NOT violation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point! Jlevi (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So, I think part of the disagreement in interpretations here is a view that if one is contradicting a liberal orthodoxy that means advocacy for conservatism. This makes sense if the world only consists of two types of people and pushing at all against a liberal orthodoxy necessarily means pushing for conservatism. If you re-read the quotes which supposedly clearly support that heterodox is about inclusion of conservative viewpoints in this light you will realize (I hope) that you are filling in the blank by assuming this sort of dichotomous relationship. I don't read those quotes as saying heterodox is focused on inclusion of conservative political viewpoints and think you are over-interpreting. For example, you seem to be assuming that contradicting what is "politically correct" is necessarily conservative.-Pengortm (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid that ignores the sources and the article itself. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Other than gossip and routine fluff, sources are pretty clear. This organization is about promoting conservative voices.

Reliable, independent sources should be used to decide what "heterodox" implies, not editors. From sources, it is very, very clearly opposition to the leftist/liberal orthodoxy of academia. In addition to what's already listed:

Per NPR in 2017: "It's a group of academics that's challenged what they see as the leftist political orthodoxy in academia."[4]

Per The Verge in 2016 (about HA): "In the modern political context, heterodoxy has been adopted by conservative groups concerned about what they view as a suffocating echo chamber in the liberal academy."[5]

As always, context matters, and we are not obligated to prioritize PR. Grayfell (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

We are in agreement that the sources say Heterodox Academy is in opposition to leftist political orthodoxy. However, I think you are implying things which are not actually in the sources so clearly. Being in opposition to leftist political orthodoxy is not the same thing as being pro conservative voices (e.g. see the NPR source above). This is a jump some editors seem to be making, which I think should not be made unless reliable sources clearly make this same jump. With the verge source, saying "heterodoxy" (lowercase and not equivalent to the organization Heterodox Academy) has been adopted by conservative groups is not the same things as saying Heterodox Academy is pro these conservative groups or expanding their voices in particular.-Pengortm (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You're repeating yourself, ignoring most of what's been said and sourced. The NPR ref above mentions Heterodox Academy in passing. That's not a ref that changes anything. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've read the sources and discussion above. To the extent I am repeating myself it is because you are ignoring the point. For another example the observer article above says, " In this sense, they bear a similar mission to the conservative behemoth Turning Point USA in galvanizing opposition to university liberalism". While this is drawing a similarity, you are having to make another jump to say that HA is promoting conservativism mearly because it bears a similarity to a conservative group which also objects to "university liberalism". I hate to be redundant here, but you seem to be ignoring the point I am making. -Pengortm (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying not to ignore you. However, I don't see how your comments are going to sway what now appears to be strong, policy-based consensus well supported by the sources and article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

While I agree we should be cautious of false dichotomy, orthodoxy/heterodoxy are dichotomous. It is vacuous to oppose this supposedly liberal orthodoxy (which is itself a right-wing bugbear) without explicitly endorsing conservatism. Conservatism is part of the underlying premise. It's therefor unsurprising that sources don't treat this rhetorical game as important. Instead, they link this organization to conservatism and right-wing libertarianism. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that some of the sources above do link HA to conservatism. However, the sources highlighted above do this in a rather careful hedging and circumspect way. e.g. "Conservatism is part of the underlying premise." does not seem to be the most prominent view from the sources cited--although they do go in that direction a bit. I think our wikivoice should be mirroring the more circumspect wording that actually seems to appear in the sources and that the summary in the lead currently goes a bit too far.- Pengortm (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not accept that this is too far. This seems like a proportionate summary of sources, since Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• I noticed that someone wants to reword the text to say that only its "critics" describe it as advancing conservative causes; going over the sources above, though, that definitely doesn't seem like a reasonable characterization. It's clearly a stretch to categorize the Observer piece (which is largely neutral on it) or the National Affairs one (which is plainly supportive) as critics. The article itself paraphrases Haidt as saying that it grew out of a talk in which he attributed the lack of political conservatives in social psychology to a lack of diversity, and that Also in 2015, Haidt was contacted by Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Georgetown University law professor, who had given a talk to the Federalist Society discussing a similar lack of conservatives in his field. The two formed "Heterodox Academy" to address this issue. In fact, the latter (which very unambiguously states that the purpose of Heterodox Academy is to address what Haidt and Rosenkranz see as, in their view, insufficient conservative voices in academia) should probably be covered more clearly in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Vritually all the sources provided in this section are commentary and not neutral reporting. We cannot use opinion commentary to make a factual assertions, like in the lead that HxA focuses on promoting conservative viewpoints. If included, needs to be noted as a POV position. Loksmythe (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing about the Observer piece indicates that it is an opinion piece, nor is there any particular reason to doubt the well-cited statement, in the article, that Heterodox Academy was originally founded to address what Haidt and Rosenkranz saw as a lack of conservative voices in academia. In fact, we should probably hew more closely to that specific statement, since it's even better-cited. Essentially, the fact that it was founded for (and largely exists to) advance conservative voices in order to contradict what it sees as a leftward tilt in academia seems well-cited and not at all controversial; this mission statement isn't incompatible with it being formally nonpartisan, since that simply means it's not affiliated with a political party. --Aquillion (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Pengortm and Loksmythe here. It's a misrepresentation to suggest that Heterodox Academy is, in principle, focused on the "inclusion of conservative political viewpoints". They are focused on having a diverse set of political viewpoints. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

We can find better balance by incorporating these articles: [6], [7], [8]. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of those sources are usable, being opinion pieces. I'm guessing they are all written around the time of it's founding, and I wouldn't be surprised of all the authors are associated with Hetrodox. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

All we have is opinion pieces on the matter. The Observer and Vox articles are opinion pieces. I know how "around the time of it's founding" is meaningful. The org was founded in 2015. These pieces are from 2016, 2017, and 2019. The three authors in question are Nicholas Kristof, Walter E. Williams, and Michael A. MacDowell. Williams and MacDowell may be members of Hetrodox Academy. Kristof certainly is not. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, per your revert, there's no consensus on this. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for indicating the publication years.

All we have is opinion pieces on the matter. Howso? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Everything that suggests "focusing on inclusion of conservative political viewpoints" is opinion. The Observer piece doesn't event assert that explicitly, but draws a comparison to Turning Point USA. That comparison is not a fact. That's Davis Richardson's interpretation/opinion. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. The three links you provide are opinion pieces, correct? The refs currently used and discussed previously are all written by staff writers as news pieces, correct? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what Davis Richardson's title is. The comparison to Turning Point USA is not a fact. It's interpretation/opinion. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but we're at an impasse then. From my perspective, you're using clearly inferior sources.

As for the last two refs identified by JLevi: The Maroon article has already been identified as from a college paper, and is an opinion piece. I'm not clear what to make of the National Affairs article, though it's not a clearly designated opinion piece. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, were at an impasse. And given that two other editors agree with me on this subject, your edit to introduce "focusing on inclusion of conservative political viewpoints" lacks consensus at the moment. Please remove it. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Restoring more neutral, long-standing version. Need develop consensus for more controversial, disputed changes. Loksmythe (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

ArbEnf applies here. Policy, sourcing, and the article itself clearly support the version that you two don't like. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If the policy, sourcing, and state of article are not going to be addressed, then I'll revert. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on what you mean by ArbEnf? Not seeing heterodox coming up on WP:AE. In any case, I continue to think that the statement you are suggesting is not supported by the sources for the reasons I have outlined above. Briefly, the sources you are using to support the idea generally do not say this and I believe you are overly interpreting these sources. I believe the version Jweiss11, I and others are advocating for has been more long-standing and that you should be gaining more of a consensus before implementing your change. -Pengortm (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The topic under sanctions is US politics.

While I appreciate the civil response, we're deep in IDHT now. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I too appreciate that we are remaining civil despite our disagreements. Can you please provide a link for the US politics sanctions and how you think this applies here? I am not saying you are wrong on this or trying to be obstructionist--I just am not able to find what you are referring to. You seem to be assuming more of a consensus than is actually evident here and then alleging IDHT (which despite being a fairly experienced wikipedia editor I had to look-up--again, links to what you are referring to would be helpful--not all of us are as well versed in these things as you are). -Pengortm (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ARBAP2, as identified in WP:GS.

We have multiple sources supporting it, and all sources identifying "conservative politics" specifically. That should end it right there.

We also have a large public relations effort to promote Heterodox that was picked up by the press, often in conjunction with the protests and controversies about cancel culture and free speech on college campuses. We need to be careful not simply echo the public relations and opinions, instead work from independent, reliable sources. Appeals use poorer sources not only to balance but outright negate the viewpoints from better sources are a waste of time. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I just looked at WP:ARBAP2 and WP:GS. I have not read the entire long documents. Based on skimming it is not clear to me how these apply to our situation here. If you believe they do, I think you need to make the case a bit more clearly.

Again, while SOME sources mention "conservative" they do not come to the same conclusions that you want--that HA is advocating for conservative viewpoints. For example picking apart one of the putative places this is stated above:

The Observer: "Although institutions like the Heterodox Academy do not directly call themselves conservative, or even centrist for that matter, their main objective lies in challenging the prevailing culture in academia monopolized by progressives, while promoting free speech from a diverse range of thinkers often viewed as marginalized. In this sense, they bear a similar mission to the conservative behemoth Turning Point USA in galvanizing opposition to university liberalism; the shrinkage of the Overton Window, the viewpoints and topics seen as socially mainstream, has clumped together unlikely bedfellows."

This draws a parallel with a conservative organization, but does not actually say HA is trying to promote conservative viewpoints. It requires editors to make an additional leap to reach this conclusion. One I think we should not be making. Again--being against liberal orthodoxies is not necessarily the same as being for conservative perspectives.- Pengortm (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

IDHT bordering on WP:BATTLE. Let's try something else.

How would you incorporate "conservative politics" into the lede? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the work on the article.

An additional question: How do the best sources describe Heterdox? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I am glad you feel my recent edits have been constructive. I remain interested in making my editing work be in accordance with Wikipedia expectations, so if you still believe WP:ARBAP2 and WP:GS apply here, I do hope you will elaborate. I appreciate you trying to shift the terms of the discussion to make things more productive. There are indeed three mentions of the word “conservative” in the body of the article. The passage which comes closest to saying HA is about promoting conservative viewpoints is “Heterodox Academy formally describes itself as non-partisan.[3] Heterodox Academy has been described as advancing conservative viewpoints on college campuses by playing into or presenting the argument that such views are suppressed by left-wing bias or political correctness.[13][14]“ Based on this, I don’t think we need to summarize the conservative views in the lead. Nonetheless, I am open to alternatives, but do not think saying HA is about promoting conservative viewpoints is a fair summary of the body of the article--even more so with my recent edits. -Pengortm (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The content in dispute is specifically about US political viewpoints, so ArbEnf applies as far as I'm concerned. If I think action needs to be taken, I'll check at WT:AE.

So, neither of my questions have been answered. IDHT again.

Do any independent, reliable sources not mention conservative political viewpoints? Prominently? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your persistent allegations of bad faith and throwing up supposed Wikipedia rules and standards without explanation makes it more difficult to collegially engage with you, but I will continue to try. I answered your first question but we still seem to be talking past each other. As I said, I don’t think conservative politics need to be included in the lede—but am of course open to considering alternatives you might come up with. You seem to think this is critical, so I think it is incumbent on you to come up with wording which can gain a consensus. As for your second question, I think my considerable editing of the body and discussions above show my efforts to summarize how sources describe heterodox. Just because you ask a question (or multiple ones), does not mean I need to do a ton of work to answer it—especially as you seem to be straying from the main point of contention (i.e. the particular phrasing in the lede).-Pengortm (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

I'm trying to determine if there's any policy-based reason not to change the lede. So far, I'm not seeing it. All my questions are to determine if I'm overlooking something, or if this is a case of preferring the poor sources over the superior ones to promote Heterodox's preferred description in violation of NOT and POV. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

So editors find it critical to add founders to the lede, but not that Heterodox is focused on political viewpoints? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a sentence on political orientation would be useful based on its presence in RS. Jlevi (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've started by adding less than a full sentence, but I agree more context is needed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Political correctness

@Aquillion:[9] The Vox ref is emphasizes political correctness, and having the link in this article to political correctness gives the reader wider and proper context. Removal seems a POV violation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've restored it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Membership (again)

Any objections to just removing the section? I don't see encyclopedic value, especially after looking over the refs. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I just glanced at the sources and am not seeing what the issue is at least superficially. Seems like there are multiple independent reliable sources cited in that section. Please elaborate more before removing this. Thanks. -Pengortm (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Three entries are tagged as needing better sources, to start.

One source that isn't tagged is an opinion piece.

What's the encyclopedic value? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Having sources is not, by itself, sufficient. We need sources to explain or indicate why these names are encyclopedically important. Put another way, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY there needs to be some specific reason to name-drop, and there needs to be a reliable, independent source indicating why some people are listed but not others. Highlighting some people based on arbitrary sources is likely WP:SYNTH. None of these people are noteworthy for their actions with Heterodox Academy (except Haidt, who is already mentioned), so WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. While I don't think BestSchools.org is never reliable, for routine information it appears to be very weak. Their about page doesn't suggest strong editorial oversight, for example. An opinion column in the Washington Examiner is also flimsy. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point about the directory issue and I see someone has removed that part already. I see one sentence is now flagged as needing better sources but it looks like the remaining sources are reasonable. -Pengortm (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't think the entire section needs to be removed. Trimmed as is seems reasonable. Loksmythe (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• We definitely can't cite an opinion piece for statements of fact about its membership, if nothing else. --Aquillion (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable to note the notable members of the organization. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

For promotional sake, yes. But we've NOT and POV to keep away such trivia.

I don't see a need for a section on membership. It's undue and promotional. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

There are several sources which document the scope, growth, and number of the membership, indicating that this section is appropriate content for this article as well. Such a section is typical for other learned organizations. Clearly, a brief list of the most oft-cited members is appropriate summarization of sources, but of course, entries on the list should not be arbitrary or primary-sourced. -- Netoholic @ 07:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I recently merged the membership section in with another section, but am opened to reviving this if we have sufficient good content to include. Please do take a swing at adding if you have the time and inclination. -Pengortm (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, Pengortm. It looks like publicity at this point. There's nothing wrong with mentioning notable members that have done something notable related to Heterodox, but the numbers are coming from them. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, Netoholic. Loksmythe (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Moral panic"

This line is WP:UNDUE, WP:POV and not even supported by sources provided: "Its focus on what it sees as a 'campus free speech crisis' has been described as a moral panic by some commentators."

Sources:

1. op-ed in the Stanford Daily by unknown author [10]
2. op-ed in Salon by another unknown [11] Loksmythe (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone summarize the Goldstein ref?

• Goldstein, Evan R. (June 11, 2017). "The Gadfly: Can Jonathan Haidt Calm the Culture Wars?". The Chronicle Review. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 63 (40) (published July 7, 2017): B6–9. Retrieved March 6, 2019.

I'm unable to access it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal:: You can get it through the Wikipedia Library Card Platform, Gale > "Access collection", then search for the article title. -- Netoholic @ 07:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot determine how to access it. "Gale" is not an option, nor am I finding any collection that obviously would have it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal:: Check now. -- Netoholic @ 20:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I was applying as you were responding. Thanks. There's an error message that I don't have access. I hope it's just an delay in the application processing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: Yep, saw that. You might try just going to the top page https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/, log out, and back in, and the go to "My library". If Gale shows up click "Access collection" and you should land on a user agreement page, and after that, the search form. I'm not aware that there is any processing delay, just might be a caching problem. -- Netoholic @ 20:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The article is about Haidt, and goes into the history of Heterodox. I'm still digesting it, but here are a few quotes about Heterodox that caught my eye:

1. In 2015 he co-founded Heterodox Academy to advocate for what its mission statement calls "viewpoint diversity."
2. Still, the center-right remains dominant within Heterodox Academy. According to figures provided by the group, 65 percent of members identify as conservative, centrist, or libertarian, while 18 percent are progressives. (The remaining members are listed as "unclassifiable," "prefer not to say," or "other.")
3. Haidt is accustomed to brickbats from the left, but he was caught off guard when, in December, Jarret Crawford, an associate professor of psychology at the College of New Jersey and a founding member of Heterodox Academy, posted a letter of resignation on Twitter. "In many ways, and however unintentionally, HXA has become a tool for the political right to decry and smear the left," he wrote, using an acronym for the organization's name. "I cannot associate myself with a group that the right, which has debased itself with its embrace of a president who would threaten liberal democracy and equal protection, has clearly begun to embrace as its own."

--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe there are newer numbers around suggesting HxA membership is less conservative than those old numbers. Regardless, please try to be sure any edits you make are balanced and not pushing a particular point of view. I will try to do the same of course.Pengortm (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Do WP:FOC. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

ADVERT tag

The WP:Advert tag really seems out of place and unwarranted at this point. Shall we remove? Loksmythe (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The lede is in dispute and appears to simply echo the publicity of Heterodox. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The tag is not appropriate. Its meant to promote "removing promotional content and inappropriate external links", and those are simply not a concern with this article. The page is written using high-quality secondary sources, and there is only one external link to the official site. The claim that the article is to "echo the publicity of Heterodox" is broadly unfounded. If there are specific passages which Hipal thinks are promotional, they should tag them or point them out here. But the article header tag should be removed. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Other than the lede, as already pointed out? The reliance on promotional sources? The open dispute? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove tag - While no doubt the article could be improved, I don't see any real advertising issue here and think the tag should be removed. -Pengortm (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove tag; I concur with Pengortm. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to POV. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

That seems just as inappropriate unless you can describe exactly what passages are not neutral. -- Netoholic @ 20:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Besides what I've pointed out, the promotional sources, the open dispute? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove POV tag - The open dispute seems to be an edit Hipal wants which they can not gain consensus for and have not suggested an alternative phrasing to try to gain consensus. Does not seem like enough to include the POV tag to me either. -Pengortm (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove POV tag. Does not respect Template:POV usage notes:

"Use this template when you have identified a serious issue regarding WP:Neutral point of view."

"This template should not be used as a badge of shame."

"This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources" – again, the sources being applied to insert the disputed language are opinion pieces / commentary and "are rarely reliable for statements of fact" per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Loksmythe (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Loksmythe, Jweiss11, and Netoholic: I removed the latest tag from Hipal per the above discussion and they added this back along with another one saying, "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" This shifting and continual adding of tags without adequate explanation is getting tiresome. I do not want to get involved in edit wars here, but think both of these should be removed. As for "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" looking at the reference list, this does not appear to be so. Hipal should provide more substantial and clear justification for their concerns before adding these tags. As of now, they just seem to be added because Hipal does not like that other editors have disagreed with their suggested changes. It is particularly suspect that the tags keep changing as we argue down one of them, another pops up--in a kind of badge of shame seeming way.-Pengortm (talk) 19:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. Consensus is based upon policy, not votes. I'm not here to convince any specific editor of anything if they are not willing to work cooperatively and focus on policy. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Rubenstein ref links to a different article

I don't have time to figure out the mixup. Rubenstein is by-lined as "Assistant Opinion Editor", so I'm not sure if it should be considered an opinion piece. Not much there though. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The link is redirecting. The articles are identical. The archived copy is from The Standard.

A few quotes: --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• On June 15, Heterodox Academy (HxA), an organization founded in 2015 by academics to advance “viewpoint diversity” and tolerance on college campuses, met in New York City for its inaugural Open Mind Conference.
• But the greater challenge is assessing the quality of speech on campus.
• “Why are we spending university money on non-intellectuals?” Alice Dreger asks, no doubt thinking of the clownish radicalism of publicity-seekers such as Milo Yiannopoulos. Should such views be added to the mix simply for the sake of diversity or should additional quality standards apply, even among those who rightly disdain orthodoxy? If so, who is qualified to set those standards and how can campuses be sure they are applied fairly?
• “If we’re going to pursue justice, we have to care about truth,” Dreger says. How does the ideal heterodox campus deal with issues such as climate science, which draws both vehement skeptics and supporters to the debate, all of whom justify their arguments by citing scientific proof?
• In other words: Heterodoxy is all well and good, but who decides the limits of heterodoxy on campus, and which standards apply?

--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Over-emphasizing Haidt's earlier work is inappropriate

Regarding this edit, the significance of Haidt's talk from 2011 needs to be contextualized by reliable, independent sources. This article is not a platform for sharing Haidt's opinions, even if they can be superficially supported by sources, because this article isn't about Haidt, it's about a group Haidt cofounded several years later. The significance of Haidt's 2011 talk to this group formed in 2015 is already pretty flimsy, and really should be directly linked by better sources. Since the NYT source is merely a convenience for background information, it cannot be misrepresented here as vitally significant, and any specific detail from this source needs to be linked to Heterodox Academy by sources directly. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Too many of the references are not independent, so it's no surprise. I got sidetracked, and was planning to get back to this. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I believe this synthesis of the history was made by other sources and that I am at fault for not adequately making this clear in the referencing. I'll go back to see if I can find this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pengortm (talk • contribs) 16:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Shuffling around ref tags doesn't actually address the problem. Do not assume this is significant just because a source can be found which mentions it. Use reliable, independent sources to explain to readers why this is significant. Do so using neutral, formal language. Grayfell (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Third-party tag

I just removed the third party tag on this article, and was was restored by reverted by Hipal. The sources currently cited in the article are the The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, the Star Tribune, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, The New York Observer, and Vox. All of these are independent of the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Thanks for starting a discussion.

The relevant policy is WP:IS. Sources that aren't independent include interviews, warmed-over press releases, announcements, articles written by members. I was side-tracked while checking them, and I see some of the worst have now been removed. Six of the first eight were not independent when I added the tag. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

How about the 12 that are cited now? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

How about it? You said none of the sources cited are associated with the subject. Care to reassess that? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It does not appear that any of the 12 are associated with the subject. Which one(s) do you think are? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I already indicated that interviews are not independent. Do you disagree? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I can see the possibility of an issue with interviews like the "A New Leader in the Push for Diversity of Thought on Campus" piece in the Atlantic by Friederdorf, if the sourcing relied too heavily on the interviewee's words, particularly if the subject was controversial. In principal, I do not agree with your view that interviews like this are not independent, because they are still subject to the editorial oversight of the third-party sources (in this case the Atlantic), who will presumably fact-check out any falsehoods. The only content that seems to be sourced to this source is "As of February 2018, around 1500 college professors had joined Heterodox Academy, along with a couple hundred graduate students" and "In 2018, Debra Mashek, a professor of psychology at Harvey Mudd College, was appointed as the executive director of Heterodox Academy." The former is not supported by Mashek's own words, but rather Friedersdorf's intro to the interview. The latter can be sufficiently supported by the Star Tribune piece. Are there any other sources you see a problem with? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So it's not "none". That's progress. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I now see there's "The Diversity and Heterodox Academy: The Chris Martin Interview" by bestschool.org as well. It only appears to be supporting "Initial funding for the group came from the Richard Lounsbery Foundation and The Achelis and Bodman Foundation." I can't find mention of this in that source. That passage is also sourced to the Goldstein piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education, which I cannot view. Perhaps it's there and the bestschool.org source is unneeded? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The Friederdorf intro to the Mashek interview is independent and fine. So, it may still be "none". The onus still on you to substantiate that this article "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject", which you have not done. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This is quintessential, disruptive WP:TAGBOMBING. Loksmythe (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

So you want the non-independent sources restored? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Expansion of lead to include founding and founders

I just made an edit to expand to the underdeveloped lead to include the founding and founders of Heterodox Academy. This was reverted by Hipal as WP:SOAP. This is basic, neutral information about the subject that appears in tabular form in the article's infobox. It's entirely appropriate to include it as prose in the lead. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

We're not writing a public relations piece for them. Until we can include items of basic notability into the lede, this seems a distraction at best. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't PR. It's basic, neutral facts about the subject that are mentioned in the body and the infobox. We can indeed include items of basic notability into the lead, and that's exactly what my edit did. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

So which independent sources verify the information? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This is sourced in the body to "The Gadfly: Can Jonathan Haidt Calm the Culture Wars?" in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Jweiss11 (talk)

The fact that basic information is being removed by Hipal is demonstrating a behavioral pattern of WP:NOTHERE. Loksmythe (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC please. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

These basic facts could also be supported by https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/jonathan-haidt-pandemic-and-americas-polarization/612025/ and https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-high-priest-of-heterodoxy, the first two items that appear when I do a Google News search for "jonathan haidt heterodox". Jweiss11 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the refs. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I've removed that Haidt is a psychologist and Rosenkranz a constitutional law scholar from the lede. They're unrelated to the notabilty of Heterodox. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That should be restored. Heterodox Academy is an academic advocacy group, so the brief descriptors of its founders' academic background is relevant and notable. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Why are those descriptors so very important that they need the repetition in the lede? Maybe just indicate they are both academics, professors? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Those descriptors are efficient and warranted details that improve a lead that's not exactly too long. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Let's stick to aspects of notability, which are still in dispute. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not: [12]

It was founded in 2015 by two professors, Jonathan Haidt and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz.

It's shorter, and the specifics are irrelevant to the notability of the organization. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Jlevi (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I lean towards saying their fields in the lead since it gives a bit more information on their areas of expertise, but don't have very strong opinions or think it matters very much versus the alternative of saying "two professors". Regardless, thank you for helping to bring the temperature down by taking this to the talk page. -Pengortm (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It's useful detail. If this lead was overly bloated or too wordy, that would be one thing, but it isn't. I actually like the idea of combining Hipal's suggestion of "two professors" with what's already there: "It was founded in 2015 by two professors: Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist, and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a constitutional law scholar." Conveys area of expertise and that they are/were in teaching positions in academia. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Playing into" the argument that views are suppressed by left wing bias

Hi @Hipal: You've reverted my edit. Can you explain to me what "playing into an argument" adds to "presenting an argument"? This turn of phrase only seems pejorative without adding information. It suggests the argument is merely presented as pretext for some agenda. I think it should be removed, but I don't want to start an edit war. I'm talking about this edit. MonsieurD (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you see my edit summary?

What do the current sources say? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

I had notice the "playing into" before I thought it was a little too weasel-wordy. I support MonsieurD's edit. Hipal, what's the "Crawford resignation"? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Heterodox_Academy#Rubenstein_ref_links_to_a_different_article, "In many ways, and however unintentionally, HXA has become a tool for the political right to decry and smear the left," he wrote, using an acronym for the organization's name. "I cannot associate myself with a group that the right, which has debased itself with its embrace of a president who would threaten liberal democracy and equal protection, has clearly begun to embrace as its own."

But you haven't looked at the sources? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

How about replacing "by playing into or presenting" with "by promulgating"? - Oglaz (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Which sources are you working from? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The content was added here. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Now that it's being attributed directly to the Vox ref, I've restored it as an essential part of the viewpoint from that reference. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe there's better wording we could use? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Conservative

An edit I made to the lead mentioning it's conservative was reverted so I looked more into it. Since some already in-article sources suggested it, that it derives from a conservative blog and was founded by a conservative, with its main concern being typical reactionary "academic freedom" from the premise that high education has less conservatives than long ago, this was obvious to me. I also could find a few other sources mentioning this. However, other sources also claim that it may have since gained up to 40% non-conservative membership and that it's non-partisan. It's unclear if those only reflected the site's own claims, but as such, until further evidence I drop this. —PaleoNeonate – 06:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Is Jonathon Haidt a conservative? Quoting from his article: Haidt describes how he began to study political psychology in order to help the Democratic Party win more elections, and argues that each of the major political groups—conservatives, progressives, and libertarians—have valuable insights and that truth and good policy emerge from the contest of ideas. Since 2012, Haidt has referred to himself as a political centrist. It seems these claims about Haidt and about the group are both original research, so not much to be discussed here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

He's not conservative. In Coddling, he specifically says that he has never voted Republican in his life, and he supported Biden for president in 2020. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Citing Gallup, Knight, and Heterodox Academy itself.

This edit isn't workable. The Gallup and Knight sources don't mention Heteredox Academy, so using them to argue "Heterodox Academy is right, tho, and those people are wrong" is WP:SYNTH. Additionally, Heterodox Academy itself is not an WP:RS, so we cannot cite them for statements of fact; Heterodox Academy can only be used here via WP:ABOUTSELF, which does not allow obviously self-serving statements like this. (The edit summary said "they weren't talking about themselves", but the point is the only thing we can cite to Heterodox Academy is uncontroversial things about themselves, since they're not a reliable source for anything else.) Finally, in addition to being synth (so we can't use it at all), the Gallup source - and the Knight source, which is essentially the same thing published elsewhere - also doesn't support the statement it's being used for. It just describes the opinion of the people it examines; that can't be used to just state that opinion as fact. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

No opinion on whether they belong in this article, but such surveys are topical for Political views of American academics, or a similar page about opinions of students if one exists. Some of the references there are published in RS by Haidt and company and possibly whatever data was on the Heterodox site eventually made its way into a formal publication. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Aquillon, I cite the Knight and Gallup studies to contradict Beauchamp's allegation that there is a "lack of data" about free speech limits on university campuses. Beauchamp is wrong, even though, if I am reading the edit history correctly, you yourself added the Beauchamp material and seem determined to keep it as the "final word" on the subject. Admittedly, you have a facility with Wikipedia's bureaucratic Newspeak that I do not, but from what I can gather, "WP synth" relates principally to unwarranted inferences from a synthesis of variegated sources. I am doing nothing of the kind. Beauchamp makes an allegation--that there is insufficient data on campus free speech crises to support Heterodox Academy's line of argument--that is specifically belied by the studies I cite.

You say that the surveys reveal opinions, not facts, but part of Heterodox Academy's argument is that many people on campus feel afraid to speak on contentious issues and that students increasingly favor "safe spaces" restricting speech. According to the Knight and Gallup studies, many students do indeed feel afraid to speak about contentious issues, and many do in fact approve of safe spaces that restrict speech. These are facts revealed by the cited studies. Beauchamp's method amounts to "bean counting"--noting how many instances of deplatforming, etc., have been recorded--whereas any satisfactory analysis of free speech crises must address "chilling effects" and self-censorship, and these studies do precisely that. The perception of a hostile environment creates the reality of self-censorship. (By the way, none of the studies I cite is redundant; they date to different years.)

Your claim that Heterodox Academy's study consists of "obviously self-serving statements" is itself merely a tendentious allegation. The scholars at Heterodox Academy conducted a study according to academic standards and published their results; they are not marketers selling a product. If a scholar responds to a journalist's charge by publishing a study refuting the journalist's claim, one cannot just dismiss the study as "self-serving." Someone would need to show that the study itself is flawed. Others will need to adjudicate this dispute, as the edit war has become tedious. I'll try to figure out how the appeals system works.

To the un-signed editor above: Wikipedia can be tough to get started in editing. I appreciate the work you are trying to do, but there are good reasons for the community standards we have. This can be especially irritating I know when you see something that you know there is clear evidence against like this. Wikipedia has rigorous sourcing requirements. I recommend reading the links Aquillion points to above to get more familiar with these. I do hope you stay engaged as an editor here despite the learning curve. In some ways Wikipedia embodies what Heterodox Academy aspires to: letting contrary opinions battle themselves out to work against our own confirmation and other biases to come up with a stronger product in the end.

To the more substantive topic at hand - I think it would be appropriate to cite the response from Heterodox Academy as long as we clear in the text that this is research/an argument coming from Heterodox Academy which makes the bias of the source clear. Unless there are objections to this I will work on an edit to this effect (hopefully someone else beats me to it)? - Pengortm (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather we work from a proposal given the recent editing. --Hipal (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Pengortm, thank you for your comments. I inadvertently neglected to sign my last round of remarks; I now see the wavy line thingy that enables you to post a signature. The paragraphs immediately above your response belong to "Free Speech Wikipedian"--it's a bit on the nose, I know. (I thought of naming myself "Free Speech Progressive," but in addition to the problem of wearing one's politics on one's sleeve as an editor, such a moniker would doubtless perplex most people, as the term now seems an oxymoron if not an outright contradiction.)

I was about to file a dispute when I came across your reply. I appreciate what you're saying: obviously, any wiki needs rules and guardrails. The problem is that veteran Wikipedia editors and administrators can become pettifogging lawyers, manipulating arcane rules to impose their own opinions.

On a related note, while pseudonyms serve a purpose, they can also provide a deceptive mask. For all I know, "Aquillion" is Beauchamp himself or an ally. Probably not, but who knows? Whoever he/she/they are, "Aquillion" is responsible for nearly 12% of the edits on the "Heterodox Academy" page. Attempts to provide broader context for, or cogent responses to, the Beauchamp-Quintana line of argument have been systematically blocked, as becomes evident when one searches the editing history. That looks less like rule-following than it does like censorship. --Free Speech Wikipedian. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

To Hipal: Forgive me, but what is a "proposal" in WikiSpeak? A blueprint on the "Talk" page? Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not WikiSpeak. I'm asking for a proposal on this talk page for the changes, rather than editing the article directly. --Hipal (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to cut the Gordian knot on the Heterodox Academy "Campus Expression Survey" by including details about it under the "Programs and activities" section. I still need to figure out a place for the Knight/Gallup surveys, as they provide evidence against the Beauchamp-Qunitana opinion pieces. I want to reiterate that I am not a member of Heterodox Academy and that I am not working on their behalf. I am an academic who studies free speech issues. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board. Two questions, if I may: 1) on what basis can studies by Heterodox Academy be excluded, even from the "Projects and activities" section? 2) Hipal asked for a proposal, but what would a proposal look like? Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

If you could put a draft of your proposed text here, that would be helpful, and is at least one sort of possible "proposal." The problem is that Heterodox Academy is not (to my mind, but I'm open to persuasion otherwise) a reliable source per Wikipedia, and because we're treading into dangerous areas of primary documents and WP:SYNTH, but that's not an absolute bar. I just noticed this, so if you would be so kind as to sum up for me the change you would like, I would appreciate it, and it might be a first "proposal." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your note, Dumuzid. Your requests are eminently reasonable. Before I draft the text of a proposal, I'll try to convince you that Heterodox Academy is a reliable source. Heterodox Academy has an advisory council of acknowledged experts in their fields, including Cornel West, Nadine Strawson, Glenn Loury, Alice Dreger, and David Brooks. Their "Writing Groups" are generally helmed by PhDs. All of the member bios can be independently verified, and if you need me to do the grunt work of providing links outside Heterodox Academy for each member, I suppose that I can do that at some point. It was co-founded by Jonathan Haidt, and though I often have strong disagreements with him on some issues, he is a world-renowned psychologist. The current president is a Brown University economist.

Heterodox Academy is an advocacy group, but since they advocate open inquiry, they are, arguably, more independent than many universities. In fact, it would be hard to find a more extensive, and more distinguished, set of scholars in one place. Heterodox Academy members and their work continually appear in the news. Wired, for instance, quoted Haidt and referenced Heterodox Academy in a June article on echo chambers. In March, an article in Newsweek cited a Heterodox Academy study. Other outlets citing Heterodox Academy and its members (usually in a positive light) include the Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, Forbes, Real Clear Education, the National Review, PBS, and the Atlantic. I've probably gone on long enough, but if you want me to elaborate, I'll try. (Like a ninny, I forgot to sign this, so I'll backfill my signature here: Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC).)

Okay, so, let's put that aside for a moment; while I agree that many people associated with Heterodox Academy are credible in many ways, I personally would be hesitant to accord that reliable status to the institution as a whole merely because it's fairly new, and as an advocacy organization (even one with whose stated goals I agree) they are a little harder to quantify than would be a straight news organization. But there are certainly things that could be credibly cited to members of HA or perhaps, the organization itself. That said, context is key: if you don't mind summarizing what you'd like to add, I would appreciate it--I have purposefully not gone in to the history because I'd like to get your "pitch" with as few preconceived notions as possible. And, not to nag, but if you could remember to 'sign' your posts with four tildes ('~') it would be appreciated. Makes for a cleaner page history. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to formulate a compromise, but I'm caught in a Catch-22. If I draw on Heterodox Academy to refute the Beauchamp-Quintana argument, some editors object on "aboutself" grounds. If I draw on other sources to refute Beauchamp and Quintana (for example, the Knight/Gallup surveys on campus expression), the same editors object that I am synthesizing irrelevant sources, because the surveys do not specifically mention Heterodox Academy. Perhaps it is relevant that Heterodox Academy cites the Knight/Gallup polls and has even hosted a discussion about one of the Knight/Gallup surveys, but for some editors, such facts would, presumably, be dismissed on "aboutself" grounds. Catch-22. If Heterodox Academy is not a reliable source, then it's hard to see a path forward.

I maintain that a brief treatment of the Heterodox Academy studies on campus expression belongs in the "Projects and activities" section, as does Heterodox Academy's citation of the Knight/Gallup surveys. None of the studies, after all, are about Heterodox Academy ("aboutself")--they are about students' tendency to self-censor. Anyone reading the entry can see that Heterodox Academy conducted some of the studies and discount them accordingly, if he/she/they are so inclined. Plenty of other Wikipedia entries on non-profit organizations provide the details of studies conducted by the very non-profits that are the subject of the entry (see, for example, s.v., "Southern Poverty Law Center"--an organization that I admire but which has itself been criticized for inaccuracies). Other editors are free to cite studies that contradict Heterodox Academy's surveys as well as the Knight/Gallup polls. That sort of give-and-take seems fair. Free Speech Wikipedian

Well I am sorry to say that based on this precis, I am inclined to agree with those who don't think the material should be included. This is NOT because your additions are bad or wrong in some way; rather, they're falling in to one of Wikipedia's epistemic blind spots. I will be the first to confess that Wikipedia's policies are about the worst I have ever seen, with the exception of all other sites attempting to collaboratively catalogue human knowledge on the internet (apologies to Winston Churchill for quote theft). So, I think the policies are generally being properly applied (though I intend to dig a little deeper). Your catch-22 is quite right--in Wikipedia terms, we're all waiting for some secondary sources to jump in and start telling us what is going on. I am not sure exactly which SPLC studies you have in mind, but in general, they don't focus on themselves, in my experience. I would say for WP:ABOUTSELF purposes, the sources at issue here are "self-serving." That's again, not to say wrong or bad, but in furtherance of their general goal and arguments. As I mentioned, I will be taking a closer look (for whatever that's worth), but in the meantime, I think we are kind of stuck. As I am sure you are aware, however, this is all susceptible to changing consensus. If you can convince enough people through new evidence or sheer rhetorical derring-do that you are correct, then you are well within your rights to ignore quibbling from me or anyone else. Sorry I don't have a more constructive response, but happy Tuesday. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• • • • Okay, Dumuzid, challenge accepted! And thank you for your comments.

• • • • I’ll try to convince you and other Wikipedia editors of my point by expanding the argument’s scope. According to some editors’ interpretation of the “aboutself” rule, a journalist can criticize an organization of some 4,000 scholars, and someone can then record that criticism in a Wikipedia article about the group, but when that organization refutes the journalist’s claim with empirical data that they have collected according to academic standards, no one can record even the fact that the study took place, much less the data themselves, in that same Wikipedia article. That is perverse.

• • • • Dumuzid, you refer to the Churchill quotation about democracy being the worst system except for all of the others—I too am fond of that line—but if Wikipedia itself is indeed a democracy, then bad rules can be changed or reinterpreted to avoid perverse results.

• • • • But beyond reductio ad absurdum arguments—and bracketing for the moment the rewriting of a bad rule—I’m not convinced that this reading of the “aboutself” rule is the correct one, as this interpretation is not applied in similar entries. TLDR: The standard that putatively bars citation of studies by Heterodox Academy in the Wikipedia article devoted to it is one that no one abides by in a raft of other entries.

• • • • Here is a section in the Southern Poverty Law Center entry, for example, that cites SPLC’s documents:

SPLC Hatewatch (blog)[edit source] The Hatewatch blog, created in c. 2007, publishes the work of its teams, including investigative journalists who "monitor and expose" activities of the "American radical right".[175] Initially, its precursor—the "Klanwatch" project—which was established in 1981, focused on monitoring KKK activities. The Hatewatch blog, along with the "Teaching Tolerance" program and the Intelligence Report, highlights SPLC's work.[26] An in-depth 2018 Hatewatch report examined the roots and evolution of black-on-white crime rhetoric, from the mid-nineteenth century to the late 2010s. According to the report, "[m]isrepresented crime statistics" on "black-on-white crime" have become a "main propaganda point of America's hate movement".[176] The report described how Dylann Roof, the perpetrator of the June 17, 2015, Charleston church shooting had written in his manifesto about his 2012 Google search for "black-on-white crime", which led him to be convinced that black men were a "physical threat to white people."[176] One of the first sources was the Council of Conservative Citizens. The report shows that on November 22, 2015, then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump retweeted a chart that had "originated from a neo-Nazi account" which displayed "bogus crime statistics".[176] The SPLC report cited a November 23, 2005, Washington Post article that fact checked the figures in the graph.[177] The tweet said that "81 percent of whites are killed by black people", while the FBI says that only 15 percent of white murder victims are killed by a black perpetrator; the large majority of white murder victims are killed by white perpetrators.[176]

• • • • Many of the notes above refer to SPLC’s own documents. Would it be legitimate to object to this section on “aboutself” grounds? If so, a voluminous amount of material on Wikipedia will need to go.

• • • • In the following list of think tanks and advocacy groups, editors repeatedly cite the groups’ own documents in ways that could be construed as “self-serving”; to a willfully unsympathetic reader, such citations might appear to justify the groups’ existence. (I’ve distinguished my own comments from the passages in the Wikipedia articles by using asterisks in front of my own text, which end up looking like bullet points. PLEASE NOTE THAT I CHECKED THESE ENTRIES ON 10/5/2021, SO THEY MIGHT HAVE CHANGED A BIT IN THE MEANTIME. I have not made a single change to any of these entries, ever.)

Amnesty International

In the aftermath of 11 September attacks, the new Amnesty International Secretary General, Irene Khan, reported that a senior government official had said to Amnesty International delegates: "Your role collapsed with the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York."[32] …. In 2009, Amnesty International accused Israel and the Palestinian Hamas movement of committing war crimes during Israel's January offensive in Gaza, called Operation Cast Lead, that resulted in the deaths of more than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.[40] The 117-page Amnesty report charged Israeli forces with killing hundreds of civilians and wanton destruction of thousands of homes. Amnesty found evidence of Israeli soldiers using Palestinian civilians as human shields. A subsequent United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict was carried out; Amnesty stated that its findings were consistent with those of Amnesty's own field investigation, and called on the UN to act promptly to implement the mission's recommendations.[41][42] … 2016[edit source] In February 2016, Amnesty International launched its annual report of human rights around the world titled "The State of the World's Human Rights". It warns from the consequences of "us vs them" speech which divided human beings into two camps. It states that this speech enhances a global pushback against human rights and makes the world more divided and more dangerous. It also states that in 2016, governments turned a blind eye to war crimes and passed laws that violate free expression. Elsewhere, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Thailand and Turkey carried out massive crackdowns, while authorities in other countries continued to implement security measures represent an infringement on rights.[61] In June 2016, Amnesty International has called on the United Nations General Assembly to "immediately suspend" Saudi Arabia from the UN Human Rights Council.[62][63] 2017[edit source]

Amnesty International sign at the WorldPride Madrid in July 2017 Amnesty International published its annual report for the year 2016–2017 on 21 February 2017. Secretary General Salil Shetty's opening statement in the report highlighted many ongoing international cases of abuse as well as emerging threats. Shetty drew attention, among many issues, to the Syrian Civil War, the use of chemical weapons in the War in Darfur, outgoing United States President Barack Obama's expansion of drone warfare, and the successful 2016 presidential election campaign of Obama's successor Donald Trump. Shetty stated that the Trump election campaign was characterized by "poisonous" discourse in which "he frequently made deeply divisive statements marked by misogyny and xenophobia, and pledged to roll back established civil liberties and introduce policies which would be profoundly inimical to human rights." In his opening summary, Shetty stated that "the world in 2016 became a darker and more unstable place."[67]

• • • • All of the above footnotes cite Amnesty International reports. Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to purge this material—that it would make the entry better?

National Association of Scholars

In 2011 NAS launched its Center for the Study of the Curriculum to "document and to analyze important changes" to college curricula and "to propose improvements."[22] The center conducts yearly reviews of colleges and universities' common reading programs. The annual Beach Books report identifies the colleges that have these programs, the books they assign, and patterns in the assignments. The 2012–13 report found that 97 percent of colleges and universities chose books published in or after 1990. The most popular book assigned was The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot. Writing at The Guardian, the report's author, Ashley Thorne, criticized the lack of classics: "The choice of a recent book that is often the only book students will have in common with one another points to the death of a shared literary culture. To the extent that colleges want to approach that culture, they display willful selfishness in confining their sights to the present."[23]

• • • • The above paragraph cites an NAS document.

Humanists International

The Freedom of Thought Report[edit source]

	It has been suggested that this article be split into a new article titled Freedom of Thought Report. (Discuss) (July 2019)

Cover of the downloadable 2016 edition of the IHEU Freedom of Thought Report - Key Countries Edition In 2012 Humanists International began publishing an annual report on "discrimination against humanists, atheists and the non-religious" called The Freedom of Thought Report.[31] The report centres around a "Country Index" with a textual entry for every sovereign state.[32] Each country is measured against a list of 64 boundary conditions, which are categorised into four thematic categories ("Constitution and government", "Education and children's rights", "Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals", and "Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values") at five levels of overall "severity" ("Free and equal", "Mostly satisfactory", "Systemic discrimination", "Severe discrimination" and "Grave violations").[33] The 64 boundary conditions include for example: "'Apostasy' or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death", which is placed at the worst level of severity, and under the category "Freedom of expression", and: "There is state funding of at least some religious schools", which is a middle severity condition, under the category "Education and children's rights". The data from the report is freely available under a Creative Commons license.[34] Findings of the Freedom of Thought Report[edit source] In 2017, the report found that 30 countries meet at least one boundary condition at the most severe level ("Grave violations"), and a further 55 countries met at least one boundary condition in the next most severe level ("Severe discrimination").[34]

This composite map overlays the results from four separate categories of assessment in Humanists International Freedom of Thought Report, as to how countries discriminate against non-religious people. Countries block-filled in darker, redder colors are rated more severely in the report, while lighter, greener shades are more "free and equal". Responses to the Freedom of Thought Report[edit source] The various annual editions of the Freedom of Thought Report have been reported in the media under headlines such as: "How the right to deny the existence of God is under threat globally" (The Independent, UK);[35] "Most countries fail to respect rights of atheists – report" (Christian Today); and "Stephen Fry's mockery of religion could land him the death penalty in these countries" (The Washington Post).[36] The report has received coverage in the national media of countries that are severely criticised, for example "Malaysia's free thought, religious expression under 'serious assault', study shows" (the Malay Mail).[37]

• • • • Many of the above footnotes cite Humanist International reports.

Greenpeace

Greenpeace on golden rice[edit source] Greenpeace opposes the planned use of golden rice, a variety of Oryza sativa rice produced through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of pro-vitamin A in the edible parts of rice. The addition of beta-carotene to the rice is seen as preventive to loss of sight in poverty stricken countries where golden rice is intended for distribution. According to Greenpeace, golden rice has not managed to do anything about malnutrition for 10 years during which alternative methods are already tackling malnutrition. The alternative proposed by Greenpeace is to discourage monocropping and to increase production of crops which are naturally nutrient-rich (containing other nutrients not found in golden rice in addition to beta-carotene). Greenpeace argues that resources should be spent on programs that are already working and helping to relieve malnutrition.[141] … “Although Greenpeace stated that the golden rice program's true efficiency in treating malnourished populations was its primary concern as early as 2001,[145] statements from March and April 2005 also continued to express concern over human health and environmental safety.[146][147] In particular, Greenpeace has expressed concern over the lack of safety testing being done on GMO crops such as golden rice and of "playing with the lives of people...using Golden Rice to promote more GMOs".[143] … Toxic waste[edit source] In July 2011, Greenpeace released its Dirty Laundry report accusing some of the world's top fashion and sportswear brands of releasing toxic waste into China's rivers.[151] The report profiles the problem of water pollution resulting from the release of toxic chemicals associated with the country's textile industry. Investigations focused on industrial wastewater disccorrharges from two facilities in China; one belonging to the Youngor Group located on the Yangtze River Delta and the other to Well Dyeing Factory Ltd. located on a tributary of the Pearl River Delta. Scientific analysis of samples from both facilities revealed the presence of hazardous and persistent hormone disruptor chemicals, including alkylphenols, perfluorinated compounds and perfluorooctane sulfonate. The report goes on to assert that the Youngor Group and Well Dyeing Factory Ltd. - the two companies behind the facilities - have commercial relationships with a range of major clothing brands, including Abercrombie & Fitch, Adidas, Bauer Hockey, Calvin Klein, Converse, Cortefiel, H&M, Lacoste, Li Ning, Metersbonwe Group, Nike, Phillips-Van Heusen and Puma AG.

• • • • The footnotes above cite Greenpeace reports.

World Wide Fund for Nature

Publications[edit source]

	This section may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. (July 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

WWF publishes the Living Planet Index in collaboration with the Zoological Society of London. Along with ecological footprint calculations, the Index is used to produce a bi-yearly Living Planet Report giving an overview of the impact of human activity on the world.[41] In 2019, WWF and Knorr jointly published the Future 50 Foods report identifying "50 Foods for Healthier People and a Healthier Planet".[42] The organization also regularly publishes reports, fact sheets and other documents on issues related to its work, to raise awareness and provide information to policy and decision makers.[43]

• • • • “World Wide Fund for Nature” is one of many entries that start with a caveat recommending the incorporation of “better” sources, but the highlighted material remains as a placeholder in the entry rather than being deleted. Such inconsistency across entries undermines faith in the editing process.

RAND Corporation

The achievements of RAND stem from its development of systems analysis. Important contributions are claimed in space systems and the United States' space program,[23] Current areas of expertise include: child policy, civil and criminal justice, education, health, international policy, labor markets, national security, infrastructure, energy, environment, corporate governance, economic development, intelligence policy, long-range planning, crisis management and disaster preparation, population and regional studies, science and technology, social welfare, terrorism, arts policy, and transportation.[27] RAND designed and conducted one of the largest and most important studies of health insurance between 1974 and 1982. The RAND Health Insurance Experiment, funded by the then–U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, established an insurance corporation to compare demand for health services with their cost to the patient.[28][29] According to the 2005 annual report, "about one-half of RAND's research involves national security issues".

• • • • Many of the above footnotes cite RAND documents.

Reason Foundation

“Some of his other videos for the foundation have promoted free trade; criticized the government's raids of local poker games and an Arizona attempt to ban dancing in a family restaurant (Footloose in Arizona);[31] highlighted a ban on bacon-wrapped hot dogs in Los Angeles; detailed abuse of eminent domain laws; called for more toll roads to relieve congestion; argued for deregulation of organ donation (including kidneys and other organs); and called for immigration reform.[32]”

• • • • The last footnote in the above paragraph cites Reason itself.

American Enterprise Institute

"Because of the agencies' dual public and private form, various efforts to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fulfill their public mission at the cost of their profitability have failed—and will likely continue to fail", he wrote in 2001. "The only viable solution would seem to be full privatization or the adoption of policies that would force the agencies to adopt this course themselves."[49] Wallison ramped up his criticism of the GSEs throughout the 2000s. In 2006, and 2007, he moderated conferences featuring James B. Lockhart III, the chief regulator of Fannie and Freddie[50] In August 2008, after Fannie and Freddie had been backstopped by the US Treasury Department, Wallison outlined several ways of dealing with the GSEs, including "nationalization through a receivership," outright "privatization," and "privatization through a receivership."[51]

• • • • The above paragraphs cite American Enterprise Institute reports.

Ayn Rand Institute

“ARI holds that the motivation for Islamic terrorism comes from their religiosity, not poverty or a reaction to Western policies.[49]

• • • • The above note cites the Ayn Rand Institute.

Institute for Women's Policy Research From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

hideThis article has multiple issues. Please help to improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (January 2014)

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (March 2018)

“IWPR Projects and Initiatives[6][edit source] “Status of Women in the States Reports[edit source] “IWPR has analyzed data on a wide range of indicators at the local, state and federal levels, including demographics, economic security, educational attainment, reproductive rights, political participation, civic engagement, and access to health care and work support in order to publish a collection of comprehensive reports. Each report offers policy recommendations shaped by the research findings for that state, city or area. “Women and Social Security[edit source] “Women are more likely to rely on Social Security because they have fewer alternative sources of income, often outlive their husbands, and are more likely to be left to rear children when their husbands die or become disabled. Specifically, adult women are 57 percent of all social security beneficiaries aged 65 and older. IWPR produces and disseminates materials to keep women involved on the ongoing Social Security debate and to ensure that women’s concerns are addressed when or if any changes to the system take place.”

• • • • Again, this smacks of “arbitrary and capricious” editing: why offer criticisms at the outset rather than deleting the material that cites only IWPR’s own studies?

Médecins Sans Frontières

Statistics[edit source] In order to accurately report the conditions of a humanitarian emergency to the rest of the world and to governing bodies, data on a number of factors are collected during each field mission. The rate of malnutrition in children is used to determine the malnutrition rate in the population, and then to determine the need for feeding centres.[115] Various types of mortality rates are used to report the seriousness of a humanitarian emergency, and a common method used to measure mortality in a population is to have staff constantly monitoring the number of burials at cemeteries.[116] By compiling data on the frequency of diseases in hospitals, MSF can track the occurrence and location of epidemic increases (or "seasons") and stockpile vaccines and other drugs. For example, the "Meningitis Belt" (sub-Saharan Africa, which sees the most cases of meningitis in the world) has been "mapped" and the meningitis season occurs between December and June. Shifts in the location of the Belt and the timing of the season can be predicted using cumulative data over many years.[117] In addition to epidemiological surveys, MSF also uses population surveys to determine the rates of violence in various regions. By estimating the scopes of massacres, and determining the rate of kidnappings, rapes, and killings, psychosocial programmes can be implemented to lower the suicide rate and increase the sense of security in a population.[118]

• • • • The article above cites Médecins Sans Frontières’ own reports. At minimum, then, the fact that HxA publishes reports on campus expression should be allowed.

People’s Policy Project

“Crisis of overworking[edit source] “Much of 3P's research work focuses on the negative ramifications of overworking, which takes a physical and mental toll on those that experience it. A report by 3P in collaboration with the Gravel Institute found that American workers, by average, work longer than workers in any other developed country.[29]”

• • • • True, the above footnote does not cite the original PPP study, but instead that model of scholarship, Teen Vogue. By that logic, if Heterodox Academy somehow managed to get cited by Games Unplugged magazine, could I cite the study as quoted in the magazine? Would it confer more value on the study because it is a secondary source?

Peterson Institute for International Economics

“2017 tax reform debate[edit source] “The Peterson Institute has been at the forefront of research on the proposals by the Trump Administration of reforming the tax code. Comparative analyses in advanced economies show the tax proposal will increase the budget deficit, unless coupled with a reduction of tax loopholes.[non-primary source needed]”

• • • • Note the superscript at the end, “[non-primary source needed].” Here we run into a common inconsistency, raising the legitimate objection, once again, that Wikipedia editing is arbitrary and capricious. Why is some material allowed to stand with a caveat, whereas similar material in another entry is simply deleted?

National Bureau of Economic Research

Business cycle dates are determined by the NBER dating committee under contract with the Department of Commerce. Typically, these dates correspond to peaks and troughs in real GDP, although not always so.[8] The NBER prefers this method for a variety of reasons. First, they feel by measuring a wide range of economic factors, rather than just GDP, a more accurate assessment of the health of an economy can be gained. For instance, the NBER considers not only the product-side estimates like GDP, but also income-side estimates such as the gross domestic income (GDI). Second, since the NBER wishes to measure the duration of economic expansion and recession at a fine grain, they place emphasis on monthly—rather than quarterly—economic indicators. Finally, by using a looser definition, they can take into account the depth of decline in economic activity. For example, the NBER may declare not a recession simply because of two quarters of very slight negative growth, but rather an economic stagnation.[9]”

• • • • The notes cite NBER studies. Note too that in this case, criticism follows—part of the back-and-forth of a robust public sphere: “However, they do not precisely define what is meant by "a significant decline", but rather determine if one has existed on a case by case basis after examining their catalogued factors which have no defined grade scale or weighting factors. The subjectivity of the determination has led to criticism and accusations committee members can "play politics" in their determinations.[10]”

• • • • And then, in a confusing twist, an editor cites another reason in favor NBER definitions that NBER itself does not mention: "Though not listed by the NBER, another factor in favor of this alternate definition is that a long term economic contraction may not always have two consecutive quarters of negative growth, as was the case in the recession following the bursting of the dot-com bubble.[9]"

• • • • The above footnote nevertheless cites an NBER study. (Confused emoji.)

Annie’s List

In the 2018 midterm elections, Annie's List had an 84% win rate and 31 of the 37 candidates Annie's List endorsed in 2018 won their election.[4]

• • • • The above citation is to Annie’s List’s own documents.

Center for Media and Democracy

CMD disputes the characterization of "liberal" and describes itself as a "non-profit investigative reporting group" with a "focus on exposing corporate spin and government propaganda."[22][23]

• • • • The above reference is literally “aboutself,” as it cites CMD’s “About Us” page.

Our Revolution

“Our Revolution board member James Zogby disputed the Politico report in a series of tweets, calling it a "hit piece fueled [by] a few disgruntled souls out to harm [Nina Turner]."[35] The Politico article has also been criticized by others on similar grounds,[36][37] as well as for its anonymous sourcing and lack of quotes.[36] An article published by Common Dreams also broadly disputed the Politico article,[36] as did a Naked Capitalism piece.[37]”

• • • • Some of the above notes cite Our Revolution.

Oxfam

“A January 2014 Oxfam report stated that the 85 wealthiest individuals in the world have a combined wealth equal to that of the bottom 50% of the world's population, or about 3.5 billion people.[13][14][15][16][17] …. A 2017-released Oxfam report stated that eight billionaires possess the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of humanity.[19][20][21][22]

• • • • The notes cite Oxfam documents among the sources.

The Library Project

	This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Find sources: "The Library Project" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Results[edit source] [1] • Providing access to books to over 200,000 children • Donating over 350,000 English and local language children’s books, encyclopedias and reference books • Creating libraries • Establishing over 600 libraries in rural elementary schools and orphanages in 21 provinces throughout China and Vietnam

• • • • The article above cites the New Library Project’s own report. This is another entry that’s allowed to remain in limbo, while similar material elsewhere is summarily deleted. This suggests “arbitrary and capricious” editing standards.

Human Rights Watch

Publications[edit source] Human Rights Watch publishes reports on many different topics[43] and compiles an annual World Report presenting an overview of the worldwide state of human rights.[44] It has been published by Seven Stories Press since 2006; the current edition, World Report 2020, was released in January 2020, and covers events of 2019.[45][46] World Report 2020, HRW's 30th annual review of human rights practices around the globe, includes reviews of human rights practices and trends in nearly 100 countries, and an introductory essay by HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth "China's Global Threat to Human Rights". Human Rights Watch has reported extensively on subjects such as the Rwandan genocide of 1994,[47] Democratic Republic of the Congo[48] and US sex offender registries due to their over-breadth and application to juveniles.[49][50]

• • • • All of the above notes cite Human Rights Watch’s own reports.

League of Conservation Voters

“In a 2012 report, the non-profit Rachel's Network examined the Scorecard scores for male and female members of Congress in the 107th through the 111th Congresses (2001 to 2010). The group found that "women in Congress vote for legislation supporting clean air, clean water, renewable energy, climate action, and public health much more often than their male counterparts."[25][26][27] The report found that some of the difference was attributable to the fact that there were "more women Democrats in both houses of Congress than there are women Republicans," and Democrats favor more pro-environmental policies, but also found that "the difference in voting patterns still persists when gender is isolated within each political party."[25] The report also found that "the gap between Republican men and women narrowed after the 2004 election cycle, which could be attributable to increased partisan pressures."[25]”

• • • • Is “Rachel’s Network” a reliable source for Wikipedia? If not, then the above paragraph needs to go.

• • • • One could argue, I suppose, that all of the instances I’ve cited are simply mistakes that have yet to be corrected, but to eliminate all such material would be to impoverish Wikipedia, gutting it of details that draw people to the site. One could also argue that Heterodox Academy does not have the same level of credibility as these other organizations, but who gets to determine this, and by what criteria? Does anyone sincerely believe that the Ayn Rand Institute, among others in the list, is more reliable than Heterodox Academy, which boasts thousands of scholars among its members, most of whom hold advanced degrees? I would like to see an argument to that effect rather than a bare assertion. On the issue of Heterodox Academy’s relative newness, it has been around for six years and in that time has drawn academic luminaries to the organization. At what point does it become credible—when it’s been around for nine years? Ten? And again, who gets to decide? The editors who happen to follow the “Heterodox Academy” page? (Vox, incidentally, which is cited in the article, dates to 2014.)

• • • • If the goal of Wikipedia editing is consistency and evenhandedness across the platform, then editors should be able to cite Heterodox Academy studies in the Wikipedia article on it, just as editors have done in the articles above and indeed throughout Wikipedia. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OSE and WP:TLDR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipal (talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

References

From WP:OSE: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based *solely* [my emphasis] on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, ****comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, make a much more credible case.**** [my emphasis]" I will look for such articles and see whether they cite primary sources and the like. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Instead of looking for articles that support a perspective, I recommend looking for RfCs, Noticeboard discussions, or other substantial policy-based discussions on strongly related issues. --Hipal (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

New edits

What language is off-kilter or inapposite in the article's final paragraph? As for the Quintana piece, nothing in the Chronicle article cited suggests he is "arguing that advocacy groups such as Heterodox Academy functionally do more to narrow the scope of academic debates than any of the biases they allege." Please point to a passage in the article that states or even suggests as much, or I will delete the portion devoted to Quintana. (Some discussion of the Chronicle piece may belong in the article, but in a different context, as I noted.) Indeed, Quintana distinguishes Haidt and Heterodox Academy from Betsy DeVos and her ilk in another Chronicle article from later the same year. On Heterodox Academy's opposition to the "Professor Watchlist," which I inserted into the "Activities" section, Heterodox Academy articulated its opposition to the project in its very first official statement , indicating its significance, so unless you adduce more cogent reasons for deletion, I will add it back. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Re the final paragraph: To start, it's huge given the references, and repetitive as well. --Hipal (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: re Quintana [13] --Hipal (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the discussions to date, I don't understand why we care what is posted on twitter. --Hipal (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I can condense the paragraph. On the opposition to "Professor Watchlist," I'll try to verify this with a non-Twitter source and reinsert, though the "aboutself" objection would here seem inapt--Heterodox Academy would know what Heterodox Academy's first official statement was. What difference does it make *where* they noted that this was their first official statement? Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to condense it; I've removed it entirely. None of the sources in it are usable. The paper by Fossen just cites Heterdox Academy a single time, without mentioning it at all in the text, and is WP:UNDUE for any sort of inclusion at all, let alone the massive paragraph you cited to it. Newsweek is generally not considered reliable today per WP:RSP and is likewise unusable. And the Atlantic piece is an opinion piece (in its Ideas section) briefly referencing a single study by Heterodox Academy; and even though they agree with the study, they acknowledge its low quality (To some, the evidence of Heterodox Academy’s member survey plus my correspondents will still qualify as mere “anecdata”—after all, both groups are self-selecting—such that only a long-term academic study carefully interviewing at length a good 3,000 professors and submitting their responses to statistical analysis would qualify as empirically compelling.) These aren't the sort of sources that are usable for writing a paragraph like this, especially given that you presented it directly as a response to the paragraph above it; even if we accepted the sources, the best they could support is "some people have cited Heterodox Academy as support for papers or arguments", and even for that it would be WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will file a dispute, since you seem unwilling to compromise. Among the many inconsistencies in your argument: Beauchamp's Vox article is an opinion piece, and he is hardly a master statistician or an expert on academia, so it's not clear why his voice counts more than Jonathan Zimmerman's in University World News or John McWhorter's in the Atlantic. As will be obvious to anyone who actually reads it in context, the passage you cite from McWhorter does *not* amount to an acknowledgment that the Heterodox Academy study is "low quality"; McWhorter simply entertains the possibility that others might regard it as limited. Indeed, he earlier refers to the Heterodox Academy's numbers as "hard data."

Your dismissal of the scholarly article I cite on the grounds that is "WP:UNDUE" strikes me misplaced. I did not say or suggest that the view expressed in the article was a majority view. As for "Heterodox Academy" not appearing in the article itself, the author of the Heterodox Academy study does, in fact, appear in a parenthetical citation in the article's first paragraph (Stiksma, 2021); this introduction, which sets the tone for the piece, also discusses Haidt and "cancel culture." I don't happen to be a fan of the term "cancel culture," which is susceptible to abuse, and, as an atheist, I would bring a very different argument to bear on the question of religious toleration, the article's subject; but none of this undermines the relevance of Heterodox Academy's study to the authors' argument or to the present Wikipedia article. To delete all such material is to leave a distorted impression of Heterodox Academy's "Reception" (see the section heading).

As for the suggestion that Newsweek does not count as a reliable source, mediabiasfactcheck.com rates Newsweek as less biased and more factually based than Vox. Adfontesmedia.com rates the two magazines at almost exactly the same level of reliability, judging Newsweek the less biased of the two. 05:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Moving to your own contributions to the page, your line on commentators "arguing [that] advocacy groups such as Heterodox Academy functionally do more to narrow the scope of academic debates than any of the biases they allege" has no basis in the articles you cite. Your account of the Vox article seems plus Beauchamp que Beauchamp: while Beauchamp clearly disagrees with Heterodox Academy, insisting at one point that they "provide ammunition" to conservative lawmakers who would pass laws to restrict academic freedom, he adds that "I would assume Heterodox Academy’s core staff are too principled to support such measures." Your spin on this passage is WP:Synth. To "provide ammunition" is not the same as "functionally do more to narrow the scope of academic debates than any of the biases they allege." The reading you impose on the Quintana piece is even more fanciful--please point me to a single passage in Quintana's article that is remotely equivalent to the line above. That material needs to be rewritten.Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I have partially reverted the removals. I see no consistent standard of WP:DUE in which we include the views of some journalist writing in an opinionated article in Vox, but not that of a notable historian of education or that of an academic professor writing in The Atlantic. If someone is going to claim that these are views of "tiny minorities" - the circumstance when DUE says we need not include it at all - then that needs to be demonstrated with reference to other sources. Otherwise, these are RS, and per DUE, they are in fact to be included. If anything, these are WP:Secondary sources to the research papers they are citing, and thus all the more establish the DUE-ness of the material. Presenting the section as though RS only speak of the group as wrong about speech on campus is what is UNDUE and POV. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The WP:DUE issue doesn't come from the reliability of the source, in this case; it comes from the fact that they barely mention Heterodox Academy. Focusing on a random paper that happens to cite Heterodox Academy a single time is putting undue weight on a single aspect of it and is WP:SYNTH besides; the article should be built around secondary sources that discuss Heterodox Academy, not random examples that editors think are significant. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Why are you circling back around to rehash this and engage in a disruptive removal months later? These are multiple WP:Secondary sources for the Heterodox Academy research. As I just explained in the comment you are replying to, WP:DUE is not an unlimited-power removal wand. That these sources do not spend whatever arbitrary length of material on the matter you personally deem sufficient before an RS suddenly becomes DUE is not relevant. This removal presents a false picture of the status of the reception of the group. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:NODEADLINE applies; when I feel a dispute is intractable, I usually like to circle back around later to see if others have weighed in or if the situation has changed (as, I will point out, it has here - the sources you were comparing it to as an objection have largely been removed.) This is recommended per WP:DISENGAGE. If you want to resolve something in a lasting fashion, you need to establish a consensus - reverting once obviously isn't that, so naturally it makes sense to pick it back up later. As far as the actual dispute goes, the issue here isn't simply an arbitrary length of material - two of the sources make no mention of Heterodox Academy at all in their text and are plainly not appropriate for reception; I don't see how you can really argue they provide a window into how it is received when they do not discuss it at all. The third one mentions it, but merely in passing and, crucially, without any sort of evaluation, just as a quote of what Heterodox Academy itself thinks and feels (meaning it does not actually say anything meaningful about its reception.) I do understand that you feel that including these is vital to capturing what you personally believe to be an accurate picture of the reception of the group, but that's not a valid argument to include such clear WP:SYNTHesis, or to extend due weight to sources that do not even mention the subject in their text at all; we decide what an accurate picture of the reception of the group looks like by looking at what secondary sources say about them, not by consulting our gut feelings about what balance ought to look like, and these are simply not secondary sources that discuss the group at all. In any case, since I gather that this discussion isn't likely to be any more productive the second time around, I've started an RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Newsweek, "generally not considered reliable" is quite different from "not generally reliable", and the latter is what WP:RSP says. It lists it in yellow rather than red and says, "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". So it isn't a "generally unreliable" source. Wikipedians generally go by RSP than by those other sites. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Adfontesmedia.com and mediabiasfactcheck.com are not reliable, and no substitute for the general consensus on the reliability of sources. --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Thank you, Crossroads, for the information about Newsweek. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the particular newsweek source, I am not seeing any red flags and it seems reasonable to add back in since no editors have raised particular concerns.-Pengortm (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Quintana ref removal

Could editors comment for or against the following changes [14]:

According to Vox's Zack Beauchamp, Heterodox Academy advances conservative viewpoints on college campuses by playing into or presenting the argument that such views are suppressed by left-wing bias or political correctness. Commenators such as Beauchamp and Chris Quintana, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, have disputed Heterodox Academy's contention that college campuses are facing a "free-speech crisis," noting the lack of data to support it and arguing that advocacy groups such as Heterodox Academy functionally do more to narrow the scope of academic debates than any of the biases they allege.

References

Was changed to the following, completely removing the Quintana reference. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Zack Beauchamp of Vox' maintains that "by working to promote the idea that liberal bias and...political correctness is [sic] a crisis, they provide ammunition" to conservative lawmakers who would pass laws to restrict academic freedom. On a more concessive note, Beauchamp acknowledges that "Heterodox Academy’s core staff are too principled to support such measures."

References

As I suggested above, if anyone can point to a single passage in either the Beauchamp or the Quintana article equivalent to the line I replaced (Heterodox Academy "functionally do more to narrow the scope of academic debates than any of the biases they allege"), then I will happily revert the edits myself. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

If it does in fact specifically discuss Heterodox Academy, and is represented accurately, then I would support including it. But that is an important "if". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hiring of Tomasi

Dumuzid, I think Inside Higher Ed suffices to report simple facts about Heterodox Academy's management. It's cited multiple times at Higher education in the United States, Assessment in higher education, List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment, and other places. There's also an article on Tomasi's hiring from The Brown Daily Herald: https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/09/professor-john-tomasi-to-become-president-of-heterodox-academy. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You might be right, but the fact that it is sourced to a blog at that publication makes me doubt that it's actually reliable and therefore that the information is WP:DUE. It's entirely possible I am alone in this thinking, and if you have a consensus of others who agree with inclusion, I certainly won't be stubborn. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

As a student newspaper, I'm not sure it indicates any encyclopedic value or due weight.

Is Tomasi notable? I couldn't find him mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia.

Maybe just minimal content, ref'd to Inside Higher Ed might work. --Hipal (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

In the first round of edits, I understand why some editors felt uncomfortable with the Heterodox Academy references, but presumably Heterodox Academy knows who Heterodox Academy's first president is, so I'm not sure why a citation to the HxA site constitutes a problem. As for the significance of the material, the first president of an organization seems like information suitable for an encyclopedia.

I also thought that readers might want to know a little about Tomasi's background, including his history with the Koch Foundation at Brown, so I added that information in a footnote, complete with a reference to Jane Mayer's book Dark Money. Perhaps such details are extraneous, but given that many editors who have worked on this article seem convinced that HxA leans conservative, that history seemed pertinent, as it certainly does not contradict their view. If those editors don't think the information is material, I'm content, for now, to leave it out.

But once a source like the Chronicle of Higher Education comments on Tomasi's presidency, as will no doubt happen in the near future, do most editors agree that some mention of Tomasi's appointment belongs in the "History" section? The Inside Higher Ed article is interesting, but it reads a bit like a hit piece.Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Free Speech Wikipedian, first, I'd just like to say I very much appreciate your cooperative and civil approach to the matter at hand; I have no doubt it must get a bit frustrating, especially as so much about this topic seems to hover right on the border of coverage in reliable sources! That being said, I suspect you are correct that better sources are imminent--until they have materialized, I certainly think a mention of the institution's president is warranted in some way. If you think the history section is the proper place, I would happily support that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, it's pretty common for articles on organizations to include such info based on even just WP:ABOUTSELF sourcing. I see no reason to exclude it here. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

A sincere thank you for your guidance, Dumuzid and Crossroads. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Using sources that cite Heterodox Academy as examples of reception

In the material in this diff, three sources are cited as examples of Heterodox Academy's reception. Should these be used as examples of reception? Should we use citations to it as examples of reception in general? See also the sentence immediately afterwards, which is broadly similar. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

• Marcy Van Fossen, James P. Burns, Thomas Lickona & Larry Schatz; references Heterodox Academy once in a footnote, no other mentions.
• CS Monitor, saying Many students do express they are increasingly “walking on eggshells” and experiencing what free speech advocates have long called the “chilling effects” of self-censorship, says Kyle Vitale, director of programs at Heterodox Academy (HxA), a nonpartisan collaborative of college professors and students committed to open inquiry and diverse viewpoints in higher education. In a 2020 survey, HxA found that 62% of sampled college students agreed the climate on their campus prevents them from saying things they believe, up from 55% in 2019. And students across the political spectrum expressed reluctance to share their ideas and opinions on politics, with 31% of self-identified Democrats, 46% of Independents, and 48% of Republicans each reporting reluctance to speak their mind.
• Matthias Revers & Richard Traunmüller; references Heterodox academy in several of its footnotes, no references to it in the text.

References

--Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• No. These are WP:SYNTH (and the first and third refs have obvious WP:UNDUE issues, given that they don't mention Heterodox Academy at all.) Using these in the reception section is effectively trying to argue-by-example that Heterodox Academy is well-received; and stating the results of their study here has no relation to their reception in any case. The CS Monitor, the one source that actually mentions them in the text, says nothing about how Heterodox Academy is received - it just quotes their opinion and figures. This is the sort of thing that we might use for WP:USEBYOTHERS when discussing a source internally, but it's inappropriate synthesis to use it to try and use it to imply things about Heterodox Academy's reception in the article text. Reception requires interpretation and analysis by definition, which means we need secondary sources discussing Heterodox Academy, not a handful of random citations to it or sources that simply quote its opinions and figures without commentary. The CS Monitor source could possibly be used elsewhere, but it shouldn't be used for reception. The other two sources are totally unusable here, since they do not discuss Heterodox Academy at all. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. It's POV to argue that we can't cite these sources that have received Heterodox Academy positively, leaving only a Vox opinion article by someone without any relevant expertise that is critical of the group, thus making it seem reception is only negative. The CS Monitor source alone would be sufficient for this. The other two only state the name "Heterodox Academy" in footnotes, true, but their research is discussed in the main text of those sources. When sources receive the group positively, of course that belongs in the reception section. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Mostly No. To my mind, Aquillion has the better part of the argument here, especially as to sources 1 and 3. They're citing to work hosted at Heterodox Academy ("HA"), but not actually mentioning the institution at all. Citing a work with approval from a place does not necessarily mean general approval of the place. This is simply too far a putt. As to the CSM, while I think Aquillion is right that it's not strictly "reception," The author does in a sidelong way give a take on HA, and while it's not perfect, for me it will do. As ever, just my opinion, and reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• No. Citing HA is not an opinion on HA, or a source for the reception of HA, and using it as such is obviously WP:SYNTH. Economists cite Karl Marx reasonably often because he's historically important, but that doesn't mean they like him. Similarly, asserting that there's a problem with free speech on college campuses is also not an opinion on HA, or a source for the reception of HA, because it's possible believe that that's a problem while not knowing about or even disliking HA. Loki (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Mostly move to another section. I think these passages could be ok to include, but that they don't really fit the ideology and reception section. Seems they would probably fit better in modified form in the "programs and activities" section. To fit in the "Ideology and reception" section I think we would need sources which more directly address either the ideology or reception of Heterodox Academy. One exception to this is the CS Monitor noting that HxA is non-partisan. This is important since it is an outside source, not just HxA, describing HxA as non-partisan-Pengortm (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
• No. I won't speak too much on which sources we should use to characterize their ideology, but as concerns their reputation, there is substantial precedent that we should require high-quality sources when describing academic reputations. See WP:HIGHEREDREP or Wikipedia:NPOV#Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations. For 1 and 3, citing Heterodox Academy as a source doesn't say anything about its reputation, so I'm not sure what material it could be used to support. For 2, the CS Monitor is an RSP-greenlit source, but this is clearly a more opinion-esque article that only mentions Heterodox Academy in passing (using fairly promo-y language that seems drawn from a mission statement), and the author does not appear to have any expertise in higher education. If this was some incredibly niche group, perhaps we could go with the CS Monitor with in-text attribution, but for a group that's received as much attention as this, surely we can do better. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Appending Chris Martin to list of founders

• What I think should be changed: The list of founders should be changed to Jonathan Haidt, Chris Martin, and Nicholas Rosenkranz. Note I made a similar request in 2020, but am providing additional evidence now. The two speeches in the reference section are by Deb Mashek, former executive director of Heterodox Academy, and Jon Haidt, co-founder of Heterodox Academy.
• Why it should be changed: The current version is inaccurate because it only lists two people.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Chris (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

References

We should revisit the treatment of founders as a whole, as it seems completely undue in the lede.

Using self-published sources about themselves to include mention of a non-notable person is problematic. Do they have something that looks like an authoritative history of their organization? --Hipal (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think self published sources are problematic? Chris (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The issues to my mind, are WP:DUE and, somewhat tangentially, WP:NOTABILITY. IF secondary sources take no notice of a fact in a self-published source, then it likely doesn't belong in our article. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Rauch’s book is a secondary source that mentions the three founders. Chris (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Other secondary sources are here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/tough-choice-faces-the-heterodox-academy

https://cas.appstate.edu/news/sociology-professor-joins-prestigious-writers-group

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/05/jonathan-haidt-pandemic-and-americas-polarization/612025/

https://www.templeton.org/grant/promoting-open-inquiry-viewpoint-diversity-and-constructive-disagreement-on-american-college-campuses-and-in-the-disciplines

Chris (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm writing to follow up on this issue since there hasn't been further discussion. I don't see how WP:DUE or WP:NOTABILITY related to this topic. I'm not requesting a distinct Wikipedia page for myself. I don't expect my name to be hyperlinked (although like Nicholas Rosenkranz, I am a professor and have several peer reviewed publications.) I do expect the page to be factually accurate and unbiased. By omitting one co-founder (me), the page is biased and inaccurate. It's also bears mentioning that I'm the only cofounder that is a non-White immigrant to the U.S., so there's a larger bias issue. I have provided eight sources above to support the claim that there are three founders.

If you think I am not one of the cofounders, I would appreciate an explanation of how eight sources, including The Templeton Foundation, The Atlantic, a book by Jonathan Rauch, and another book by Eric Kaufmann (i.e., Whiteshift, see link below) mention that I'm one of the cofounders.

Link to relevant page in Whiteshift: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Whiteshift/F9mEDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22jonathan%20haidt%22%20%22Chris%20Martin%22%20%22heterodox%20academy%22&pg=PT408&printsec=frontcover&bsq=%22jonathan%20haidt%22%20%22Chris%20Martin%22%20%22heterodox%20academy%22

--Chris (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Chris. I was hoping someone new would step in to review the situation and respond to your edit request. I'm closing this one and requesting you make a new one with clearly independent sources. I think you have identified multiple such sources to use. You may want to review Wikipedia:Guide to effective COI edit requests before making the request. --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hipal, per the WP:ABOUTSELF section, self-published sources may be used as sources about themselves. Thus, the Heterodox Academy site can be used as a source about who founded Heterodox Academy. In addition to the speeches above, you may refer to the About Us page of Heterodox Academy. Chris (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Please make a new edit request. --Hipal (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Appending Chris Martin to list of founders (II)

• Specific text to be added or removed:

Two changes -- founder = Jonathan Haidt, Chris Martin, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz

Text change: In 2015, Haidt was contacted by Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Georgetown University law professor, who had given a talk to the Federalist Society discussing a similar lack of conservatives in law and similarly argued that this undermines the quality of research and teaching. He was also contacted by Chris Martin, a sociology graduate student at Emory University, who had published a similar paper in The American Sociologist about the lack of ideological diversity in sociology. Haidt, Martin, and Rosenkranz formed "Heterodox Academy" to address this issue.

• Reason for the change: The article is currently biased because it doesn't acknowledge the work of one of the founders by omitting his name. This is not a request to create a new wikipedia article about Chris Martin, and thus the notability rules are moot. Note the WP:ABOUTSELF guidelines for the About Us page cited below. As an aside, editors should also note that there is no longer an interim executive director. Heterodox Academy now has a president, John Tomasi. Deb Mashek's term as director also ended (she resigned) so it would be nice to mention that.

• References supporting change:

Chris (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I revised the text above today (January 28) to provide more context around the change and hence the sentence about my article. Note that the use of references to Jon Haidt's talk is in line with the use of founder's statements about the companies they have founded, e.g., Y Combinator and overall the references to non-independent in line with the WP:ABOUTSELF guidelines. Thus, it's not a violation of the independent sources rule. There are also independent sources to buttress the other references. Chris (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Chrismartin76. Hi. I've partially implemented this request: Christ Martin has been added to the founder section of the infobox and I've added him to the list of founders in the prose. I was unable to verify He was also contacted by Chris Martin, a sociology graduate student at Emory University, who had published a similar paper in The American Sociologist about the lack of ideological diversity in sociology. from the sources provided, so I've not added that for now. If you have additional sources verifying that sentence feel free to post a new edit request and ping me by inserting {{ping|Asartea}} in the text of the new request. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

 Comment: following discussion on the IRC help channel I've also added the extra sentence. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 16:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Podcast Section

Hi all, 70.251.211.77 has added a section on the podcast associated with the academy, which is obviously fine by my lights, but for the fact that there is no showing it is WP:DUE. It seems the ranking is offered as some evidence of this, but it doesn't get there for me: it's in the nature of a primary source and doesn't really establish any attention in the normal sort of Wikipedia sense from reliable sources. I undid the addition, which the IP subsequently replaced. Rather than edit warring, I thought I would come here. Suffice it to say, as currently constructed, I don't think the section should be in the article. Would be happy to hear other opinions. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I note that the user has now added a couple of references, one of which I can see, one I can't -- the one I can briefly references the podcast, and this is definitely closer, and sort of makes it a toss-up to my mind. Still would like to hear other opinions, and feel free to tell me I'm being dense (I often am). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the listennotes.com ref demonstrates any encyclopedic value or weight. I've removed the section, and trimmed the name-dropping from the 2018 conference mention. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I've yet to find full access to the The Chronicle of Higher Education reference. I've not explored the Wikipedia library. Anyone know if it's available there or elsewhere? --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid and Hipal, your comments here suggest that you are mainly interested in deleting content and that almost nothing meets your standards for reliable evidence. These practices are not helpful and they sap Wikipedia of useful content. If you have objective standards, please state them. Your statements are mostly of a subjective nature, e.g. "I don't see how...." "sort of a toss-up..." "one I can't...." A podcast that has hosted several notable figures and is in the top 1% of podcasts in popularity would meet most people's standards for significance. The listennotes reference is necessary to establish that this is a non-trivial podcast. It is comparable to mentioning that an artist had songs in the Billboard charts to establish their significance. 70.251.211.77 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I qualify my statements because on Wikipedia, we generally do things by consensus. That means I can weigh in, and try to sway others to my opinion, but there are rarely absolute about contents. Notability for Wikipedia purposes is determined by reference to the reliable sources ("RS" or "RSes"). When I say I have doubts about the podcast's notability, I don't mean that in an absolute sense--no aspersions on the thing itself--but just mean that it doesn't seem to have a garnered a lot of notice in the reliable sources. As I often say, there is a HUGE universe of data that is both (1) true; and (2) not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia. Again, that is not meant as a pejorative; it is simply that Wikipedia has choses certain epistemic standards, and in this instance, the content at issue [qualifier!] to my mind, falls outside those standards. I am, of course, aware that opinions may differ, and consensus may be against me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

This assumes that everything there there is a correlation between importance and coverage in a "reliable source." However, this isn't true. There are many things that are important, affecting the lives of many people in an industry or the general public, but many such things are not covered in a standard news source or book. This is especially true for web content. The podcasts Serial and Planet Money for example would be significant regardless of whether they received coverage in major periodicals or books. They are significant because of their popularity. The same is true for many popular songs, which do not necessarily have articles in periodicals written about them. The same is true for niche content, such as academic content, e.g., this podcast, or content from any specialized profession that doesn't belong to mainstream popular or political life. Moreover because web content exists on the web, information about that content can be directly verified rather than checked against some third-party source, as with the listennotes ranking. Given that a "Programs and Activities" section is present on most institutions' pages, it is important to list activities that have garnered public attention. A top 1% podcast has indeed garnered attention.70.251.211.77 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

No, again, I am not arguing at all about "importance." I am talking about Wikipedia policies, most notably WP:NOTABILITY and WP:DUE. Again: many things are true, important, significant, boffo, or whatever adjective you like, and yet not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. What you're talking about is veering close to original research, which is something that is frowned upon here (see: WP:OR). We shall see which way consensus goes on this, but, with all due respect, if anything, you've sort of entrenched me in my view. Fortunately, I'm not all that important! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

your comments here suggest Please strike out such personal assumptions and focus on content policies. If you don't understand relevant policies, don't expect to gain any consensus. --Hipal (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as listennotes.com goes, I see no mention of it on any noticeboards, and little discussion of it at all. Skimming: If there's any consensus on it's use, it's difficult to find. I am noticing where there has been discussion about it, it's not being currently used. --Hipal (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The WP:NOTABILITY guidelines are about new pages. They state::"The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people)." You are improperly applying WP:NOTABILITY to content within an article. WP:DUE is about a neutral point of view: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This is applicable where something is a view rather than a fact. The existence of the podcast and the episodes are a verifiable fact as these are online. There is no editorializing here. If there is a specific segment of WP:NOTABILITY or WP:DUE that you are applying here, please cite that segment. 70.251.211.77 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Now we're talking -- you're absolutely right here. And notability indeed, tells us that the podcast does not deserve its own page, I THINK we'd all agree. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong here, but is a background factor we can keep in mind. My point is that the the section strikes me as undue because it is out of proportion with the coverage of the subject in the reliable sources. I don't really see the podcast garnering any attention in RSes at all. Again, the measure here is consensus, and for my money, you're now making Wikipedia arguments. I would still respectfully disagree. If we wanted to throw in a sentence "They also have a podcast..." that might be more amenable to me, but I'd have to consider. If you can convince a few other people, then you won't have to bother with Hipal or myself at all. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you please cite verbatim the section of WP:DUE that you are referring to? DUE has to do with the elimination of positive and negative bias. It does not have to do with coverage of the subject in major sources. As I mentioned above, many professional sectors are specialized (e.g., academia), and thus you are not going to find articles about them in popular "reliable" news sources. DUE also states that one should avoid undue attention to a viewpoint if it has received minimal attention. (The point here is to eliminate fringe scientific theories.) But this section is not about a viewpoint. You are taking a guideline about viewpoints and misapplying it to facts. See in particular the section "Explanation of the neutral point of view" in DUE. To reiterate, please cite the guidelines from WP:DUE that you are using. 70.251.211.77 (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Okie dokie, how about WP:PROPORTION? To wit, An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially concerning recent events that may be in the news. That sums up my issue pretty well. Dumuzid (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I've identified the reference and summarized what discussion I see about it based upon skimming it's use. The material will be removed if there is no change in consensus. --Hipal (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

For the legitimacy of Listennotes, please see the Press section in https://www.listennotes.com/about/, especially: the article from MIC (https://www.mic.com/p/weve-officially-reached-peak-podcast-19771213), Fast Company (https://www.fastcompany.com/90388493/these-5-great-alternative-search-engines-do-what-google-cant), and School Library Journal (https://www.slj.com/?detailStory=a-universe-of-podcasts-a-summer-listening-guide-for-elementary-middle-and-high-school-students). To consider WP:PROPORTION, it refers to mathematical proportions, e.g., if block A is four times the length of block B within a given article, that is only justifiable if it deserves that much more attention. In this case, the podcast block is only about two sentences. It has little weight. It does not take up significantly more space (i.e., much greater proportionately) than any less significant block. A podcast with four years of episodes and many notable guests is also not comparable to "isolated events, etc." 70.251.211.77 (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The question is not about the podcast episodes or notability of the guests, but rather the treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. I'll have a look at the sources you've provided. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, sorry, I thought the sources were about the podcast at issue, and now I realize they're about Listennotes. I remain unconvinced, but as ever, I am just one voice and I am wrong plenty. One strategy might be to go to WP:RSN and see what they have to say about the source and usage. Just a thought! Dumuzid (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Given your points about proportion, I will delete the sentence about non-academic guests on the podcast. That will shorten this section. The guideline about treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject should be used with discretion when the subject itself is a publication, such as a periodical or a podcast. There are many periodicals that have very little written about them, but are acknowledged as important given who publishes in them and thus merit an entire article, e.g., Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, International Journal of Biological Sciences, European Journal of Nutrition and so on. In this case, we are not talking about an entire article but merely a paragraph.

With all due respect, this sounds like "the rules don't reach my desired outcome, so I will ignore them." Which is actually kind of a thing: WP:IAR. But your examples don't really sway me, and it's a rule that other stuff exists. You're right, there aren't many references to the Biological Sciences Journal, but with all due respect, look at the size of that article compared to this one. I personally just think this article should be fairly short as the institution is still fairly new and just hasn't had a ton of coverage. But as I keep saying, I am far from a one-person consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll be removing the disputed content if we're done here. --Hipal (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless I am misunderstanding something, listennotes is largely WP:USERGENERATED, while its scores are at best an automatically-generated primary source. I don't think the site is an WP:RS in the first place, so I don't think we can cite it at all, and it seems to be the only secondary source presented, making the whole thing undue. --Aquillion (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I stopped responding because I thought we were keeping the content. I have mentioned before that specialized organizations, like academic organizations, do not get a lot of mainstream news coverage so you are not going to find coverage of their podcasts and periodicals in such sources. If the American Chemical Society publishes a impactful monthly newsletter, for instance, you aren't going to find coverage of it in the Wall Street Journal or New York Times. However, the fact that the podcast itself exists can easily be verified. In addition Listen Notes is not user generated. See https://www.listennotes.com/about/. It is a search engine and thus can rank podcasts in a similar way to how Billboard can rank songs. You can also find podcast episodes on YouTube and can verify that many episodes have a high view count. Moreover, if several notable figures had published in a print magazine, that would make it noteworthy. In the same sense, if a podcast hosts interview with several notable figures, that should be considered significant in itself. Aquillion, the rules about due and undue refer to cases where are multiple viewpoints, and one minority viewpoint gets undue attention. It does not refer to situations where is just one viewpoint. I am restoring the paragraph about the podcast. If you search for the podcast name on Google, you can find that some scholars (Kevin Kruse, Princeton) have listen their appearance on their CVs and a college president (Carol Quillen, Davidson College) has a press release about her appearance on the podcast. 70.251.211.77 (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Further, please note that there are three independently published books from respectable presses by respected academics that cite the podcast, i.e., Whiteshift by Eric Kaufmann (Abrams); Rethinking Diversity Frameworks in Higher Education by Edna B. Chun, Joe R. Feagin (Taylor & Francis); Unassailable Ideas by Ilana Redstone, John Villasenor (Oxford University Press). These are searchable on Google Books if you wish to verify it. Such books are reliable sources. On Listen Notes' technical details, see https://www.listennotes.com/listen-score/ 70.251.211.77 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, it seems that consensus largely disagrees here, and I just want to make a couple quick points. The fact that something may quite reasonably not garner coverage in mainstream or academic media is not, to my mind, any reason to go around Wikipedia's rules. Again, there are many things that are perfectly true that don't fit on Wikipedia; this may simply be one of them. While I would not consider curricula vitae to be reliable sources supporting inclusions, the scholarly words might be, and I will go have a look. Finally, the listennotes technical details are unhelpful; it simply says based on first-party and third-party data, without elaborating more. It doesn't strike me as the kind of thing we use around here, but happy to go with consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Having now checked your academic citations, I am sorry, but I still find them lacking. I apologize, as I know how frustrating this process can be, especially as one is getting the hang of it. The sources you have given don't discuss the podcast at all--they merely allude to it in passing. Such sporadic mention in academic sources doesn't really tell us anything, and if this is what we have to work with, I still think given WP:PROPORTION the proper outcome is either no mention or, perhaps, one sentence. Reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I added one sentence but then Hipal deleted it. I don't really have time to continue this any more. I don't think your interpretation of the proportion rule is appropriate, given that there is no division between majority and minority viewpoints. And your "reliable" sources cover what's newsworthy which is different from what's significant. If you look at the audio podcasts list on Wikipedia, you'll find podcasts such as Atlanta Monster, Armchair Expert, The Anthony Cumia Show, and Another Round--just sticking to the As, and these podcasts are now "significant" by Wikipedia standards because they've cover crime and entertainment, which are newsworthy. However, the guests on these podcasts are likely to be forgotten within a generation, whereas the guests on HHH include the authors of history and philosophy books that are likely to be cited by scholars over the next century. Note that these podcasts have an entire article dedicated to them, whereas this dispute is just about a few sentences within another article. So I think you should spend some time considering whether you want to follow a rule that makes Wikipedia biased toward crime, entertainment, sports, and biased against scholastic and academic topics. 70.251.211.77 (talk) 13:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

In the spirit of openness!

I just posted to WP:RSN to see if anyone there might want to weigh in. This is not meant as an attack on anyone; just because I sort of have quibbles and am not personally sure if they're right or I am just being pedantic. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)