Talk:Heterodox Academy

"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)

Hey all! Apologies, new to wikipedia editing. From my experience 'playing into' can connote a hidden agenda, it does not assume good faith for the one who is 'playing into' something, rather the opposite. What did it read before? Thanks :) AnExtraEditor (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hipal - an suggestions on where to change the proposed edits I made? I thought they made the article more Neutral. And I'm new here - apologies, but do we need to gain consensus on any and all edits before making them? Cheers! AnExtraEditor (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Which sources suggest we make any changes? What do the current sources actually say? --Hipal (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

See my post under FAIR article. The concerns of me, @MonsieurD, and @Jweiss11, (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), are less about sources, and more about NPOV. I'll copy and paste my edits here for others to see and access. AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

are less about sources, and more about NPOV. NPOV can only come from proper use of the sources. OR and POV violations tend to result otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Mission statement in the lead

The source for their mission statement is an interview in the Atlantic; the things being stated come from the organization (or people speaking for it.) We obviously cannot state that as indisputable fact; and it is not weasel-wording to attribute it. We could tweak it to strictly follow WP:SAY (ie. changing "what they see" to "what they say"), but this is treated by sources, overall, as their viewpoint, not as an objective fact, so we can't state it as a fact themselves. Neither do I see how MOS:WEASEL could possibly apply; we're being extremely specific about who is characterizing things this way (ie. Heterodox Academy itself) and how they are characterizing it, which is the correct way to cover such claims. What we can't do is just put their WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT in the article voice as an objective description of facts. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Is there a description we can use in it's place, derived from independent sources? --Hipal (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's weasel wording. The language imports critical opinion as fact to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Heterodox Academy's mission. We don't do this for any other non-profit/advoacy org I can think of. In the case of American Civil Liberties Union, we just quote their mission statement in the opening. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Viewpoint diversity" sounds nice but I do not accept that its meaning is obvious, nor even that it has a single agreed-upon definition. For us to imply otherwise would be misleading. Viewpoint diversity is a redirect to Academic freedom, but the phrase isn't used in that article. Without a definition or context, it's a loaded and euphemistic phrase which implies a lot without actually imparting very much neutral information, so presenting it as their claim instead of as a bland fact is the more neutral way to address this promotional language. For us to present this as fact would be a failure of WP:NPOV, among other problems. Grayfell (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Viewpoint diversity" is a phrase that contains two common English words used in a common way. Any fluent speaker can understand that the phrase means something like a "range of varying perspectives". Even if the phrase were difficult to understand, the addition of the weasel words "what they see as" does nothing to shed light on what "viewpoint diversity" means. The verbiage I introduced in my last edit, "working to promote viewpoint diversity on college campuses, especially political diversity" makes no claim about how much or little viewpoint diversity there is, only that HxA's mission is to promote it, or more or it. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I don't accept that. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Taken at face value, "viewpoint diversity" sounds nice, but even if we editorializing by splitting the phrase into its two component words, it's still far, far too broad to be informative. Calling it "a range of varying perspectives" doesn't address the problem. The "range" is pretty narrow, and per reliable, independent sources, and per interviews with Haidt already cited in the article, the "variety" of perspectives they are promoting are politically conservative. This organization was specifically founded to promote conservatism in academia. That's why I said "viewpoint diversity" is loaded and euphemistic. For us to imply that they are for "diversity" in Wikivoice would be echoing their own promotional language despite all these other sources, including the organization itself. It's really not so clear cut that we can just say "viewpoint diversity" in the lead without any context. Grayfell (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The organization was founded to promote alternatives to a hard-to-far-left (i.e. left of liberal or regressive left) dominance in academia. Those alternatives include perspectives that are liberal, centrist, libertarian, and apolitical in addition to ones that are conversative. I understand what you're saying. You're playing words games to impose a political slant on the material. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If you cannot assume good faith, do not participate in this discussion. By definition, the supposed orthodoxy is not "hard-to-far-left" despite Haidt's inflammatory claims to the contrary. Using loaded buzzwords like "regressive left" severely undermine your point if you intend to accuse me of using "word games". Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Grayfell, I assume that you are acting in what you think is good faith, but what you think is good faith is at odds with NPOV. What inflammatory claims has the anodyne liberal Haidt made? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that the lead puts HA's missions statement in Wikivoice. The lead says, "...working to counteract what they see as a lack of viewpoint..." So in Wikivoice the article says they are working to do something. In attributed voice the article says that something is to counteract what they see is X. Is there some view that this group is being misleading in their statements? Given this is a group comprised of academics presumed in good standing why isn't their attributed statement acceptable? Given the very short nature of the whole article this seems like a good IMPARTIAL opening sentence. Springee (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

How about we look at what independent sources say, to avoid POV and NOT violations? --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see that what I proposed violates POV or NOT. Independent sources are good but we need to be careful with characterizations that may have their own POV. The Red Sox radio network should not be used to describe the glory of the Yankees. Springee (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Independent sources are required to prevent NOT problems and determine due weight. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

An for article from Tablet ([1]), already cited here, states "Their goal was to use the organization to foster viewpoint diversity in universities by providing a supportive outlet to academics with beliefs that stray from the enforced political biases of their field." That ought to be enough to remove the "weasel wording" from the lead. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Finding one source, written by a member of the organization itself, doesn't actually fix the problem. For one thing, it ignores all the other sources out there which provide context. Per the article and many other sources, this "lack of viewpoint diversity" is not accepted by reliable sources as a valid framing of a real issue. We cannot ignore those sources to instead favor one source which happens to use the organization's own wording, especially when this wording is extremely vague and loaded. Frankly, Haidt's claims about race and gender in the Tablet article are themselves fringe enough to be alarming. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Which claims by Haidt are fringe and alarming in the Tablet article? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't disrupt the discussion further. Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hipal, please don't distort opinions that that differ from yours as disruptions. I know this playbook. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Inquiring minds want to know: does said playbook include accusing others of playing words games to impose a political slant on the material? Dumuzid (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Dumuzid, no it doesn't. It entails things like playing words games by suggesting that basic words don't have obvious meanings. Then if you disagree with these kind of games, you're accused of various misbehaviors in an effort to chill any dissent and consolidate the political slant. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

So you have a different playbook. Noted. Dumuzid (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, my playbook consists of things like straightforward use and interpretation of common English words and pointing out when other editors stray from that. What you do think it consists of? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears to me to consist of throwing out WP:AGF when it suits you. I know it can be frustrating, but sometimes when you are failing to persuade, it is not because there is a cabal arrayed against you. It can be that you are attempting to persuade the wrong people or your arguments simply aren't that persuasive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Dumuzid, Grayfell and Hipal are failing to persuade me—particularly by failing to specify the "alarming", "inflammatory", and "fringe" claims that Haidt has allegedly made. Are they throwing out WP:AGF? I don't think think there is cabal arrayed against me personally. But individual people have agendas. I just happen to be outnumbered here by editors, now reinforced by you, who seem to specialize heavily in controversial contemporary politics and culture war subjects. I certainly wish we had some other people here for me persuade! Jweiss11 (talk) 00:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

No one is here to persuade you. Consensus comes from the application of policy, not voting. --Hipal (talk) 03:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Dumuzid, you've indicated that's it's my responsibility to persuade others here, yet Hipal claims that no one needs to persuade me. What do you think about that? Hipal, I'm applying policies and core principles like NPOV and MOS:WEASEL. What happens when two more parties apply policy and still disagree? Jweiss11 (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Whatever policy-backed arguments you're trying to make are being lost. You might want to quote from the policies and give examples from in-depth discussions such as RfCs, noticeboards, etc. --Hipal (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree with Hipal, as I do think persuasion is, in most cases, key to achieving consensus--policies are not self-executing, and need to be applied by people, meaning there will always be some range of reasonable opinions. I will just say that persuasion doesn't necessarily mean changing the minds of those who disagree; persuading enough other people works just as well. Perhaps you could have a shot at dispute resolution? I just had a long go-round there which hasn't solved much, but some measure of that is on me. Not sure my thoughts help much, but there you go! Dumuzid (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Article updates for January 2024

I am opening this Request Edit because an initial review started but after I posted replies answering objections for the reviewer, they left a note (at the bottom of this post) saying they had no time to do any further work. Peterjane8675309 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I work for Heterodox Academy and have read Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policies. I’m posting this as part of trying to abide by the rules. Thanks for reviewing this proposal.

A.

Add to the History section, third paragraph, as the fourth sentence, that Michael Regnier became executive director in 2022. The information in the article is out of date. The suggested addition names the most recent executive director as reported by a reputable source.

Suggested wording with citation:

In August 2022, Michael Regnier became executive director.

References

B.

Update the Infobox to reflect the name of the executive director as Michael Regnier. It is established above that Regnier became executive director in 2022.

C.

Update the number of members in the last sentence of the third paragraph of the History section reads that membership was last reported at 5,000. The page is out of date and the suggested addition provides the most current information.

Current:

As of early 2023, membership had grown to 5,000.

Suggested new wording with citation:

As of September 2023, membership was around 6,000 students, faculty, and administrators.

References

D.

Update the third sentence of the lead paragraph to reflect the most recent membership numbers for the organization. The information has already been established in the body of the article.

Current:

As of 2023, Heterodox Academy had about 5,000 members.

Suggested wording:

As of 2023, Heterodox Academy had about 6,000 members.

References

E.

Add after the first sentence of the third paragraph in the Programs and activities section information about the results of a survey that concerns one of the central principles of the Academy, which is why it was widely reported. Aside from the in-depth feature in a cited source, the survey received significant coverage from university-centered publications such as University Business, Inside Higher Ed, and The College Post.

Suggested wording with citation:

In March 2022, Heterodox Academy released the results of a national survey of college students that found a majority polled believed that socio political climates on campuses discouraged the free expression of ideas. More than half of survey participants reported being hesitant to engage in conversation regarding topics considered to be controversial, such as gender, race, or religion.

References

F.

Add to become the fourth paragraph in the Programs and Activities section that the organization began the “Campus Communities” program in 2023. The program is an important example of how the organization is actually going about doing its work. The initiation of 23 separate “Campus Communities” represented a sizable expansion of the organization’s on-the-ground activities and was covered by reputable news sources that focus on higher education.

Suggested wording with citations:

In January 2023, Heterodox Academy began funding a program called “Campus Communities” to promote its principles on college campuses through guest speakers and events with a diversity of viewpoints. The program began with 23 participating university groups.

References

G.

Add to become the fifth paragraph in the Programs and activities section that the organization opened a research center in 2023. The research center is the first physical presence of the organization. Staff includes Wikipedia notable scholars.

Suggested wording with citations:

In September 2023, Heterodox Academy founded the Center for Academic Pluralism, a interdisciplinary research center based in New York City. Inaugural fellows during the 2023-24 academic year included Diana Mutz, a professor of political science, and Elizabeth Weiss, an anthropologist who was formerly at San Jose State University.

References

H.

Add to become the sixth paragraph in the Programs and activities section information about a panel discussion hosted by the organization in 2023. The suggested addition provides information about a decision made by Heterodox to revive an event that was canceled by a mainstream academic association The revival of the panel is a noteworthy example of the work the organization does to promote diverse viewpoints in academia, even when the topics are highly controversial.

Suggested wording with citations:

In November 2023, Heterodox Academy held a controversial panel discussion on the importance of biological sex in anthropological research that had originally been scheduled for the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association and Canadian Anthropological Society, but was canceled following concerns of transphobia. Heterodox said it “uncancelled” the event.

References

Thank you for your time spent on this review. Please let me know if I can offer any clarification. Peterjane8675309 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the request.

For A and B, especially B, it might be better to reduce the content on the executive directors, perhaps completely. These are non-notable persons with no other content about them in the article. Regardless, no need to specify the month of "August".

C: Instead: "As of late 2023, membership had was about 6,000."

D: Remove instead as undue.

E: Decline request. I don't have full access to the Chronicle of Higher Education ref, but from the other ref and backing articles, this pushes HA's narrative over that of the independent sources. --Hipal (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

F: Decline request. Per NOT, POV. If there are references that report on how the program is running rather than it's launch, then this should be revisited. --Hipal (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

G: Decline request. Per NOT, POV, as with F above, but likely to take a much longer time before any results are reported.

H: Decline request. Per NOT, POV. The ref appears less than reliable. --Hipal (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hipal: Thanks for your reply. Can you please review the following responses and then implement anything you’d like to approve? As a COI user, I should not directly edit the page.

For A and B, especially B, it might be better to reduce the content on the executive directors, perhaps completely. These are non-notable persons with no other content about them in the article. Regardless, no need to specify the month of "August".

That makes sense.

C: Instead: "As of late 2023, membership was about 6,000."

Thank you for the suggestion. Paring down the detail is a good idea. Here is the revised sentence:

As of late 2023, membership was about 6,000.

D: Remove instead as undue.

Thank you for this suggestion. It seems very reasonable. Here is the revised request. Please remove the third sentence of the Lead paragraph:

As of 2023, Heterodox Academy had about 5,000 members.

Reason for the change:

The most recently available membership numbers do not belong in Lead. Information that is readily subject to change shouldn’t have a prominent place in an overview of the topic. The same information is included in the body of the article; its inclusion in the Lead is WP:UNDUE.

E: Decline request. I don't have full access to the Chronicle of Higher Education ref, but from the other ref and backing articles, this pushes HA's narrative over that of the independent sources.

This is a straightforward reporting of activities of the organization as covered in a highly reputable source. WP:BALANCE does not apply here as that policy is concerned with disputed points of view. That’s not the case here. It’s simply an accounting of the organization’s activities as reported by high quality press. You’ll see very similar accounting of an organization’s activities in both American Civil Liberties Union and The Heritage Foundation.

Please see the relevant excerpt here:

The Real Source of Self-Censorship

March 22,2023, Chronicle of Higher Education Author/Byline: Megan Zahneis

On Wednesday a national survey from Heterodox Academy, a nonprofit membership organization that promotes viewpoint diversity in higher education, became the latest piece of research to shed light on the state of campus discourse, which is typically the stuff of newsmaking incidents or opinion pieces. The results of the surveys are consistent. Contrary to the fears expressed by Rodrigues, which implicitly affix blame to a liberal professoriate, students are more concerned with their peers’ judgment than with their professors’.

(...) Still, the topline data are head-turning: 58.5 percent of students surveyed by Heterodox reported being reluctant to discuss at least one of five controversial topics they were asked about — gender, politics, race, religion, and sexual orientation.

F: Decline request. Per NOT, POV. If there are references that report on how the program is running rather than it's launch, then this should be revisited.

The fact that this program began is noteworthy in-and-of-itself, as evidenced by the fact that it was covered in one of the most prominent sources in education media. It is verifiable encyclopedic content that is presented in a neutral point of view.

G: Decline request. Per NOT, POV, as with F above, but likely to take a much longer time before any results are reported.

This is an event that occurred and its occurrence was covered in independent media sources, thereby making it a noteworthy event in the organization’s history. In asking to wait for “results to be reported,” you seem to be confusing Notability with noteworthiness. Per WP:NOTABILITY, notability guidelines do not apply to the contents of articles.

H: Decline request. Per NOT, POV. The ref appears less than reliable.

The source cited here is a reputable news organization with a full editorial board and an advisory board of prominent national journalists. The publication meets the standards for a Reliable Source on Wikipedia.

Thanks for taking the time to review these responses.Peterjane8675309 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

References

I don't have the time to delve into this deeply, but overall this appears to be at odds with POV and NOT. --Hipal (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Declined per Hipal. Quetstar (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Contested New York Times reference

I have tried to add a passage from a New York Times article by Thomas Friedman that is relevant to the Heterodox Academy entry. One editor deleted the passage on the grounds that Friedman's article is not peer-reviewed and that peer-reviewed material exists on the topic. While I am sympathetic to that argument and will certainly add peer reviewed sources, I am not convinced that a New York Times article is redundant simply because peer reviewed material exists on the subject. Another editor, Hipal, justified the deletions by saying that the "ref[erence]" is "poor," but the New York Times is certainly a credible reference. What's more, it is not at all clear why the Beauchamp-Quintana opinion from Vox is appropriate for this entry (see the article's final paragraph), whereas Friedman's NYT opinion is not. The editor has not addressed this inconsistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Speech Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC) Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The Vox source appears to be directly and explicitly about this subject - the New York Times source merely mentions this subject. ElKevbo (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There's more content about Heterodox Academy in 2019 Vox piece by Beauchamp. But the content from the NY Times Friedman piece can't be dismissed as undue as it's substantive and related to central aspects of the subject here. It's certainly due for mention in the body of this article. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. But I would contest the idea that Friedman "merely mentions" the subject; he uses Heterodox Academy data to support an argument on freedom of thought. Here again is the passage: "In November 2022, the Heterodox Academy, a nonprofit advocacy group, surveyed 1,564 full-time college students ages 18 to 24. The group found that nearly three in five students (59 percent) hesitate to speak about controversial topics like religion, politics, race, sexual orientation and gender for fear of negative backlashes by classmates."

I am not aware of any rule that a valid secondary source needs to be exclusively devoted to a topic before it can be cited on Wikipedia. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

There is no such rule. But we are not obligated to cite a source just because it mentions the subject of an article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

"There is no such rule. But we are not obligated to cite a source just because it mentions the subject of an article."

If there is no obligation to include a source, that does not logically entail that there is an obligation to exclude it.

When you say "undertaken by a biased party" in response to Jweiss11, who says that they are biased? You? That seems a tendentious observation for someone who is supposed to be a neutral Wikipedia editor. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's disingenuous for you to remove information from this article that includes sources credibly accusing this organization of bias and also ask another editor "who says that they are biased?"

And Wikipedia editors are in no sense called to be "neutral." We work to make articles neutral in many ways but we are not only allowed to have our own opinions and judgments but we must have them to do this work effectively. And knowing when a particular subject is biased and misuses information and arguments is especially important. ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

"Free speech on campus" is not the subject of this article. (And if it were, there are much better sources than an editorial in a newspaper, especially one that cites a 2-year old survey undertaken by a biased party.) ElKevbo (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

ElKevbo, Freedom of expression in academia is related to the subject of this article. Your comment is analogous to saying "baseball" is not the subject of New York Yankees. What would those other, better sources be, and are they not also biased? Jweiss11 (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article about Heterodox Academy, or should be. Mentions of use of their research is not encyclopedic, at least not without far better references.

The content is:

In a 2024 New York Times article, Thomas Friedman cites Heterodox Academy survey data to support his argument that universities are not doing enough to foster dialogue among students: "In November 2022, the Heterodox Academy ... surveyed 1,564 full-time college students ages 18 to 24. The group found that nearly three in five students (59 percent) hesitate to speak about controversial topics like religion, politics, race, sexual orientation and gender for fear of negative backlashes by classmates."

That is grossly UNDUE, and SOAP. Sanctions apply. This is a huge waste of time. --Hipal (talk) 23:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I would object if someone added or argued for the retention of information in New York Yankees that was only tangentially related to that particular team. Indeed, "baseball" is not the subject of that article. And "freedom of expression in academia" is not the subject of this article.

As to what sources are much better for this article, I'd need to spend some time doing my own research to provide specific recommendations as this is not among my specific scholarly specializations. I would start by looking for longitudinal work done by respected scholars. For example, I think there have been relevant questions included in HERI surveys going back several decades. ElKevbo (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

ElKevbo, except the content that Friedman discussed in the NYT is not tangentially related to Heterodox Academy. It is content about Heterodox Academy's research into a subject that is core to their existence, and it offers substance to what the organization actually does, irrespective of whether any given editor here is skeptical of Heterodox Academy's integrity, bias, or competence. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is not about "a subject that is core to [Heterodox Academy's] existence" - it's about Heterodox Academy. And it's a poor source for that off-topic subject, too. ElKevbo (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The source isn't "poor" and the cited passaged is relevant to Heterodox Academy. Your argument here siloes concepts in a way that strains reason. Per my comparison offered earlier, note that the lead of New York Yankees cites this article: [2]. The analog of your augment here would have us remove the passage "According to Forbes, the Yankees are the second-highest valued sports franchise in the world, after the NFL's Dallas Cowboys, with an estimated value in 2023 of approximately $7.1 billion." because the subject of that article is the New York Yankees, not the valuation of sports franchises across the world. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Your argument here siloes concepts in a way that strains reason. While I wouldn't be so uncivil as to use that language, from my perspective it applies to the arguments for inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, that's a reasonable criticism of a weak argument about content. We have substantive, central content about the subject here in an RS. What is uncivil is casting spurious accusations of behavioral violations on another editor simply because they've offered have editorial opinion that differs from yours. You approach here comes of as "if you challenge my arguments, I will try to get you punished". That's pretty hostile. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Quintana ref

Quintana reference The previous characterization of Quintana's article was inaccurate. PLEASE READ THE QUINTANA PIECE HERE (I cannot transcribe it without violating copyright): > — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free speech scholar (talk • contribs) 01:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

References

I don't have access. I assume you're referring to [3][4][5] Could you quote sentences/paragraphs from the ref that you feel summarize Quintana's viewpoint on the matter? --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ideology and reception

Because the "Ideology and Reception" section has proved the most contentious in the article, I suggest eliminating it altogether. All legitimate opinions about the organization in bona fide sources ought to be included--or none. Cherry picking yields inaccuracy. Free speech scholar (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I tried to delete the section. Perhaps deletion was premature, but I would point out the following advice by user:ElKevbo in response to a previous edit: "I simply don't think a mention in an op ed merits inclusion in this encyclopedia article [the editor is referring to a New York Times op-ed citing Heterodox Academy] especially on a topic that has been and continues to be the subject of serious study published in peer-reviewed scholarly venues. If other similar material in the article should also be removed on those grounds then you are welcome to remove it."

I did remove similar material on similar grounds, as advised. Both the Quintana and Beauchamp pieces are op-eds. Neither is peer reviewed; indeed, neither is based on peer-reviewed sources. Both pieces are several years old. user:ElKevbo nevertheless objected to their removal. Catch-22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free speech scholar (talk • contribs) 22:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The primary objection to the inclusion of the NYT source is that it's not about this subject and only mentions it in passing, not that NYT is not peer-reviewed. I'll have to look into the Chronicle of Higher Ed article later, when I'm on campus or logged into the campus VPN. But the Vox article is about this subject. ElKevbo (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I will again quote you back to you, along with my comments for context:

"I am not aware of any rule that a valid secondary source needs to be exclusively devoted to a topic before it can be cited on Wikipedia. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 22:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such rule. But we are not obligated to cite a source just because it mentions the subject of an article. ElKevbo (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]"

My response to your reply was as follows: "If there is no obligation to include a source, that does not logically entail that there is an obligation to exclude it."

I also cited a peer-reviewed source and a respected historian of education from a reputable source, both of which referenced Heterodox Academy. These too were deleted, even though a previous editorial consensus (three years ago) approved the addition of them. The criteria for inclusion in this article strike me as shifting and arbitrary. Free speech scholar (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you drop this. The references you want removed look fine, their content directly relevant and DUE. --Hipal (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

You continue to address my arguments in a highly selective fashion. Free speech scholar (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that some editors are operating under different rules depending on whether the source in question offers a negative or positive/neutral opinion of the subject. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm pretty sure the overall argument in general, namely that, and I paraphrase, "conservative speech is under attack on college campuses" has been deubnked again and again. I read an article last month, whose name I can't recall, that basically traced out the history of it, showing that it's just like the "War on Christmas" that conservatives pull out of their chestnut closet once a year, in other words, a total myth. That's the POV we should address. But it's an incredibly interesting argument in any respects, as it forms the basis for the modern conservative movement, and without it, they wouldn't have the movement in the first place. It's too much for conservatives to even consider that their ideas are unpopular, no, they must create an imaginary threat that prevents them from speaking their minds. That's after all the entire basis of the Powell memo that we all know and love. "Round and round she goes, where she stops, nobody knows!" The great circus continues. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)