Talk:Heterodox Academy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)