Talk:Heterodox Academy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Political correctness

@Aquillion:[1] The Vox ref is emphasizes political correctness, and having the link in this article to political correctness gives the reader wider and proper context. Removal seems a POV violation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Membership (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Moral panic"

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

Sources:

1. op-ed in the Stanford Daily by unknown author [2]
2. op-ed in Salon by another unknown [3] Loksmythe (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Can someone summarize the Goldstein ref?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADVERT tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rubenstein ref links to a different article

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

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

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

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

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

Over-emphasizing Haidt's earlier work is inappropriate

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

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

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

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

Third-party tag

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

(Edit conflict)

Thanks for starting a discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expansion of lead to include founding and founders

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not: [4]

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

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

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

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

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

Conservative

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

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

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

Hiring of Tomasi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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