Template:Did you know nominations/Bias response teams
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bias response teams
- ...
that bias response teams are part of a second wave of campus speech regulation in the United States? Source: BRTs were part of the “second wave” of campus speech regulation
Created by FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk). Self-nominated at 12:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC).
- Comment: The Fire appears to be wholly partisan and unreliable, and definitely should not be used as a source for the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I should say that this piece is, since I haven't taken in FIRE as a whole. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Striking ALT0. Looking for an alternative. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- theleekycauldron, would you reconsider the cut off ALT0 now that I have added another inline citation for it which can be read along with the FIRE cite, and partially supports the FIRE content used with regard to the hook? Please see the first line for the section '#Background and context' and the section cite Miller et al. 2018 with the quote parameter/field reading "... flurry of scholarship in student affairs in the 1990s followed judicial rebuke of colleges and universities that created rigid campus speech codes in the 1980s and early 1990s [...] Since campus speech codes began to be struck down..."
- Either way I think it may be better to shift to a new ALT, such as below:
- ALT1
... that bias response teams are not thought police?Source: Claims that bias response teams function as the thought police on campuses are false (Inside Higher Ed) - ALT1.1
... that bias response teams are not Orwellian?
- ALT1
- FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk)
- We aren't posting opinion-derived hooks as DYKs (I mean, we won't post hooks sourced to opinion pieces); besides, you've made the matter worse because you can't trump one opinion piece with another one you personally prefer, as you did in the criticism section (it's a clear violation of neutral point of view, whatever my opinion on the article subject). In particular, saying in WP-voice: "we have opinions 1,2,3,4,...,15, but THIS PARTICULAR PIECE says/explains they are bullshit" is not the way to go. If you have opinion pieces that say that the critical point of view is exaggerated or relies on falsehoods, you may show the debate as "proponents (name) say XYZ, opponents (name) say ABC/disagree with proponent's X, arguing that...", in proportion to the weight of the argument. But this version is untenable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Szmenderowiecki; thank you for this explanation.
- ALT2...
that reports to bias response systems in American universities have included an incident of insults shouted from a car, denial of leave for a cultural holiday and a drawing in the snow? Source: Please see section "#Reporting examples" for sources to back up the hook.
- ALT2...
- I do have some doubts that the hook now picks up routine news. However, I will leave this to the discretion of the validity of the hook to the reviewer. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
- Szmenderowiecki; thank you for this explanation.
- We aren't posting opinion-derived hooks as DYKs (I mean, we won't post hooks sourced to opinion pieces); besides, you've made the matter worse because you can't trump one opinion piece with another one you personally prefer, as you did in the criticism section (it's a clear violation of neutral point of view, whatever my opinion on the article subject). In particular, saying in WP-voice: "we have opinions 1,2,3,4,...,15, but THIS PARTICULAR PIECE says/explains they are bullshit" is not the way to go. If you have opinion pieces that say that the critical point of view is exaggerated or relies on falsehoods, you may show the debate as "proponents (name) say XYZ, opponents (name) say ABC/disagree with proponent's X, arguing that...", in proportion to the weight of the argument. But this version is untenable. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Striking ALT0. Looking for an alternative. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- ? - Neutral: - ?
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting: - ?
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
The sourcing and POV seems mostly solid but the FIRE article is obviously an opinion piece, so it shouldn't be quoted directly as a source for basic info in the "Background and context" section. As you mention above, the second source only partially supports the FIRE cite. This should be removed for the same reason that the first hook was rejected. The hook is cited, but I'm also unsure of whether a series of reported incidents from UMass is interesting enough.(On that note, I'm not even sure if the article needs a section listing incidents reported to various campus response teams.) Are there any alternate hook options? BuySomeApples (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments. I will make some changes. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- While there are more changes to be made, and new hooks to be found... my intention for the section listing incidents reported to various campus response teams was to provide some examples of incidents that have actually been reported. For now, I have removed all the names of the colleges and universities, and have merged the remaining text into another section. If this particular content still doesn't seem to suit the article, it can be removed. The article will still carry the formal explanations of bias incidents. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- BuySomeApples, I don't have an interesting hook for this. This is my last attempt at a hook... :D
- ALT3... that bias response teams are part of a balancing act to improve campus climate? Bias response teams... There are a range of expectations or key functions for these entities beyond report response, which commonly include: ... Creating and promoting educational initiatives to foster an inclusive campus climate, On the one hand, a university needs to have mechanisms in place to respond to discrimination, hate, and bias to ensure an equitable learning environment for its students. On the other hand, bias response systems can all too easily become a kind of speech police that stifle open dialogue and freedom of expression.
- ALT3.1... that bias response teams are part of a balancing act between campus diversity and free speech?
- FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- BuySomeApples, I don't have an interesting hook for this. This is my last attempt at a hook... :D
- While there are more changes to be made, and new hooks to be found... my intention for the section listing incidents reported to various campus response teams was to provide some examples of incidents that have actually been reported. For now, I have removed all the names of the colleges and universities, and have merged the remaining text into another section. If this particular content still doesn't seem to suit the article, it can be removed. The article will still carry the formal explanations of bias incidents. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
That works @FacetsOfNonStickPans: thanks for bearing with me on this! Approving ALT3 and ALT3b. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)