Talk:Heterodox Academy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Appending Chris Martin to list of founders

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the spirit of openness!

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

Appending Chris Martin to list of founders (II)

• Specific text to be added or removed:

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

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

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

• References supporting change:

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

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

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

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

Podcast Section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential refs

• https://www.chronicle.com/article/how-heterodox-academy-hopes-to-change-the-campus-conversation
• https://www.highereddive.com/news/heterodox-academy-wants-to-lovingly-push-viewpoint-diversity-at-colleges/641437/

I don't have full access to the first. --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Did you see my edit summary?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mission statement in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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