This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Heterodox Academy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)Reply
"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."
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)Reply
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)Reply
your comments here suggestPlease 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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subjectshould 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)Reply
I don't have full access to the first. --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
playing words games to impose a political slant on the material?Dumuzid (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
The user below has a request that an edit be made to Heterodox Academy. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is high. Please be very patient. There are currently 153 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. |
I am opening this Request Edit because an initial review started but after I posted replies answering objections for the reviewer, they left a note (at the bottom of this post) saying they had no time to do any further work. Peterjane8675309 (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I work for Heterodox Academy and have read Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policies. I’m posting this as part of trying to abide by the rules. Thanks for reviewing this proposal.
A.
Add to the History section, third paragraph, as the fourth sentence, that Michael Regnier became executive director in 2022. The information in the article is out of date. The suggested addition names the most recent executive director as reported by a reputable source.
Suggested wording with citation:
In August 2022, Michael Regnier became executive director.[1]
References
B.
Update the Infobox to reflect the name of the executive director as Michael Regnier. It is established above that Regnier became executive director in 2022.
C.
Update the number of members in the last sentence of the third paragraph of the History section reads that membership was last reported at 5,000. The page is out of date and the suggested addition provides the most current information.
Current:
As of early 2023, membership had grown to 5,000.[1]
Suggested new wording with citation:
As of September 2023, membership was around 6,000 students, faculty, and administrators.[2]
References
D.
Update the third sentence of the lead paragraph to reflect the most recent membership numbers for the organization. The information has already been established in the body of the article.
Current:
As of 2023, Heterodox Academy had about 5,000 members.
Suggested wording:
As of 2023, Heterodox Academy had about 6,000 members.
References
E.
Add after the first sentence of the third paragraph in the Programs and activities section information about the results of a survey that concerns one of the central principles of the Academy, which is why it was widely reported. Aside from the in-depth feature in a cited source, the survey received significant coverage from university-centered publications such as University Business, Inside Higher Ed, and The College Post.
Suggested wording with citation:
In March 2022, Heterodox Academy released the results of a national survey of college students that found a majority polled believed that socio political climates on campuses discouraged the free expression of ideas.[1] More than half of survey participants reported being hesitant to engage in conversation regarding topics considered to be controversial, such as gender, race, or religion.[2]
References
"… 58.5 percent of students surveyed by Heterodox reported being reluctant to discuss at least one of five controversial topics they were asked about — gender, politics, race, religion, and sexual orientation.
F.
Add to become the fourth paragraph in the Programs and Activities section that the organization began the “Campus Communities” program in 2023. The program is an important example of how the organization is actually going about doing its work. The initiation of 23 separate “Campus Communities” represented a sizable expansion of the organization’s on-the-ground activities and was covered by reputable news sources that focus on higher education.
Suggested wording with citations:
In January 2023, Heterodox Academy began funding a program called “Campus Communities” to promote its principles on college campuses through guest speakers and events with a diversity of viewpoints.[1] The program began with 23 participating university groups.[2]
References
"Heterodox Academy is starting a new program that will provide support for a network of groups on college campuses to further the organization's mission of promoting "open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement.""
G.
Add to become the fifth paragraph in the Programs and activities section that the organization opened a research center in 2023. The research center is the first physical presence of the organization. Staff includes Wikipedia notable scholars.
Suggested wording with citations:
In September 2023, Heterodox Academy founded the Center for Academic Pluralism, a interdisciplinary research center based in New York City.[1] Inaugural fellows during the 2023-24 academic year included Diana Mutz, a professor of political science, and Elizabeth Weiss,[1] an anthropologist who was formerly at San Jose State University.[2]
References
H.
Add to become the sixth paragraph in the Programs and activities section information about a panel discussion hosted by the organization in 2023. The suggested addition provides information about a decision made by Heterodox to revive an event that was canceled by a mainstream academic association The revival of the panel is a noteworthy example of the work the organization does to promote diverse viewpoints in academia, even when the topics are highly controversial.
Suggested wording with citations:
In November 2023, Heterodox Academy held a controversial panel discussion on the importance of biological sex in anthropological research that had originally been scheduled for the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association and Canadian Anthropological Society, but was canceled following concerns of transphobia. Heterodox said it “uncancelled” the event.[1]
References
Thank you for your time spent on this review. Please let me know if I can offer any clarification. Peterjane8675309 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Hipal: Thanks for your reply. Can you please review the following responses and then implement anything you’d like to approve? As a COI user, I should not directly edit the page.
For A and B, especially B, it might be better to reduce the content on the executive directors, perhaps completely. These are non-notable persons with no other content about them in the article. Regardless, no need to specify the month of "August".
That makes sense.
C: Instead: "As of late 2023, membership was about 6,000."
Thank you for the suggestion. Paring down the detail is a good idea. Here is the revised sentence:
As of late 2023, membership was about 6,000.[1]
D: Remove instead as undue.
Thank you for this suggestion. It seems very reasonable. Here is the revised request. Please remove the third sentence of the Lead paragraph:
As of 2023, Heterodox Academy had about 5,000 members.
Reason for the change:
The most recently available membership numbers do not belong in Lead. Information that is readily subject to change shouldn’t have a prominent place in an overview of the topic. The same information is included in the body of the article; its inclusion in the Lead is WP:UNDUE.
E: Decline request. I don't have full access to the Chronicle of Higher Education ref, but from the other ref and backing articles, this pushes HA's narrative over that of the independent sources.
This is a straightforward reporting of activities of the organization as covered in a highly reputable source. WP:BALANCE does not apply here as that policy is concerned with disputed points of view. That’s not the case here. It’s simply an accounting of the organization’s activities as reported by high quality press. You’ll see very similar accounting of an organization’s activities in both American Civil Liberties Union and The Heritage Foundation.
Please see the relevant excerpt here:
The Real Source of Self-Censorship
March 22,2023, Chronicle of Higher Education Author/Byline: Megan Zahneis
On Wednesday a national survey from Heterodox Academy, a nonprofit membership organization that promotes viewpoint diversity in higher education, became the latest piece of research to shed light on the state of campus discourse, which is typically the stuff of newsmaking incidents or opinion pieces. The results of the surveys are consistent. Contrary to the fears expressed by Rodrigues, which implicitly affix blame to a liberal professoriate, students are more concerned with their peers’ judgment than with their professors’.
(...) Still, the topline data are head-turning: 58.5 percent of students surveyed by Heterodox reported being reluctant to discuss at least one of five controversial topics they were asked about — gender, politics, race, religion, and sexual orientation.
F: Decline request. Per NOT, POV. If there are references that report on how the program is running rather than it's launch, then this should be revisited.
The fact that this program began is noteworthy in-and-of-itself, as evidenced by the fact that it was covered in one of the most prominent sources in education media. It is verifiable encyclopedic content that is presented in a neutral point of view.
G: Decline request. Per NOT, POV, as with F above, but likely to take a much longer time before any results are reported.
This is an event that occurred and its occurrence was covered in independent media sources, thereby making it a noteworthy event in the organization’s history. In asking to wait for “results to be reported,” you seem to be confusing Notability with noteworthiness. Per WP:NOTABILITY, notability guidelines do not apply to the contents of articles.
H: Decline request. Per NOT, POV. The ref appears less than reliable.
The source cited here is a reputable news organization with a full editorial board and an advisory board of prominent national journalists. The publication meets the standards for a Reliable Source on Wikipedia.
Thanks for taking the time to review these responses.Peterjane8675309 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
References