This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Two newspapers have published substantial articles about Prof Haidt recently.
The first is a big deal. He was the subject of the Wall Street Journal's Weekend Interview for 30 June.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Secondly, The Washington Times carried a profile of Haidt by Emily Esfahani Smith.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)We could probably improve the article by citing one or both of these, but I'm too busy to do it myself for a few weeks. Cheers, CWC 06:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
While we're at it, the whole subject of groupishness was the focus of a big review in Science recently. The articles were a little bent, but worthy of note. Lfstevens ( talk) 07:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The Hedges quote seems a bit libelous, since he asserts things about the subject's opinions that are not supported by and are contradicted by the words of the subject. — BozoTheScary ( talk) 07:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
A fair bit of material in one section was apparently about the opinions of a blogger on a web site. According to [[WP::RS}}, we should cite only reliable sources. Also, if anyone choose to restore content that has been removed, the burden of proof is on them that the material being restored accurately represents the content of reliable sources. Leadwind ( talk) 05:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
One of the criticism sites http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/c60moralpsychjhaidt.php is getting a 509 - bandwidth exceeded. Is that a reliable source? Bodysurfinyon ( talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time to edit the article just now (it needs a lot of work), but I will note one major error made by lots of people: Prof Haidt has not been awarded the Templeton Prize (UK£1,000,000 +), only a Templeton Prize, this one for "Positive Psychology", in 2001. See this Reliable Source: the Templeton Foundation awarded four prizes to psychology researchers, Prof H getting first prize of $100,000 and the other winners getting $50,000, $30,000 and $20,000.
(Part of the problem is that the John Templeton Foundation's website is a @(&!#$)% mess.)
Another major, major error here at Wikipedia is to report controversial claims about living people based only on self-published third-party sources. That makes the quotes from Magee and Myers totally, blatantly, obviously unacceptable, even if they had the much smaller 2001 prize in mind. Seriously. Everyone involved in inserting or retaining those quotes deserves a hard slap with a big WP:trout. Reinserting stuff like that will get you blocked. Don't.
Note that AFAICT Magee and Myers both assumed Prof H had been awarded the big Templeton Prize, making mention of their attacks on Prof H even more unacceptable in this article.
The remaining criticisms badly need context and coverage of any responses Prof H made to them. I hope to have a go at them, or even the whole article, in the next week or so. Cheers, CWC
I am undoing this edit - mostly because "proportionality" is not one of the moral foundations - but also, the note about conservatives not caring for groups for which they do not belong really needs a citation.
(cur | prev) 18:30, 13 March 2013 Steve Shiffrin (talk | contribs) . . (13,560 bytes) (+87) . . (Changes to reflect Haight's view that liberals value liberty/oppression more than proportionality, and conservatives do not equally value care for others) (undo)
Haidt found that the more politically liberal or left-wing people are, the more they tend to value care and liberty/oppression, and the less they tend to value proportionality, loyalty, respect for authority and purity. Conservatives or right-wing people, tend to value all the moral foundations somewhat equally with the exception of care for others outside the groups to which they belong.
Nice catches @ Neptune's Trident: Like how you stuck a fork in it (diff). It's done (for now). - Thanks; LeoRomero ( talk) 21:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Haidt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly an instance of snark intended to denigrate a critic, rather than a defensible description of their qualifications, since Sam Harris has indeed received a doctorate in Cognitive Neuroscience from UCLA, producing original research relevant to the question of "how moral reasoning works."
This is meaningful, since he has expert knowledge in a field directly relevant to the questions which provoke Jonathan Haidt's analyses; they happen to differ in their conclusions about the impact of religious belief on the conduct of moral actors in society.
Both have their points.
thanks, bonze - bonze blayk ( talk) 23:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Edit 7/16/19... we seem to have come to an agreement and are working together to improve the article. So dispute resolved for now. Chrisvacc ( talk) 04:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I don't know if I qualify as a "connected contributor" but working in the Social Sciences, I do know Jonathan, as well as a number of other social scientists in the field. I don't feel as though I'm connected enough to qualify as a COI, but figured I'd list it for reasons of full disclosure. Can anyone other than Ronz provide justification for the "Written Like Advert" tag. The tag keeps getting removed, but he puts it back. I agree with the other editors agree that the article looks pretty standard, but don't feel like getting into an edit war. I do agree that the 4th paragraph in the introduction is a mess, especially after the American Academy of Arts and Sciences was added, but the rest of the article looks pretty standard. Initially the article was a complete mess, as it appears some of it was copy and pasted from the subjects website, but aside from that paragraph the article looks like pretty much every other page on Wikipedia.
And even the fourth paragraph It's common for scientists to have their accolades listed in the introduction.
For instance, the article on Steven Pinker (a researcher comparable to Haidt's) is listed in Wikipedia:Good articles list as an exemplary article, and there doesn't appear to be much difference:
From Pinker's article:
Pinker has been named as one of the world's most influential intellectuals by various magazines. He has won awards from the American Psychological Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Institution, the Cognitive Neuroscience Society and the American Humanist Association. He delivered the Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh in 2013. He has served on the editorial boards of a variety of journals, and on the advisory boards of several institutions. He has frequently participated in public debates on science and society.
From Haidt's:
Haidt has attracted both support and criticism for his critique of the current state of universities and his interpretation of progressive values.[4] He has been named one of the "top global thinkers" by Foreign Policy magazine,[5] and one of the "top world thinkers" by Prospect magazine.[6] He is among the most cited researchers in political psychology[7] and moral psychology,[8] and has given four TED talks.[9] In 2019, Haidt was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[10]
From the article pertaining to Soloman Asch (Also listed in WP:Good Articles)
He is most well known for his conformity experiments, in which he demonstrated the influence of group pressure on opinions. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Asch as the 41st most cited psychologist of the 20th century.[5]
You can view the rest of the list here, under Psychology and psychologists: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Culture,_sociology,_and_psychology
I do think it needs some work, but I think the tag is excessive. What are your guys' opinions on the matter?
Chrisvacc ( talk) 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit for those reading from the 'dispute' pages (whenever you get to this): On July 2019 Ronz made a string of edits deleting text and reversing people's edits from various parts of the article. The justification was that he didn't approve of the citations. The claims that were deleted were completely uncontroversial claims and rather than using the citation needed tag, he deleted entire paragraphs of text, none of which were controversial. For example the text His third book, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018), was written with Greg Lukianoff was deleted even though there's no reason to think that statement is controversial or untrue. But since he didnt approve of the citation, the sentence was deleted. The following was my original comment:
Please review WP:BLP. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
3O Response: We have four tags, so I'll address them separately
1) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (May 2019) There has been ample opportunity for the person who put this in to provide their reasoing on this talk page, and none has been forthcoming. The editor with the alleged connection has disclosed that they have met the man, but I'm seeing no evidence that they have a close connection. Unless someone can explain why they think the editor in question has a close relationship with Haidt, the tag should be removed. It can't remain forever solely on the basis of an unfounded allegation.
2) This article needs more complete citations for verification. (July 2019). I'm not seeing this at all. the article is throroughly referenced. The references aren't very good but they are copious. I can't find any unreferenced claims in the current version. So in my opinion this tag should to be removed. We may not think the references are very good, and that will be discussed under the appropriate tag below, but I can't see how we can possibly claim that it lacks sufficient references.
3) This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. (July 2019) This one I am actually going to remove myself . Per policy, the tag should be removed when "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given". "The general types of problems this article has overall" is not a satisfactory explanation of what the issue is.
4)This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (July 2019) This one has to stay in my opinion. We have a lot of sources that are basically WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:PRIMARY. Book reviews, staff pages, interviews with the subject etc. These aren't disqualified sources, but they are indeed sources closely associated with the subject. This article desperately needs more third party biography material. Mark Marathon ( talk) 09:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC) .
COI? two SPA accounts contributed half of the article, one copying from Haidt's websiteLook at the article stats, and the articles about his books. Inexperienced, SPA editors dominate the editing. Sockpuppetry at the book articles. This looks like something more than fan-editing, not that fan-editing isn't a huge problem.
Copy and Pasted from User_talk:Chrisvacc - discussion moves to Talk page
I mean these:
Together with Paul Rozin and Clark McCauley, Haidt developed the Disgust Scale, [1] which has been widely used to measure individual differences in sensitivity to disgust. Haidt, Rozin, and McCauley have written on the psychology of disgust as an emotion that began as a guardian of the mouth (against pathogens), but then expanded during biological and cultural evolution to become a guardian of the body more generally, and of the social and moral order. [2]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help)
Haidt's principal line of research has been on the nature and mechanisms of moral judgment. In the 1990s, he developed the social intuitionist model, which posits that moral judgment is mostly based on automatic processes—moral intuitions—rather than on conscious reasoning [1]. People engage in reasoning largely to find evidence to support their initial intuitions. Haidt's main paper on the social intuitionist model, "The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail", has been cited 7,858 times. [2]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
almost 50% of the refs are similar to thatThen it might be a good guideline to keep a similar ratio. My rule of thumb is to only use primary sources to expand upon important information identified in independent sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Please don't change your comments after someone has responded
@ Ronz:@ Tsavage: The following claim needs a better citation:
Since 2012, Haidt has referred to himself as a political centrist. [1] better source needed
I found a tweet where he states his political beliefs: https://twitter.com/jonhaidt/status/955920434792419328?lang=en
From the tweet: "I have never been right of center. I have never voted for a republican, nor given a dollar to a conservative candidate or cause. I am a centrist, a JS Mill liberal, who is now politically homeless."
I do believe that citing that is fine as per Wikipedia's [ Self Publishing Policy]:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: 1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. 2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). 3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. 4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. 5. The article is not based primarily on such sources. Chrisvacc ( talk) 15:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
References
I added a section for the books. Maybe Ronz you can to check through them and see if any claims need citations other than the ones I noted.
There are a number of primary sources but, I wanted to make a note about about primary sources… and I can find the policy page for this if needed i'd just have to dig... but okay, so when you’re citing someone’s claims, it’s best practice to reference the place where they made such claims.
For example If the claim was “Timmy claimed the sky is green” the citation could be the article where you see Timmy saying “the sky is green.”
Now if you’re trying to say “the sky is green”.. as an actual fact, not claiming that “timmy says the sky is green”… the claim “the sky is green” needs independent sources varifying that ‘fact.’
In other words, a citation is proof of a claim. The claim “timmy says the sky is green” can be proven by showing the article where he said that. The claim “the sky is green” would have to be backed up by a physics article, if that makes sense.
In other other words, if the claim is that “Haidt and Lukianoff argue that the culture on campus is contributing to mental health issues” the appropriate citation is the an article where you can see they actually argue that, which is usually primary. If the claim is “he culture on campus is contributing to mental health issues” you would have to link to independent sources showing that that’s actually a fact, which is better to use someone other than the subject of the article, if that makes sense
Again, if you need the link to this article talking about this I can find it, but I’d probably have to dig.
But anyway, check out the section I added and let me know what you think. Chrisvacc ( talk) 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I added a section on scientific contributions in the lede. Haidt is much more notable for his work on moral foundations theory than he is on his books. While I think his books (esp Righteous Mind and Coddling) are notable, they're not as much what he's known for. I think with the work we've done it might be okay to remove this tags:
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (May 2019)
Ronz has purged most of the non independent citations. I think it's in pretty good shape now. We're just going to have to watch this page. If it becomes more of a problem maybe we can request it be semi-protected. I don't think it will be though. It looks like most of the SPA edits were coming from Heterodox, and Haidt no longer has affiliation with them. It looks like those edits were made back when he was the president of Heterodox.
Thoughts? Chrisvacc ( talk) 15:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Revisted article after a few days -- hugely improved. From the reader's view that I originally came to it with, adding the summary of Haidt's scientific contributions to the intro, and adding a citation to "publications and theoretical advances in four key areas" in "Research contributions" make a critical difference, they were the main flags when I first read the article -- what he does and what he's known for are now easy to find and check into. No article tags is also a big plus. :) -- Tsavage ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Since this page is about Jonathan Haidt, as a person, I think it may also be helpful to add some more information about his upbringing. There is only one sentence on that within this article. His works/books and contributions are important, and I think learning more about his past will help these other sections become better understood. Lmesch ( talk) 05:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I feel that the "Reception" section is unduly negative about Haidt, but I'm unsure the best way to proceed so I wanted to get other editors' thoughts. Basically, aside from the award he received, which should probably be in a separate "Recognition" section along with other honors, there are three negative items and one response from Haidt. On the other hand, if we look at the pages for each of his three books, the reviews are positive on balance.
If nobody objects, I'd like to make one paragraph for each book and list who gave positive and negative reviews of them based on the "Reception" sections on their pages. I wouldn't go into any depth on what exactly their praise and criticism was aimed at. Then the existing critiques could join those paragraphs—the first one with The Happiness Hypothesis and the other two with The Righteous Mind. On the other hand, if people feel that reception of the individual books doesn't belong on this page, I think the existing material should be moved to the pages for the respective books and the section should be turned into a "Recognition" section for the award he received. Gazelle55 ( talk) 23:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Given the past problems identified in the discussions above, and the requirements of WP:BLP, it might be helpful to have some general inclusion criteria for everything in the Publications section. For books, the common criteria should be fine: a corresponding Wikipedia article, or an independent source demonstrating its importance. I've not taken much part in discussions on inclusion criteria for research articles, but I'd expect impact factor to be useful. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Opinion columns should be treated differently. I'd rather remove all of them, unless there's very strong evidence they're important. We disagree on how SOAP is interpreted. I believe ArbCom has made it clear that it's not limited to just articles themselves.If the Arbitration Committee has made decisions on that, then the subsection on "Biased or opinionated sources" on the WP:RS policy page and the secondary subsection on "Bias in sources" on the WP:NPOV policy page need be revised to reflect that. The subsection on WP:RS explicitly states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. ... Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." The secondary subsection on WP:NPOV states: "biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid."
We seem to agree on "Selected articles" for the most part. Are you aware of any Wikipedia articles or other guidance on how to choose and follow an appropriate inclusion criteria? ... As for books: Are you aware of any general consensus that we could follow? I was just suggesting a general inclusion criteria, not something specific for a bibliography. I just want to keep the fans and anti-fans from creating problems here.Keeping fans and anti-fans from creating problems is a perfectly defensible concern, but I'm afraid I'm unaware of any such criteria. Like WP:NB, the criteria on WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC are for the notability of the author or academic rather than for articles that they've written. Perhaps we should start identifying which academic articles Haidt has written that have the highest impact factors or citation counts and which are the lowest, and then make a judgment as to what the acceptable threshold should be for how many other articles should be included. As for the books, I would reiterate what I said before and that WP:NB is about inclusion of a Wikipedia article about the book. Per his website, the 3 books that he has written or co-written have been published, 1 is soon to be published, and the books that he has edited or co-edited should be included, but I don't think the excerpts of his books that have been published separately should necessarily be mentioned. That's unnecessary. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Could you make a proposal on what we include with a brief summary as to why?I'm not sure what else there is for me to say. I propose including all books written or edited minus those that are excerpts of previous books because an author's bibliography should include all books that the person has written or edited while excerpts of previous books are duplicative. Books are more substantial than articles, and academics don't typically write as many books as articles in their professional careers. As such, restrictive criteria based on impact factors or citation counts for academic articles is appropriate.
I'm concerned we may be talking past each other. I asked about general consensus that we can follow. I'm assuming you don't know of any. I don't either. Let's move on then.Why do you feel we are talking past each other? Feel free to throw the things I've said back in my face to make your case. :) I'm not trying to belabor my points and I'm trying to be as courteous, respectful, and as generous and understanding of your point of view as I can, but I'm also trying to be clear that what I've already said is what I sincerely think should be done. In the absence of a general consensus on some talk page discussion, I'd just argue for following the content and manual of style policies as they're written and without applications wider than the policies explicitly require until and unless the policies are updated to reflect specific Arbitration Committee decisions or decisions of whatever content or MoS policy committees have jurisdiction over the policies. As a side-note, I would add that I was always under the impression that the Arbitration Committee's decisions were over conduct policy disputes rather than disputes over content policy decisions. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not resumes. I've seen many examples where bibliographies are trimmed, along the lines I've already given. Since neither of us are aware of general consensus on the matter, the I'll take some time to look.
Addressing
WP:AUTHOR,
WP:ACADEMIC, and
WP:NB: The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article.
Content policies include NOT.
WP:CRYSTALBALL states Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
--
Hipal (
talk) 19:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in those issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Two newspapers have published substantial articles about Prof Haidt recently.
The first is a big deal. He was the subject of the Wall Street Journal's Weekend Interview for 30 June.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Secondly, The Washington Times carried a profile of Haidt by Emily Esfahani Smith.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)We could probably improve the article by citing one or both of these, but I'm too busy to do it myself for a few weeks. Cheers, CWC 06:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
While we're at it, the whole subject of groupishness was the focus of a big review in Science recently. The articles were a little bent, but worthy of note. Lfstevens ( talk) 07:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
The Hedges quote seems a bit libelous, since he asserts things about the subject's opinions that are not supported by and are contradicted by the words of the subject. — BozoTheScary ( talk) 07:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
A fair bit of material in one section was apparently about the opinions of a blogger on a web site. According to [[WP::RS}}, we should cite only reliable sources. Also, if anyone choose to restore content that has been removed, the burden of proof is on them that the material being restored accurately represents the content of reliable sources. Leadwind ( talk) 05:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
One of the criticism sites http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/c60moralpsychjhaidt.php is getting a 509 - bandwidth exceeded. Is that a reliable source? Bodysurfinyon ( talk) 07:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time to edit the article just now (it needs a lot of work), but I will note one major error made by lots of people: Prof Haidt has not been awarded the Templeton Prize (UK£1,000,000 +), only a Templeton Prize, this one for "Positive Psychology", in 2001. See this Reliable Source: the Templeton Foundation awarded four prizes to psychology researchers, Prof H getting first prize of $100,000 and the other winners getting $50,000, $30,000 and $20,000.
(Part of the problem is that the John Templeton Foundation's website is a @(&!#$)% mess.)
Another major, major error here at Wikipedia is to report controversial claims about living people based only on self-published third-party sources. That makes the quotes from Magee and Myers totally, blatantly, obviously unacceptable, even if they had the much smaller 2001 prize in mind. Seriously. Everyone involved in inserting or retaining those quotes deserves a hard slap with a big WP:trout. Reinserting stuff like that will get you blocked. Don't.
Note that AFAICT Magee and Myers both assumed Prof H had been awarded the big Templeton Prize, making mention of their attacks on Prof H even more unacceptable in this article.
The remaining criticisms badly need context and coverage of any responses Prof H made to them. I hope to have a go at them, or even the whole article, in the next week or so. Cheers, CWC
I am undoing this edit - mostly because "proportionality" is not one of the moral foundations - but also, the note about conservatives not caring for groups for which they do not belong really needs a citation.
(cur | prev) 18:30, 13 March 2013 Steve Shiffrin (talk | contribs) . . (13,560 bytes) (+87) . . (Changes to reflect Haight's view that liberals value liberty/oppression more than proportionality, and conservatives do not equally value care for others) (undo)
Haidt found that the more politically liberal or left-wing people are, the more they tend to value care and liberty/oppression, and the less they tend to value proportionality, loyalty, respect for authority and purity. Conservatives or right-wing people, tend to value all the moral foundations somewhat equally with the exception of care for others outside the groups to which they belong.
Nice catches @ Neptune's Trident: Like how you stuck a fork in it (diff). It's done (for now). - Thanks; LeoRomero ( talk) 21:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Haidt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:27, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly an instance of snark intended to denigrate a critic, rather than a defensible description of their qualifications, since Sam Harris has indeed received a doctorate in Cognitive Neuroscience from UCLA, producing original research relevant to the question of "how moral reasoning works."
This is meaningful, since he has expert knowledge in a field directly relevant to the questions which provoke Jonathan Haidt's analyses; they happen to differ in their conclusions about the impact of religious belief on the conduct of moral actors in society.
Both have their points.
thanks, bonze - bonze blayk ( talk) 23:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Edit 7/16/19... we seem to have come to an agreement and are working together to improve the article. So dispute resolved for now. Chrisvacc ( talk) 04:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
I don't know if I qualify as a "connected contributor" but working in the Social Sciences, I do know Jonathan, as well as a number of other social scientists in the field. I don't feel as though I'm connected enough to qualify as a COI, but figured I'd list it for reasons of full disclosure. Can anyone other than Ronz provide justification for the "Written Like Advert" tag. The tag keeps getting removed, but he puts it back. I agree with the other editors agree that the article looks pretty standard, but don't feel like getting into an edit war. I do agree that the 4th paragraph in the introduction is a mess, especially after the American Academy of Arts and Sciences was added, but the rest of the article looks pretty standard. Initially the article was a complete mess, as it appears some of it was copy and pasted from the subjects website, but aside from that paragraph the article looks like pretty much every other page on Wikipedia.
And even the fourth paragraph It's common for scientists to have their accolades listed in the introduction.
For instance, the article on Steven Pinker (a researcher comparable to Haidt's) is listed in Wikipedia:Good articles list as an exemplary article, and there doesn't appear to be much difference:
From Pinker's article:
Pinker has been named as one of the world's most influential intellectuals by various magazines. He has won awards from the American Psychological Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Institution, the Cognitive Neuroscience Society and the American Humanist Association. He delivered the Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh in 2013. He has served on the editorial boards of a variety of journals, and on the advisory boards of several institutions. He has frequently participated in public debates on science and society.
From Haidt's:
Haidt has attracted both support and criticism for his critique of the current state of universities and his interpretation of progressive values.[4] He has been named one of the "top global thinkers" by Foreign Policy magazine,[5] and one of the "top world thinkers" by Prospect magazine.[6] He is among the most cited researchers in political psychology[7] and moral psychology,[8] and has given four TED talks.[9] In 2019, Haidt was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[10]
From the article pertaining to Soloman Asch (Also listed in WP:Good Articles)
He is most well known for his conformity experiments, in which he demonstrated the influence of group pressure on opinions. A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Asch as the 41st most cited psychologist of the 20th century.[5]
You can view the rest of the list here, under Psychology and psychologists: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Culture,_sociology,_and_psychology
I do think it needs some work, but I think the tag is excessive. What are your guys' opinions on the matter?
Chrisvacc ( talk) 16:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Edit for those reading from the 'dispute' pages (whenever you get to this): On July 2019 Ronz made a string of edits deleting text and reversing people's edits from various parts of the article. The justification was that he didn't approve of the citations. The claims that were deleted were completely uncontroversial claims and rather than using the citation needed tag, he deleted entire paragraphs of text, none of which were controversial. For example the text His third book, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (2018), was written with Greg Lukianoff was deleted even though there's no reason to think that statement is controversial or untrue. But since he didnt approve of the citation, the sentence was deleted. The following was my original comment:
Please review WP:BLP. -- Ronz ( talk) 02:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
3O Response: We have four tags, so I'll address them separately
1) A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (May 2019) There has been ample opportunity for the person who put this in to provide their reasoing on this talk page, and none has been forthcoming. The editor with the alleged connection has disclosed that they have met the man, but I'm seeing no evidence that they have a close connection. Unless someone can explain why they think the editor in question has a close relationship with Haidt, the tag should be removed. It can't remain forever solely on the basis of an unfounded allegation.
2) This article needs more complete citations for verification. (July 2019). I'm not seeing this at all. the article is throroughly referenced. The references aren't very good but they are copious. I can't find any unreferenced claims in the current version. So in my opinion this tag should to be removed. We may not think the references are very good, and that will be discussed under the appropriate tag below, but I can't see how we can possibly claim that it lacks sufficient references.
3) This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. (July 2019) This one I am actually going to remove myself . Per policy, the tag should be removed when "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given". "The general types of problems this article has overall" is not a satisfactory explanation of what the issue is.
4)This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (July 2019) This one has to stay in my opinion. We have a lot of sources that are basically WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:PRIMARY. Book reviews, staff pages, interviews with the subject etc. These aren't disqualified sources, but they are indeed sources closely associated with the subject. This article desperately needs more third party biography material. Mark Marathon ( talk) 09:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC) .
COI? two SPA accounts contributed half of the article, one copying from Haidt's websiteLook at the article stats, and the articles about his books. Inexperienced, SPA editors dominate the editing. Sockpuppetry at the book articles. This looks like something more than fan-editing, not that fan-editing isn't a huge problem.
Copy and Pasted from User_talk:Chrisvacc - discussion moves to Talk page
I mean these:
Together with Paul Rozin and Clark McCauley, Haidt developed the Disgust Scale, [1] which has been widely used to measure individual differences in sensitivity to disgust. Haidt, Rozin, and McCauley have written on the psychology of disgust as an emotion that began as a guardian of the mouth (against pathogens), but then expanded during biological and cultural evolution to become a guardian of the body more generally, and of the social and moral order. [2]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: |issue=
has extra text (
help)
Haidt's principal line of research has been on the nature and mechanisms of moral judgment. In the 1990s, he developed the social intuitionist model, which posits that moral judgment is mostly based on automatic processes—moral intuitions—rather than on conscious reasoning [1]. People engage in reasoning largely to find evidence to support their initial intuitions. Haidt's main paper on the social intuitionist model, "The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail", has been cited 7,858 times. [2]
References
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
almost 50% of the refs are similar to thatThen it might be a good guideline to keep a similar ratio. My rule of thumb is to only use primary sources to expand upon important information identified in independent sources. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Please don't change your comments after someone has responded
@ Ronz:@ Tsavage: The following claim needs a better citation:
Since 2012, Haidt has referred to himself as a political centrist. [1] better source needed
I found a tweet where he states his political beliefs: https://twitter.com/jonhaidt/status/955920434792419328?lang=en
From the tweet: "I have never been right of center. I have never voted for a republican, nor given a dollar to a conservative candidate or cause. I am a centrist, a JS Mill liberal, who is now politically homeless."
I do believe that citing that is fine as per Wikipedia's [ Self Publishing Policy]:
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: 1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. 2. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). 3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. 4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. 5. The article is not based primarily on such sources. Chrisvacc ( talk) 15:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
References
I added a section for the books. Maybe Ronz you can to check through them and see if any claims need citations other than the ones I noted.
There are a number of primary sources but, I wanted to make a note about about primary sources… and I can find the policy page for this if needed i'd just have to dig... but okay, so when you’re citing someone’s claims, it’s best practice to reference the place where they made such claims.
For example If the claim was “Timmy claimed the sky is green” the citation could be the article where you see Timmy saying “the sky is green.”
Now if you’re trying to say “the sky is green”.. as an actual fact, not claiming that “timmy says the sky is green”… the claim “the sky is green” needs independent sources varifying that ‘fact.’
In other words, a citation is proof of a claim. The claim “timmy says the sky is green” can be proven by showing the article where he said that. The claim “the sky is green” would have to be backed up by a physics article, if that makes sense.
In other other words, if the claim is that “Haidt and Lukianoff argue that the culture on campus is contributing to mental health issues” the appropriate citation is the an article where you can see they actually argue that, which is usually primary. If the claim is “he culture on campus is contributing to mental health issues” you would have to link to independent sources showing that that’s actually a fact, which is better to use someone other than the subject of the article, if that makes sense
Again, if you need the link to this article talking about this I can find it, but I’d probably have to dig.
But anyway, check out the section I added and let me know what you think. Chrisvacc ( talk) 21:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
I added a section on scientific contributions in the lede. Haidt is much more notable for his work on moral foundations theory than he is on his books. While I think his books (esp Righteous Mind and Coddling) are notable, they're not as much what he's known for. I think with the work we've done it might be okay to remove this tags:
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (May 2019)
Ronz has purged most of the non independent citations. I think it's in pretty good shape now. We're just going to have to watch this page. If it becomes more of a problem maybe we can request it be semi-protected. I don't think it will be though. It looks like most of the SPA edits were coming from Heterodox, and Haidt no longer has affiliation with them. It looks like those edits were made back when he was the president of Heterodox.
Thoughts? Chrisvacc ( talk) 15:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Revisted article after a few days -- hugely improved. From the reader's view that I originally came to it with, adding the summary of Haidt's scientific contributions to the intro, and adding a citation to "publications and theoretical advances in four key areas" in "Research contributions" make a critical difference, they were the main flags when I first read the article -- what he does and what he's known for are now easy to find and check into. No article tags is also a big plus. :) -- Tsavage ( talk) 16:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Since this page is about Jonathan Haidt, as a person, I think it may also be helpful to add some more information about his upbringing. There is only one sentence on that within this article. His works/books and contributions are important, and I think learning more about his past will help these other sections become better understood. Lmesch ( talk) 05:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I feel that the "Reception" section is unduly negative about Haidt, but I'm unsure the best way to proceed so I wanted to get other editors' thoughts. Basically, aside from the award he received, which should probably be in a separate "Recognition" section along with other honors, there are three negative items and one response from Haidt. On the other hand, if we look at the pages for each of his three books, the reviews are positive on balance.
If nobody objects, I'd like to make one paragraph for each book and list who gave positive and negative reviews of them based on the "Reception" sections on their pages. I wouldn't go into any depth on what exactly their praise and criticism was aimed at. Then the existing critiques could join those paragraphs—the first one with The Happiness Hypothesis and the other two with The Righteous Mind. On the other hand, if people feel that reception of the individual books doesn't belong on this page, I think the existing material should be moved to the pages for the respective books and the section should be turned into a "Recognition" section for the award he received. Gazelle55 ( talk) 23:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Given the past problems identified in the discussions above, and the requirements of WP:BLP, it might be helpful to have some general inclusion criteria for everything in the Publications section. For books, the common criteria should be fine: a corresponding Wikipedia article, or an independent source demonstrating its importance. I've not taken much part in discussions on inclusion criteria for research articles, but I'd expect impact factor to be useful. -- Hipal ( talk) 19:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Opinion columns should be treated differently. I'd rather remove all of them, unless there's very strong evidence they're important. We disagree on how SOAP is interpreted. I believe ArbCom has made it clear that it's not limited to just articles themselves.If the Arbitration Committee has made decisions on that, then the subsection on "Biased or opinionated sources" on the WP:RS policy page and the secondary subsection on "Bias in sources" on the WP:NPOV policy page need be revised to reflect that. The subsection on WP:RS explicitly states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. ... Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." The secondary subsection on WP:NPOV states: "biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid."
We seem to agree on "Selected articles" for the most part. Are you aware of any Wikipedia articles or other guidance on how to choose and follow an appropriate inclusion criteria? ... As for books: Are you aware of any general consensus that we could follow? I was just suggesting a general inclusion criteria, not something specific for a bibliography. I just want to keep the fans and anti-fans from creating problems here.Keeping fans and anti-fans from creating problems is a perfectly defensible concern, but I'm afraid I'm unaware of any such criteria. Like WP:NB, the criteria on WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC are for the notability of the author or academic rather than for articles that they've written. Perhaps we should start identifying which academic articles Haidt has written that have the highest impact factors or citation counts and which are the lowest, and then make a judgment as to what the acceptable threshold should be for how many other articles should be included. As for the books, I would reiterate what I said before and that WP:NB is about inclusion of a Wikipedia article about the book. Per his website, the 3 books that he has written or co-written have been published, 1 is soon to be published, and the books that he has edited or co-edited should be included, but I don't think the excerpts of his books that have been published separately should necessarily be mentioned. That's unnecessary. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Could you make a proposal on what we include with a brief summary as to why?I'm not sure what else there is for me to say. I propose including all books written or edited minus those that are excerpts of previous books because an author's bibliography should include all books that the person has written or edited while excerpts of previous books are duplicative. Books are more substantial than articles, and academics don't typically write as many books as articles in their professional careers. As such, restrictive criteria based on impact factors or citation counts for academic articles is appropriate.
I'm concerned we may be talking past each other. I asked about general consensus that we can follow. I'm assuming you don't know of any. I don't either. Let's move on then.Why do you feel we are talking past each other? Feel free to throw the things I've said back in my face to make your case. :) I'm not trying to belabor my points and I'm trying to be as courteous, respectful, and as generous and understanding of your point of view as I can, but I'm also trying to be clear that what I've already said is what I sincerely think should be done. In the absence of a general consensus on some talk page discussion, I'd just argue for following the content and manual of style policies as they're written and without applications wider than the policies explicitly require until and unless the policies are updated to reflect specific Arbitration Committee decisions or decisions of whatever content or MoS policy committees have jurisdiction over the policies. As a side-note, I would add that I was always under the impression that the Arbitration Committee's decisions were over conduct policy disputes rather than disputes over content policy decisions. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 03:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not resumes. I've seen many examples where bibliographies are trimmed, along the lines I've already given. Since neither of us are aware of general consensus on the matter, the I'll take some time to look.
Addressing
WP:AUTHOR,
WP:ACADEMIC, and
WP:NB: The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article.
Content policies include NOT.
WP:CRYSTALBALL states Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.
--
Hipal (
talk) 19:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)