This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
@ Aquillion: [1] The Vox ref is emphasizes political correctness, and having the link in this article to political correctness gives the reader wider and proper context. Removal seems a POV violation. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 15:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I've restored it. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 18:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Any objections to just removing the section? I don't see encyclopedic value, especially after looking over the refs. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 20:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
This line is WP:UNDUE, WP:POV and not even supported by sources provided: "Its focus on what it sees as a 'campus free speech crisis' has been described as a moral panic by some commentators."
Sources:
I'm unable to access it. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 21:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The article is about Haidt, and goes into the history of Heterodox. I'm still digesting it, but here are a few quotes about Heterodox that caught my eye:
In 2015 he co-founded Heterodox Academy to advocate for what its mission statement calls "viewpoint diversity."
Still, the center-right remains dominant within Heterodox Academy. According to figures provided by the group, 65 percent of members identify as conservative, centrist, or libertarian, while 18 percent are progressives. (The remaining members are listed as "unclassifiable," "prefer not to say," or "other.")
Haidt is accustomed to brickbats from the left, but he was caught off guard when, in December, Jarret Crawford, an associate professor of psychology at the College of New Jersey and a founding member of Heterodox Academy, posted a letter of resignation on Twitter. "In many ways, and however unintentionally, HXA has become a tool for the political right to decry and smear the left," he wrote, using an acronym for the organization's name. "I cannot associate myself with a group that the right, which has debased itself with its embrace of a president who would threaten liberal democracy and equal protection, has clearly begun to embrace as its own."
-- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 18:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The WP:Advert tag really seems out of place and unwarranted at this point. Shall we remove? Loksmythe ( talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't have time to figure out the mixup. Rubenstein is by-lined as "Assistant Opinion Editor", so I'm not sure if it should be considered an opinion piece. Not much there though. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 20:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
On June 15, Heterodox Academy (HxA), an organization founded in 2015 by academics to advance “viewpoint diversity” and tolerance on college campuses, met in New York City for its inaugural Open Mind Conference.
But the greater challenge is assessing the quality of speech on campus.
“Why are we spending university money on non-intellectuals?” Alice Dreger asks, no doubt thinking of the clownish radicalism of publicity-seekers such as Milo Yiannopoulos. Should such views be added to the mix simply for the sake of diversity or should additional quality standards apply, even among those who rightly disdain orthodoxy? If so, who is qualified to set those standards and how can campuses be sure they are applied fairly?
“If we’re going to pursue justice, we have to care about truth,” Dreger says. How does the ideal heterodox campus deal with issues such as climate science, which draws both vehement skeptics and supporters to the debate, all of whom justify their arguments by citing scientific proof?
In other words: Heterodoxy is all well and good, but who decides the limits of heterodoxy on campus, and which standards apply?
-- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 18:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the significance of Haidt's talk from 2011 needs to be contextualized by reliable, independent sources. This article is not a platform for sharing Haidt's opinions, even if they can be superficially supported by sources, because this article isn't about Haidt, it's about a group Haidt cofounded several years later. The significance of Haidt's 2011 talk to this group formed in 2015 is already pretty flimsy, and really should be directly linked by better sources. Since the NYT source is merely a convenience for background information, it cannot be misrepresented here as vitally significant, and any specific detail from this source needs to be linked to Heterodox Academy by sources directly. Grayfell ( talk) 21:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I just removed the third party tag on this article, and was was restored by reverted by Hipal. The sources currently cited in the article are the The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, the Star Tribune, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, The New York Observer, and Vox. All of these are independent of the subject. Jweiss11 ( talk) 23:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
none of the sources cited are associated with the subject. Care to reassess that? -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 23:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
This is quintessential, disruptive WP:TAGBOMBING. Loksmythe ( talk) 00:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I just made an edit to expand to the underdeveloped lead to include the founding and founders of Heterodox Academy. This was reverted by Hipal as WP:SOAP. This is basic, neutral information about the subject that appears in tabular form in the article's infobox. It's entirely appropriate to include it as prose in the lead. Jweiss11 ( talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
It was founded in 2015 by two professors, Jonathan Haidt and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz.
An edit I made to the lead mentioning it's conservative was reverted so I looked more into it. Since some already in-article sources suggested it, that it derives from a conservative blog and was founded by a conservative, with its main concern being typical reactionary "academic freedom" from the premise that high education has less conservatives than long ago, this was obvious to me. I also could find a few other sources mentioning this. However, other sources also claim that it may have since gained up to 40% non-conservative membership and that it's non-partisan. It's unclear if those only reflected the site's own claims, but as such, until further evidence I drop this. — Paleo Neonate – 06:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Haidt describes how he began to study political psychology in order to help the Democratic Party win more elections, and argues that each of the major political groups—conservatives, progressives, and libertarians—have valuable insights and that truth and good policy emerge from the contest of ideas. Since 2012, Haidt has referred to himself as a political centrist.It seems these claims about Haidt and about the group are both original research, so not much to be discussed here. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 08:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Dumuzid, I think Inside Higher Ed suffices to report simple facts about Heterodox Academy's management. It's cited multiple times at Higher education in the United States, Assessment in higher education, List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment, and other places. There's also an article on Tomasi's hiring from The Brown Daily Herald: https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/09/professor-john-tomasi-to-become-president-of-heterodox-academy. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
In the first round of edits, I understand why some editors felt uncomfortable with the Heterodox Academy references, but presumably Heterodox Academy knows who Heterodox Academy's first president is, so I'm not sure why a citation to the HxA site constitutes a problem. As for the significance of the material, the first president of an organization seems like information suitable for an encyclopedia.
I also thought that readers might want to know a little about Tomasi's background, including his history with the Koch Foundation at Brown, so I added that information in a footnote, complete with a reference to Jane Mayer's book Dark Money. Perhaps such details are extraneous, but given that many editors who have worked on this article seem convinced that HxA leans conservative, that history seemed pertinent, as it certainly does not contradict their view. If those editors don't think the information is material, I'm content, for now, to leave it out.
But once a source like the Chronicle of Higher Education comments on Tomasi's presidency, as will no doubt happen in the near future, do most editors agree that some mention of Tomasi's appointment belongs in the "History" section? The Inside Higher Ed article is interesting, but it reads a bit like a hit piece. Free Speech Wikipedian ( talk) 02:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
A sincere thank you for your guidance, Dumuzid and Crossroads. Free Speech Wikipedian ( talk) 04:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
@ Aquillion: [1] The Vox ref is emphasizes political correctness, and having the link in this article to political correctness gives the reader wider and proper context. Removal seems a POV violation. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 15:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I've restored it. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 18:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Any objections to just removing the section? I don't see encyclopedic value, especially after looking over the refs. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 20:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
This line is WP:UNDUE, WP:POV and not even supported by sources provided: "Its focus on what it sees as a 'campus free speech crisis' has been described as a moral panic by some commentators."
Sources:
I'm unable to access it. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 21:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
The article is about Haidt, and goes into the history of Heterodox. I'm still digesting it, but here are a few quotes about Heterodox that caught my eye:
In 2015 he co-founded Heterodox Academy to advocate for what its mission statement calls "viewpoint diversity."
Still, the center-right remains dominant within Heterodox Academy. According to figures provided by the group, 65 percent of members identify as conservative, centrist, or libertarian, while 18 percent are progressives. (The remaining members are listed as "unclassifiable," "prefer not to say," or "other.")
Haidt is accustomed to brickbats from the left, but he was caught off guard when, in December, Jarret Crawford, an associate professor of psychology at the College of New Jersey and a founding member of Heterodox Academy, posted a letter of resignation on Twitter. "In many ways, and however unintentionally, HXA has become a tool for the political right to decry and smear the left," he wrote, using an acronym for the organization's name. "I cannot associate myself with a group that the right, which has debased itself with its embrace of a president who would threaten liberal democracy and equal protection, has clearly begun to embrace as its own."
-- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 18:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
The WP:Advert tag really seems out of place and unwarranted at this point. Shall we remove? Loksmythe ( talk) 19:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't have time to figure out the mixup. Rubenstein is by-lined as "Assistant Opinion Editor", so I'm not sure if it should be considered an opinion piece. Not much there though. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 20:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
On June 15, Heterodox Academy (HxA), an organization founded in 2015 by academics to advance “viewpoint diversity” and tolerance on college campuses, met in New York City for its inaugural Open Mind Conference.
But the greater challenge is assessing the quality of speech on campus.
“Why are we spending university money on non-intellectuals?” Alice Dreger asks, no doubt thinking of the clownish radicalism of publicity-seekers such as Milo Yiannopoulos. Should such views be added to the mix simply for the sake of diversity or should additional quality standards apply, even among those who rightly disdain orthodoxy? If so, who is qualified to set those standards and how can campuses be sure they are applied fairly?
“If we’re going to pursue justice, we have to care about truth,” Dreger says. How does the ideal heterodox campus deal with issues such as climate science, which draws both vehement skeptics and supporters to the debate, all of whom justify their arguments by citing scientific proof?
In other words: Heterodoxy is all well and good, but who decides the limits of heterodoxy on campus, and which standards apply?
-- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 18:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, the significance of Haidt's talk from 2011 needs to be contextualized by reliable, independent sources. This article is not a platform for sharing Haidt's opinions, even if they can be superficially supported by sources, because this article isn't about Haidt, it's about a group Haidt cofounded several years later. The significance of Haidt's 2011 talk to this group formed in 2015 is already pretty flimsy, and really should be directly linked by better sources. Since the NYT source is merely a convenience for background information, it cannot be misrepresented here as vitally significant, and any specific detail from this source needs to be linked to Heterodox Academy by sources directly. Grayfell ( talk) 21:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I just removed the third party tag on this article, and was was restored by reverted by Hipal. The sources currently cited in the article are the The New York Times, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, the Star Tribune, The Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, The New York Observer, and Vox. All of these are independent of the subject. Jweiss11 ( talk) 23:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
none of the sources cited are associated with the subject. Care to reassess that? -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 23:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
This is quintessential, disruptive WP:TAGBOMBING. Loksmythe ( talk) 00:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I just made an edit to expand to the underdeveloped lead to include the founding and founders of Heterodox Academy. This was reverted by Hipal as WP:SOAP. This is basic, neutral information about the subject that appears in tabular form in the article's infobox. It's entirely appropriate to include it as prose in the lead. Jweiss11 ( talk) 23:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
It was founded in 2015 by two professors, Jonathan Haidt and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz.
An edit I made to the lead mentioning it's conservative was reverted so I looked more into it. Since some already in-article sources suggested it, that it derives from a conservative blog and was founded by a conservative, with its main concern being typical reactionary "academic freedom" from the premise that high education has less conservatives than long ago, this was obvious to me. I also could find a few other sources mentioning this. However, other sources also claim that it may have since gained up to 40% non-conservative membership and that it's non-partisan. It's unclear if those only reflected the site's own claims, but as such, until further evidence I drop this. — Paleo Neonate – 06:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Haidt describes how he began to study political psychology in order to help the Democratic Party win more elections, and argues that each of the major political groups—conservatives, progressives, and libertarians—have valuable insights and that truth and good policy emerge from the contest of ideas. Since 2012, Haidt has referred to himself as a political centrist.It seems these claims about Haidt and about the group are both original research, so not much to be discussed here. ‑‑ Volteer1 ( talk) 08:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Dumuzid, I think Inside Higher Ed suffices to report simple facts about Heterodox Academy's management. It's cited multiple times at Higher education in the United States, Assessment in higher education, List of colleges and universities in the United States by endowment, and other places. There's also an article on Tomasi's hiring from The Brown Daily Herald: https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2021/09/professor-john-tomasi-to-become-president-of-heterodox-academy. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
In the first round of edits, I understand why some editors felt uncomfortable with the Heterodox Academy references, but presumably Heterodox Academy knows who Heterodox Academy's first president is, so I'm not sure why a citation to the HxA site constitutes a problem. As for the significance of the material, the first president of an organization seems like information suitable for an encyclopedia.
I also thought that readers might want to know a little about Tomasi's background, including his history with the Koch Foundation at Brown, so I added that information in a footnote, complete with a reference to Jane Mayer's book Dark Money. Perhaps such details are extraneous, but given that many editors who have worked on this article seem convinced that HxA leans conservative, that history seemed pertinent, as it certainly does not contradict their view. If those editors don't think the information is material, I'm content, for now, to leave it out.
But once a source like the Chronicle of Higher Education comments on Tomasi's presidency, as will no doubt happen in the near future, do most editors agree that some mention of Tomasi's appointment belongs in the "History" section? The Inside Higher Ed article is interesting, but it reads a bit like a hit piece. Free Speech Wikipedian ( talk) 02:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
A sincere thank you for your guidance, Dumuzid and Crossroads. Free Speech Wikipedian ( talk) 04:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)