Talk:Heterodox Academy#Ideology section lead

Hey Hipal. Thanks for looking it over.

Was the issue with the Leon Sachs' article in Inside Higher Ed that it could be considered an OpEd, and this is not best for this section or? (sorry my questions are sounding dumb likely, I have an idea of what is best, but don't always know how more experienced editors apply it).

Also for the lead, was there issues? (rv lede - fold in 2025 update) - Does rv lede just mean removed lead? Also not sure what was meant by fold in 2025 update.

As mentioned by @Jweiss11 at some point in this huge talk page, the 'what they see as' is a weasel word (although I might try to define it as distancing language/subjective framing/poisoning the well, which can subtly insert doubt or delegitimize a claim).

That's why the edit for that I thought was more NPOV, without casting doubt nor agreeing with the mission. In terms of the other edits in the lead, added reliable sources supporting that and the other edits:

To better reflect the sources:

1. "and shared their opinions on the negative consequences of this" was not grammatically sound on my part. Better would be "and shared opinions on the negative consequences of this. Open to suggestions on this wording.
2. insertion of "significant"

Also changed to "higher education" from "college campuses", as outside United States higher education encompasses all post-secondary education (e.g., in Canada colleges are not considered universities). As well campuses are generally physical, whereas the scope of HA is higher education in all domains.

I'm assuming we don't cite references in the lead (if that was the other issue)?

Cheers. AnExtraEditor (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:Briefly replying:

:Yes, the Sach's piece is identified as an opinion at the top of the page. I don't see why it would be WP:DUE.

:The changes to the lede turned the POV to that of Heterodox Academy itself, rather than the independent sources, so I reverted, but included "across 22 countries."

:Yes, we generally don't cite references in the lede. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::thanks Hipal.

::1. given the points above, is "higher education" better than "college campuses"?

::2. I can see how it moves POV more towards HA. I guess the appropriateness of the edit depends on the validity of the mission? Like if there was verify significant political homogeneity in higher ed, would we need to change the lead?

::E.g., for a hypothetical page on doctors, we wouldn't say "American doctors are working to prevent what they see as the #1 cause of death" as the #1 cause of death within a certain geography is well-known/verifiable.

::Likewise, the scholarship on political diversity within contemporary higher education is quite clear. Usually the response to explain this homogeneity includes self-selection bias, the argument that conservatives tend to be bad scientists, historic American conservative messaging about academia, etc. But it's not seriously disputed that the homogeneity exists, especially within the last few decades.

::Can cite scholarship on this if needed of course. AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::just following up on #2 specifically (the lead) per my response and the weasel word assessment by JWeiss11 before. scholarship is pretty conclusive on the relative political homogeneity of academia, so it seems quite undue to use that.

::Outside the few articles criticizing HA cited in the article, most independent sources describe HA without the "what they see as" insertion of doubt/questioning legitimacy. Not sure whether that's because they know of the scholarship on this topic or not. But alas, that's irrelevant I suppose. AnExtraEditor (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:Also @Grayfell I agree that Washington Times piece would need another source to verify that this survey is super notable. I think it might be (although I mentioned in my previous edit that it was an inaugural survey as I couldn't quickly find the survey in many later years), but if there are no other sources, then I'd consider removing it's mention.

:Should we delete it for the time being then? AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::Sure, I've removed it for now. The article should focus on summarizing reliable and independent sources. Anything presented as an example of their granular activity should use sources which present it as an example for both weight and context. Attributing this to the Washington Times was a compromise for a biased source, but it is also, in effect, damning it with faint praise. To put it another way, let's use better sources to explain to readers why it matters, instead of just mentioning that it exists. Grayfell (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::for sure. to be clear I didn't add that source. At least I'm pretty damn sure I didn't. AnExtraEditor (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Ian Story, Fellow at Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and the Humanities, Bard College, published on Heterodox Academy's website in response, arguing that Sachs’ claims are refuted by the dataset he used.

WP:MANDY is not policy. Although I see what you mean. Event though this is an independent academic (Ian Story), not HA as a org, the fact he published on their site isn't ideal. [https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/vox-consistent-errors-explained/ Musa al-G], Sean Stevens, and others also respond to Sachs, but again on HA website. However is it not important enough that the response is included? My understanding is that primary sources can be used, approrpiately. AnExtraEditor (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is regarding [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heterodox_Academy&diff=prev&oldid=1283225266 this edit].

:Who said anything about policy? WP:MANDY is a quick way to explain why I made the edit. That kind of back-and-forth makes articles tedious for little benefit to readers. Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode is not a policy, either, but it's still good advice and also applies here.

:It this case, it was also too vague to be informative. It was using academic name-dropping to say "nuh uh".

:If reliable, independent sources don't mention any of these responses, it's presumptuous to assume this belong in the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::A: makes articles tedious for little benefit to readers.

::- I assumed including all relevant notable discussion on the topic is of higher priority than any of our assessments of the reading ease.

::B: it was also too vague to be informative. It was using academic name-dropping to say "nuh uh".

::1.I'm okay to look at it and make it less vague, although it was very specific to the alleged fault (dataset does not support conclusion). 2. Since Story isn't well-known, we should give context to who he is.

::Your last sentence I'm not following. AnExtraEditor (talk) 05:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::MANDY is an unusual essay in that it's not just an opinion, but it's one that's overruled by BLP policy that says the opposite (BLP requires "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too.") Of course, Heterodox Academy isn't a person so this isn't a requirement, but I think is good reason why we shouldn't rely on this opinion as justification in any case.

::BTW, as is, the wikipedia summary of the event is slightly inaccurate: Sachs didn't write a study, the sources cited describe it as an essay. I'll fix that now. I'll hold off on adding back Storey's post, but I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Hi! (talk) 07:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::MANDY is not policy, but WP:SOAP is. --Hipal (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::hey Hipal. are you against adding the response based on mine & @Oort1's explanations? If so, how does SOAP overrule the BLP and other cited policies (if that's the case you're making). Kindly, AnExtraEditor (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::makes sense. AnExtraEditor (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This isn't a BLP, so the policy doesn't apply here. I'm unclear what you're referring to by "other cited policies". --Hipal (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I guess a more productive convo would be what policies negate the inclusion of a response by multiple independent academics, and how. As looking at SOAP, it's not clear to me how this is promotion or soap boxing; these responses cover none of the 5 points there. AnExtraEditor (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::just following up on this. AnExtraEditor (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure I see the issue with the content that was added. This is somewhat like a reply to a criticism. In cases where an organization replies to a criticism and we cover the criticism in our article it is reasonable to also include the reply. We don't have to give the reply as much weight nor treat it as correct. What we should do it make it clear the organization/original study author replied. In this case we have two academics who both appear to have similar credentials coming to opposing positions. Finally, what harm is caused to the article and readers by including this information? It's not like adding one extra sentence to an article that isn't overly long is going to make this article too long to read. It would probably be good to note that Ian Story isn't just some academic responding to the criticism but is actually an author/coauthor of criticized study. Also, since we are discussing the HXA study, it would be proper to provide a link to the study itself. That more an academic writing thing than an encyclopedic article practice but again, if the intent is to provide a full picture to Wiki readers an extra link to the study (if we have it) would make sense. Overall I think something like the removed content should be restored per NPOV but probably not as originally added. It might be better to restructure the whole paragraph to something of the form Story published a study for HXA which claimed the following... Sachs, prof of XYZ, refuted the finding (in an academic paper or just in the media?) Story replied. That gives readers a more complete sequence of events as well as both sides of the argument. Springee (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No independent sources noted it, so why is it DUE any weight at all, other than to provide a soapbox for HA? --Hipal (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::We do have independent sources that talk about the report. They are already in the article. With those articles establishing weight for the topic, ABOUTSELF does allow for use to reply to a controversy etc. It isn't a SOAP case since the reply is limited and directly addresses the claims against the report. SOAP would apply if we link to the report and talk about it's findings in a positive way, without the 3rd party sourcing. Springee (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::concur AnExtraEditor (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I've overlooked the independent sources. Which are they? --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I was referring to the ones already in the article (CoHE, Salon, WP). The CoHE is reporting on Sache's criticism of the HXA study while the other two are articles by Sache himself. I'm not sure if Sache and thus Salon and WP would really be considered independent of the dispute about the study. If they aren't then only CoHE would count as a RS. However, I could also argue against that position since Sache isn't associated with HXA other than doing an interview with HXA (that interview was added then removed). I don't see independent sources that cover HXA's reply but as I noted above, I think this is an about self case where it is reasonable to say the HXA scholar who authored the report in question has responded to and disagreed with the criticism of the study. Springee (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::reinstating the response in light of this convo. Bashr007 (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC) sock strike

• Note that AnExtraEditor and Bashr007 are the same editor and have been blocked for edit warring and sock puppetry. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

let's chat here for any edits. AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The NYTimes article quotes (and places in quotations) HA's self description, “open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement”. Such self-descriptions are SOAP, and rarely belong in the lede at all. Can we find other independent descriptions to use instead? - Hipal (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:The NYT article is nuanced and critical of HA, and so their choice of description matters right(?). If they use quotation marks, that is still the NYT deciding to frame their mission this way, not HA.

:I do see your point. However the majority of independent sources describe them in this very way. See The Hub reference, and the other's mentioned in the reception section. Can find more if needed. AnExtraEditor (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::Not really seeing it, no. Most of the sources either aren't high-quality, are WP:PRIMARY / non-WP:INDEPENDENT, or don't give it the sort of weight that would justify putting it in the lead here. The previous version (focusing on the key point, and attributing that view to them with {{tq|what they see as}}) adhered much more closely to WP:NPOV - covering the core aspects of coverage and carefully presenting their opinion as attributed opinion, as it is presented in the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Is there a problem identifying their emphasis on political diversity in the lede? --Hipal (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I've restored it. I don't understand why it was changed. --Hipal (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

{{collapse top|Sock puppetry}}

I saw the lead was being sorted out on talk page but now its all been unilaterally edited(?)

It's clear from these that Haidt and HA don't want conservatives for conservatives sake; it's their opinions on the effect lack of political diversity has on academia/social science. Bashr007 (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2025 (UTC) sock strike

:I don't think the current lede is terrible, but the "what they see as" is off as well.

:As noted above by a couple editors, academia is politically homogenous- left, right, pink, dog, no honest person denies the studies/consensus on that. As it stands, it's like saying: "NASA is an organization studying what they see as a round earth." Bashr007 (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC) sock strike

::"{{tq|..no honest person denies the studies/consensus on that}}" So from this, anyone who points to research saying that academia isn't homogeneous has been preemptively labeled as dishonest. You've poisoned the well for any further discussion of this.

::Heterodox Academy presents a specific view of academia that superficially aligns with right-wing talking points about liberal campus culture. These are often presented as 'common sense', but this is just sophistry. This organization's views cannot be presented as an undisputed fact in the same way that a round Earth can. Even if we accepted that academia were, in some ways, homogeneous, that still would not mean that Heterodox Academy is qualified to describe how it is homogeneous, or what that actually means, or what, if anything, should be done about it.

::That's why we are presenting this as their opinion -because it is. Grayfell (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::With all due respect that first paragraph is a straw man. This statement is no different than saying "no honest person denies the world is round" (although I actually don't agree; I think people do honestly disagree, they are just mistaken, as motivated arguments come to humans naturally). That is to say I could have reworded that; the point I was trying to make is that the evidence is tremendous.

:::Your description of HA echos the criticism from Vox, Sachs, etc. It doesn't matter whether the reality of political homogeneity of academia is used and abused by bad faith right wingers. HA specifically talks about this at length. As does the NYT article. We can't select facts based on if/how they are used as talking points by ideologues. Bashr007 (talk) 07:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC) sock strike

{{collapse bottom}}