Talk:Political views of American academics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Xavier University

The description for the article at http://www.xavier.edu/xjop/documents/Hudson.pdf is not at all accurate. In fact it says there is no conclusive evidence of said hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarysa (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This is false. Read again in-depth and we'll talk. mezil (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Sarysa here, the study cited does not appear to support the content it is used as a ref for. It concludes that "In terms of the importance of salary, there was no significant difference between conservatives and liberals on how important this factor was in thinking about a career," and says that "there is no indication that conservatives in this group are more likely than liberals to self-select themselves out of academia," which seems to be the opposite of what the article currently says. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You would be correct, but my input includes analysis using said data. The other sources are more "in support" of the point of the article, which in itself is not saying that there absolutely is strong liberal bias in academia, but that there is evidence in support of the claim that there is some extent of liberal prejudice within the community of academics. If you do not agree with the article, please feel free to change and alter it as you find necessary with relevant sourcing. I don't own it, I'm only providing reasoning behind my actions. mezil (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained cleanup tag

@Pincrete: Is there any specific reason for the POV tag that you added to this article? Jarble (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The article conflates various terms and IMO, barely begins to address the topic. Specifically, liberal has a very different meaning in Europe and US. Further, economic liberalism, social liberalism, political liberalism are very different things, but I don't know which is being addressed. In Europe 'liberal' equates with moderate centrist political positions, whereas in US it equates more often with radical positions. Then, in education, we have the traditional use of 'liberal education' to mean a rounded, humanistic education, the traditional 'ideal' ironically of many educationally-conservative commentators.

At other times modern teaching methods appear to be equated with liberal bias, and PC and 'socio-cultural and political apologists' are presented as the alternative to centre-right positions. To be honest, the only sentence that was wholly clear to me was the opening one (perception). Perhaps 'neutrality' was the wrong tag and I appreciate that this is a difficult topic area, but I could not see anything resembling a 'rounded picture' of whether/why/in what way there might be a perceived or actual liberal bias in academia, nor whether that was necessarily a bad thing. Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I have reverted your "edit" of Jajhill's table as it appears to be unconstructive, bordering on vandalism. Please provide justification or do not revert, thank you. mezil (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal: imo it places undue weight on a single, out of date study. We should briefly summarize their findings in prose instead. Please don't restore without first discussing it and getting consensus here. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually I was unaware that I had removed any table, however, looking at it, what does it communicate? Are these self-identifications? Without context, I have no idea what it all means and largely agree with Fyddlestix that text about the basis of the study and main conclusions would be more informative. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Article here by Neil Gross, asking many of the questions that 'raw stats' don't ask. A taste: just because most professors are liberal doesn’t mean the average student is being force-fed liberal ideology. In interviews I conducted with professors, I found that a large number teach on highly technical subjects where it would be downright weird to let politics enter the classroom. As one engineering professor put it when asked how politics factored into his work, “a chunk of metal doesn’t have politics.” Pincrete (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yavorpenchev: @Pincrete: @Fyddlestix: While the points about the age of the study and that there is only one study cited are reasonable, I would strongly disagree with everything else. What such a table communicates that a summary can't is the ideological balance of each academic department. Listing the data by department in prose makes less sense than constructing a table. These are self-identifications, and that they are self-identifications can be noted above the table. As for the quotation above from Neil Gross's article, it entirely misses the point about academic bias. The issue isn't its effect on students; students political attitudes largely come from their peer group (in other words, other students). The problem with academic bias is that it produces bad, ideologically motivated research that is not replicated, goes uncriticized, even when debunked often continues to be cited, and the most ideologically lopsided academic departments have hostile climates and discrimination directed at professors who do not lean to the political left and that is a major reason why. From the Inbar and Lammers study, "...conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues...[and] they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate." From a literature review by José L. Duarte, Jarret T. Crawford, Charlotta Stern, Jonathan Haidt, Lee Jussim, and Philip E. Tetlock, "[The] lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike... Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking... The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination." Jajhill (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jajhill: I completely agree, that is why I defended your actions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yavorpenchev (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but the value of listing the political leanings of physicists, theologians, geographers etc. (ie 95+% of academia), because there is a single paper saying that social psychological research may be negatively impacted as a result of political bias in that particular field is somewhat lost on me. Pincrete (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please prove that all professors are fair, that they don't influence their students or co-workers.

History, politics, sociology, law make more than 5% of academia.Xx236 (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course they do, but the studies Jajhill linked are of poor quality - the Lammers study only surveyed members of a specific association of psychologists, and by the study authors' own admission, had a response rate of 26% - they themselves compare that to the response rate that Klein and Western got in 2005, but fail to mention that Klein and Stern's paper was basically disregarded by serious scholars because of the low response rate. (See this paper for example). The Honeycutt and Freberg paper only surveyed scholars in a handful of California State University campuses, and again only got a response rate of 26%, which other RS have made clear is not a high enough response rate to draw meaningful conclusions from. The Duarte review, again, only talks about psychology. So while I have no problem with saying in the article that academia is generally liberal (in fact I added a bunch of sources to the article yesterday that say just that), these sources can't be used to verify that. They are very limited in scope and their methodology has been called out by other RS - and there are much much better and higher-quality sources out there that we can use to talk about academia in general. But the most important thing is that the numbers are properly contextualized, rather than presented as self-explanatory facts in a table. The higher-quality literature makes it very clear that it's more complicated than a simple tabulation of (mostly sketchy) survey results suggests. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Table again

I still strongly object to the table that purports to give percentages of party affiliation and and liberal-conservative percentages:

• The column titled "RLN" is currently sourced to a report by an obviously WP:BIASED conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. But the data comes from this paper in The Forum. The paper is not peer reviewed and the authors never released their data. It was strongly challenged by other scholars in this paper, where they argue that "Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte's work is plagued by theoretical and methodological problems that render their conclusions unsustainable by the available evidence."
• For some reason, there is also a column for the NAASS survey, which is the same survey that Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte based their study on. Rothman et al specifically say (on page 3) that "The data come from the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS)" So why are we reporting one survey's results as two? This is misleading to say the least.
• We have the same issue with the "2006 PAP Survey" and the "2007 Gross Simmons" survey - these are duplicate numbers from the same study - Gross' paper clearly states that "The study we undertook, which we called the Politics of the American Professoriate survey..." and the figures are clearly duplicated in both columns (rounded up in the first set). Gross' numbers appear to be solid, but the conclusions that he draws from them are clearly the primary thing worth noting about his work - in other words, the numbers need to be contextualized and Gross and Simmons' analysis of them need to be included if we're going to neutrally and fairly represent their work.
• The Langbert study says directly that their data "may be somewhat aberrational" and that they "cannot be sure" whether it is accurate.

In other words, these numbers are hugely controversial and should not be reported in a table as if it was something easily measured or factual. Most of these are rough, survey-based estimates at best, and for that reason I don't think any table of this type can be properly referenced or belongs in the article. The current table also cites the wrong sources (original studies should be cited instead of an AEI report), and repeats 2 sets of figures twice. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My friend, you actually managed to sort of convince me. The Recent research, Theories and explanations and Implications sections have been written predominantly by you, so fair enough. Good effort and good nerves, thumbs up from me :)

mezil (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Questionable addition to wikipedia

As far as I can see this particular article has a very specific American leaning but the title of the article would suggest that the studies cited here apply to all higher education globally, additionally the focus on an absolute polarized Left/Right paradigm would in my view be largely construct and a consequence of a First Past the Post two party system rather than something that would be empirically quantifiable at a global scale, the qualities which make up a given "right" or given "left" vary from nation to nation.

It would be my view that the title of this article be updated to reflect the UScentric nature of this piece or that the article itself be nominated as a candidate for deletion outright as it is of it's current writing more of a skewed opinion piece than an article of substance.

Zardrastra (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This article looks like a wall of nonsense. What is it doing in an encyclopedia? SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are we calling a "study" a "report"?

@Snooganssnoogans: what sources do you have that call the study a "report"? I can't find any RS that refer to the NAS study as a report, and the NAS itself refers to its study as a report. We don't call it a peer-reviewed study because it has not been peer-reviewed (to my knowledge), but a study it certainly is.[1] And a link to its journal entry: [2]. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not peer-reviewed, and should therefore be described as a report. Fox News is not a RS, in particular when it comes to scientific topics (the network is known for its promotion of falsehoods and misrepresentation of science on climate change). A study implies peer-review (especially when it's placed in an article full of actual peer-reviewed studies). I consistently use the term "paper" to refer to working papers and "report" or "analysis" for analyses by think tanks and advocacy organizations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any policy that states studies that haven't yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal should be called reports, but it's quite possible I missed it. Where is this stated on Wikipedia? I also couldn't find any place on Wikipedia that states Fox News is not a reliable source. I don't know if we'll be able to keep "report" unless there's sound reasoning behind contradicting the source material. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's just common sense. It's not a peer-reviewed study, so we refer to it as a paper or report. This is not a problem that I've ever encountered before. It's beyond me why you want to mislead readers into thinking this is a peer-reviewed study when it isn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Snoogans: Please remember to AGF. This is my second request in a 30 day period, if I'm not mistaken. Clearly I am not trying to "mislead readers" by directly quoting the sourcing. Nobody said anything about "peer-reviewed," so there is no reason for readers to get that impression. I'm fairly certain misrepresenting the source material is a policy violation, but I am more than happy to open up an RfC and help us iron this out. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

On Wikpedia, we never identify studies as "peer-reviewed" (see all the peer-reviewed studies in this article which are not explicitly identified as peer-reviewed). We simply say "study", because it's presumed that a "study" cited on Wikipedia will be peer-reviewed. "Report", "Analysis" or "Paper" do however avoid the ambiguity to a large extent. Please do a RfC. You can also bring this up on the 'Style Guide' noticeboard (or whatever it's called). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a document prepared by an advocacy group to promote its mission. For the moment it's OK to leave it in the article if clearly attributed, but this is not a "study" in any sense. It's a statement that cites various statistics according to methods chosen by the authors according to methods and purposes that have not been vetted by any independent review. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus has been reached to move this article, mainly on WP:NPOV basis.(closed by non-admin page mover) Kostas20142 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Liberal bias in academia → Political views of American academics – Title of the article should not assume the consequent, and furthermore, should make sense internationally (the Liberal Party of Australia is hardly "liberal" by American standards). The appropriate title of this article would create a platform for neutral discussion of all aspects of views of academics, not just purported "liberal bias." No doubt there are charges of conservative bias in academia as well (see the recent media discussions of large Koch-funded donations to George Mason University) and we shouldn't have to create separate partisan articles for each. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - What NorthBySouthBaranof said. The word liberal changes in meaning over time and location. The word bias is relative and suggests unfair prejudice. Having a political view does not mean you are biased. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Proposed title is much clearer about the article's scope. Ibadibam (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly the proposed title better reflects article content, whereas the reinstated "Liberal bias" is POV, OR, and generally preposterous. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This disguises what the article is really about, which is the perceived left-slant in American universities. Natureium (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's an OR conclusion. And "perceived" is what we call "weasel". SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• User:SPECIFICO, nicely put, though maybe Natureim is on to something--but that's not really the article we have, one on a "perceived" left-wing slant. If that were the real topic of the article, it would have to be treated like a FRINGE theory. But we could drop all kinds of fun stuff about global warming and the "perceived" knowledge of it. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Current title reflects much (most) of the coverage this topic has received in media. Arkon (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That's very doubtful, giving how broad this liberal tent is, and how wide the term "bias". Drmies (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is all coming together now. It's the liberal media bias and the liberal Wikipedia bias. And speaking of tents... there's too many gays in the military. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed - follows naming given by reliable sources and is an accurate name for the topic at hand. Alternate proposal if the word "liberal" itself is the problem (which, honestly, it probably isn't): Left-wing bias in academia. Red Slash 20:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, neutral on adding the word "American" to the article. Depends on the scope we want this to have. Red Slash 20:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• You're going to need to show how the sources state, as fact, that there's this "liberal bias" thing. Otherwise you are stating a conclusion based on various studies and analyses that would be covered by the new title but not the one you seek to retain. Moreover jumping from "liberal" to left-wing is an absurd and preposterous bit of OR POV that is not supported by any RS cited. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• The current title can not stand - if this move isn't done, it will have to be renamed something else. The current title is affirming the consequent - we cannot factually state that there is a "liberal bias in academia" absent a clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources doing so. There are certainly arguments that this is the case, but clearly those arguments must be presented as the contested opinions that they are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The content in the article clearly proves that there is liberal bias in academia. I wouldn't say that the consensus is as strong as global warming--but it's close.– Lionel^(talk) 23:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Your problem is that the fact that academics tend to hold liberal personal views does not prove the existence of "liberal bias." The definition of bias is prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair; that such academics are prejudiced ... in a way considered to be unfair is in no way a proven matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: move rationale falls flat on its face. We have hundreds of thousands of articles that have a political modifier in the title. If the article contains some off-topic content, move the content--don't rename the article. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! There is nothing wrong with having "liberal" in the title.

That said, @Red Slash: offers an excellent alternative: Left-wing bias in academia.– Lionel^(talk) 23:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely something wrong with the word “bias” in the article title as it suggests unfair prejudice. It is an insult. We don’t even use the word bias in the title of the Klu Klux Klan article. I’m not a huge supporter of academia. But, to use a title suggesting that they are like the KKK seems a bridge too far. Do we have any articles on the beliefs of groups, say businessmen, Christians, farmers, and title it “conservative bias in …”? Bias means prejudice. We don’t put insults in WP titles – even for the Ku Klux Klan. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, it may be hard for people with a certain POV to reconcile, but prejudice is exactly what this article is about. It may be inconceivable to some that White Male Republicans and their ilk face discrimination. The word "bias" is in common use in section titles. We have hundreds of sections with "bias." Some articles with "bias" are

• Gender bias on Wikipedia
• Racial bias in criminal news in the United States
• Second-generation gender bias
• Racial bias on Wikipedia

– Lionel^(talk) 02:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Political beliefs aren't gender or race. This is a category mistake. I mean we have an article on Spectrum bias but so what? Different kettle of fish. So just because the word "bias" appears in the title of other articles doesn't mean squat.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, we have an article on Gender bias which redirects to Sexism, which is a discussion of discrimination based upon gender, not a particular gender. The equivalent title here would be Political bias in academia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The proposed title would turn the focus into a duplicate of the existing article academic bias, and, at its current length, there is no reason to limit the scope to America. Certainly, other studies exist from around the world and can be included. I do think the suggested Left-wing bias in academia is more correct and clear to the greatest number of people. I also think that, in addition to the studies that prove there is a disproportionate number of leftist in academia compared to the general population, the article should expand on the "bias" part by including more information about the consequences of this imbalance, including the impact on students, research, and culture. -- Netoholic @ 00:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Changing to Oppose and procedural close. Its clear other voters are not using this WP:RM process as its intended (to discuss correct application of our naming conventions), but rather to fundamentally change the intended focus of the article to something different. This is not the appropriate forum for such discussions (WP:VENUE). -- Netoholic @ 06:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• You seem to be confusing the current title with the proposed move. Please check and explain your view in terms that are not internally inconsistent. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• My vote is clear. This topic isn't about general bias in academia, nor is it about general political bias in academia. It is about the claims of, and proof of, left-wing bias specifically. The OP is trying to generalize a topic which deserves specific focus. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Some folks see bias in their Wheaties. Keep in mind that there are 2,600 four-year colleges and universities in the US, 600 of which are Christian-affiliated. It is good to have an article on the political views of academics. But, bias is a derogatory term. Why would an encyclopedia wish to apply a derogatory, political label to academia in general in an article title? Basically, we are telling the reader that they needn’t read the article if they want to know if there is a liberal bias. Who needs nuance? We should not have far-left or far-right political blogs writing our article titles. O3000 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• And the current article and sources simply do not evince "proof of left-wing bias". Anyone who believes there are RS references that would support such a conclusion would be well-advised to locate and cite them. Otherwise it's this move is a done deal. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• You may wish to re-read the sources and article (and improve BTW), your POV is of no consequence. Arkon (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• This is far from a done deal. At the moment, it looks like it will be no consensus, which means the title will remain as is. Natureium (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Moves are not !votes, they're based on policy-based arguments, and it is clear that policy does not permit us to have an article whose title assumes the existence of the unproven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. People are trying to change much more than the name of the article here by arguing that the subject itself isn't valid. That's another matter entirely. Natureium (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Sorry, but I can't take "liberal bias" seriously as a non-POV title. Obviously, when conservatives choose to deny science and common sense, academia is going to have a slant towards liberals. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact, insamuch as you believe in actual facts._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support The "liberal bias" title is so over the top POV it's an embarrassment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Add: first, "liberals are over represented in academia" (which is supported in sources) is not the same thing as "there's a liberal bias in academia" (which is NOT necessarily supported by sources). Second, to the extent that some sources do talk about "liberal bias in academia", it's mostly in the context of debunking such a thing. So not a good justification for such a title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Anytime men or whites or whatever are "over-represented" in a career, leftists will openly make claims of bias in hiring. The same applies here - this article can cover bias in academic hiring/promotion. -- Netoholic @ 07:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok here's your problem. Problems actually. And these are very typical. You use absolute qualifiers such as "anytime". And "men or whites". And "leftists" (wtf that's suppose to mean - one would think that any decent person, whether right or left, would oppose gender and race discrimination. None of these are actually applicable or true. Stop thinking in black vs. white (or red vs. blue or whatever). The way you make your statements really just betrays your own bias, non-neutrality and prejudices.

And it's already been pointed out that race and gender are not like political beliefs (one is a choice, the other not). I mean you might as well argue that flat-earthers are "discriminated against" in academia (not that conservatives are flat earthers, just that your logic applies to ANY group which chooses to believe ANYTHING, whether true or not).

Oh, and finally, in case you haven't noticed, I presume that you oppose it when "Anytime men or whites or whatever are "over-represented" in a career, leftists will openly make claims of bias in hiring". I mean, do you agree with "leftists" (sic) that "anytime men or whites are over-represented" (sic) there is biasing in hiring? Yes? No? If no, then why are you making an argument which you yourself don't believe in? That's disingenous and dishonest (if "yes", then you're good).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I like how you try to shame me for using common terms like ""leftists" (sic)" (and include scare quotes to make your point) and then in the very next section use blanket ideological terms conservatives (sic) in the exact same way. -- Netoholic @ 22:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that you like it, but dude, my usage of the "blanket ideological term" "conservative" was precisely to point out that you SHOULDN'T stereotype conservatives, whereas your usage of the "blanket ideological term" "leftist" was to make the ridiculous assertion that all leftist are exactly the same and act in the same way. See the difference? Not that hard. Also, how about you step up and instead of weaseling and deflecting you answer the question. Also not that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

There's also the other 99 fallacies in Netoholic's argument. Bias in hiring? What's the proportion of "liberals" in the applicant pool? How does it compare to the proportion of installed faculty? What's the correlation of "liberal" views with education? What's the proportion of "liberals" among PhD's in the population? Or does that just show liberal bias in grad school admissions? And what's the relative propensity of marginalized right wing conspiracy-quaffers to believe in half-baked assertions of liberal bias even while citing evidence to the contrary? 4 down, 96 to go. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute, all I've been hearing lately is that different outcomes are definitely a result of bias and/or discrimination, and can't be simply due to individual choices or other factors. --Netoholic @ 22:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Netoholic, suppose that's true - that you have been hearing this lately. Do you agree with it? That different outcomes are definitely a result of bias and/or discrimination? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What does an editor's agreement have to do with this thread? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not that hard to understand. His oppose argument is basically ""leftists" (sic) do this so I'm going to do it too", even though he presumably disagrees with when "leftists" do it. It's a crap argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hearing what? Like secret voices? Even the paltry and random assortment of sources in this article don't say that. What do you think "bias" means, anyway? Do you think faculty should be randomly selected like Powerball? How many variables can you fit on the head of a pin? SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you stay on topic please? Address sources and the like? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I already stated the indisputable reason why the requested move is inevitable: The sources and text of the article do not support the current title. Instead of telling others what to do, try finding additional sources that would support your preferred title/subject. I doubt you'll find any in RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Funny, because I stated the exact opposite of your "indisputable" statement. Weird right? How about you find/provide sources for your preferred title/subject. Arkon (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, this discussion supports the concept that there obviously exists a great deal to discuss in this particular arena. So, why would we put a conclusion in an article title? Particularly when it is so controversial. And, how many conspiracies fit on the head of a pin? O3000 (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per VM's astute comment above. Neutrality^talk 07:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Which "astute" comment may that be? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Can you please stop haranguing people? Or if you're going to do it, at least put a little effort and creativity into it, rather than repeatedly asking questions with obvious answers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Arkon - as others have pointed out, the "bias" title simply does not reflect the actual content of the article, nor does it reflect the reliable, non-opinion sources. There is plenty of material on the political views of U.S. academics, and how those vary by field. And the data shows that academics are more likely to be liberal Democrats than the general public. But overrepresentation is not the same thing as "bias" (whatever that means - I find it vague and unhelpful). Neutrality^talk 05:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• To editor Neutrality: - The broad "political views of academics" topic you're talking about is a different one than this article is intended to focus on, and I encourage you to go start that new article if you like. This topic is more narrowly focused and is named using a WP:COMMONNAME associated with it. This article is meant to cover any claims of bias AND the refutations of those claims of bias. This article will take the information about the well-documented ideological disparity, incorporate the claims of bias made in reference to that disparity, cite the research which investigates those claims of bias, and present the conclusions which either back up or refute those claims of bias. Trying to change the title and redefine the focus is WP:WRONGFORUM and ultimately pointless (since after the move, someone could split back out the new liberal bias content and start the article from scratch again). If you think this liberal bias topic doesn't belong on WP, then AFD it... but WP:RM is a process for simply applying our naming guidelines - not intended as a forum for discussing major changes in article scope nor the legitimacy of an article on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 05:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. I have reverted the move that was performed today by a participant involved in this discussion. Please allow the Wikipedia:Requested moves process to proceed normally, including letting an uninvolved editor close the request after the usual period of discussion. Dekimasuよ! 07:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has been on Wikipedia long enough to know not to move a page during a move discussion he's involved in. Please adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Natureium (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose No serious study has been done demonstrating anything resembling conservative bias in academia. Every study and survey shows clear-cut, purposeful, and pervasive liberal biases. The article title should reflect the subject matter. Hostility toward conservative students and guest speakers, the passionate acceptance of left-wing ideology and left-wing causes on their campuses, disparate treatment of conservative faculty and liberal faculty, the banning of the American flag, safe spaces, cry closets, anti-Trump courses, "Day of Absence" of white people, and it goes on. The article title should reflect the subject matter, which should be expanded and organized. Over-representation and bias are different, and both topics are pertinent to this article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The current title doesn't appear to prepresent the larger body of reliable sources, nor does it correctly describe the text of the article. It looks like a WP:NPOV violation to me. The title certainly is worthy of an encyclopedia topic, but the current title isn't an accurate description of the body of the article. The current title implies it's a worldwide phenomenon, yet the article focuses only on the United States. I wouldn't object to a title like "liberal bias in American academia" to make it clearer what the article is about. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Its important to point out that several editors endorsing this rename have likewise been voraciously editing the article to make it conform to that view. This effort is futile because RM cannot establish consensus on inclusion of this subject on Wikipedia, only change its name. Content related to liberal bias can (and likely will) just be split right back out if the article is moved because the proposed title is too broad. -- Netoholic @ 04:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  I guess the other supporters have a valid point that a population having a majority of liberal people doesn't automatically equate to a liberal bias. There is certainly a conservative perception of liberal bias in academia. Perhaps the article could be recast that way? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per "Neutrality in article titles". TFD (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• To editor The Four Deuces: - Would you confirm whether or not you arrived at this RM via this non-neutral post (per WP:CANVASS)? -- Netoholic @ 05:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support I learned of this move request from this post. Aside from the obvious issues of neutrality, this article is almost entirely about the political views of American academics rather than any liberal bias in academia (which is only mentioned briefly in the section "Effects"). Most of the sources referenced are research on the political views of professors at American universities, and most of the text of the article discusses that topic. One wouldn't say "liberal bias in American academia" to describe the fact that professors tend liberal anymore than one would say "conservative bias in rural America" to describe the fact that rural populations tend conservative, or "Democratic bias among African-Americans" etc. The phenomenon described by this article is political beliefs in one sub-population being unrepresentative of the population as a whole. That isn't what "bias" means, at least not in regular usage, and thus the current title is not just non-neutral, it's simply inaccurate. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per previous supporters. (summoned here by a selective post on WikiProject Conservatism).- MrX 🖋 12:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Would not Left wing bias in US academia better reflect that the article is about?, after all liberal does not mean the same thing to all people (even now). At the very minimum it should make it clear this is about the US higher education system.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Either way, no “bias” (i.e. prejudice) has been shown. I suggest we change the title to Conservative bias that liberal bias exists in academe. O3000 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The bias is systemic and pervasive but not surprising since higher education institutions have a long history of promoting free thinking.[3]--MONGO 15:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Strong support per the reasoning of the proposer. Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I wouldn't mind a new title perhaps with something different than bias, but the proposed title is to broad for the actual content of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support As the article should also discuss conservative academic politics too, even though they are generally outnumbered by those that slant left and thus will not have much coverage (but they do exist). --Masem (t) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I became aware of this discussion from the posting at WikiProject Conservatism, and judging by the comments above, it sure looks like there has been a lot of posting by both "sides". Anyway, the change would much better reflect WP:NPOV. The problem isn't the word "bias", but rather the blanket implication that what our readers need to know is that it is a "liberal" one. That's assuming the existence of a bias that slants in that way. And please understand that I am saying that while being fully aware of the abundant reliable sourcing indicating that the bias does slant that way. But there is also a well-documented "conservative" minority in academia, and it's unencyclopedic to imply that the only information that matters is that the "liberals" are in the majority. The encyclopedic treatment would be to describe the "political views of American academics" in a comprehensive way, even as that description will prominently include the significant dominance of liberal views. Treating this page as a vehicle to tell our readers "hey, you better know this, academia is dominated by liberals" is entirely a violation of NPOV and WP:RGW. Consider: we have a page on Christianity and violence that (I assume, haven't looked recently) gives prominence to the information that violence is contrary to much of Christian theology while also dealing with concepts like Just war – but we would not call it Christian bias against violence. Gun politics in the United States is blue, but Republican bias against gun control and Democratic bias against gun rights are red, and would be blatant WP:POV forks if they existed. Looking at some other examples listed above, pages about bias at Wikipedia are, at least, about Wikipedia. The one about news bias probably is bad in the same way as this page is (surely there are differences between news outlets). And the one about second-generation bias doesn't attribute the bias to anyone in its title. The properly encyclopedic topic is the political views in their entirety, not whether they slant one way or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per proposer and Tryptofish. You'd think after 16 years we'd figure out this "NPOV" thing but apparently not. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Supportt' simply for neutral title ....but yes liberalism in higher educated people is the norm. ...... even during the 80s professors did not steer all that far away from the centerREAD ME.--Moxy (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support because the title has "American" in it. wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support as per the basics, see WP:NPOVTITLE of which it is a violation, let's fix this blemish.--Calthinus (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per proposer and Calthinus. To expand, the title does not only reflect a judgement but is also highly misleading, because liberal has many different meanings depending on the region and other criteria. wikitigresito (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support As it stands, it's clearly an NPOV violation stating as fact that there is a liberal bias (which in fact I question if every college in the US is considered, which of course hasn't happened). Left wing is even worse as it's complete nonsense. Yeah, all those Bible colleges pushing socialism. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support As per proposer and above comments. Parabolist (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• In a nutshell: support as this is indeed a POV embarrassment. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NPOVTITLE. The alleged "liberal bias" or "left-wing bias" can be covered as a term / theory within the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support With rare exceptions, the only people motivated to write about "liberal bias" are those dedicated to promoting the idea that such a bias exists and is evil. Until at least half the article describes evidence of real-world effects of liberal bias the term is not suitable as an encyclopedic topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per NorthBySouthBaranof Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The current pagename sounds like some talking point out of Fox and Friends. There is bias by academia from all sides on the political spectrum. A move to the current proposal would allow the article to cater for that.Resnjari (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support seems like a clear WP:NPOVTITLE issue unless it's framed as something like "liberal bias in academia narrative". Also question how much this article adds beyond academic bias. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty staraightforward case of POVTITLE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Left-wing targeting of academia

It's really ludicrous that the left-wing influence on academia is being challenged. This influence was a prime focus of the agenda of the New Left from the very beginning in the 60s. Just read our article Port Huron Statement which says "this 'will involve national efforts at university reform by an alliance of students and faculty' who "must wrest control of the educational process from the administrative bureaucracy."

If we are serious about improving and expanding this article then content addressing the efforts of the New Left and Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(1960_organization) in particular must be added.– Lionel^(talk) 23:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This would appear to be WP:SYNTH here absent any reliable sources making connections between these things. Your leap from "left-wing influence on academia" (which surely exists, just as "right-wing influence on academia" surely exists) to "liberal bias in academia" is not something you may just assemble from whole cloth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This is OR. On the other hand, the fact that starting in late 1970's because so much conservative money poured into setting up "independent" conservative think tanks, many educated conservatives CHOSE to go into these think tanks (AEI, Heritage, etc.) rather than traditional academia is pretty well documented. And they did so because, as long as you held or were willing to promote "correct" (i.e. conservative) beliefs, you got paid a lot better and you didn't have to worry about pesky things like peer review. So to the extent that there's a skewed representation of political beliefs in academia, a good chunk of that reflects simple self-selection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt, just because the SDS (like conservatives) accused academia of having a liberal bias does not mean it was true. TFD (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

David Horowitz

I have removed a reference to a book by David Horowitz which was used to source the factual statement that "there is liberal bias in academia." Horowitz is a political ideologue, not an expert on academia. His work of popular political polemic might be useful to present Horowitz's attributed point of view, but I object to any statement therein being stated in Wikipedia voice as an unchallenged fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Such a statement is fine and welcome as long as it's attributed to him in the prose ("David Horowitz claims..."), just not if stated in Wikipedia's voice. Part of the scope of this article is to include points and counterpoints in regards to claims of bias made by pundits. You should modify such content, not remove it. --Netoholic @ 17:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

But why quote him anyway? TFD (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent re-write

I have reverted to before the recent wholesale rewrite and NSB's valiant effort to recover valid article content in the wake of it. Please state and discuss specific manageable components of this revision here on talk and seek consensus for your view as to how any of them improve the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be a common problem in the realm of politics-related articles for a few specific editors to entirely revert any edits they don't like. You can't just revert everything without saying what you disagree with. I see that you and NSB want to change what the article is about, and change the title to reflect that, but that is not the topic of the article. I changed back to the edits NSB made, not because I agree with them, but because of the issue of mass reversions. Natureium (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. Their exist many NPOV problems with your mass rewrites. They should be reverted and consensus reached. O3000 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The edits I made are descriptions of the studies done. They are not my own ideas.

Your change back to "Claims of liberal bias..." is an instance of weasel words per WP:WEASEL. I'm sure a compromise can be reached that states the topic of the article without editorializing. Natureium (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

They are claims by some sources you have picked. "Ideas" was weasely. And your perception of what this article was about does not match the perception of many other editors. O3000 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, "Claims" is sort of weasely, but it's the best available solution to the problem created by the NPOV violation of this article's title. If the title was changed, we could use better wording. Some people are resistant to changing the title, however, so we're kind of stuck with this kludge of a lede paragraph. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Due a recent flurry of activity (May 2018), I've reverted the lead to the last stable version from March 2018, which was stable for well over a year. Use this section to discuss updates/changes to that lead section. -- Netoholic @ 05:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll start. The main problem with the stable version of the lead are that it defines the title of the article using the exact words in the title (its just bad writing to define a term with itself). "Bias" should be described as a systemic bias to differentiate from personal bias or overt discrimination. The lead should state matter-of-fact that left-wing beliefs are more prevalent in academia compared to general population, as this fact is universally accepted. The lead should state that the causes and effects of this known disparity are highly debated in a number of avenues, but should not include specific point-counterpoint. My recent attempt I think captures it neutrally (with an addition of the aforementioned link to systemic bias to define what we mean by "bias" in the title. -- Netoholic @ 19:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this meant to be parody? What's left-wing? How many academics are there in the country and how many were - what, asked if they were left wing? Doug Weller talk 19:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The exact criteria are in the various studies. Some use party affiliation, some use left-right paradigm, some use liberal-conservative paradigm. Wikipedia has articles about the various parties, Left-wing politics, and Liberalism - so we'll just link to whichever one matches whatever is used in any particular study to match the sources.-- Netoholic @ 19:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This is from Kalamazoo Fried Chicken, where it's all wings all the time -- no giblets, breasts, or thighs!! SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don’t think it makes any sense to claim that there is a left-wing bias in academe given that 600 of the 2,600 four-year institutions are Christian affiliated. And, that doesn’t count two-year institutions. Further, I don’t think it makes any sense to use the term left-wing based on articles that say Democrats when these words are not at all synonymous. Finally, I don’t think it makes sense to use the word “bias” at all as even those profs that are actually “left-wing” may not be biased (i.e. prejudiced). O3000 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Using "I don’t think" arguments rather than citing sources isn't going to help this process. I agree the words aren't synonyms and we'll use them as presented by sources. "Bias" doesn't just mean discrimination - in this case it means a systemic bias which is not likely the fault of any one, but still results in a slant. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I use the words “I think” to be polite. “Left-wing” bias is absurd on its face. If you are using sources that use the term in reference to the preponderance of faculty, you are using biased sources. 20:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

Are you really trying to turn an encyclopedia into a slanted blog? "The exact criteria are in the sources" and they're all different, yet this is under some kind of umbrella as if it is all the same after all. "Liberal bias"--don't you get tired of yourself? Drmies (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

To editors Objective3000 and Drmies: Are you accusing me of something? The only substantial part I've added to this article is under Liberal bias in academia#On conservative professors, which includes a scholarly book-length study, 2 mainstream articles about the authors of it, and 2 scholarly book reviews. I don't see any egregious bias in those sources, but of course there is no such thing as a bias-free source, much like there is no such thing as a bias-free person. Wikipedia doesn't seek "unbiased" sources, just reliable ones. -- Netoholic @ 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You can drop in as many policy links as you like (trust me, we know them) and avoid the actual argument--but yeah, I'm accusing you of helping create a biased article with a biased title out of reliable (at least some of them) sources: well read! This entire article is a POV trap, starting with the title. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Damn, Drmies, I wanted to say that! Doug Weller talk 20:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Damn, DW, I wanted to say that! O3000 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not interested in you pinging me anymore. I'll be busy writing up White male bias in academia, followed by White male bias in Starbucks and a slew of other ones. Cause you know, it's all the same. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hallelujah, a de-pinging! It's like de-fooing for beginners. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of suggesting Resentment against people with doctoral degrees, but of course I would never say that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

These are what scholars call this phenomenon. The way to counter what you see as "biased" is to find other sources of equivalent value and include them, not argue on a talk page and cast accusations. My open challenge each of you to add even one new scholarly study or paper to this article of relevance. Improve the article, or leave it to us that will. -- Netoholic @ 20:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the way to counter something that already is biased is to get rid of it--at least in an encyclopedia that claims neutrality. Are you a product of that kind of education where everything is treated in terms of pro-con, as if the world is a stage for debates where all positions are in principle equal? And have you thought at all about the objection, voiced in a section above, that a percentage, or a ratio of liberals vs. conservatives (whatever that may mean--as you said yourself, that varies), doesn't make for bias? As it happens I do have a doctoral degree, and I do medieval shit. You can drive by my yard and see a sign posted for a "liberal" person running for the school board. You might call her liberal, that is; I call her moderately not right-wing. Anyway, pretend that I'm a "liberal" because of that yard sign, and because I want affordable health care for all (which Republicans claim they want too, by the way). And I'm an academic. Now kindly look at what I've been doing here, some of which is reflective of my academic work, and point out the "liberal bias" in Adso of Montier-en-Der, or Last Roman Emperor. Hey, I wrote Frobert of Troyes. Dude's a saint, a Catholic one--how biasedly did I write him up? And (since that's how you seem to operate) can you counter it with an article on the same topic from an opposed bias? (Not to mention Félix-Marie Abel, a Dominican priest--how did I bias him?) And then when you go back to your sources, do you not see that they talk about many different things, so many and so different that you are forced to acknowledge that this POV title is ridiculous? Drmies (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Lawn signs in the middle ages. Anti-vegetarian bias in medieval France. SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

“Scholarly” books, studies and papers are often primary sources as they can be opinion pieces written by advocates. And, I really dislike it when someone asks me to find opposing primary sources, as I wouldn’t have any more trust in them.. I’m not here to promote a position looking for sources to back such up. I have no interest in a debate of the advocates, both sides of which will likely misconstrue and cherry pick data. I’m interested in presenting a neutral point of view from neutral sources. The human eye can see 10 million colors, TV peddlers are advertising how many colors new tech can provide, and humans are hell bent on seeing just two. O3000 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This article cannot be improved until the title is changed. Indeed, perhaps the article shouldn’t exist at all. But, AfDs fail. In any case, material must be added that agrees with the title and the title is preposterous. I believe the current !votes are 1923-8 for a title change. I generally don’t like the concept of full protection. But, can we show the patience and self-discipline to stop adding material to support the current title until the title is determined? O3000 (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the nature of the lead will have to reflect the pagename. Therefore, plans to rewrite the lead should wait for the outcome of the move discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I was just going to say we should “leave the lede alone”, but it sounds like lyrics in a Celtic or Gaelic folk piece. O3000 (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The beauty of it is, we won't even have to re-write anything. We'll just undo the article back to one second before this move request. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Liberal Bias: the motherlode 60 sources to add to this article

There is a new research organization whose main purpose is to gather research and study the liberal bias. I'm referring to Heterodox Academy. Their extensive list of research papers will keep us busy documenting liberal bias for months. I suggest we divvy up the list and start adding relevant content to the article. Any thoughts on how to proceed?

Heterodox library

– Lionel^(talk) 10:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are doing whatever you can to push one POV into this article by relying on agenda-driven sources. O3000 (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That is absurd. The topic is liberal bias. Since when is adding on-topic reliably sourced reliably sourced scholarly content POV pushing? That's like saying adding police-involved killings of Blacks to the Black Lives Matter article is pov-pushing.– Lionel^(talk) 13:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's like writing an article on the Republican Party using as a major source, the Democratic Party. O3000 (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But, that is what we do here. We write articles on the Republicans & conservatives using BuzzFeed, Mother Jones and SPLC.– Lionel^(talk) 13:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Posting such ridiculous statements simply makes my point. Your “motherlode” which you say will keep us busy documenting liberal bias for months is a POV organization. You and that organization believe that there is a liberal bias and you have forced a POV title and are now using a partisan source to “prove” your POV. O3000 (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, what you seem to have here is a collection of studies that say "professors are liberal." OK, so what? It has been explained time and again that the fact that faculty tend to be left of center on the American political spectrum is not necessarily evidence of anti-conservative bias; just as the fact that most top NBA players are African-American is not necessarily evidence of anti-white bias. You need studies that make a connection between professors' personal political viewpoints and something relevant - like, do professors disproportionately give conservative students bad grades? That would be evidence of an anti-conservative bias. Merely endlessly pointing to what professors personally believe is not helpful to this debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt is correct, here. We use organizations as sources that exist for the primary purpose of pushing a left-wing worldview, advancing the agenda of the DNC, and attacking Republicans and President Trump for articles related to conservative issues, Republicans, and President Trump. Sources can be biased, as long as they're properly attributed. That's why it's so important that we make it very clear where this information is coming from, to put the information into context. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Lionel, but policy is against you. It says that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That means that the Heterodox Academy's views - or any heterodox views - cannot be given much weight and certainly cannot be used for us to state as a fact that published reliable, sources are biased. You need to get the policy changed. It could be they are absolutely correct, but that in itself would not help you. TFD (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. I'm not saying that we should use Heterdox as a reliable source. Heterodox has compiled a database of about 60 peer-reviewed scholarly sources from a variety of journals and publishers. These support the topic "Liberal bias in academia" succinctly. Here is a random sampling of the studies:

• "Why are there so few conservatives and libertarians in legal academia? An empirical exploration of three hypotheses." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 39 (1), 153-207[4]
• Why are professors liberal and why do conservatives care?. Harvard University Press.[5]
• "Political Polarization on Campus at an All Time High" UCLA Higher Education Research Institute.[6]

So you see, these high quality studies directly support the topic "Liberal bias in academia." And there are about 57 more... And the list was compiled by Hererodox. No need to Google. Hererodox has done all the work. If any of their fellows are editors we should hand out barnstars. Obviously I can't go through 60 sources and add relevant material. That's why in the interest of efficiency that I suggested that we divvy up the 60 sources.– Lionel^(talk) 08:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There are about 15 editors who have recently visited this page. Each editor could review 4 sources, and add anything they find about the topic of this article liberal bias. We'll have this article shipshape in no time.– Lionel^(talk) 08:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

OTOH this wealth of research into liberal bias could be used to source a new article Left-wing bias in American academia, since so many of the !voters support "American." – Lionel^(talk) 08:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt wrote: "So you see, these high quality studies directly support the topic "Liberal bias in academia.""

Umm, no they don't. Here is what one of your sources actually says:

"And before you blame colleges for liberal indoctrination, remember these were newly enrolled students, surveyed in the fall of their freshman year. That is, they arrived on campus with these political beliefs."
— Polarization on Campus at an All-time-high

If you would like to write the article, Liberal American students seek an education, feel free to do so.- MrX 🖋 11:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

They all show up with their Bernie beanies and leave with an MBA. That's American Education in the milennium. Unless they go to a "Christian college" -- then they show up with a bible and leave with a beer and a babe. SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Bernie beanies": Is that anything like beanie babies, or Bernie babies? Highly coveted until their value drops precipitously. - MrX 🖋 20:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps an over would help What Is a Liberal Education?.--Moxy (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

1955 survey - why is it being used? It only mentions political parties, not beliefs, at a time when there were a lot of right-wing Democrats

The article says " Lazarsfeld found that just 16% of the social scientists he surveyed self-identified as Republicans, while 47% self-identified as Democrats." Is this supposed to meant that in 1955 most of them were conservative? At that time almost all the south was Democrat and racist, many profoundly conservative. Identify political belief by party affiliation is not something Wikipedia should be doing. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's also very outdated, unless we add a history section. Perhaps it should just be removed.- MrX 🖋 20:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Get rid of it.--Calthinus (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Claiming this information is "outdated" as reason for removal is spurious. This source provides us one of the earliest such studies of ideological disparity, and so adds to the history of the subject and context of the article overall. We don't remove information which is reliably sourced and provides a historical perspective. This study has 391 scholarly citations via Google Scholar - removal of it is tantamount to censorship of valid, well-reviewed, scholarly information. We should though expand upon it and add information from the 1977 follow-up of this study which has 212 scholarly citations via Google Scholar. -- Netoholic @ 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Or not. O3000 (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Really? That is the level of discussion you can produce? Someone makes reasonable points about inclusion of an academic study and your response is "or not"? Anyways, so what is a reasonable cutoff year where historic data about a time period becomes out of date? I notice we have studies from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and more current. Should those be removed as well? For the record I disagree with the removal. PackMecEng (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You do realize Democrat and liberal were not remotely the same in 1955? And when I posted this, the ridiculous liberal bias title still existed. As MrX says, if we had a history section, perhaps. Otherwise, it’s misleading at best. O3000 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is not that different a time frame from the source right after. That is the point I was making. Also the research is pretty much the history section since it goes back so far. PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said, the title at the time was about liberal bias. Only the article had all sorts of conflation between party and politics and claimed effects, as if a greater number of Dems meant a liberal bias. It meant neither liberal nor bias, and this particular cite made the suggested connection even worse, as if Strom Thurmond was a liberal. O3000 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is about the old title of this article, would it be fair to say you have changed your view as a result of the change? Since the article is no longer expressly about liberal bias, the boarder title should mean that work is okay by the new standard then. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Bye-bye. No good. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Data never becomes "outdated", and this study is directly in point with this article title, well-cited, and informative. It's inserting of POV to make some arbitrary date cutoff. If we had data from the 1800s about Whigs vs Jacksonians, we'd include that too. --Netoholic @ 16:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly we agree there's a problem with this content as it appeared. It was just reinserted in the same form and I've reverted. At the least we would need to add contextualizing information either from the study or elsewhere. The Whigs bit is specious. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The reader is unlikely to conflate Whigs and Jacksonians with Reps and Dems. OTOH, the reader is likely to conflate 1955 Rep and Dem Parties with current Rep and Dem Parties. The section as stated is misleading. O3000 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

They are also likely to not conflate 1955 with 2018. The parties change all the time. --Netoholic @ 16:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, they are likely to conflate the two. How many times over the last year have you heard the line that Dems are racist, citing Byrd as an example, and the Republicans freed the slaves suggesting that these relate to the current parties? In any case, I took a shot at fixing it. O3000 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

They don't change as greatly as they have in the last 70 years or so. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Objective3000: - do you have a page/chapter/section for that reference you added? Citing an entire encyclopedia to make a narrow point is not helpful to readers. Also, if that reference doesn't relate that information to the 1955 study itself, this could be WP:SYNTH. -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Pages 163-164 touch on this, but as far as I can see, it isn't in just one spot. It's not SYNTH to state that the parties were different. It would be SYNTH if we tried to draw a conclusion. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Its SYNTH by inference. See the line "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated" and the examples on WP:SYNTH. By placing the new reference in only the section related to the 1955 study, you're drawing a conclusion which neither states - ie that academia in 1955 was dominated by "culturally conservative Southern Democrats". Neither source says that. -- Netoholic @ 18:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no way anyone could infer that. OTOH, without it, the implication is that the study suggested the schools were dominated by liberals. Is that the point that you're trying to make by including the study? If so, let's get rid of the misleading text. O3000 (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That inference seems, based on your points above, to be the primary reason you added that line. I don't see the word "liberals" anywhere in that section. The 1955 study seems to have been strictly about party identification. I am not trying to make a "point" - I didn't add this 1955 survey, I just object to it being removed or wrongly presented using that implication. It has excellent informative value, as evidenced by the hundreds of citations of it in other academic work. -- Netoholic @ 18:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be somewhere, as otherwise readers are not going to understand the implications of the survey - which we probably shouldn't use otherwise. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is about "Political views of American academics". This 1955 survey is about political affiliation of academics. It is entirely on point, well-cited, and of historical value to readers. -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It could be argued that the entire article is SYNTH. O3000 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

An article cannot be about the political views of academics to the extent that their academic work has to do with anything political. As academics, their work is neutral. If they're Commie microbiologists, who cares? The insinuation that academics' research and analysis is ginned up to reflect underlying political views is at best a political POV in its own right -- and one that violates our core WP policies. This article is a dead man walking. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

For the immediate problem, the solution is for Netoholic to strike his reinsertion of the flawed Dixiecrat count and along with it the flawed fix that O3000 generously attempted to apply. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The immediate problem is that O3000 removed two inline warnings (for SYNTH and requesting a quote from the source) and has not put them back, despite the obvious active discussion happening here. In particular since he has a conflict of interest (being the person who put the source there), he should not remove the tags per WP:WNTRMT. -- Netoholic @ 20:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is clear the status of the discussion is you on one view and everyone else, AKA consensus on the other view. So I think O3000 is OK. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is a process by which we represent fairly ALL views. It isn't a poll. And an active participant is hardly a fair pollster anyway. -- Netoholic @ 22:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Consensus is how we find consensus. A minority of one is rarely going to find its way into article text. A minority RS of one -- sometimes. A minority editor who objects to the consensus, not really. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Per O3000's accidental removal of these tags, I've restored them as the issue of SYNTH is still present. -- Netoholic @ 19:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: If you are talking about the revert you just made in the lead, you made the wrong edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

My revert of the tags was accidental. But, I see no reason behind either tag. There is no synth and I don’t see why verification is needed. O3000 (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Related article: Passing on the Right

"Passing explores the presence and effects of liberal bias in academia after conducting interviews with 153 professors from 84 universities who identify as conservative." Note the statement in Wikipedia's voice that there is liberal bias in academia. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This needs to stop. I made an edit taking it out of WP's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"all", "most" or "some" demographic studies

This article is chock full of major demographics studies which demonstrate the overall majority of left professors over right ones, which necessitates the use of "all". If someone can cite here one major study which doesn't show this (in reference to the population as a whole), we can settle on the word "most". If someone can cite a majority of studies over the ones given already in the article, we can use "some". This is basic word use guys. We have WP:VERIFIABILITY at stake. -- Netoholic @ 03:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, the terms "left", "liberal", and "Democrat" are not synonymous. Further, party registration doesn't directly relate to views. There are people that register in one party and consistently vote for the opposing party, or for third parties. O3000 (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's why those terms are listed separately. Its the same as if an article was about bears said "studies indicate that there are more bears in X forest that have blue eyes or brown fur than there are that have brown eyes or black fur". We need to summarize the studies, and grouping the ideologies found most vs those found least is the way we've chosen. Now the point is what word to use, since "some" is woefully misrepresenting the content of this article. -- Netoholic @ 03:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That depends on where one draws the line between left and right. If one thinks that anyone who doesn't get their news from Breitbart is left-wing, then most academics are left-wing. But if you define right-wing as defending American values and capitalism, then most of them are right-wing. TFD (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The wording first used by Netoholic was "All major demographic studies", which I changed to "Multiple demographic studies": [7]. I think saying "all major" is very unsatisfactory: are there any "minor" ones that show otherwise? Is the implied POV that if a study does not show bias, then by definition it must be "minor"? Does "all" depend on ignoring some studies as being "minor", and if so, is there an objective criterion for distinguishing "major" from "minor"? Subsequently, Specifico changed "Multiple" to "Some": [8]. I think the problem with that is that it ends up being so vague that it sounds like there are lots of studies that show the contrary. I think that the source material does trend reasonably clearly towards there being some such skewing of opinion. We just shouldn't make it sound monolithic. I'd prefer to go back to "multiple", or as a second choice "various". Another approach would be to word it a different way: "There is demographic evidence that...". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"Demographic studies broadly indicate..." would be my suggestion. I agree the major/minor distinction is going to cause more disagreement than its worth. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Including the text: “liberal, left-leaning, or Democrat” may mathematically mean a “logical or”. But, in English, it suggests they are members of a similar grouping. This is a POV problem. It’s like saying Republicans, right-leaning, or wife-beaters. That may be a true statement; but it suggests an association that does not exist. We need to cleanse this article of these POV problems. O3000 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: - I've reverted because the language does not reflect the preponderance of evidence given in the surveys. There is not just evidence of the demongraphic difference, there is significant evidence and wide general acceptance of this fact across the political spectrum. Its frankly a WP:FRINGE claim for us to imply anything less. There are probably fewer people that believe that liberal/etc professors aren't the majority than believe climate change isn't real. This is only about the demographics, which is clear, and has nothing to do with causes/effects which is far more up in the air. -- Netoholic @ 19:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If indeed you have a "fact" to report, then simply propose article text and citation. There are no credible "facts" that I've seen to support your POV. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I realize that "demongraphic" (sic) was just a typo, but it somehow seems apt. That edit was a big mistake on your part. You keep citing WP:BRD in a manner that strikes me as more like WP:OWN. But if you think that going back to "Some" makes it any closer to what you are arguing for, you are dead wrong about it. If you can get consensus here for "Demographic studies broadly indicate" instead of "There is demographic evidence that", OK, but I think that you won't. But "There is demographic evidence that" is significantly stronger than "Some", which implies that there are plenty of studies that show no bias. And you reverted other things that were just good copyediting. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I hate the use of "some" but I want to see us reach a consensus here before we apply any change to the article. You suggested ""There is demographic evidence that" above and I suggested "Demographic studies broadly indicate" which you never replied to. I think your phrase definitely doesn't claim the opposite case at all, but it still implies "there is evidence, but its minimal". That doesn't seem to be the case. "broadly indicate" says it closer to the actual situation - that there is a lot of evidence, and its conclusive enough to be widely considered valid. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Instead of complaining about my not replying, you should realize that I made the edit only after there had been a large amount of editing on this talk page without any further comment here. Instead of reverting, you could have stated your concern in talk. And reverting it to something that you admit that you hate was just plain WP:POINTy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Tryptofish: - Its not POINTy, its standard practice to revert to the most recent "stable" version while discussion is happening. The amount of discussion in other sections doesn't really relate to this very specific object of concern. Now, can we get to the topic at hand? What concerns do you have my suggested wording? -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A day or so does not make it "stable". And I stand by what I said. My biggest concern about your suggested wording is that I don't think anyone else here will agree to it (although I personally do not object to it). I'm perfectly willing to discuss alternative language. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Tryptofish: - If you're good with my wording ("Some demographic studies indicate" to "Demographic studies broadly indicate"), and I'm good with that wording, we seem to have consensus. Should we wait a bit more time for any others to explicitly object or suggest something else, or go forward with it? -- Netoholic @ 20:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that there is consensus for that. I think that we should see what comes out of the thread about liberal/conservative, below, because we may end up completely reformulating the sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing "stable" about edit-warring. Please self-revert. Somebody needs to get us back to the improved version that reflects talk page consensus and good copy-edits after the rejection of the POV move proposal. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic: First, that's no excuse for reverting better-written text per Tryptofish's comment about copy edits. Second, when its you against rest-of-the-world, we don't need to wait for you to change your mind before restoring the current consensus. Please self-revert. Edit-warring is not constructive and if you persist we're going to need a cumbersome RfC to shut it down. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No demographic studies have identified bias either way in all professors

Come on guys, no one has studied all academics. Why are we suggesting they have? Doug Weller talk 12:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Would seem a bit difficult considering the number of faculty at U.S. degree-granting postsecondary institutions is in the neighborhood of 1.5 million. [9] O3000 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

: perhaps metion sources like this.--Moxy (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how many of the sources were used by Horowitz, but the author says "The studies look compelling until they are more closely engaged.— The studies Horowitz cites rarely look at colleges, departments,or programs outside of the social sciences and humanities, thus excluding a large portion of the campus. For instance, these studies generally have nothing to say about the political affiliation of faculty in the schools of business, agriculture, education, computer science, medical sciences, and engineering. And yet, according to the Princeton Review, four of the top-ten most popular subjects are business administration and management, biology, nursing, and computer science, none of which is included in Horowitz’s studies." Doug Weller talk 15:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you heard of sampling in a cross-sectional study? --Netoholic @ 16:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Having studied statistics in social sciences, yes. Peer reviewed reports normally make this explicit, with all relevant details. Are you saying that our article does this for all reports? Doug Weller talk 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. These are not "samples" that a statistician would use across studies and across time to create a snapshot of a single state of nature. As so often happens in articles that make lists of most significant X or that try to broadly characterize a widespread tendency, the collation of content here depends on editors' OR and stitching of all these "studies". I'm pretty sure this article is going to be deleted or pared down to something of no significance whatsoever. Of course that could take a year or two of effort. This is simply an ill-defined topic, which is why there are no secondary or tertiary sources that summarize conclusions as to the named article topic. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an unbelievable statement to be made by a Wikipedia editor. First, if you think it should be deleted, post on WP:AFD. But for an editor to ever make the statement that a topic should be "pared down to something of no significance whatsoever" is counter to the philosophy of building an encyclopedia. We should always seek to enhance our coverage of the world. And we should NEVER take an approach with the end goal of making something "pared" down. That represents such arrogance of belief. It sounds as though there is some perfect vision for an article out there and "we could just get it there without all these obstacles in the way!". Wikipedia will never be "done" or "right". -- Netoholic @ 19:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please have another look at what I wrote. I did not use the word "should". I'm saying that after we sort out all the available references and parse them through our editorial and sourcing policies, this subject is not likely to be considered meaningful and the current title, like the POV one we purged, will not survive. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Ah, the tried and true "death by a thousand cuts" approach. Challenge every addition and every source. Never add new content and new sources. That final point is the key. But if all someone ever does is challenge additions yet never make their own original contributions, then they are a net negative to Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand a word of that, but at any rate as long as you see that I did not say "should" -- the article will swim or sink on the merits. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We're misleading our readers if we don't make it clear who were studied

We need to say exactly what each study was looking it. Right now you could argue that many are being misrepresented. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

To take this point one step further -- even though we've gotten rid of the obviously POV title, it's still not clear that there's a well-defined article-worthy topic described by the title. In fact, does anybody care about the article that might be written about the current title? It's kind of bowtie/butterfly shaped with vast vague wings expanding from a very slim core. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Doug Weller, but I think that the subject of the page is notable enough to justify such a page. The problem is the need to avoid oversimplification. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Also agree. Now that the POV title is gone, the article needs a-fixin'. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also agree. Now that the POV title is gone, the article needs a-fixin'. Unfortunately, one editor's combative input here and on two user talks is making this more difficult than it oughta be. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Who is that? PackMecEng (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC) We're not helping our readers if we discuss editors instead of content. Enough, already. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Agreed PackMecEng (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Generally I would agree. But, if one editor goes to two of the talk pages of the small number of editors contributing here, accuses one of being a liar and posts a spurious warning on another, I think these attempts are notable. This is not conducive to collaboration. O3000 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC) By now you know the drama board to head to, it isn't helpful to bring it up at the article talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Drama boards should never be the first option. I always prefer collaboration. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Perhaps dispute resolution, talking with them on their talk page or the like. Vague accusations of "one editor's combative input" are not collaboration. PackMecEng (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC) What, you want me to go to DR because the editor posted insults suggesting I'm a liar on my TP? That is not the purpose of DR and would be instantly closed. I am merely stating that we do not need combative editing. That's all. I have zero interest of going to any notice board. I'm just suggesting that we engage in civil discourse O3000 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Perhaps you should extend an olive branch in order to achieve that goal? -- Netoholic @ 02:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

More articles is always better. But we'll need to avoid hidden assumptions. Do we need an article Political views of Irish Ophthamologists? No thanx. So are we starting from a hidden assumption that any such views influence their reasearch, teaching, students, choice of employer, wardrobe or any other vital component of their lives? We should be mindful of that because the old POV is still out there -- just not in the title right now. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a straw man. If there were dozens of studies on that subject, then it would be notable for inclusion. If news media regularly debated the effects of their politics on eye care success results, it'd be notable. If Wikipedia editors spent hours discussing various aspects of the topic, rather than AFDing, it would seem to be notable. -- Netoholic @ 02:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. A group of editors "discussing" XYZ does not make it WP:NOTABLE. Neither do fringe narratives, fake news, and right-wing blogomemes establish notability around here. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion part wasn't the key phrase there. The notability is due to the fact that you haven't AFD'd this. -- Netoholic @ 04:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If there is "significant coverage in reliable sources" which covers Political views of Irish Ophthamologists then per WP:GNG an article is supported. – Lionel^(talk) 06:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You are attempting to compare apples to pineapples. There are many studies of the political views of academics. If there were many studies of political views of Irish ophthalmologists, then an article could be created. Natureium (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Liberal, left-leaning, or Democrat

I remain opposed to the grouping: more professors in the US who identify as liberal, left-leaning, or Democrat. The sentence more professors in the US who identify as liberal, left-leaning, or Republican would be even more true. O3000 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is a valid concern. I'd say pick one: liberal/conservative, or Democrat/Republican, depending on the sources. I think left/right-leaning is comparatively mismatched to US politics, and when it was piped to left/right-wing, that was linking to something that means something different. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

These labels can't be applied consistently even over 4-year cycles in the recent USA. Moreover there are apparently many WP editors who use "liberal" interchangeably with "left-wing" and who call the current 30% Trump core "conservative". Labels are always fraught and it's clear that we can't use labels from a wide range of dates and contexts to categorize either the population or the "studies" that attempt to describe it. Meanwhile, somebody needs to revert the latest edit against consensus. SPECIFICO talk 20:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A bit more. “liberal, left-leaning, or Democrat” can have two meanings:

1. It can mean that these three classifications are essentially synonymous and can therefore be a meaningful group of people. Of course that’s not even true today. But it’s absurd when you look at the 50’s, when we had a solid Democratic South and Rockefeller Republicans. And it’s pure SYNTH if you take studies over 60 years using different terminology and try to match the different terms to arrive at a conclusion.
2. It can mean that we add together the number that have identified as one of these three classifications. Well, in that case, “liberal, left-leaning, or Republican” would be an even larger number if most Dems are liberal. In other words, this is meaningless.

On top of that, which meaning of liberal are we using? Large percentages of people call themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative, or other combinations of terminology. The title of this article may have changed. But, I think it’s still clear that a POV is being pushed based on SYNTH. O3000 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the worst of it. It will continue to evolve with the article, (if not deleted) but I don't think there's anything to be gained by fussing with it until the article content is in better shape. The "inconsistent" tag should be removed however. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why this was split from the prior section, but I'll repeat my comment as it still is my view. Its the same as if an article was about bears said "studies indicate that there are more bears in X forest that have blue eyes or brown fur than there are that have brown eyes or black fur". We need to summarize the studies, and grouping the ideologies found most vs those found least is the way we've chosen. Each study tends to compare dual terms liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat, left/right and the usage is defined within the study parameters. That this concern is raised is evidence that we cannot get away just using one pairing in the lead as obviously people will differ on their interpretations. -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Each study uses different terms. The attempt to rationalize these terms is SYNTH. Basically, this is a study of studies. That's OR. O3000 (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic, actually, it's not like that at all. We know what black is we know what brown is we know what blue is we know what eyes are we know fur. Assuming the count was competent and statistically robust, we get valid information about the color of bears. That has no similarity whatsoever with ill-defined political categories in dimensions that are not stable from study to study, that relate to thought, motivation, and behavior rather than durable observable surfaces, and that are widely used to color self-interested partisan arguments by a large segment of the population, including the sponsors of some of the very studies in play here. For these reasons and more, no similarity whatsoever. SPECIFICO talk 21:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that some people identify everyone that doesn’t think exactly like them as libtards and some people identify everyone that doesn’t think exactly like them as right-wing wackos. They have no concept of nuance. Reality is far more complex than pigeonholing the citizenry into two groups. This article is attempting to manufacture some simple conclusion from a bunch of disparate studies. The article could be used as an example of OR/SYNTH/POV. O3000 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, of all God's creatures, academix are most likely to have complex and convoluted thought processes that defy the simple categories that other acad's need to cram into their publications. The whole enterprise is fraught and fragile. And who cares about this anyway. Ask a professor a question, they'll give you an answer. Tomorrow might be a different answer. And I haven't seen studies that address the significance by asking, e.g. to what extent do your personal views influence your teaching, research, or votes in the Faculty Senate. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Any way you look at it, we have no business trying to summarize these studies with any overall conclusion in the lede. O3000 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The more that I think about it, the more I think that we should do a major rewrite of the lead section, as opposed to trying to wordsmith the existing lead. I just re-read the Research section of the page, and what stands out is the extent to which the studies, taken as a group, are inconclusive. I haven't thought this out fully yet, but I'm thinking that, after a simple lead sentence, we should start with the popular conception of a liberal professoriat, and then go on to say that scholarly studies that report such a bias have been controversial. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

That sounds promising. O3000 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In terms of the current version, including my recent edit, why don't we just leave out the second sentence that characterizes/categorizes the data? What remains then just points to the fact that the article shows an array of results but doesn't present OR about a central tendency. If we had RS that summarize all the studies then we might cite that for a conclusion, but otherwise it's OR and POV and SYNTHy. SPECIFICO talk 22:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We would have to rewrite what would then become the second sentence, because it doesn't make sense on its own. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes. So instead of striking #2, we could rewrite it to describe the polls but not their findings? SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As I reread the page, I feel increasingly like we need to more completely rewrite the lead, although I'm still not sure how. I kind of like the idea of saying that conservatives have written about what they see as a liberal bias, and then saying that scholarly demographic studies have given differing results and have been criticized for methodological problems. Something like that, maybe. It really stands out to me how the studies in the regional differences subsection are completely at odds with those in the main part of the research section. I've long assumed that there was indeed a well-documented liberal bias, and frankly I'm taken aback at how little it has been documented by research. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm still thinking out loud here, but maybe the entire page should be changed in terms of what comes first, and what comes next, with the lead rewritten to reflect that. The last paragraph of the page, the one that begins with "Politically conservative authors have long argued that...", should be the basis of the section that should come first. Then, after that, have the research. I see that in much-earlier versions of the page, the research was treated chronologically, with early research followed by recent research, and I think something like that would be better than what we have now. Sort of like: (1) Conservatives have long argued that there is a liberal bias among US university professors, and that it adversely affects students and conservative professors. (2) Various studies, over time, with criticism of the studies, but no overall summarizing in Wikipedia's voice. (3) Strong agreement among studies that students are not much affected, and differing results about professors. Some indications that there are more liberals than conservatives and more Democrats than Republicans, but differing results as to the extent of the difference and not much evidence of it changing over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If this article continues to exist (and I don’t think it should), I think the studies should be reversed in order. This is not an article on the history of the Roman Empire. A current study should be at the top, assuming it isn’t from a source known for POV. O3000 (talk) 00:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not confident that it will continue to exist, so I'm going to wait before putting much more time and effort into it. I see that an editor has removed a number of the studies on the basis that they came from unreliable sources, and I likewise see that, once those are removed, there's a lot less variation from one study to another, for those studies that remain. And the more consistent result is that liberal-ish professors may be a plurality but not a majority, and that the sum of conservatives plus moderates would actually be the majority. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not so sure the removal was proper. Bias sources are not the same as unreliable sources, that is even assuming the sources are bias. So the rationale for removal is lacking. PackMecEng (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

But when the "bias" relates to fundamentally flawed methodology that invalidates the content of the proposed source, then its not just biased, it is unreliable. SPECIFICO talk 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I could agree with that, but there is no evidence that is the case from what I see. PackMecEng (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

The methodology, sampling, framing of queries and other aspects of the "studies" are dubious. And some of them are not peer reviewed "scholarship" but are promotional bits by partisan advocacy groups with the usual neutral-sounding-pseudo-policy-thinktank names. Anyway who even is interested in the political views of academics? Therein lies a clue. We'll sort this out over time, but unfortunately I am afraid it will attract a lot of POV pushing ideologues. The article was more or less dormant until I did the initial move away from the POV title. Now look at all the sudden interest in it. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome btw for showing you this article . It all goes back to does this require only peer reviewed academic studies only? I do not see why it would, if the source passes as a standard RS that is acceptable. Also from what I can see the removal was a slash and burn with some of the sources meeting the bar of peer reviewed and such. Just does not sit right with the rationel given for removal. PackMecEng (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pinging JzG, who made those edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

−

PackMecEng: Oh. I forgot who mentioned this to me. You recall my immediate horror that such an article exists. Having lived many years among PhD types and current or former academics, I don't particularly care about peer reviewed but as @Volunteer Marek: pointed out, there is a huge population in the USA of PhDs who work for advocacy groups, phony think tanks (including phony think tanks at top univerities) and corporate communications desks. So the appearance of valid research is easy to present, while vetting the substance is difficult. Hence for us WP editors peer review is often a handy shortcut to eliminate the most preposterous nonsense and get a smaller basket of prospective sources to consider. SPECIFICO talk 18:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah in a past life in the private sector I worked with a lot of them PhD type people, they were the ones that normally went crazy or had breakdowns. But again I am not disparaging peer reviewed content, and it is a more reliable standard for sure. I am just saying that if it is not peer reviewed it should not be an automatic rejection. PackMecEng (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Some numbers "1.5 million professors and 2500 four-year institutions in the United States" - sorry, that's an undercount

Copying this from Passing on the Right "Bruce S. Thornton (2016) questions how representative the small sample size of the interviews could be, citing that it is 0.01 percent of the "1.5 million professors and 2500 four-year institutions in the United States" and noting that feedback in the interviews could be anecdotal, subjective, or otherwise unreliable. He takes issue with several conclusions of the authors. As to the authors claims that the impact of lack of ideological diversity on conservative professors is "overstate(d)" and "conservatives can survive and even thrive in the liberal university" despite being stigmatized, Thornton calls the claim "astonishing" and counters by noting the prevalence of massive student-organized protests over the previous year, videos of "students screaming and shrieking at faculty members", and frequent occurrences of visiting speakers being deplatformed. Pointing out the author's claim that there is no "widespread indoctrination" of students, Thornton says that "freshmen and sophomores are especially vulnerable" to such indoctrination by giving examples of how students on his own campus are "funneled" through courses rife with leftist ideology and identity politics. He cites recent surveys pointing out that a majority (53%) of millennials (ages 18-29) view socialism favorably, and 69% would vote for a socialist for president. Thornton praises the authors for their analysis of the academic history of eugenics, the civil rights movement, and that communism "leaves no room for conservative contributions to human progress"." Doug Weller talk 12:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Is there any discussion of what institutions were selected? I'm wondering if they included the 600 Christian-affiliated schools. O3000 (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Doug Weller: This reveals some of the unstated assumptions (not findings) that underlie the proposition that the political views of academics is a notable topic. All kinds of things happen on all kinds of campuses, but we don't have convincing, well-sourced documentation that there's a well-defined phenomenon at play. SPECIFICO talk 12:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

((ec))I've changed the section heading, that's quite an undercount. In 2015 WAPO said 5,300.[10] Some what look to be official figures for 2009-2010[11] say about 4500. As an aside, community collegea and two year institutions often have professors. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind the quote is "2500 four-year institutions". Using your link: Public 4-year institutions (total): 672, Not-for-profit 4-year institutions (total): 1539, For-profit institutions (4-year): 563. 672+1539+563=2774 - A little off, but its obvious his comment was just a rough figure for illustrative purposes. I'm not sure why this source is being discussed here though. -- Netoholic @ 18:11, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Commencement speakers

These findings are helpful for this topic:

• Liberal speakers invited to speak at commencements outnumbered conservative speakers at a 12:1 ratio at the top 100 American schools.
• Four times as many liberals than conservatives invited at the top 50 schools.
• Top 45 schools invited zero conservative speakers.
• Zero Ivy League schools invited a conservative speaker. Brown hasn't had a conservative speaker for over 20 years.

References

Probably should go in a new section such as "Commencement speaker ideology". Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not appropriate for this article, and either you've read your (conservative) sources but misrepresented them, or you haven't read them, just glanced at them. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::American academics inviting liberal commencement speakers almost exclusively isn't relative to the political views of American academics? I don't know if it's possible to get more appropriate than that. The captions I used for the links are essentially pasted directly from the headlines, so there's no misrepresentation. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course there's misrepresentation. Sadly headlines don't accurately reflect the body of a news story. How about actually adding what they really say? Zero? Doug Weller talk 18:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

:::No, I did not misrepresent the sources or the data, and I resent the accusation being repeated. You've said your piece. Let others weigh in. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

We don't use headlines as they tend to be bait and exaggerate stories. They're also brief and out of context. Had to remove one this morning claiming a death was ruled a murder by a coroner, which is not possible. The body of the article correctly said homicide. O3000 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::I don't think anybody put in a content proposal as of yet, much less one based off a headline. These are helpful, relevant links to be translated into the article. Just dropping a headline into the article would be more than a little sloppy. We don't do that. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this tendency is relevant and can be mentioned in brief - "Effects - On students" section perhaps, since it represents the "final word" that institutions want to leave outgoing students with. But I do think we'd need better sourcing and to work out some more major issues for the time being. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It doesn't belong in any case. However, the point I was trying to make was that you said zero and the source didn't. It says none were invited this year but discusses conservative snd moderate speakers invited in the last few years, including last year. Yes, zero this year but the way you put it suggested something different. Of courses different schools have different methods of inviting speakers, so you can't just aggregate and get anything meaningful. Not that the very small numbers are that meaningful. It certainly isnh't about political views of American academics. And it's certainly not about effects on students. There's no possible way to show that. Doug Weller talk 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the least frequent modes of selection is faculty vote. Students, Administrators, and other stakeholders more often choose and then there are fundraising, alumni relations interests and PR/Media attention to consider. Anyway, by that time they've got one foot out the door. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

:: Ah I see what you're saying. I left out "this year". This was meant to just be a note to spur discussion, not a fleshed out content proposal. I'm fine with adding "In 2018," before mentioning the data, as that would be accurate for that particular source. The point is that the sources say that academics overwhelmingly invite liberals to speak at commencements, imparting their leftist worldview on graduating students. If you take a look at the video or transcripts of these speeches, you will see all sorts of topics near and dear to the hearts of Democrats being discussed: global warming, social justice, immigration, and of course Hillary Clinton being cheered as she blames her election loss on ze Russians. There is no research that suggests academics aim for a diversity of thought or ideological leanings in their speakers. The Ivy's in particular selecting only liberals is particularly notable. I'd say that's meaningful. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: Specifico, which sources do you have that support what you're saying about the selection of commencement speakers? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I just looked at one of these links to Fox News. They listed 50 speakers and labeled every single one of them as conservative or liberal. Actors, an opera singer, business people, an English prof, most aren’t in politics. There is no possible way they could know the political leanings of every one of these people and pigeonhole them into two categories. Looks like they just labeled everyone a liberal that wasn’t a staunch conservative. The Fox News article was simply reporting what Young America’s Foundation claimed. YAF sponsored White Supremacist Richard Spencer’s speech at the University at Buffalo and a hundred or so other conservative speakers, like Ann Coulter. So, the determination of who was a liberal was made by an organization that sponsors a White Supremacist. That’s why we don’t use bad sources. O3000 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC) :That's the standard now? If an organization supports the freedom of speech of someone you don't like, then that organization can't be cited on Wikipedia? That source is now "bad"? I think that's a horrible precedent to set, and fortunately Wikipedia policy isn't with you on this one. Regardless, you don't have to be a politician to be a liberal or conservative. Actors, artists, singers, and certainly English professors are by and large liberals and have embraced modern leftist ideologies. That isn't exactly controversial or particularly surprising. You didn't provide any specific examples of people you think are misidentified as liberals, but I couldn't find any. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have asked you several times to please not put words in my mouth. Strawman arguments are not useful. I most certainly did not say we cannot cite a source that supports the freedom of speech of someone I don't like. YAF does not just support the freedom of speech of a White Supremacist, as do I. They paid a White Supremacist to spread his ideas to grads. Now, that is their right. But, in no way should an encyclopedia use their evaluations of who is liberal and who is conservative. O3000 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Plainview, thank goodness we don't have affirmative action in speaker selection. I would not expect to see quotas for every possible fragment of society. SPECIFICO talk 21:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a straw man. If you read my comment again, you will see that I used question marks. Asking someone if you correctly summarized their point of view is the first step in any healthy exchange of ideas. So now you say that's not what you meant, but you're again bringing up what you say is one of the source's ties to a white supremacist. How does that make the source invalid? If I pull up a writer at the New York Times who has sent black supremacist tweets, can we ban the Times from Wikipedia? I want to be really clear on what you're really arguing. Also, what source are you using to claim that YAF has Richard Spencer on their payroll? This is what I found when trying to verify this statement: University of Florida YAF condemn Richard Spencer's 'Vile and Disgraceful Ideas'.

You’re making ridiculous comparisons. Please look at the words that I actually type and don’t insert nonsense. The evaluation of who is a liberal was made by an organization that pays extremists to give speeches at schools. They’re the group behind the recent rash of rash of such speeches. [12]. An encyclopedia cannot use them as a reliable source for such. You need to look at a source before bringing it here . O3000 (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::Oh, Robert Spencer. Totally different guy, Objective. This man isn't a white supremacist. What were you saying about needing to "look at a source before bringing it here"? I will wait here for your apology for the snarky comments about "ridiculous comparisons" and "nonsense," after you strike nearly all of your above comments, of course. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, yes the Islamophobic author as well as Ann Coulter and other extremists. The point is that they cannot be used to evaluate who is a liberal and who is a conservative. It's an absurd source for an encyclopedia. And I think this is the third or fourth time you have asked me for an apology, which violates a pile of guidelines here. O3000 (talk) 22:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::::Good enough for Fox News, which is the most trusted news source in the States.[13] Unless you have a source for your "Islamophobic" smear, you should probably remove that as that would be a BLP violation (this policy applies on talk pages as well). And it would be the third or fourth time that you've declined, and while your refusals don't necessarily violate policy, it would certainly do better to gather good will and build a collegial atmosphere instead of battlegrounding and banning people from your talk page. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Which tells you something about Fox. And you really need to work on your WP:TE. O3000 (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If we have gotten to the point of debating about the reliable-source status of Fox News, this discussion is going nowhere. (Fox News? Facepalm) How about discussing whether the subtopic satisfies WP:DUE? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, now we're at the point where Plainview is taking me to a noticeboard. That's certainly a great way to collaborate. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Objective3000's_BLP_violation_(refusal_to_remove). O3000 (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

:::::::::::I asked you very nicely to remove your BLP violation and you declined. I would have asked again at your talk page, but you banned me from there. Posting a link here to your report could possibly be construed as canvassing, and asking for help from other editors to come to your defense. That's not on. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/268634/case-islamophobia-robert-spencer -- Instead I am what I would call the “good” kind of Islamophobe --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::Specifico, I have no interest in discussing the merits of higher learning institutions indoctrinating students to embrace liberalism. All I care about is what the sources say and keeping the article NPOV. This isn't a forum. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at the cited sources. They consist entirely of Fox News, Campus Reform, and CNSNews.com. The latter two are self-described conservative organizations, and Fox News is, well, Fox News. All are basically opinion pieces. I think that we need better sourcing to include any of this, except perhaps to say something like "conservative commentators have said that most invited commencement speakers are liberal". We cannot take any of it as being something we can say in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

::I agree it should be attributed. "A YAF study revealed that..." would be sufficient. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've looked further and they all are reporting on one or the other of just two analyses, one by Young America's Foundation and the other by Campus Reform. So all of the underlying data comes from advocacy groups. This is not objective data. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Plainview was a sock of Hidden Tempo, I've struck through his edits. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Mass removal of sources

I intend to revert the undiscussed mass removal of sources User:JzG, claiming they are from "think tanks" or implying bias. There is no evidence for such a claim, and no evidence that these academic sources are unreliable. Wikipedia does not require sources to be "neutral", only reliable, and speaking broadly these sources have a large number of reciprocal academic citations that demonstrate reliability.They should be immediately restored, and sources found for any counterarguments to them individually so we can discuss them one at a time. JzG has not posted on this talk page, nor edited this article before, so this strikes me as a drive-by. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest waiting before reverting. You and I have now both pinged him, and he is a very experienced editor. There is nothing urgent about this, and you should give at least a day for further discussion.

And by way of one part of such a discussion, I'd like to know why at least some of the removed sources reported results that differ from the results of studies still on the page, by amounts that are mathematically irreconcilable. In fact, the Abrams study still in the regional differences section says that "the average ratio of liberal to conservative professors is 6:1 nationally". There were similar statements in most of the removed material. Almost all of the studies in the main research section that are still there give percentages for liberal professors around 40–50%, and 20–30% for conservatives. That's approximately 2:1. Something must be incorrect. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

This is why a more careful examination of each study (and its reviews/confirmations/citations) is necessary rather than just removing the studies that show the highest levels of disparity as "think tanks" etc. Also, I had no intention of reverting until I see JzG has started up contributions again. But it does kind of come at a time when an AFD is going on -and- I'm sure there are other edits we could be making but can't due to the pending revert. -- Netoholic @ 21:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I want to clarify what I said, in that I think that the numerical differences are something that do not make sense to me, but that I do not think that sources should be removed on the basis of what their results are (nor do I really think that they were removed for that reason). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

To me the differences seem a bit more related to variables like 1) when the study was conducted, 2) what sample of the population was studied and how it was extrapolated to the wider population, and 3) how each study designates the ideological categories it uses. The "big picture" doesn't have to make much sense to us (and actually, if we ever thought it did, we'd have already lost our neutrality). We'll just present the studies individually, accurately, neutrally. A key factor, much more valuable than one editor's judgment on a particular study, is to use citation indexes and see how often its referenced. This proves its value within the academic community far more than any editor here is likely qualified to judge. -- Netoholic @ 04:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• The main issue here is WP:PRIMARY. The statements I removed were of the form $RIGHTWINGTHINKKTANK says that academics are biased against the right, source $RIGHTWINGTHINKTANK. Of course they say that. They would say that even if the ideas academics are criticising are intellectually bankrupt, like "trickle-down". We should rely on peer-reviewed academic studies and reliable independent secondary sources, preferably ones that are not wedded to one side or the other. We should not create articles by reporting fights blow by blow, we should rely on authoritative analysis by others. Guy (Help!) 06:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• To editor JzG: - Maligning sources as "right wing think tanks" is irrelevant and I'm not going to argue for or against that position because even if they were, they still meet our guidelines if they are reliable, verifiable. In detail, here are your removals:

1. 1 from Paul Hollander, a highly-published Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The journal is The New Criterion, a well-known, reliable source. His expert opinions related to the book are quoted, without interpretation.
2. 2 from Bradley C.S. Watson, a professor of politics at Saint Vincent College also well-published. The journal is Claremont Review of Books, a well-known, reliable source. His expert opinions related to the book are quoted, without interpretation.
3. 3 by Mitchell Langbert, Anthony J. Quain, and Daniel B. Klein. The journal is Econ Journal Watch is peer-reviewed and reliable. ThinkProgress even reported on them, and establishes the journal's integrity by discussing a case of someone falsely claiming to have been published by them. The content is summarized with no interpretation.
4. 4 is probably the closest case to a justified removal. It has a citation error (incorrectly referencing a reprint of the study, rather than the journal source for it found here). It is written by Mitchell Langbert (professor at Brooklyn College) and published in Academic Questions. It should be treated somewhat differently, better phrased to attribute the claims directly to the author, and should include external critical response ([14], [15]). Even if you consider it dubious, it still highly relates to the article topic and has enough of a reception to be included with proper handling.

Per this, I'm reverting all but #4 above, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP as #1/#2 are secondary source review articles, and #3 as primary source, peer-reviewed study quoted with due care. #4 would need a rework before returning it. -- Netoholic @ 09:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I too was surprised by the removal of reliably sourced content. Based on the quality of the publications and credentials of the authors as elucidated by Netoholic I do not see any policy-based rationale for excluding these sources. We're fortunate to have these high quality sources in the article. Furthermore there is no policy prohibiting biased sources in fact WP:BIASED identifies instances where biased sources are preferred. – Lionel^(talk) 11:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe there was consensus or justification to reinstate the challenged content. I agree its got many problems, PRIMARY, UNDUE, POV for starters. Also the secondary endorsement by marginal/fringey advocacates such as New Criterion do not cure these problems. Netoholic, I request you self-revert your edits and continue discussion here on talk. We should try to reach consensus informally through dialogue here rather than get into cumbersome RfC resolutions of routine editing disagreements. SPECIFICO talk 15:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I, too, do not see a consensus here to reinstate that material, and I have removed it again, until such time as there really is a consensus. This is not a matter of either we have one version or we remove it. There are also possibilities of putting the material back in different form. If the differences seem a bit more related to variables like 1) when the study was conducted, 2) what sample of the population was studied and how it was extrapolated to the wider population, and 3) how each study designates the ideological categories it uses, that kind of context needs to be accessible to readers. It's not a matter simply of whether it makes sense to editors, but that if it does not make sense to editors then it will also not make sense to readers. And I do not think that we have reached a consensus about whether the sources are reliable or not. We don't resolve that by looking at who got the last word in after a brief period of time. I just looked at our pages on Paul Hollander, Bradley C.S. Watson, and Daniel B. Klein. Yes, they have strong academic credentials, and I'm not arguing that we should reject them as lacking that. But they are all noted as taking one side on liberalism versus conservatism, so we need to present context about that. Not omitting them entirely, but writing about them in a better way. By way of analogy, consider String theory#Criticism. It's not a matter of deciding whether to include scholars who support string theory and omit scholars who oppose, or to do the opposite. It's a matter of making it clear to readers what the authors' overall positions are. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've looked some more at the source material, and I see more issues that need to be considered carefully. As noted above, the authors are academics, but also advocates. But the publications are not exactly as described above. The New Criterion is not a publication in which academic scholars publish their research. It's a literary magazine that contains cultural criticism. The Claremont Review of Books is also not an academic journal, but a publication that advocates for conservatism, and is published by the Claremont Institute. Similarly Econ Journal Watch is published by the Atlas Network, an organization whose stated purpose is to advocate for free-market economics. My point here is that it is false to present these sources as though they are publications in which university professors present their professional research findings. They are all opinion publications. Professors can of course publish their opinions, but that is not the same thing as scholarly research data. I don't mind if we cite them for attributed opinions, but we should not make it sound like here are the results of a study. If these finding were first published in a scholarly journal, we should cite that instead. And if they haven't been, that should be a red flag. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"academics, but also advocates" - I have to ask, "so what?". I am sure there are "advocates" which disagree with various issues related to this topic, and it too would be inappropriate to not include them if they are published in reliable sources. No one said the journals above are related to research, but they are well-known for including scholarly book reviews and opinion. They are reliable secondary sources, even if they focus on certain areas over others, they still are reliable for sourcing per our guidelines. What I would recommend is that you focus more on finding similarly sourced counterpoints and include them in the article. Right now your objections strike me as more disagreement with these sources than actually about whether they follow our guidelines. -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you want to cite them for their opinions about academic bias, or for their descriptions of demographic differences? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Tryptofish: - I don't know which source(s)you're refering to as "them". -- Netoholic @ 23:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Each of them, one by one. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be advocating in principle for the inclusion of it, but in this article it would be WP:UNDUE to do any deep dive into their individual ideological standing. The sources are linked to their own Wikipedia articles, so readers can explore and determine for themselves. If there are any sources which offer direct counterpoints in the context of this article's overall subject, then introduce them. Barring that though, there is no call to remove professional opinions cited as such. -- Netoholic @ 21:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Let me be clear that what I am advocating is not a binary include or exclude. And context does not require a deep dive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, and this is important, there is a difference between "professional opinions" and saying that the percentage of liberal professors is X%. Numerical data are not opinions, or at least shouldn't be. The opinions would be how the numbers might be interpreted. The contested material consists mostly of according to X, the ratio of liberal to conservative professors nationwide is 6:1 or 10:1 or whatever. The ratio of 6:1 is not an opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Tryptofish: - You're making a general statement when the issue at hand is 3-4 different sources. I can assume the numbers issue you have is related to Langbert and I already agreed that we should attribute them to the author. I admit I'm getting a bit lost in your replies because you're speaking in general terms. Please restore the sources you have trouble with, tag them with the issues you still have, and then we can discuss them one-by-one. -- Netoholic @ 22:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of attributing numbers to their author. We have to be certain that numbers are reliably sourced as numbers. I think what I am saying applies to all of those sources, but I'm fine with discussing them one-by-one. We can do that right here, right now, no tags needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Its not our job to evaluate the study's validity. If there is any problem with the numbers, then I'm am certain you easily can find a scholarly source which challenges or invalidates it. Plug the title of the study you're concerned about into https://scholar.google.com and see what the responses say about it. -- Netoholic @ 23:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

It is our job as editors to determine whether sources are reliable sources for the content that they are cited to support, and to make sure that we are describing them accurately. I've already said that other sources cited on the page contradict the numbers in these studies. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree. The article is better without this material. I support it's removal. The Langbert et al study chooses to simply ignore faculty who register independent. Even its authors warn of misrepresenting the data, which is exactly what has occurred here and underscores why we should steer clear of primary sources. The book review comments from an American political sociologist known for his criticisms of communism and left-wing politics is not at all usable for obvious reasons. It also doesn't seem that Bradley C.S. Watson's book review notes merit inclusion per WP:UNDUE. The mission statement of the Heterodox Academy lacks objectivity.- MrX 🖋 21:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have any sources which offer counterpoints, then introduce them. Otherwise your personal views are not adequate to merit removal of professional opinions which are directly on topic for this article. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have other sources that demonstrate that this material is so important that it should be included, then please bring them forth. Otherwise, my editorial opinion is a valid as anyone else's. I assume you are familiar with WP:ONUS.- MrX 🖋 21:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth I support it's inclusion. The rational given for removal is inadequate. Also if you want to get technical the consensus version is with the material, consensus should be obtained to remove, not restore in this situation since that was the long standing version from what I can tell. PackMecEng (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I, too, have a distaste for getting technical about consensus, but I think that leaving something in is typically done for a stable version, that has been stable despite active editing over a long period of time. I don't think that's the case here, and with multiple editors objecting strongly to the content, it's reasonable to leave it out until there has been more than a day or two of discussion. And although I see some editors just saying that they agree with removing it entirely, I want to repeat that I personally could support putting it back in a better form, and I wish that editors would get away from a "I want it in"/"I want it out" mindset. I'd prefer approaching it as "is there a better way to put it back in?" --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I would certainly be open to changing the text depending on what is presented. PackMecEng (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Good, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Exclude as per MrX. If a “scholarly” article is produced by advocates, the veneer of scholarship is dulled. O3000 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That is not how RS actually work. Again as stated many places here by now, peer reviewed is of course preferred, but reliable secondary sources do not get excluded. PackMecEng (talk) 21:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

But content that doesn't enjoy consensus does get excluded.- MrX 🖋 21:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Arguing about consensus is just imposition of your views on others. Instead you should discuss (as I did above) the items point-by-point and make your case. You are not here to tally "consensus", that'll happen all on its own based on the discussion as it goes. -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Consensus is how content decisions are made on Wikipedia. I listed my policy-based reasons for objecting to the content. So have other editors, but you don't seem to be listening.- MrX 🖋 22:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Citing a Wikipedia WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! guideline is not the same thing as explaining your reasons. I have listened to you though, and I have shown that the sources have articles here on Wikipedia, that there is no outstanding question of their reliability, and that the sources discuss points very relevant to this article. -- Netoholic @ 23:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a silly response. I did explain my reasoning. Let's review:

• The Langbert et al study chooses to simply ignore faculty who register independent. Even its authors warn of misrepresenting the data, which is exactly what has occurred here and underscores why we should steer clear of primary sources.
• The book review comments from an American political sociologist known for his criticisms of communism and left-wing politics is not at all usable for obvious reasons.
• It also doesn't seem that Bradley C.S. Watson's book review notes merit inclusion per WP:UNDUE.
• The mission statement of the Heterodox Academy lacks objectivity.

- MrX 🖋 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The sources presented represent a fringe on the U.S. right and therefore lack weight for inclusion unless they are routinely reported in reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There are no sources presented which call these ones "fringe", so unless you can provide them, that is not an evaluation you are qualified to make. --Netoholic @ 02:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

TFD's comment appears to reflect the consensus of editors in this discussion. He's a pretty well-read centrist editor. SPECIFICO talk 03:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If he's correct, then there should be plenty of sources with which to make the case. His opinion on the sources is irrelevant without such sources, and your opinion on consensus is likewise irrelevant. -- Netoholic @ 03:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Fringe theories are generally ignored in reliable sources, hence often there are no sources saying they are fringe. Similarly one would not expect to find sources that a topic was non-notable. TFD (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Fringe theories are generally ignored - I'm sorry, but that comment must be a joke. In this case we have authors (who are professors and which we have articles here about) published in journals (also which we have articles here about). Surely, if either the author or the journal was fringe, there would be some reporting on that. These authors and journals are listed in citation indexes, and are cited individually in other works. So yes, there would clearly be some reporting on them as fringe if it were the case. Without convincing evidence, your evaluation is not more correct than the academic community which has not formed consensus that these as fringe. -- Netoholic @ 06:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This is probably a "fringe" theory in the way that climate change denial is: widely believed in parts of the general public and strongly supported by prominent politicians, and therefore not restricted to a tiny group of crazy people – but nonetheless something where Wikipedia editors need to exercise good judgment about how to use and how not to use sources, and not simply treat it as described at WP:VALID. I keep saying the following, but I keep feeling like nobody is hearing me: It's OK for us to say that "Professor X has written in The New Criterion that he believes that liberal bias is a big problem in academia", with attribution and with an indication of the person's political position. But it's not OK to say "Liberal bias is a big problem in academia" with an inline citation to Professor X, or to say "According to Professor X, liberal professors are 62% of all US faculty" if that number is at odds with the preponderance of reliable sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I do hear you, I'm just not sure which source wasn't already doing that. Everything I added started like: Author (year) said "quote". I think its a little verbose to include the journal there in the prose, since the journals are independent and incidental and because they are present in the ref/cite itself. I would not be comfortable evaluating his political position in that way unless he declares it himself. That's WP:OR since we don't have a source for what his politics are, and it would be WP:SYNTH to add it from some other source's claims about him. I feel like you're asking that because you think we need to "prep" our readers. Let's leave off the political affiliation labels when we can't use them legitimately. The authors (generally) have articles which cover that. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Which sources? As I have said repeatedly, let's discuss each of them one-by-one, as you have now started with Hollander. If you can provide: (1) the source, and (2) what you would like to have on the page, in terms of content, for each of the sources under consideration, that would make it easy to discuss. Discussing it in principle is just going to be us disagreeing over and over. If we can focus instead on what the page will say, we can more easily work things out to mutual satisfaction. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul Hollander

Hollander, Paul (September 2016). "When Right is wrong". The New Criterion. 35 (1). Foundation for Cultural Review: 110+. Retrieved 15 May 2018. Breaking out individual source from long discussion above. -- Netoholic @ 16:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

They are not experts on bias in U.S. academia. Hollander for example is an expert on Communism in Europe, not American academia. Being an expert on one thing does not make one an expert on everything. You need to show that Hollander's views on U.S. academia have attracted attention in reliable secondary sources. The paradox you face is that if Hollander is right, then academia would ignore his views, meaning they were fringe as defined in Wikipedia rules. But if academia gave widespread attention to his views, that fact would negate them. TFD (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul Hollander isn't merely an expert on communism, he is specifically an expert in the overlap of Western intellectuals and left-wing politics. His book, Political Pilgrims: Western Intellectuals in Search of the Good Society specifically covers the phenomenon and offers a well-accepted historical perspective. That book is on its 4th edition and has been cited at least 500 times. So yes, if anyone is qualified to make commentary on the subject at hand, he certainly is. Hat tip to E.M.Gregory for starting our article on the book. The paradox you face is that if Hollander is right, by denying his credentials, you are exemplifying that "few liberals or leftists would admit that conservatives are discriminated against" and that "anti-conservative bias resembles other, earlier prevalent racial, ethnic, or sexist biases, which too were always vehemently denied". -- Netoholic @ 16:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion of sources one-by-one. Something that is not clear to me is what kind of content you want this source to be cited for. If the purpose is to say something like "Critic of left-wing politics Paul Hollander has strongly criticized what he sees as a liberal bias in US universities", I would support that. But if you are planning to cite him for statements of fact, we need to look at what he claims in the context of the preponderance of reliable sources. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Evaluating his statements the context of others is WP:OR - we need to take his statements independently as an expert in his field. We can't evaluate WP:TRUTH, only present statements and show that the the fact he made those statements is WP:VERIFIABLE, not that the statements themselves represent "truth" in some greater context. He's an expert on the history of intellectuals and left-wing politics, and can apply that expertise to make statements about the current state of affairs in academia. The particular quotes I took from the source relate to the book and because they were of interest to wider topic of this article in a concise way, but the source is there if we want to use something else. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean that in terms of proposing exact wording, so no need to worry about those details for now. But I still do not know what you intend to write based on Hollander. If you only want to cite him for opinion, we can work with that. If you want to cite him for demographic data, it needs discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I gave the link above but here is the passage I think should be restored. -- Netoholic @ 20:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what we needed. So it is in a paragraph about the Passing book, and it is Hollander commenting, not directly about the book, but expressing his view that, basically, there is systemic bias and liberals are unwilling to admit it. For me, that passes the test of it being opinion that is cited as opinion. But the issue cited by JzG in removing it is about why select that quote from that person at this point on the page. It is, indeed, a very one-sided opinion. (Do liberal academics really refuse to discuss it? Is that what the authors of Passing say?) There is, for me, a WP:DUE issue here. How does that quote appropriately sum up whatever we might say about the Passing on the Right book? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue cited as the reason for removal was "says a right winger. Not a neutral party" which is frankly shocking because we do not expect our sources to be neutral, only verifiable that they said it. I think the quotes I picked are both related to the book, validating it, but more importantly lend to the main topic of the article. His view is also a good consensus of the other reviewers (for more see Passing on the Right). I'm sure some contradictory opinions are out there, but probably not specifically in reviews of Passing. Those views would probably be in other sections of the article, to keep it overall NPOV. I just don't think we've gotten those yet, but things like the Hoover info discussed below may add that. --Netoholic @ 20:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's stay focused specifically on the usefulness of the quotes at that place on the page. There was already an editorial judgment in selecting these particular quotes from Hollander, as opposed to reproducing his entire review, so we are obliged as editors to examine whether those were the best choices. The sentence just before the contested content says how one of the authors of Passing wrote that the populist right may overstate the bias that does exist. Ironically, the quotes from Hollander sound just like that. The first quote is few liberals or leftists would admit that conservatives are discriminated against. What does that add to a reader's understanding? It comes across as Wikipedia making a point, sort of bludgeoning. I don't think we need it. Just because we can include something doesn't mean that we need to include it (WP:EVERYTHING). The second quote is anti-conservative bias resembles other, earlier prevalent racial, ethnic, or sexist biases, which too were always vehemently denied. I'm more receptive to including that one. It also contains the "vehemently denied" part, which we do not need to say twice. Its major point is about the claimed resemblance to other forms of bias, and that echoes where the Passing authors wrote about coping strategies that gays and lesbians have used. So perhaps we could shorten that to something like: Conservative commentator Paul Hollander similarly argued in a review of the book that "anti-conservative bias resembles other, earlier prevalent racial, ethnic, or sexist biases, which too were always vehemently denied." I'd be willing to support that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the text: “anti-conservative bias resembles other, earlier prevalent racial, ethnic, or sexist biases, which too were always vehemently denied” is a bridge too far. Ignoring the fact that anti-conservative bias hasn’t been proved, if it does exist, is it comparable to biases that have resulted in slavery, wars, deaths, sexual abuse; historically affecting hundreds of millions of people? Seems a tad inflammatory. O3000 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Remove "Conservative commentator" and you have a deal. He isn't some pundit on CNN/FOX, he's an expert professor and there is nothing in the source that validates "conservative". Just leave off the labels. -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what I say about the label, we don't have consensus for any of it. I'm receptive to an alternative descriptor, but no-label-at-all means no context, and that would be a deal breaker for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I just read through Hollander's article, with a view to evaluating what would be a representative quote of what he wrote. I think that we need to be very careful about WP:Cherrypicking here. The quotes suggested above are pretty close to the most strongly-worded things that Hollander actually says. Interestingly, he also wrote: Somewhat unexpectedly, this judicious and fair-minded study also found that discrimination against conservatives already in academic institutions has not been as widespread and intense as many critics of political correctness outside academic institutions believe. That paints quite a different picture, doesn't it? He also says quite a few favorable things about the methodology of Passing, as well as criticizing some of the methodology. But I think that the quotes that were reverted from the page are not, in fact, representative of the entirety of what Hollander wrote. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Political Pilgrims is about a very small group of intellectuals who visited the Soviet Union, China and Cuba before they opened up to the West, although it has been updated. Most of them weren't even academics, but writers and artists. A later edition for example mentions Oliver Stone's visit to Cuba. You really need to make a lot of assumptions to say that this has anything to do with perceived bias in American academia. Certainly Stone is as far removed from mainstream academia. TFD (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The author appears prone to hyperbole – which is not a convincing indicator of scholarship. O3000 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Talk about cherry-picking. You're taking the most irrelevant example and trying to make your case as if its representative. Oliver Stone isn't even mentioned on Political Pilgrims because he's a minor character in the greater work. -- Netoholic @ 06:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That text you green-quoted is affirmation of the conclusion of the study Hollander is reviewing. Its lengthy and repetitive considering the main sentence that would precede this one, and could be replaced with "found the results unexpected" along with the other more distinct historical points he brought up - like so: Dr. Paul Hollander of the University of Massachusetts Amherst found the results unexpected, saying "few liberals or leftists would admit that conservatives are discriminated against" and that "anti-conservative bias resembles other, earlier prevalent racial, ethnic, or sexist biases, which too were always vehemently denied". -- Netoholic @ 06:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what it does or does not affirm, because I'm not saying we should use it instead. I'm saying that using it would be just as much cherrypicking as would be the quotes you selected. This is a serious issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an extremist view of "cherry-picking". As editors, since we cannot quote the entire source, we must make reasonable choices about what to include. I picked lines which paralleled the book in question, were of direct interest to the topic of this article, and exemplified the expertise of the author. We can disagree about what the best bits from a source are, but its not "cherry-picking" - its editorial discretion. -- Netoholic @ 03:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, until you give some alternative sets of quotes which you think would be more representative, I guess we're at an impasse. If you decide to do so, I promise not make the claim that you are "cherry-picking", because such aspersions are ultimately fruitless. (Get it? cherries? fruitless?) -- Netoholic @ 05:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Heterodox Academy - UNDUE content with non-RS sources

I challenged the insertion of an UNDUE bit of conservative/fringe opinion by reverting it here. [16] The same content has been reinserted [17] without talk page discusssion and with The Washington Times and Reason added as sources, purportedly to address the DUE WEIGHT issue. I think my original concern stands and this undue pov content should be removed from the article until/unless there's consensus to restore some version of it. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed some of it. I wish editors would respect the consensus process.- MrX 🖋 22:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

He asked for more context, I added several sources and expanded upon the organizations outreach, membership, and used ample citations for mainstream coverage of their activities. You removed it claiming No mission statements please. Removing poorly-sourced material. The quotation was not a "mission statement" it was a concise, quoted description of the purpose of the bipartisan organization (bipartisan means both sides working together). The sources are Reason (magazine), The Washington Times, and Star Tribune which are reliable news sources widely-used across Wikipedia. The claim of "poorly sourced" lacks credibility. -- Netoholic @ 22:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you MrX. Less is more for this, but it still appears UNDUE at this point. Organizations are a dime a dozen and we have no substantive contributions from them that enhance the article narrative. The sources are hardly sufficient to establish DUE WEIGHT. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I also see issues with WP:DUE weight. Devoting a section of the page to a single group makes it sound like the group has a very prominent role in the page subject, and I'm not seeing that it does. Are there independent secondary commentaries about how the group has been influencing academia? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Tryptofish: - Please be patient. I obviously worded that section header in the plural as there are other organizations to be included. People are scrambling today and too much going on right now though to introduce another variable. -- Netoholic @ 22:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

(You don't need to keep pinging me.) That's fine, nobody except you knew what you intended to add later. It's not me who impatiently keeps asking for stuff to be put back on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Tryptofish: I'm not "impatient", I addressed his concerns and added 3 new sources for the relevance of this group's inclusion. -- Netoholic @ 22:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not impatient either, so you didn't need to tell me to be patient. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I said "please". -- Netoholic @ 23:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Please stop pinging me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Since you advocate for deletion of this article, I do not believe you are qualified to determine WP:DUEWEIGHT, as to you, "due weight" is "zero". -- Netoholic @ 22:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

As someone who is advocating "keep", I think that's completely untrue. Editors can of course discuss issues of weight without having to pass a litmus test. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Tryptofish: My reply wasn't to you, check the threading. This confusion is why I've been using the template, so you know when I'm replying to you specifically. -- Netoholic @ 22:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware that you didn't address it to me, but I don't need your permission to reply. And I can understand the indenting without you needing to keep pinging me, so please stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hoover and McCarthy

I think that this comment: [18], at the AfD discussion, points out a topic area that should be part of this page. There has been a history of J. Edgar Hoover and other conservatives taking actions against liberals in academia, and that is a very encyclopedic topic that would help balance this page. My recollection also is that Joe McCarthy largely targeted persons in government and entertainment, but I think that some academics were targeted as well. Assuming this page is not deleted, it would be worth tracking down sources for that kind of thing. (I'm not aware of any government actions against conservative faculty, but if there are reliable sources, I have no objection to that also.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hah. Was just posting this as a new section. As this article goes back to the 50s, wondering if actions by the government, and to a degree school administrators, during the 50s to force faculty to sign loyalty oaths, fire or deny tenure to professors considered too liberal, and push anti-left beliefs on students should be included.[19] [20] [21] [22] O3000 (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, great minds think alike! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh McCartiy's attacks on communism and such back then. [23] Some scary stuff "School boards and state legislatures investigated allegations of subversion among teachers and college professors". PackMecEng (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. The flow between politics and academia goes both ways. I hope we can use this as an opportunity to improve the overall coverage and NPOV of the article, so that concerns from the opposite standpoint can be included as well. I have extensive access to scholarly journals if you need quotes or anything to build up this section. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Good! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I really like the idea of a new section on Hoover. I don't know much about McCarthyism and academics, but Hoover's pursuit of academics is well documented. Giving more historical context will improve this article quite a bit.AnaSoc (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)