Talk:Heterodox Academy

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

I originally posted these four requests Talk:Heterodox_Academy#Article_updates_for_January_2024 as part of eight requests. These four were never reviewed, as the reviewer of the other 4 said they did not have time. I am therefore reposting these four again below. I am an employee of Heterodox Academy with a conflict of interest. Thank you.

A.

Add to the History section, third paragraph, as the fourth sentence, that Michael Regnier became executive director in 2022. The information in the article is out of date. The suggested addition names the most recent executive director as reported by a reputable source.

Suggested wording with citation:

In 2022, Micheal Regnier became executive director.^[1]

B.

Update the Infobox to reflect the name of the executive director as Michael Regnier. It is established above that Regnier became executive director in 2022. Listing key people in Infoboxes is common in Good Articles about organizations:Manor Public Library and Midwood Jewish Center

C.

Update the number of members in the last sentence of the third paragraph of the History section reads that membership was last reported at 5,000. The page is out of date and the suggested addition provides the most current information.

Current:

As of early 2023, membership had grown to 5,000.^[2]

Suggested new wording with citation:

As of late 2023, membership was about 6,000.^[3]

D.

Update the third sentence of the lead paragraph to reflect the most recent membership numbers for the organization. The information has already been established in the body of the article. Current:

As of 2023, Heterodox Academy had about 5,000 members.

Suggested wording:

As of 2023, Heterodox Academy had about 6,000 members.

Thank you for reviewing these requests. Peterjane8675309 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Peterjane8675309 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead: I have reviewed these proposed changes and suggest that you go ahead and make the proposed changes to the page. Rusalkii (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Wait. The College Fix is not a reliable source. Stick to reliable sources. Without a reliable source, this doesn't belong. Grayfell (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Not reliable according to who? Source look fine for a non-controversial statement of fact like membership figures. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Everything about this organization is controversial. The College Fix is full of amateurish partisan outrage bait, and has been since its founding. We have a reliable source saying one thing and an unreliable one saying something else. Let's stick with the reliable one. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The two sources aren't in conflict: 5,000 members in early 2023 and 6,000 members in late 2023. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Peter G Werner that wasn't my only objection - just the most egregious problem with your edit. I also really dislike how your edit changed the POV with regard to Michael Roth's comments. As you've mentioned, edit warring is bad practice. As your edit has been contested could you please adhere to WP:ONUS and WP:BRD, self-revert and build consensus? Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not going to self-revert, and I do not think the anti-Heterodox Academy slant of the previous version represents any kind of "consensus" whatsoever, other than the point of view of a few editors. I put the WP:ONUS on you and those with similar views that a negative view of Heterodox Academy's mission represents any kind of objective consensus of reliable sources. I will also note that Zach Buchamp is far from an unbiased source and should not be treated as the last word on the topic, but simply as another partisan source. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

And, also note, I'm being accused of edit warring by other editors who are guilty of the same thing. I see no reason why the outcome of prior edit warring should be treated as the default. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Tell you what, though - I'd be happy to read the Roth editorial with fresh eyes and rewrite the summary of his views. I'm quite capable of presenting a fair summary whether I agree with that person or not. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of anything. You referred to my *single* revert as edit warring. I was noting that I agree with your statement that edit warring ahould be avoided. And WP:BRD should be observed. Simonm223 (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying that there's an already established pattern of edit warring over these additions. Having to discuss these edits prior to incusion smacks of article ownership. In any event, we are now discussing the matter.

I think this section needs to observe WP:NPOV, which by default, means presenting the views of proponents and opponents. And before someone goes off about "false balance", I see no reason whatsoever to treat this topic like the reality of biological evolution or a negative assment of the politics of Adolf Hitler where the consensus of opinion is clearly on one side. Heterodox Academy and the views they represent is a contentious topic in current American society with many supporters and detractors, including high-profile figures on both sides. There simply is no good reason to heavily weight the section in favor of negative views of Heterodox Academy while excluding positive assessments. If you think I'm wrong about this, show me some objective evidence that demonstrates Heterodox Academy is viewed overwhelmingly negatively by reliable sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Besides concerns regarding the POV of the content, I think this is a poorly written addition. For example, the following passage:

Jennifer Schuessler of The New York Times reported that Haidt said "convincing liberal colleagues there was a problem felt like a losing battle, 'We were seen as apologists for the right.'"

It's a bit unusual to include inline attribution that suggests a reporter is responsible for a quotation for a third party. It unnecessarily challenges the veracity of a quote that we have from a highly reliable paper of record. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

So maybe improve the summary rather than wholesale revert, which is what's taking place now. And are you seriously argung that disagreement with a NYT editorial published in another reliable source should not be included??? Peter G Werner (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I think what you are seeing is that, when multiple editors think a 4k byte edit is a net-negative to an article, the onus is on the editor who wants to introduce that edit to propose a revised version that responds to those multiple issues. Simonm223 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Frankly I thought reliable sources were well reflected by the status quo before you made your major edit. Announcing the POV to be non-neutral then introducing unreliable sources and rewording sourced material to in a way that occludes key details then saying anyone who disagrees with you is a page owner who is edit warring is unlikely to earn you a particularly receptive set of collaborators. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• I did work to improve it. I didn't wholesale revert these changes the first time they were made; I rewrote eg. the paragraph about Roth to better reflect what he said (something your edit reverted wholesale with no explanation!) But as I said below, the parts cited to al-Gharbi are not salvageable, and much of the rest is either outrageously undue, misrepresents the sources, puts together non-neutral framings via WP:SYNTH / WP:OR, or all three. I don't think the problems with the parts you re-added are salvageable. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• Again (as I said the first time I objected to these changes), I don't feel that they improve the article's balance. For example, you tried to cite a guest post (labeled as a blogpost by Inside Higher Ed) by Musa al-Gharbi, former director of communications of HxA, for a statement of fact in the article voice, alongside an opinion piece, again with no attribution. You cited these blogs from Inside Higher Ed repeatedly with no indication that you were citing an opinion from a biased source. And the bits that weren't cited to that pulled out bits from pieces whose tone and direction was starkly the opposite of the things that you tried to combine them into. And a single vague quote about the organization was given an entire paragraph. Overall, I do believe that you feel that these changes bring the article closer to what you believe to be a balanced perspective on the topic; but that is WP:FALSEBALANCE - we don't judge balance based on what editors personally believe to be correct. We balance articles based on the overall tone and direction of coverage. And that coverage, overall, simply doesn't cover Heterodox Academy the way you're trying to present it here; the fact that you had to rely on a blogpost by its former director of communications in your revision shows that. It was a low-quality rewrite which placed WP:UNDUE weight on al-Gharbi's views the first time around; trying to add it again isn't going to change that. Statements like The organization and its leaders have spoken out against politically controversial firings of left-leaning and right-leaning faculty and perceived attacks on academic freedom originating from conservative and liberal groups do not accurately reflect mainstream coverage; the statement that A non-partisan mission for academic freedom has been described as difficult to achieve in practice, and Heterodox Academy has received criticism from the political left and right that the organization is politically unrepresentative is starkly WP:POV in tone and, again, simply doesn't reflect what sources overall say. And the overall effect of these undue and poorly-sourced additions is to WP:SYNTH up an impression that Heterodox Academy is somehow neutral or fights equally for all "sides", which simply doesn't reflect even the non-opinion sources that you added. --Aquillion (talk) 20:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Overall, I do believe that you feel that these changes bring the article closer to what you believe to be a balanced perspective on the topic; but that is WP:FALSEBALANCE - we don't judge balance based on what editors personally believe to be correct. We balance articles based on the overall tone and direction of coverage."

  Well, funny that, because I think that you're doing what you're accusing me of doing. This seems to be your personal point of view, Aquillon, and looking at the talk archives, you've editorialized your personal views about this topic at length. So I really don't appreciate the projection here. I've addressed the issue of WP:FALSEBALANCE - where is the objective proof that the balance of reliable sources takes a negative view of Heterodox Academy? So far, the only "consensus" I see is of sources that are cherry picked. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I've laid out the problems with the sourcing for the part you restored in-depth. If you think that the article misrepresents Heterodox Academy, you should be able to make that argument without trying to eg. put statements by figures affiliated with it from opinion-pieces and blogs in the article voice, or to WP:SYNTH up statements about it fighting for both sides. Obviously we disagree on how we feel Heterodox Academy is covered and how we ought to summarize that coverage, but the way you make your argument in that regard is by producing better sources, or by analyzing the sources that are in dispute and explaining if or how they ought to be used. You've done none of that - all you've done is assert that you feel one version is more neutral than another. That's WP:FALSEBALANCE; you need to ground your arguments in actual sources. --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

• I assume this is all about this edit. I do not think this edit is enough of an improvement to be worth preserving. Consensus for these changes seems very unlikely, regardless of past sock puppetry. The changes were so vague and cryptic that it reads as euphemistic, as though the article is unable to say something in plain language. Yes, this talk page knows this is about Heterodox Academy's apparent right-wing political ideology, but vagueness about how it 'has been described', or cryptic nothing statements about it being 'politically unrepresentative' are not going to inform readers who don't know this background. This also worsens any false balance issues the article has. The misuse of these opinion sources didn't help, either. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2025 (UTC)