Talk:Peter Boghossian

Editing intentions

I intend to edit this page, please contact me if you have any comments. --HaraldW1954 (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC).

Completed Edits and updated from my Sandbox June 4th 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaraldW1954 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

notability

just a quick question as to notability? does he meet wiki's definition?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 15:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Cancel that: I looked into it a bit more and the interviews he has had and mentions by world-famous people seem to establish notability enough for me. It is surprising he is an assistant professor, that threw me off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiewikilady (talk • contribs) 15:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, considering that he is primarily known for a much ridiculed and poorly executed attempt at research fraud (and a stunt done much more competently by countless others before) and for quoting research out of context on Twitter, it doesn't really surprise me. He doesn't seem to have any notable research merits/contributions himself, judging by his bibliography here. He strikes me more as a college-level instructor than as a researcher/established academic. --Peter Jevin (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Jevin I think Boghossian has spent a lot of his life outside academia, hence his career is - at least in terms of these superficial issues of rank - quite nascent. Moreover your remarks strike me as a more or less covert ad hominem attack. Why would his academic rank even matter? It's a really unsubstantial, non-serious way to attack him. What's more, talking to people in the alt right, or appearing on their shows, does not mean you're in the alt right. That's nuts, and one of the things Boghossian (and I) have very deep concerns about. While you and your colleagues might be ridiculing him, my colleagues and I are most definitely not. We think he is addressing issues of great substance, and doing it rather well, even taking big risks with his own career. Take care, speak openly, but please with rigour and principle. 129.67.119.234 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Not Reliable Sources

Recently, Praxidicae undid all of my changes to this page due to my use of unreliable sources. The reference to my blog post is borderline, I'll admit, but I think I can defend its content to their satisfaction. In the meantime, I've substituted a quote from the original sources short enough to satisfy WP:FU.

However, Praxidicae also removed my citations to Insider Higher Ed and The Chronicle of Higher Education. The former has won an award for its publishing from the Association for the Study of Higher Education; the latter has won more awards than I can count on two hands. At the same time, they saw no problem leaving in citations to SciBabe's blog or a Google Drive folder, which have existed for weeks on this page. How can the former be considered "not reliable," while the latter considered reliable? This is a clear violation of neutrality, a core tenant of Wikipedia as per WP:NEUTRAL, and thus I'm restoring those changes unilaterally.

I'm not going to address how ridiculous saying "I'm restoring those changes unilaterally is" while you cite WP:NEUTRAL but the fact that one source has won an award doesn't mean that it automatically becomes reliable in the context of a BLP for every occurrence. I specifically explained that I removed it because it is an op-ed. And you've continued to add copyright violations and stuff that just doesn't belong on WP. Praxidicae (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Cogent OA

Cogent OA is a predatory publishing platform that is unfortunately also owned by Taylor & Francis, one of the world's largest academic publishers (the owners of Nature also own a predatory publishing venture, Frontiers, so this phenomenon of legitimate journals and predatory journals having the same owners is becoming more common). Cogent OA literally publishes anything (or "without discrimination", as they put it), and in any discipline, for money. It has nothing to do with Norma and wasn't recommended by Norma in any way (but rather by Taylor & Francis in an automated message/advertisement sent to people who have had their submissions rejected by real journals)[1] The article claims their submission to the low-quality predatory platform was "peer reviewed", but I find it doubtful if that is the right wording. The supposed review only took three weeks and it's quite clear that Cogent OA only uses a very light review process, with reviewers with questionable expertise, given the platform's exceptionally broad scope, predatory nature and stated mission of publishing anything "indiscriminately" and regardless of quality. In sum, we know that Boghossian chose to publish a paper in a predatory publishing platform covering all disciplines, and that publishes anything "indiscriminately" for money, with a dubious "review" process that probably can't be described as a proper peer review process, as is to be expected in such a platform. --Peter Jevin (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of original research there that's sourced to a personal blog, you should read WP DrippySpaff (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Whatever the section's merits may be, I moved it to be a subsection under the Grievance Studies Affair. It is a component of that incident, and should be presented in that context. Rendall (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

On further reflection, I believe that this section should be moved entirely to The Grievance Studies Affair page, since it is an observation/criticism of The Grievance Affair. Thoughts? Rendall (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Jevin: What do you think about the idea of our moving your Cogent OA section to the main [Grievance Studies affair] page? It encompasses more than just Boghossian alone. Thoughts? Rendall (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Jevin: Hey, I noticed some issues with your write-up and I am not sure how to proceed. 1) I checked to see if Cogent OA is a pay-to-publish platform and I see no evidence of it other than unsourced comments in the Skeptic reveal article. In fact, the papers' authors assert in the Skeptic article that they did not pay anything, nor received an invoice. If you could put citations that it is pay-to-publish, it will not be necessary to remove that assertion. 2) "without discrimination" (your quote regarding Cogent OA) is indeed on the main page of the journal's website, but the full quote is not anything like "publishes papers without discrimination", but instead "with a mission to make research and knowledge accessible to everyone *without discrimination*". This makes your quote seem rather misleading, since the "without discrimination" is not ostensibly referring to papers, but access to research and knowledge. All that seems to be an attempt on your part to bring context to the Cogent OA paper and the Grievance Affair in general. To that end, you may indeed be correct that Cogent OA is not a 'serious' journal. Perhaps that would be better served by making the case in a page on the Cogent OA journal itself, to which you could link? I'm not sure. Given that this is a biography of a living person, we should remove these mistakes quite quickly. Rendall (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Jevin: Okay, I am going to take that whole section away for now. Let's chat about it if you feel aggrieved. Rendall (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Rendall: removing the entire section seems excessive here, given that you appeared to only be objecting to the pay-to-publish claim. I added a source for that claim from the New York Times. I removed a section that was primarily sourced to Stephen Pinker's Twitter (it seemed WP:UNDUE), but I restored most of the other material, which appeared to cite reliable sources. Nblund ^talk 18:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: My objection is not only to the pay-to-publish claim, it is that the entire section itself gives WP:UNDUE weight to a relatively obscure component of the entire Affair, and is in any case misplaced on the page of *one* of the authors rather than as a section in the main article on the Grievance Studies affair (q.v. me, above) The fact of the hoax itself is Level B and `should receive a higher level of scrutiny and achieve higher levels in ... wp:npov, weight and strength and objectivity of sourcing before inclusion`. WP:RELEVANCE Regardless, the Norma magazine reaction is absolutely Level C and must be removed. How the Norma editors felt about the hoax belongs either on their own page or in a page about the hoax itself. Thoughts? Rendall (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Worth noting that WP:RELEVANCE is just an explanatory essay, not policy - but criticism of the subject would be "level B" in that framework. Boghossian is well known for these two hoaxes. A detailed rendition might be undue, but a brief discussion is warranted for his bio. The discussion should make it clear that the "Conceptual Penis" hoax was far less well-received than the "Grievance studies" hoax. Quoting the criticism from the Norma editors is one way to do that, or we could cite any number of other critical articles (like this) - we shouldn't eschew any criticism at all, however. Nblund ^talk 15:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Nblund: I believe your criticisms and edits are fair. Rendall (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right?

After looking more into Boghossian today, following the widely reported news[2] on the research misconduct investigation of him that has received attention in Europe and the US, I've found many commentators linking his views on feminism, gender studies, race and other related topics to the alt-right movement. As Joel P. Christensen and Matthew A. Sears have noted in Inside Higher Ed [3], he seems to have a particularly close relationship with Stefan Molyneux, a well-known alt-right white nationalist and conspiracy theorist. Not only does Boghossian appear as a guest in countless of Molyneux' Youtube videos, "the two are so fond of each other that Boghossian wrote the foreword to one of Molyneux’s books, while Molyneux provides a promotional blurb for Boghossian’s book" as Christensen and Sears note. As Wikipedia's article on Molyneux notes, he is noted for his anti-feminist views, is a supporter of Donald Trump, is commonly described as alt-right or far-right, is a supporter of the white genocide conspiracy theory and promotes "scientific racism" e.g. about black people's supposed low intelligence. I would agree that it would be unfair to hold all of Molyneux' views against Boghossian if they had merely happened to be in the same video once, but the fact that they endorse each other's books, that Boghossian voluntarily chooses to associate himself so closely with Molyneux and appear in countless videos hosted by Molyneux is a different matter, as Christensen and Sears point out. They are also not the first[4] to link Boghossian to the alt-right movement. When Boghossian originally became known in Sweden for his hoax a while back, he was described in the media as an alt-right figure too. --Peter Jevin (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter Jevin: Boghossian is a liberal. Are you here on Wikipedia just to smear Boghossian with references to far-left slanderous hit pieces? Or are you here to build an encyclopedia with a neutral fact-based point of view? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's surely a tell-tale sign of what group we're dealing with when someone screams nonsensical insults like "far-left" at any sources they disagree with, even if those sources aren't left-wing at all. I see no evidence that any of the serious sources that discuss Boghossian's views on gender studies as linked to the alt-right ideology/movement, such as Professors Christensen's and Sears' thoughtful piece in Inside Higher Ed[5] or Phil Torres' thoughtful piece in Salon[6], or any of the other sources, are "far-left".

There is a disturbing Twitter thread where Boghossian aggressively calls on his army of friends (many of them screaming, as per usual, about an imaginary "far left", "vicious liberals" and "SJW" and other alt-right talking points; my personal favourite: "insane university-leftist ideologue") to "control" this article and whitewash it and make it into a puff piece for him. That might explain the feeling that it is a hagiography and the attempts to bury/downplay the research misconduct inquiry and any other material that Boghossian apparently dislikes.

As I discovered earlier, many quite reputable sources consider Boghossian to be linked to alt-right and he has demonstrably close links to the well-known alt-right figure Stefan Molyneux as Professors Christensen and Sears noted. Jason Wilson in the Guardian discussed Boghossian as part of the "rightwing outrage machine" and noted that "last year, when Rubin hosted Boghossian on his talkshow, he spent the opening minutes defending himself from Mother Jones that he was “far right”."[7] He may very well self-identify as "liberal" (curious since his own echo chamber friends profess their hatred for liberals in such strong terms), whatever he means by that, but that doesn't invalidate the assessments of experts and sources. This article is already full of the views of Boghossian's friends. There is no reason to censor opinions by reputable experts merely because you personally disagree with them. --Peter Jevin (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you've made it clear here that you have no ability to assess a neutral point of view. I recommend that you cease editing this article, or really any article with anything political at stake. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Assumptions should not be made about someone's political position when they call out another political position. If someone calls out the "far-left" or rallies against their positions, it should not be assumed they are part of the "far-right". Vice-versa. There are many apolitical or non-partisan people that have called out positions of both or either the "far-left" and "far-right". Example being, there are many liberal, gay activists that have called out a portion of the trans community for condoning children being at drag shows. These activists would never be considered "far-right" by an intellectual population. 68.204.143.71 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I notice that you have offered no substantial reply and no sources, other than slandering thoughtful and quite centrist academics writing in Inside Higher Ed and Salon as "far-left" (no surprise there), and therefore this solid material still stands and will be included in the article. As you made it quite clear on Twitter your attempts to censor any sourced and relevant criticism of Boghossian and to make it into a hagiography is made at the direct request of and on behalf of Boghossian himself, and I can only recommend that you/Boghossian/other people he might send cease editing the article. It's a little difficult to have a conversation with people who seem to believe that everyone who voices thoughtful criticism, in serious venues such as Inside Higher Ed or Salon, of the worldview of the types of Stefan Molyneux & friends are "far-left". --Peter Jevin (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Peter Jevin, for your detail and patience on the topic. I thought this deserved a fuller response.

Firstly, I agree that Inside Higher Ed is not a far-left publication (I can't say for the article authors), but I think their point about his close relationship with Stefan Molyneux is fairly misleading. Wikipedia has quite reasonably identified Molyneux as alt-right, but what not everyone realizes is that he was formerly an anarcho-libertarian and promoter of atheism, and only began a gradual shift to the alt-right around 2013-2014 (see this SPLC piece, or look at his older videos). Boghossian and Molyneux writing forewords for each other's books and their numerous interviews were on the subject of atheism and several years ago so can't possibly indicate sympathy for the alt-right. They have only one recent interview, on the subject of whether accusations of sexism are thrown around too lightly, but this fits readily within Boghossian's critique of social justice activists and so does not show that he supports the alt-right. Molyneux has had many people more moderate than himself on his show (including clear ideological opponents such as James Flynn) so guilt-by-association can't apply here.

The Guardian article says of Boghossian that he "has pivoted to poking the PC left in the manner of Jordan Peterson" and that he participated in events hosted by conservative campus groups. However, the allegation it mentions from Mother Jones of being far-right (the point you cited) was directed at Dave Rubin not Boghossian (as is very clear in the video), and in any case was retracted (see the updated version). Boghossian was not mentioned in that Mother Jones article, but his hoax was defended by Mother Jones. As for Salon, they are quite far to the left (see for instance here) and as such use slanted titles, such as in the article you showed. In any case, as with the The Guardian's discussion of a "right-wing outrage machine," they do not apply any such labels to Boghossian; it would not be rigorous to describe Boghossian by citing article titles, which are likely to generalize and possibly sensationalize, where the authors could have claimed these things about him specifically but chose not to. Likewise the Inside Higher Ed article could have called him alt-right but did not.

I think it's also worth noting that other sources that have noted Boghossian's self-description without rejecting it. The article by The Atlantic on the hoax says attributing the hoax to the right is "intellectually dishonest" because "Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian describe themselves as left-leaning liberals." Vox published a piece on the hoax which states that the perpetrators "see this as a war to save liberalism from itself." The New York Times article quotes the hoaxers as saying they are "'on the left,' and supportive of social justice 'in the common parlance'" and does not dispute their claim. All these sources lean left to varying degrees.

Perhaps the larger claim you raise, though, is that he does not appear to really be a liberal at all given he spends so much time targeting the left. To this charge the hoaxers state: "As liberals [...] we can now state with confidence that [...] these fields of study do not continue the important and noble liberal work of the civil rights movements; they corrupt it while trading upon their good names." Elsewhere, Pluckrose elaborates that "we want to fix the left so that it will win and avoid right-wing problems like Trump." The Vox article on the hoax controversy accepts this but gives a different spin: "[Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian] see this as a war to save liberalism from itself. But it actually reveals a shift in modern political debate, one in which ideology and identity have supplanted some of the old left/right divisions — aligning a certain brand of liberal with the forces of reaction." Also, just for perspective, based on this cluster analysis only 8% of Americans fall into the category of progressive activists, while more moderate liberals (i.e., Boghossian) disagree with some of their more left-wing ideological tendencies. So based on these points of contact there is no reason not to think Boghossian sees himself as a disaffected moderate liberal as he says. A number of sources generally deemed left-leaning also gave a positive reception to the hoax, suggesting many liberals agree with his critique. I can provide links if needed. As for his appearance at conservative campus events, it doesn't seem any different than never-Trump conservatives appearing on Bill Maher's show, for instance.

With all of this said, and especially given WP:BLP, I think it would be an absolute mistake to publish such a reputation-ruining and potentially career-destroying accusation as tying Boghossian to the alt-right.

Note: As for Boghossian tweeting for others to edit the article, that does sound potentially problematic, though it would be helpful if you linked to the thread on Twitter to show exactly what he wrote. --Gazelle55 (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Kind of an aside, but Media Bias/Fact Check probably isn't a very reliable source for the political leanings of news organizations, like you used it to support your classification of Salon. It's basically a one-man amateur project, per its Wikipedia page. - GretLomborg (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. As you said, though, it wasn't central to my points. Gazelle55 (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello all! This reference to White Supremacy via Molyneux should clearly be removed because it's an attempt to slur Boghossian. I removed it and was thanked by an editor FMSky. The inclusion of this reference is clearly an act of politically-motivated activism editing. This type of comment distorts the function of Wikipedia and reduces (rightly) public confidence in Wikipedia. Davidbertioli (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The university's conclusion in the ethics probe

Jweiss11 has removed the material about the university having concluded that he committed an ethics violation, and claims that the sources don't mention this. However, the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education notes: "The Oregon university’s institutional review board concluded that Boghossian’s participation in the elaborate hoax had violated Portland State’s ethical guidelines, according to documents Boghossian posted online. The university is considering a further charge that he had falsified data, the documents indicate."[8] College Fix notes that he has "been found guilty of violating the public university’s rules on “human subjects research"[9] It seems clear that the university has already concluded in the ethics probe. --Peter Jevin (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Seeing that there is no reply here, I note that the editor Jweiss11 continues to delete the following passage, sourced directly to an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education[10], without any rationale: "According to the Chronicle of Higher Education the institutional review board has concluded that Boghossian violated the ethical guidelines, while the university is "considering a further charge that he had falsified data"." Most of the same section is spent on defending Boghossian by quoting one of his friends slamming the investigation, so a few more neutral details about the investigation are badly needed.

On Twitter the same individual has admitted that he attempts to promote Boghossian here in a one-sided manner at the direct request of Boghossian himself, while expressing strong support for Boghossian. The removal of sourced material like this for no other reason than the fact that he or Boghossian dislike it and want to remove anything critical/balanced/nuanced material from the article (that is full of laudatory language from the subject's close friends) is typical of the nature of the user's edits to this article, and why it often comes across as a hagiography or autobiography. --Peter Jevin (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't gone through edit history so I won't comment on that, but it appears in any case that this has been resolved, since the sentence you mention here is now in the article. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Laudatory comments vs relevant criticism

The article is full of laudatory comments by Boghossian's own friends. Examples:

"Boghossian's techniques of friendly persuasion are not mine, and maybe I’d be more effective if they were. They are undoubtedly very persuasive—and very much needed."

And a long quote slamming the ethics probe:

"the investigation could be politically-motivated. "If the members of your committee of inquiry object to the very idea of satire as a form of creative expression, they should come out honestly and say so. But to pretend that this is a matter of publishing false data is so obviously ridiculous that one cannot help suspecting an ulterior motive."

Despite this, the editor Jweiss11, who has admitted on Twitter to edit the article at the direct request of Boghossian himself to remove criticism and make the article into a hagiography, attempts to delete a highly relevant, meticulously sourced passage that offers a different perspective (after streams of laudatory material):

"Scholars such as Joel P. Christensen, Matthew A. Sears and Phil Torres have linked Boghossian's criticism of gender studies to the alt-right phenomenon, and highlighted Boghossian's connections to Stefan Molyneux.[36][37] In an article in his own university's newspaper PSU Vanguard 11 of his colleagues accused Boghossian of "Trumpist politics" and wrote that Boghossian was part of a "clown car of hoax writers" engaging in "fraudulent, time-wasting, anti-intellectual activities" that are "to the detriment of the university’s reputation."[38]"

That is unacceptable behaviour. Boghossian himself has noted that he has become a "pariah" in academia and Portland State University in an interview he made today, so clearly the mainstream academic community sees him more critically than his militant defenders on Twitter, and the article must reflect that and include different views, not only Boghossian's own views. --Peter Jevin (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Boghossian has made no request to me to edit the article. Please acknowledge and retract that false statement. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sears and Torres are far-left academic figures and salon has a history of publishing libelous material about liberal and centrist figures similar to Boghossian, like Sam Harris. Wikipedia cannot tar a living liberal author and scholar as a white nationalist. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

On Twitter the verified account of Peter Boghossian calls on his followers to edit this particular article, specifically to remove criticism and material on the ethics inquiry that has received global media attention this week, and falsely calls normal, meticulously sourced edits (sourced e.g. to the Chronicle of Higher Education) he disagrees with "vandalism". In the very same thread a person named Jonathan M. Weiss responds to that request and says he made such edits. The person in question clearly says he is identical with you, responsible for the edits you made, e.g. the edits that removed details of the investigation, directly sourced to a Chronicle article (a high quality source in this context), and that he made the edits in response to the call by Boghossian to his supporters on Twitter. Are you claiming the Twitter account is an impersonator of yourself? This article has also been the target of several edits by IP addresses that were clearly in response to that same request by Boghossian. Many of those participating in that thread spew insults directed at Wikipedia in general and me in particular, as well as anyone they consider to be left-wing. --Peter Jevin (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I see no evidence of Sears and Torres being "far-left", only your accusations here. I find it odd that you believe that we cannot report on the fact that critics of Boghossian compare his views to Trumpist politics and so on. This is something that Boghossian has frequently noted himself in his videos and comments about this whole affair. It is clearly a signficant perception among those who are critical of him (who, by his own admission, appear to be the majority, e.g at his own university). --Peter Jevin (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The edits I made were not at the request of Boghossian. This article has been on my watch list since I created it in 2013. My edits were motivated by alerts from inside Wikipedia. The posts I made on Twitter acknowledged that I created the article in 2013, had attempted to roll back recent BLP/NPOV violations, and to clear up the misconception that the article had been “vandalized”. Again, Boghossian has made no request to me. Peter Jevan, would disclose the reason you have suddenly appeared on Wikipedia to smear Boghossian? As for Sears, he recently endorsed pulling fire alarms to silence public speech. That’s a pretty far-left tactic. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I have not "smeared" Boghossian in any way. I initially corrected a false claim he made about a mainly Swedish journal (I'm Swedish, so the first time I heard about him was in connection with that when he received some attention in Sweden) and have then added balanced and sourced material about the ethics probe etc. I'm happy to discuss any passage added to the article by myself and how it/they supposedly "smear" him. --Peter Jevin (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Pulling quotes from non-notable far-left academics like Torres and Sears that libel him as a white nationalist is an NPOV/BLP-violating smear. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not (and they didn't "libel him as a white nationalist" either, but commented on his anti-gender studies politics), and the only smear I see here is you smearing them as "far-left" without any evidence whatsoever. And what about the 11(!) colleagues of him at his own university who wrote a lengthy piece in the Portland State university newspaper where they said more or less the same thing (Trumpist politics), an article he, Boghossian, was happy to quote at length in his own video response and almost seemed proud of? Are they "far-left" (without any evidence) in your opinion too? --Peter Jevin (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right is a synonym for or type of white nationalist. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you going to retract your false assertion that any of my actions here were done at the direct request of Boghossian? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right is a broad term that encompasses many different viewpoints, including anti-feminism. A number of experts, such as Christensen and Sears[11], have discussed, in solid venues such as Salon and Inside Higher Ed, some of his views in the context of the alt-right movement/ideology and demonstrated close links to well-known alt-right figures such as Stefan Molyneux (the article on him is illuminating). 11 of his colleagues have called his views "Trumpist politics." That's a legitimate exercise and there is no reason for us to censor it. But we can include differing views from himself and his supporters too. It's curious that someone who spends most of his time aiming harsh criticism at others isn't capable of tolerating open debate or any form of criticism of himself from fellow academics. --Peter Jevin (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I would agree and say that the term Alt-right is particularly politicised and controversial at the moment. It means radically different things to different people and doesn't belong on this Wikipedia page. Davidbertioli (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Your comments on Twitter speak for themselves. You may have a different interpretation, I have mine, based on reading that thread in which you were a participant and in which Boghossian expressly called for whitewashing/removal of any criticism here. Whether your constant removal of material about the ethics probe etc. has been motivated by the Twitter thread itself or your previous involvement with the article is something I cannot speak to, as I cannot read your mind. I consider that matter closed. --Peter Jevin (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Professors Christensen's and Sears' (serious and thoughtful) article from 2018 is a key text in this controversy that is even quoted in other articles, e.g. Inside Higher Ed's article about the ethics probe this week[12]. It clearly needs to be mentioned in the article. --Peter Jevin (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please stop publishing lies about me. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Peter Jevin, I agree that the comment about Boghossian's skills in friendly persuasion by Richard Dawkins did not belong in the article, and I have removed it accordingly. As for the accusation that he is linked to the alt-right, please see my in-depth post in the talk page section on that topic (and by the way his foreword for Molyneux's book is now mentioned under "Career"). Regarding the article by eleven of Boghossian's PSU colleagues, it is quoted in the "Reactions" section. I think the allegation that he has "Trumpist politics" should only be included if there is a broader "Reception" section, including for instance the various left-of-center publications that described him as liberal (again, described in the above section of the talk page) and Dawkins' remark. Happy to discuss if you have any further concerns. Gazelle55 (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

SE material copied to this article

I have copied what I believe is relevant, adequately sourced material from a draft article about SE (Draft:Street Epistemology), to a new section in this article. 04:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Setting data on support Mohdjertih (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation is quite wrong

You can easily find videos of P. B. introducing himself, and he pronounces his surname [buh-GOH-zhuhn] instead of [buh-GOH-zee-uhn]. 67.83.99.134 (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)corpho

Can someone provide a link here? RobP (talk) 04:39, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization of street epistemology

I changed the capitalization of street epistemology because philosophies, theologies, theories, movements, methods, processes, systems or "schools" of thought and practice, and fields of academic or professional study are not capitalized in Wikipedia unless derived from a proper name, per MOS:CAPS. Caps are only retained in quotations of source material. Biogeographist (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

0195527369 Mohdjertih (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

UMT8/ Mohdjertih (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

S9 Mohdjertih (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Title

It is true that Boghossian is an assistant professor. However, as the link reveals, and as is well-known through academia, "assistant professor" ordinarily entails being on the tenure track. This is the widely accepted definition. Portland State has a relatively unique situation where some non-tenure-track faculty use the titles assistant and associate. However, in order to not mislead readers who might read this page and the link for assistant professor, it is important I think to make clear the difference between his position and the ordinary sense of that position.

21:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@76.99.71.45: The reference explicitly says "Peter Boghossian, Ed.D., Assistant Professor" so that is what the article says. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The reference also puts him outside the list of tenure-track faculty. I know that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This is not about whether he is an assistant professor. It is verifiable that he is. This is about whether what is verifiable is that he is a tenure-track assistant professor or whether he is a non-tenure-track assistant professor. As the assistant professor link makes clear, the norm is that `assistant professor' means tenure-track assistant professor. So the only question here is whether the article does a better, more accurate job reporting what the link states if it says `non-tenure-track assistant professor' as opposed to just `assistant professor'. 76.99.71.45 (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

His title is "Assistant Professor" so that is what the article states. If you feel that "Assistant Professor" carries a different connotation then I guess that is your issue but it has nothing at all to do with the verifiability or accuracy of this article. That fact that the bulk of your edits are focused on this article makes me wonder if there isn't a conflict of interest here. Notfrompedro (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow. Way to impugn character for no reason (other than, possibly, having run out of substance to contribute and not wanting to address the points to the contrary). Perhaps I have a conflict of interest. Once I read about WP:CIVILITY and WP:NPA, I will check to see whether there are grounds for your insult. Alternatively: perhaps I just happened to stumble on to this article when googling Boghossian after reading about him elsewhere, and then I noticed a tension between what wikipedia says on this page and what wikipedia says on assistant professor. People can have views on things that you don't agree with without being impermissibly motivated. Enjoy your day. 76.99.71.45 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on assistant professor says it is often the first step on the tenure track but can also be nontenure track. Kdammers (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I've now added a reference which explicitly names his position as a non-tenure track professor. 76.168.112.54 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

No reference listed, so updated the article. Mathmo ^Talk 11:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Are Paul and Peter Boghossian related?

Question in title! 2003:D0:6713:AA00:6D83:E6EA:866D:AD62 (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

All humans are related so yes. There doesn't seem to be any documentation on how they are related which is probably what you are asking. Note that article talk pages aren't for asking research questions but should be about the article content. --Erp (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Shortcut issue

@J947: I changed the shortcut in the comment code WP:R#PLA to go direct to the main page WP:R as the original does not do anything helpful other than go to that page. A search for that string in the WP search field (WP:R#PLA) returned nothing. I located the shortcut box for it on the WP:R page, but clicking it there did no good in finding the section either (so as you saw, I deleted it there as well). I assumed someone familiar with the shortcuts would fix whatever was wrong. But you restored the status quo. So what am I understanding wrong then? How do shortcuts like these that fail to find the applicable material help anyone? Rp2006 (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Rp2006: click on it, see what happens. :) — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 00:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we should have a section on the resignation

His resignation made the news very broadly. He was interviewed in many venues, and published an open letter. It is at least as famous as the bogus studies that were published, and is somewhat related to that affair (as I believe he essentially refused further "punishment" by the University for his demonstration).

I think it should have it's own section. ZeroXero (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Strong disagree. This article is already too long imo, and playing up the importance of the subject trying to manufacture a scandal out of voluntarily quitting his job seems like it would provide more value to the subject than to a neutral reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.112.54 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

"Street epistemology"

Despite three paragraphs, the article doesn't really explain how "street epistemology" works, what it involves, how one practises it. There might be some useful pointers here: [13] Equinox ◑ 18:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"Low impact"

@VibrantThumpcake has inserted (a few times) in this article that the hoax articles were predominantly published in "low impact" journals. The source for this actually does not make this claim - it says that the articles were more likely to be published in lower impact journals, but it is comparing it to the set which the hoaxers selected to submit papers to, not making a determination of what constitutes a "low" or "high" impact journal in general. Someone reading the lede as it currently stands would understand that the hoaxers succeeded with insignificant journals, and while this may be true (I have no earthly idea), it is not the claim made in the 2021 study. I get that this is a politically charged area and I am really not interested in having a big battle, so I want to demonstrate lots of good faith up front - the 2021 study and its criticisms belong on this page. I have no problem with the observation about lower impact journals being more susceptible to hoaxing being included, although I don't think it's making the point you might want it to. The other criticisms in the study, ethical and methodological, do belong on the page (as long as the hoax is covered on this page). It also presumably belongs on the Grievance studies affair page itself, which I haven't yet read, it might already be there. But I think the changes to the lede unbalance what was a quite finely balanced introduction to a clearly polarising figure. Can we find some common ground? Samuelshraga (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Samuelshraga, I agree. Detailed discussion of the journals belongs in the body of the article, but "low impact" in the lead is jarring and undue. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

First, I'll point out that the original edit adding "low impact" was not mine, but I disagree with your interpretation of the 2021 study's claims. Impact factor is a metric determined by how often articles from a given journal are cited in other publications, and while not perfect, is probably the best way to evaluate the stature of a journal within its field. It also reflects the stature of the specific discipline to which the journal is targeted. While you are correct that the median is based on the journals to which the hoaxers submitted papers, it is the only n appropriate for an empirical analysis of the study. The purpose of the hoax was to discredit these fields, and within the dataset they selected to support their hypothesis, there was a significant correlation between impact and acceptance. If the concern is that inclusion gives readers a distorted picture of the hoax, I would argue that excluding it from the lede gives readers an incomplete picture. Maybe amending "low impact" to "lower impact" would address the concerns you've raised while still presenting the full context. VibrantThumpcake (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@VibrantThumpcake I understand your point and I'll stipulate that the claim about impact factor does belong in the article (that lower impact journals were more susceptible to the hoax). "Lower" sounds like an improvement because it softens the point, but fundamentally is the same. I don't know whether these are the 20 highest impact journals in their fields (I assume they weren't) or the lowest, and calling them "lower impact journals" reads like a truth claim on that axis, when that's not the claim being made. This point could be adequately explained in the main body of the article so that there isn't ambiguity, but not in the lede.

I think the addition of a second sentence of the Grievance Studies Affair paragraph of the lede would be more appropriate, something like:

"Boghossian was involved in the grievance studies affair (also called "Sokal Squared" in media coverage) with collaborators James A. Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose, which put forth intentionally preposterous ideas in peer review publications related to gender studies and other fields. This project generated significant media and academic attention, including ethical and methodological criticism. After an investigation, Portland State University restricted Boghossian's future work on the basis of research misconduct, including failure to adhere to institutional review board (IRB) processes. In September 2021, Boghossian resigned his position from Portland State University, citing harassment and a lack of intellectual freedom."

This is more general, and I think that better reflects the content - the level of impact of the journals was one part of a critique, but I don't think it's the main or outstanding critique in sources I've seen on the subject. Highlighting it would be akin to highlighting the fact that one of the papers one an award from the journal it was submitted to - it's information that belongs on the encyclopaedia, but probably more appropriate to the page of the hoax itself, and certainly not in the lede of the page of one of the authors. Samuelshraga (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

"Affiliation" with Stefan Molyneux

Boghossian has had ties with dozens of scholars and media figures and has written very many forewards to very many books. Why this one foreward is the only one mentioned here is deeply suspect. 2600:4040:904F:5A00:C98A:C09E:6476:74AE (talk) 2600:4040:904F:5A00:C98A:C09E:6476:74AE (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Because it is covered in reliable secondary sources. From the first source, But the two are so fond of each other that Boghossian wrote the foreword to one of Molyneux’s books, while Molyneux provides a promotional blurb for Boghossian’s book. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I would say "were" rather than "are" fond of one another. Guilt by association is not really guilt at all. Molyneux wrote a book about agnosticism, and Boghossian,an atheist, provided a forward. In the 2010s, Molyneux was a kind of intellectual Jeffrey Epstein, insinuating himself into many corners of non-conformist discourse. I myself had a high regard for him until his preoccupation with genetics and IQ became more than a little off-putting to me. Vitruviuspolio (talk) Vitruviuspolio (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Since neither book has anything to do with white supremacy, it seems there is a bad faith effort here to connect Boghossian to an ideology he has no connection to. 2603:6081:7A03:8538:AE54:43DE:6963:2AC3 (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any prose you'd suggest? The second source says This leads to some odd alliances. Boghossian, for example, is a longtime collaborator of Stefan Molyneux, a YouTube personality and alleged “cult leader” best known for his belief that “blacks are collectively less intelligent.” Boghossian is a frequent conversation partner of Molyneux’s and even wrote the forward to one of his books. In an email, Boghossian told me this was because the two of them have “congruent beliefs about metaphysics” — not believing in God or the supernatural, specifically — and that they disagreed on politics.

But this isn’t the full picture. In one video, for example, Boghossian and Molyneux take turns attacking modern feminists and social justice advocates more broadly. “The left are the new racists,” Boghossian says 13 minutes into the conversation

Are there any other sources we can use to provide more context here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Certainly, the mention of white-supremacism is an attempt to sling mud at Boghossian. The text concerning Boghossian and Molyneux taking turns attacking modern feminists and social justice advocates more broadly and stating “The left are the new racists” is irrelevant. These subjects have nothing to do white supremacy.

The prose I propose is to remove the reference to "white supremacy" Davidbertioli (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)