Talk:Witherspoon Institute

WI and marriage...

I made the edits clarifying the WI's stand on marriage. My source comes from a PDF of a report they published entitled "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles" but I'm kind of a noob here and not sure how to properly cite that. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks! --JohnBltz (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)JohnBltz

Regnerus study

I think "controversial" is a poor choice of words - it is overused, and fails to convey that the controversy was partly because the study was so stupefyingly bad rather than solely because it was on a politicized topic - but if we leave out the findings, I have less objection to removing the fact of its being disqualifyingly flawed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose "controversial" might seem overused because there are so few synonyms that fit as neatly into a sentence. If the real objective was merely to avoid plugging the study's findings, I think we're there already, and the current wording tips off the reader that not everybody accepts the study as valid. Belchfire-TALK 21:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a controversy, it's simply a bad study. Let's not try to put lipstick on that pig. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

For some reason, Belchfire is under the impression that there's a consensus for "controversy". I don't see it. Rather, I see that he walked away from the conversation and is now edit-warring to get his way.

Now, I would be fully justified in reverting his edit, particularly since it has the false claim of consensus, but I'm going to give him a chance to reply. Nobody else is bound by this, so it might still get reverted, but I'm going to bend over backwards to allow Belchfire to explain himself. I'm just that nice a guy.

Your move, Belchfire. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't be justified editing against consensus (not that it's ever stopped you before). Roscelese wanted one version, I wanted another, and we met in the middle with a neutral version. You lost, move on. Belchfire-TALK 19:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny, but I wasn't the one ignoring consensus, remember? Also, I don't lose if the article is actually neutral. But, hey, don't let common sense get in the way of your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your latest edit has a comment stating "Rm unsourced statement about same-sex marriage and other content not related to the organization."

This is problematic because the statements are all thoroughly sourced and are entirely related to the organization. After all, it's a conservative think tank, so espousing these typical conservative beliefs is their reason for existence.

If you disagree, I urge you to make your case here and gain some consensus. In the meantime, I'm going to revert your bold edit and leave you the option of discussing why we should keep it. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps first you should show us where it says in the PDF document where Witherspoon is "opposed to same-sex marriage". Best of luck to you. Belchfire-TALK 07:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem you have here is that the source doesn't support the statement you are assigning to it. It doesn't say "opposed to same-sex marriage"; it says "same-sex marriage is bad for society." Feel free to include the second statement if you like. Belchfire-TALK 07:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"I think same-sex marriage is bad for society, therefore I support it." Would that make any sense? Revert yourself, as you're violating BRD. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't be reverting anything. Your material is unsourced original research. Belchfire-TALK 08:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources talk, opinions walk.

I made a brief mention of the huge amount of money that was spent on this study, a sum that comes to $785,000. The lion’s share came from the Witherspoon Institute, a think tank in Princeton, New Jersey (and not affiliated with Princeton University). Members of the Institute include Robert P. George, who drafted the Manhattan Declaration and whose recent paper in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy on same-sex marriage was critiqued at length by BTB’s Rob Tisinai. The Withersoon Institute reportedly has close associations with such organizations as the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, and the secretive Catholic order Opus Dei. George also sits on the board of directors for the Bradley Foundation, which also provided funds for this study. The Bradley Foundation is considered one of the country’s largest and most influential right-wing foundations, although its contribution to this study is “only” $90,000.[1]

Don't bother complaining that it's a blog. Now that the cat's out of the bag, all of this information can be confirmed independently. Bottom line: Witherspoon is opposed to same-sex marriage. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 08:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

"Opposed to same-sex marriage" is an accurate paraphrase of "same-sex marriage is bad for society". It adds nothing and removes nothing from the statement in the sources provided by the WI itself, which make it abundantly clear that they are opposed to any form of same-sex amrriage, civil or religious. In fact, there is no other possible interpretation. Also, based on spending and activity, it's clear that opposition to same-sex marriage is the primary goal of the organization, and should be listed first. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Much as I hate to agree with StillStanding, since he's wrong so often, that does seem an accurate paraphrase. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need to paraphrase? What's wrong with a direct quote? Belchfire-TALK 07:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest that we seem to have some sort of consensus here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Regnerus Study: Audit at Social Science Research

The previous version of this article stated that the study in question (the New Family Structures Study of Dr. Mark Regnerus) failed an audit at the journal that published the study, Social Science Research. On the contrary, despite his own personal views about the study, Dr. Sherkat, the appointed auditor concluded that SSR had done no wrong in publishing the study and violated no procedural guidelines. This fact is evident in the very article from the Chronicle of Higher Education that was cited in support of the claim of the study's "failure." Although the beginning of the article focuses on Dr. Sherkat's own displeasure with the study, further down one can clearly read Dr. Sherkat's own words in which he says that the conduct of the process of publication was entirely ethical and professional. A quote from that same article:

"Sherkat did not find that the journal’s normal procedures had been disregarded, or that the Regnerus paper had been inappropriately expedited to publication, as some critics have charged. He also vigorously defended Wright, the editor. 'If I were in Wright’s shoes,' he writes, 'I may well have made the same decisions.'

"Because the reviewers were unanimously positive, Wright had little choice but to go ahead with publication, according to Sherkat. He goes on: 'My review of the editorial processing of the Regnerus and Marks papers revealed that there were no gross violations of editorial procedures—the papers were peer-reviewed, and the "peers" for papers on this topic were similar to what you would expect at Social Science Research.'

"As for accusations that Wright was part of a conservative conspiracy, as some have suggested, Sherkat deems that 'ludicrous.'"

In short, it is factually incorrect that this study failed an audit at its publishing journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witherspoon Institute (talk • contribs) 22:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That assessment does not align with the sources (All emphasis mine)...

• Although the beginning of the article focuses on Dr. Sherkat's own displeasure with the study, further down one can clearly read Dr. Sherkat's own words in which he says that the conduct of the process of publication was entirely ethical and professional.

While Sherkat did say "that there were no gross violations of editorial procedures"—taking a bribe or blatant fabrication of data being examples of a "gross violation"—he did not say "that the conduct of the process of publication was entirely ethical and professional."

• "Sherkat did not find that the journal's normal procedures had been disregarded, or that the Regnerus paper had been inappropriately expedited to publication, as some critics have charged. He also vigorously defended Wright, the editor. 'If I were in Wright’s shoes,' he writes, 'I may well have made the same decisions.'

Here's the full quote from Sherkat's review...

If I were in Wright's shoes, I may well have made the same decisions. I might have desk-rejected the Marks paper, but I may not have noticed that the research was not real (it does appear to have tables). I might have read the Regnerus paper and realized it was substandard, but how many of those 350 manuscripts a year are you going to read with full reviewer goggles?

• "Because the reviewers were unanimously positive, Wright had little choice but to go ahead with publication, according to Sherkat. He goes on: 'My review of the editorial processing of the Regnerus and Marks papers revealed that there were no gross violations of editorial procedures—the papers were peer-reviewed, and the "peers" for papers on this topic were similar to what you would expect at Social Science Research.'

The full quote...

My review of the editorial processing of the Regnerus and Marks papers revealed that there were no gross violations of editorial procedures—the papers were peer reviewed, and the "peers" for papers on this topic were similar to what you would expect at Social Science Research. Obviously, the reviewers did not do a good job—because of both ideology and inattention—but the clear signal to the editor was "publish these papers". Still, once they were accepted there was an unseemly rush to publication (at least for the Regnerus paper), and that was justified based on the attention that these studies would generate. The published responses were milquetoast critiques by scholars with ties to Regnerus and/or the Witherspoon Institute, and Elsevier assisted with the politicization by helping to publicize the study and by placing these papers in front of the pay wall.

• "As for accusations that Wright was part of a conservative conspiracy, as some have suggested, Sherkat deems that 'ludicrous.'"

The full quote...

And, it is unfair to expect Wright to hear the warning sirens when none were sounded by the reviewers. Of course, I also might also have noticed the political bent of the two papers and made sure that the reviewers were more diverse in their perspectives.

And then we have this...

Sherkat was given access to all the reviews and correspondence connected with the paper, and was told the identities of the reviewers. According to Sherkat, Regnerus’s paper should never have been published. His assessment of it, in an interview, was concise: "It’s bullshit," he said.

Among the problems Sherkat identified is the paper's definition of "lesbian mothers" and "gay fathers"—an aspect that has been the focus of much of the public criticism. A woman could be identified as a "lesbian mother" in the study if she had had a relationship with another woman at any point after having a child, regardless of the brevity of that relationship and whether or not the two women raised the child as a couple.

Sherkat said that fact alone in the paper should have "disqualified it immediately" from being considered for publication.

In his audit, he writes that the peer-review system failed because of "both ideology and inattention" on the part of the reviewers (three of the six reviewers, according to Sherkat, are on record as opposing same-sex marriage). What's more, he writes that the reviewers were "not without some connection to Regnerus," and suggests that those ties influenced their reviews.

Refs

---

---

When an auditor describes a study as "bullshit", that its methodology should have "disqualified it immediately" and that "the peer-review system failed" it's obvious that the study has failed the audit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As the response below from "Witherspoon Institute" makes clear (17:49, 1 February 2013), the study clearly did not fail the internal audit of the publishing journal. The very fact that the study remains available online at the journal's website proves this. The editor of the journal who oversaw the process of peer review for the article on the study was the same person who asked Dr. Sherkat, a critic of the study's content, to review the process of peer review after publication. Dr. Sherkat, despite his own criticism of the study, did not find cause to retract publication because he found that peer review had operated as it should have. There really is nothing more to say.Francis1953 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Witherspoon Institute (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC) The very fact that the article remains available on the journal's website is proof that it did not fail the journal's audit; had the journal found that the article's review process as such was not conducted correctly, it would have retracted the article, but it did not. I quote the editor of the journal, Dr. James Wright, who wrote in the same issue in which the results of Dr. Sherkat's article were published: "SSR Board Member Darren Sherkat was asked to undertake this audit. Sherkat was an early and ferocious critic of the Regnerus study but as a member of the SSR Board of Advisory Editors, he could be trusted with the confidential and anonymous details of the reviewing process. Once he agreed, Sherkat was then given full and complete access to all the reviews and correspondence involved in the decision to publish the two papers; his ‘‘internal audit’’ report appears in entirety below in order to make the review process as transparent as it can possibly be made. The report is justly critical of me, the reviewers, and the larger peer review process, but the bottom line is that ‘‘If I were in Wright’s shoes, I may well have made the same decisions.’’"

The criticisms of Dr. Sherkat effectively say that, if he had been asked to peer-review the article, he would have rejected it. But he was not asked to give an additional peer-review to the article as such; he was only asked and authorized to decide whether or not the people responsible for putting the article through the "process" of peer review had followed that process and that the article had not been published in violation of that process. Dr. Sherkat's quote cited above says as much: "My review of the editorial processing of the Regnerus and Marks papers revealed that there were no gross violations of editorial procedures—the papers were peer reviewed, and the "peers" for papers on this topic were similar to what you would expect at Social Science Research." Dr. Wright, the journal's editor, explains this point more in his own introductory remarks to the issue in which the results of Dr. Sherkat's article were published. As Wright says, Sherkat's criticism was not that the process had not been followed (what he was charged to find out), but that the process of "peer review" as such failed, which is to say that, even though the process was followed, it did not produce a good outcome, in Dr. Sherkat's judgment. Nevertheless, just because one person disagrees with the outcome of an established procedure does not necessarily mean that the procedure was violated, as Dr. Wright explains below:

"[A] blogger who accused me of wanting to empower gay-bashers has in another posting quoted our internal auditor Darren Sherkat to the effect that ‘‘The peer review process failed here.’’ It is obvious from Sherkat’s audit that he does not think either paper should have been published. Fair enough, but other members of the SSR Editorial Board served as referees for the paper and came to quite a different conclusion, as did the four other well-credentialed and widely-respected ‘‘superstar’’ referees who also recommended publication. As Sherkat says, ‘‘the clear signal to the editor was ‘publish these papers.’’’ So, even granting that reasonable people can ‘‘agree to disagree’’ about the merits of a paper, argument, line of research, measurement decision, and the like, it seemed necessary to query Sherkat directly about what he meant by the quoted passage and whether he was quoted correctly. Herewith, the record of the correspondence (used with Sherkat’s permission):

"Wright: It has gotten back to me that [X] quotes you in one of his blogs as saying (I believe this is the direct quote) ‘‘peer review failed’’ in this instance. I see your audit as pointing to some flaws in the process, some due to me, some due to the reviewers, but I don’t see it as a verdict of ‘‘failure.’’ I assume [X] has taken something out of context or missed some subtlety. Feel free to comment if you wish.

"Sherkat: That’s not an inaccurate statement. Peer review fails all the time.

"Wright: I guess the question, then, is what do you mean by ‘‘fail?’’ I think what you mean is that reviewers (and editors) often make mistaken judgments, fail to see flaws of conception and implementation, let their own biases, proclivities and preferences cloud their assessments, and thus recommend papers for publication that still need revision or perhaps should never be published at all, etc., all of which would follow from the fact that reviewers (and editors) are human. In the context, apparently, the ‘‘failure’’ is being promoted as something much more sinister.

"Sherkat: I mean ‘‘normal failure’’ like all humans do, and obviously, at least two board members disagree! And while this created quite a tizzy, this ‘‘failure’’ isn’t as bad as some that I’ve seen!"

In sum, Dr. Sherkat did not think that the paper should have been published, but others did; anticipating such a disagreement, the journal put the article through the standard process of peer review, and the article passed. It was that particular instance of the "process" of peer review that Dr. Sherkat was asked to judge, and he found that it operated as it should have, even though he personally did not think the outcome was good. Such disagreements happen all the time, and because in the finite existence that humanity inhabits omniscience about scientific truth is not given to us, people together agree on ways of sorting out disagreements about which scientific articles ought and ought not to be published by establishing ahead of time processes that seem most reasonably likely, on average, to weed out bad articles. In today's academy, peer review serves as such a process. The real criticism then is about whether the entire process of peer review should be changed. But that is a bigger question, and one different from the one at issue here. Bottom line: even someone who personally did not judge the study worthy of publication could not conclude that the journal was wrong to publish it. Witherspoon Institute (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Regnerus Study: Criticism

Previous versions of this article unnecessarily multiplied references to criticism of the New Family Structures Study.

First of all, this article is ostensibly about the Witherspoon Institute, not the New Family Structures Study, and it does not make sense to devote so much space to one study in what is otherwise a small article about an organization that has done many other things, as mentioned in the earlier paragraphs.

Further, there is already a reference to the fact that the Study received criticism, down toward the end of the article. That same sentence also refers to the fact that many scholars also voiced praise for the Study, and thereby gives much more balance than the earlier discussion of criticism.

The fact remains that the Study was published by a peer-reviewed journal and was conducted at a major research university that has not condemned it. Some people voiced concerns to the same university that the study had not been conducted properly and the university found that the concerns did not merit further scrutiny. This Study has received the same vetting that countless other academic studies have received, including ones that came to very different conclusions.

In short, previous representations of criticism in this article about this Study were unnecessarily long, presented the Study in a very biased light, and made this article into a forum for voicing opinions that are properly voiced in the academy through the methods of peer review and institutional review that the Study already passed. By ignoring those very processes of review such discussion does a disservice to Wikipedia's readers and suggests that the critics have a problem with the academic review processes as such, not the New Family Structures Study.Francis1953 (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I understand and concur that this article needs to be written objectively, and some of the earlier criticism may have inadvertently been written as something resembling value judgments. That said Wikipedia:Undue weight notes that when it comes to academic views "pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view". Given that in the past two years, the AMA ASA, APA, AAP and nearly every other major scientific and medical professional organization have gone on record in claiming that the study has serious methodological flaws and those organizations easily comprise the vast majority of experts. Therefore, the study being flawed is pretty much scientific consensus and it's fair to give it representation. That's why it's fair to note the AMA-ASA's critiques alongside it's apologists' claims.Freepsbane (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to edit the following sentence: "The University of Texas sociology department said the Regnerus study was "fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus' work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families." The reference included is the Chair's statement, which is a disclaimer of the work, and her citing the American Sociological Association's views of the study. It is not accurate to say "[...]sociology department said the Regnerus study was[...]. Instead, the sociology department Chair issues a neutral disclaimer and then references not hers or her departments, but the ASA's views. I give this a few days for others to review my Talk page comments and wait for feedback. If I receive none, I will make the edit96.43.71.155 (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The statement specifically says that these are not the views of the Department, in addition to the ASA. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in the Wiki article attributes statements wrongly. The department did not say the study was flawed. They referenced the ASA statement that the study was flawed but encourages everyone to come to their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityside189 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

The previous discussion of whether the Witherspoon Institute was truly involved in the New Family Structures Study is an argument, not a straightforward listing of uncontroversial facts. It is editorializing.

The facts listed admit of many interpretations. Judging the merits of accusations like these is best handled through the processes of review already established in the academy to handle such cases. Concerns such as these were already presented to the host university, which declined to pursue them because they found them lacking merit. A Wikipedia article on the Witherspoon Institute is not the place for those who disagree with the outcome of the university's hearing on the matter to offer criticisms of the university's judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis1953 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture of Whelan Hall

Can someone from Princeton please take a picture of Whelan Hall in Princeton, which houses the Witherspoon Institute, and add it to Wiki Commons so that it can be added to this page? That would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Revisions re: Regnerus

I don't object to all of the recent revisions (going back to January), but I do think that they are obscuring key facts about the Regnerus study in the name of "neutrality" (which is fallacious - NPOV means that we properly reflect sources even if they don't give a rosy picture of the subject, not that we have to make sure to give a rosy picture of the subject). I have little problem, for instance, with removing Sherkat's description of the methodology since we now have the AMA's description of the methodology, but why is it hiding at the bottom of the section? It would be a useful secondary source as to the study's methodology even if it weren't pointing out the methodological flaws. It's also flat-out wrong to dismiss Sherkat's pointing out that the study should never have been published as a personal response - he's auditing it on behalf of the journal and as such he points out that the data collection and analysis methods are fatally flawed and that the reviewers were affiliated with Regnerus or the study. The only thing he says in its favor was that it was peer-reviewed by people of the journal's customary standing. That's a far cry from "despite his personal judgment that the study should not have been published, the journal and the study’s reviewers had followed all established procedures correctly." What is currently in the article is not correct and should be fixed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Witherspoon Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120722234851/http://www.winst.org:80/family_marriage_and_democracy/WI_Marriage.pdf to http://winst.org/family_marriage_and_democracy/WI_Marriage.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131004231531/http://www.lantosfoundation.org/Lantos_News_Template.asp?id=182 to http://www.lantosfoundation.org/Lantos_News_Template.asp?id=182

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Witherspoon Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110626003444/http://www.winst.org:80/about/mission.php to http://www.winst.org/about/mission.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110710125114/http://www.winst.org:80/people/fellows.php to http://www.winst.org/people/fellows.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131030020933/http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/02/chen-guangcheng-witherspoon-nyu-china to http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/02/chen-guangcheng-witherspoon-nyu-china

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

"Regnerus Study" times three

I notice that the long section on the Regnerus study has basically been duplicated at least twice on Wikipedia. Once in the main article on the study: New Family Structures Study and again on the bio of the study's author Mark Regnerus. About 60% of this Witherspoon Institute article is about the Regnerus study and about 67% of Regnerus's biography is about the study. Each of those sections approaches the length of the main article on the study. I would suggest paring down the sections in both Witherspoon and the bio in the interest of due weight. Motsebboh (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I, with no previous familiarity with the institute or the study, was also struck by the inordinate attention to this one issue. I thought I was going to read about the Witherspoon Institute, but the article feels very much off balance.

My suggestion: the "Regnerus study" section should read: 

In 2012, the Witherspoon Institute drew public attention for having funded the controversial New Family Structures Study (NFSS), a study of LGBT parenting conducted by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. The study was criticized by major professional scientific institutions and associations, as well as other sociologists at the University of Texas.^[24] The University of Texas [delete comma ,] conducted an inquiry into the publication and declined to conduct a personal [is 'personal' the right word here??? maybe 'formal' ??] investigation in keeping with its policy that "ordinary errors, good faith differences in interpretations or judgments of data, scholarly or political disagreements, good faith personal or professional opinions, or private moral or ethical behavior or views are not misconduct."^[29] The University of Texas sociology department [I think a "however" should be inserted here if, as I understand it, the UofT said there was no problem while the UofT sociology dept. said there was a problem-- did I understand that right????] said the Regnerus study was "fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus' work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families."^[30]

And that's all. Interested readers are clearly directed where to look for more information.

I have found that when I make suggestions on a 'talk' page-- always because I'm just a reader unfamiliar with the topic-- nothing seems to come of it. No response, no editing. So I'll go out on a limb here and say that if I see that nothing has happened-- no comments, no response, no edits-- in two weeks, I will go ahead and make these changes!!! Live dangerously... 162.129.44.18 (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The question is, what is the Witherspoon institute notable for? If the main topic in reliable sources is the Regnerus study, then our article here should cover that topic in proportion. If there are other aspects of the institute's work that have also received attention, those aspects can be covered as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nomoskedasticity, for adding at least a comment. I think that with the edits I made today (and announced in advance I was going to make, in the absence of any response), I have restored proportion to this article. All are welcome to disagree...162.129.44.18 (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Witherspoon Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414045416/http://dailyprincetonian.com/news/2013/10/chinese-dissident-chen-guangcheng-advocates-universal-human-rights/ to http://dailyprincetonian.com/news/2013/10/chinese-dissident-chen-guangcheng-advocates-universal-human-rights/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101085038/http://web.princeton.edu/sites/jmadison/calendar/documents/Flyer%202013%201016%20CHEN%20Guangcheng.pdf to http://web.princeton.edu/sites/jmadison/calendar/documents/Flyer%202013%201016%20CHEN%20Guangcheng.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)