Talk:Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism

July 2023 edits
This is much more balanced than what is currently up. I removed it because it is incorrect, but someone reverted it, so I'm guessing one needs to pitch an alternative.

Regarding: "FAIR had often opposed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures." FAIR does not oppose DEI, see here for their institutional position: https://www.fairforall.org/understanding-the-issues/#idgroups

Full relevant passage:

"FAIR believes that diversity, equity, and inclusion are laudable goals for any institution, as they increase a sense of belonging and allow each individual to bring their personality, background, and perspectives to the table. FAIR uses the commonly understood meanings of these words: “Diversity” refers to the existence of unique individuals with different experiences. “Equity” refers to the quality of being fair and impartial. “Inclusion” refers to welcoming diverse people and viewpoints and making all people feel a sense of belonging, regardless of their immutable traits. FAIR recognizes and understands that others may use these terms differently, but we do not cede the values they are intended to represent. Institutions benefit from pro-human efforts at diversity, equity, and inclusion because they allow individuals to see themselves and others as full human beings instead of representatives of identity groups." AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * that said, one can likely say that FAIR disagrees with the common interpretation and implementation of DEI initiatives. We should assume good faith that their stated values are their values, and then caveat that their definition of these values and their proper application can conflict with popular definitions and applications. AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sideswipe9th - thanks for the feedback - new here. Would it not be more precise though to indicate who is saying it, as opposed to conflating that with the organization they wrote the article under?
 * The line between opinion article and non-opinion article is not always clear (and policies on that within media orgs have changed over time), and to give any group or person a particular political label is certainly not a fact - it's an opinion. So that said, would it be better to lean on the side of caution and allow more precision in this case?
 * I also think that putting the weight of the Washington Post behind the claim can be reasonably interpreted as an appeal to authority framing, given its good reputation. But that is a separate qualm. AnExtraEditor (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the lede would be improved with a stronger focus on FAIR's notability and removal of what they say about themselves. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-activism/is-it-possible-to-be-both-moderate-and-anti-woke should be used in the article, and may help with notability and describing FAIR. --Hipal (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I just went through some of the above talk under 'POC page by avowedly POV editor', and am weary to continue as I don't see the concerns of a signifiant amount of editors being addressed (e.g., @Jweiss11, @Springee, @Loksmythe, AnimalParty!, BonaparteIII), and don't want my time and effort to go to waste. Should the page be deleted and rewritten or should the group go through (the probably unwanted) process of discussing NPOV issues one by one? It seemed these suggestions didn't come to an answer above, so just putting these questions out again.
 * On a similar note, what is standard procedure when an article is viewed as not adhering to NPOV by a reasonable amount of editors (and probably other rules? - I'm new to wiki editing), but there is no significant deviation from the disputed version that is published currently? My own two cents follows, take it or leave it (although I fear this article has become a battleground and not a dispassionate place to record information as impartially as possible, so I'm judging a sufficient number will leave it, and my contributions will be categorized under a 'side' - *cue a cynical sigh*). Those two cents: for Wiki to have any credibility, it ought to uphold NPOV wholeheartedly; no reasonable opposition should dispute NPOV of an article without action being taken. Of course this article is not going to make or break Wiki's credibility, I'm not arguing that.
 * There seems to be a middle ground, as mentioned above, that would move us closer to NPOV (without having to thrust upon others challenges to 'prove it' by finding more articles). To add to that line of thought, HXA is not a relatively widely discussed organization by big name sources across a wide range of perspectives. So that above challenge seems to be unfair. I think its reasonable to say (can we agree on this?) that the sample size of articles on HXA is lacking (or leaving much to be desired) in size, and in its spread / representation of diverging interpretations of HXA (that are of significance to us as 'encylopediers' / are not fringe).
 * But my inference from previous discussion it is unlikely we will get to that more neutral middle ground. What is the best process then? Do we have to go to mediation? Is that frowned upon for tabling (I don't want to insult people here, I read in the getting to know Wiki editing content that certain suggestions can be taken the wrong way).
 * Let's work together here. Cheers. - me :) AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ooops, just wrote the wrong ORG (The Heterodox Academy [HXA]) instead of FAIR. My questions and concerns still apply - please ignore the error.
 * The only thing I would add is that FAIR might possibly be slightly more well known (from my estimation), and possibly (?) more likely to be interpreted as conservative by outsiders. AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * AnExtraEditor, the starting point for the article was a very biased version authored by an editor currently sanctioned from editing this topic area. Everything that followed was mostly an exercise in shitshow mitigation, and most of us involved ran out of steam. You may want to take a stab as writing a new version. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, I've moved this off to its own section as it was difficult to find this in the long stale discussions above. I'll reply to some of this shortly. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, so first to explain my reverts. I reverted because it removed a large amount of reliably sourced content on the organisation. I reverted  because we do not need to attribute factual reporting to the author of the source article. We only need to do that for opinion articles, and the WaPo article cited is very clearly not an opinion article.
 * Finally I the version prior to these edits, minus the protection template for several reasons. Like the first edit, we don't need to attribute factual reporting to the author of the source article. Like the second edit, this removed reliably sourced content. This edit also added two paragraphs that were cited only to FAIR's website and were overly promotional in nature. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So the starting point for any changes to the article is always going to be, what do independent reliable sources say about the organisation? It's been a few months since I looked at the sources for this organisation in any detail, but my recollection is that the article does fairly well represent these sources, though goes perhaps into too much detail in places instead of just summarising.
 * If there is content, be it sentences, paragraphs, or sections, that are not representative of what the sources state about this organisation, I think a good starting point will be to identify that content alongside the reliable sources that dispute what we and the sources we cite currently state, as well as a brief description of what is wrong with problematic content. Simply stating that the organisation itself disputes what independent reliable sources have said about them however is not enough. You need to demonstrate that what we're saying in the article is not representative of what reliable sources say about the organisation.
 * I would however like to remind all that NPOV itself doesn't mean that content on this organisation must be free of any criticisms. As the policy states we describe disputes, but do not engage in them. If the balance of reliable sources about this organisation are critical or describe it in negative terms, then our own article will by necessity also be critical and use similar terminology. To do otherwise would be false balance, and give undue weight. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The National Post describes FAIR as "an advocacy organization dedicated to civil rights and anti-discrimination" here.
 * This New Yorker article describes how the organization has tried to pave a lane as a 'anti-woke' but moderate organization, and describes the political polarization (or 'tribalism') that has made that non-partisan mission difficult to maintain.
 * The Intercept has described FAIR as "a free-speech advocacy organization focused on the culture war over what some refer to as 'wokeness'".
 * The Chicago Tribune called it "a New York-based special interest group".
 * The Guardian (currently cited), says FAIR "launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics."
 * The Emory Wheel, an "independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University", described FAIR as "a nonpartisan organization dedicated to advancing civil rights by finding common ground among people on both sides of an issue", while also discussing opposition to it by students who allege FAIR "is transphobic and against critical race theory (CRT)."
 * The current header paints the group in a tilted light. How do we go about making it more representative of a variety of reliable independent sources, and more accurate? As it stands, saying FAIR "campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives that it calls critical race theory (CRT)" is misleading if not incorrect. AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "I reverted this edit because we do not need to attribute factual reporting to the author of the source article. We only need to do that for opinion articles, and the WaPo article cited is very clearly not an opinion article."
 * Would it be more accurate and precise to do so regardless? We may not need to write in a more precise way, but surely it would be better if we did?
 * On the other hand, the nuance of the paragraph being discussed is rather gutted by inserting at the very end that The Washington Post (as credible and respected as the organization is) has called FAIR conservative. The placement of the sentence at the end, as the last word, and the imprecision (even if technically allowed) seems to be a variation of an appeal to authority fallacy, if not a thought-terminating assertion. Do others find this a reasonable assessment? AnExtraEditor (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sideswipe9th @Jweiss11 Thoughts? AnExtraEditor (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What you're advocating for here is in-text attribution, something we have guidance for. There are a few circumstances where we need it, particularly when a source is marginally reliable, if the source is an opinion article, or if we're including content that diverges from the majority viewpoint on a given topic. None of those are indicated here, and the content we've been discussing is the mainstream view about FAIR.
 * There is also a risk that when we use in-text attribution, that we can inadvertently introduce neutrality issues, as by attributing it to a single publication or author in a publication, we are drawing a small degree of scepticism on what the source is saying. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jweiss11 @Sideswipe9th @Hipal. I cited a wide range of reliable publications, left, centre to right, who characterize FAIR differently from what the current opening does. Citing from two obscure left publications, and an article in the WaPo (which I would call an op-ed, but I'm assuming there is no room for nuance there since the publication does not explicitly label it as Opinion), is not representative of the mainstream view. The Guardian (left publication) classifies it as "anti-woke", as does The New Yorker (lean-left[?]). That is not counting publishers closer to centre or right. Although in my personal opinion, anti-woke is probably neutral enough, and closer to representative of a 'mainstream view' - if there is one. AnExtraEditor (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We are getting unfamiliar editors undoing edits of the opener. Until we reach a consensus, the opener ought to be reduced to the section that is not disputed w NPOV. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The version that you have restored multiple times is not neutral, and is wholly unsupported by sources. Please self-revert to the long-standing consensus version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See the above list of sources I worked to provide, from across the spectrum.
 * From my understanding of the Talk page, the long-standing version was not consensus, but rather people gave up trying to create NPOV due to a adamant and uncompromising small group (or maybe even 1-2[?]) editors. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * e.g., @Jweiss11, @Springee, @Loksmythe, @AnimalParty!, @BonaparteIII.
 * As JWeiss mentioned: "...the starting point for the article was a very biased version authored by an editor currently sanctioned from editing this topic area. Everything that followed was mostly an exercise in shitshow mitigation, and most of us involved ran out of steam. ..."
 * we should try a stab at coming up with a consensus version. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Please work here and get consensus first, if you're not blocked or banned for what you've done so far. --Hipal (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's what we have been trying to do, but with little to no response over long periods of time.
 * As JWeiss stated, the longstanding version was not consensus but sort of grandfathered in, and then became too big a beast to change without a fight every step of the way. As I've mentioned above, anti-woke is a good starting point for describing the org, as it has been called that from across the spectrum in the sources who have published on FAIR. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hipal, go easy with the threats to AnExtraEditor, please. The existing lead still has major problems, which AnExtraEditor is attempting to remedy. First, the lead cites a non-reliable source (Matthew McCreadie in Passage) and employs weasel words ("that it calls"). That being said, the lead should make reference to "campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives" in some way. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hipal, go easy with the threats to AnExtraEditor, please. The existing lead still has major problems, which AnExtraEditor is attempting to remedy. First, the lead cites a non-reliable source (Matthew McCreadie in Passage) and employs weasel words ("that it calls"). That being said, the lead should make reference to "campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives" in some way. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing the article is not appropriate, and was disruptive. Removing context so the only substantive information in the lead was what the foundation calls itself is unacceptably promotional. Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations. This is a long-standing policy, so local consensus among ideologically sympathetic editors cannot over-ride this.

"Anti-woke" is meaningless. Those sources put "woke" in scare quotes for a reason. "Woke" is so broad and so empty it tells readers nothing but allows sympathetic readers to fill-in the gaps with their own assumptions. This is absolutely not what we want readers to do, as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. If we called it "anti-woke" we would have to, at bare minimum, explain to readers what that actually means, which is both impossible and also far, far out of scope for this article. Grayfell (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Grayfell, as I explained above, the article began as an attack piece, and we've been trying to clean up the mess ever since. This recent article from The New Yorker should be helpful. https://archive.li/sbbLj. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * let's look at that article, thanks for linking again. I linked a bunch of other reliable and varying sources in my earlier message.
 * I only suggested anti-woke because a wide variety of sources use that description. Your right on the ambiguity of it, so perhaps political correctness would be more specific. Nonetheless, the main thrust of FAIR seems to me to be based instead on race - such as race-based affirmative action or otherwise selecting between people based on their immutable characteristics.
 * The only thing I would add is that there was not consensus on the long-standing version of the article, and to bring that up is necessary, not a disruptive attempt to edit by ideologically sympathetic editors. AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * A neutral description of this foundation from independent sources is not an "an attack piece". The foundation would, like any foundation, chose to present its goals in the most flattering way possible. In this case that means bland PR and euphemistic waffle about "wokeness". As I already mentioned, Wikipedia will still summarize WP:IS, because this is an encyclopedia, not a corporate wire service.
 * "Political correctness" is slightly less ambiguous than "woke", but not by enough. The two terms share similar histories of being first used tongue-in-cheek by leftists, growing in popularity, and then being co-opted by the right to be a buzzword to represent socially progressive ideas that they dislike. Like "woke", "political correctness" doesn't mean very much any more, and use of the term would just reaffirm the reader's prior assumptions without providing any falsifiable information.
 * Saying the main thrust of FAIR is race is valid, but incomplete. What, exactly, are WP:IS saying about FAIR and race? This is specifically about the 2020s controversies around critical race theory, which falls under WP:FRINGE for several reasons. As an encyclopedia, we take this kind of misinformation seriously, and topics like this are not the place for bland PR or vague euphemisms. Grayfell (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Grayfell, when I said this article began as an "attack piece", I'm talking about this version and those close to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foundation_Against_Intolerance_and_Racism&oldid=1136700156. Do you think the article in that state was a neutral description of the organization? Jweiss11 (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead sentence does have issues. Part of the problem is the group clearly isn't against all forms of these things, rather it is against where it feels these programs go too far.  This is a reasonable distinction to make even if it's not as easy to parse out.  Also, when we say something is factual reporting we need to be careful as even RS mix opinion and factual reporting.  The NYT specifically warned about this .  Also, we need to be careful when throwing out claims of whitewashing.  In an ideal world we would be able to find a source that very clearly draws lines between what the subject does/doesn't do.  Just because a generally reliable source uses a broad brush description doesn't mean we shouldn't narrow it to the parts that are actually supported.  As an example, a group that specifically focuses on trans-issues might be broadly labeled "pro-LGBTQ" but would more accurately be described as "pro-trans".  The same might be true of a group that is "pro-farmer" but specifically focuses on small scale specialty farms rather than large farms.  If the sources make the focus clear and the subject's claimed focus agrees then we should be more specific in our description. Springee (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you @Springee for putting into words a good bit of what I have otherwise struggled to convey.
 * "Part of the problem is the group clearly isn't against all forms of these things, rather it is against where it feels these programs go too far."
 * Correct. There is nuance here that is currently missed, and thus leads to a misleading (if not false) characterization. This is why I removed it.
 * "Also, when we say something is factual reporting we need to be careful as even RS mix opinion and factual reporting. The NYT specifically warned about this [27 ]"
 * If I'm understanding your point correctly, this was what I was trying to explain earlier, although @Sideswipe9th answered that because the WaPo article was not labeled opinion, we can't distinguish between normative claims and objective claims within the article - like calling the group conservative (a normative claim). AnExtraEditor (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again now (I think some of the previous unreliable/biased citations that I mentioned were removed? - e.g., Matthew McCreadie's article in The Maple, the article from Passage), I'm struggling to see where any of the cited articles support the sentence:
 * "... that campaigns against diversity and inclusion programs, ethnic studies curricula, and antiracism initiatives that it calls critical race theory (CRT)"
 * Can someone explain where that comes from in the articles? I'm not sure what we do on Wikipedia, but including citations without explicit reference to the content you took from them is improper citation, or to 'pad a paper' as professors say.
 * The Washington Post article (left lean - but more specifically this author/article) mentions FAIR briefly, and talks about a local chapter's actions (can this be attributed to the main org. itself?).
 * The Lancaster Online article (reliable?) also briefly mentioned the org in a piece on a larger issue. It uses a (guilt by association?) fallacy, writing: "(FAIR) describes itself as a nonpartisan group dedicated to advancing civil rights and liberties for all Americans, but prominent conservatives sit on its board of advisers". Regardless of the fallacy/rhetorical device, it might be the case that the board leans towards conservatives (not ignoring classical liberals, or centrists, or liked-minded folks on the left), I'm not sure - this would just make sense given it is opposed to mainstream policy choices supported by the left.
 * Chalkbeat article (left lean)- provides slightly more detail, writing: "FAIR has since lobbed criticism against CRT and broadly advocates for a “human first” mindset — something critics liken to an “All Lives Matter” mentality." So this is the first instance I see of direct support for something that would convey that FAIR has criticized CRT - not the weasel worded " antiracism initiatives that it calls critical race theory (CRT)".
 * Valley News (left) Talks more in depth on FAIR. They write "... but its backers are all conservative commentators and intellectuals, and much of its content is dedicated to fighting critical race theory." Although backers is vague, the assertion that all are conservative is false if you take it to mean the organizations' leadership, and board of advisors. That said, we again have support for something in our article that states they have criticized or have content that fights against CRT.
 * Guardian (left): "(Fair) launched recently with an advisory board composed of anti-“woke” media figures and academics." Okay, so support for the anti-woke characterization. It continues, "The group is so far encouraging opposition to the grant program McConnell opposed and has highlighted a legal challenge to a debt relief program for Black farmers as a “profile in courage”. So, two specific policies they are against here, which seem to centre around CRT and a lack of "countervailing perspectives" for the former, and race-based affirmative action for the latter.
 * Continued, "Those who take the Fair “pledge” can also join a message board where members discuss their activism against critical race theory in schools and access resources such as the guide, How to Talk to a Critical Theorist, which begins, “In many ways, Critical Theorists (or specifically Critical Race Theorists) are just like anyone.” - again, CRT support.
 * I'll end by mentioning - there is nothing wrong with citing publications that lean left, but you see the issue here with lack of balance.
 * Anywho, let's fix the opener here now that we know what is supported from these articles, and what isn't. It would also be helpful to add more balance by adding reliable independent sources from the centre or right. AnExtraEditor (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, the purpose of the lead is to summarize the body; and the sentence you object to broadly summarizes the "opposition to critical race theory" section. It's also not really useful to indicate your own personal objections to the conclusions of sources; they say what they say. Wikipedia is based on the balance of mainstream high-quality coverage, and the bulk of the sources, as reflected in the body, are accurately summarized by the current lead. --Aquillion (talk) 06:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * the body, if I am not mistaken, is still largely built from the initial article on FAIR, which was far from balanced (e.g., see @Jweiss11's comments). I.E., A. "the balance of mainstream high-quality coverage" and B. "the bulk of the sources, as reflected in the body" are unfortunately not the same thing. That is part of the problem.
 * If you disagree with my analysis, you are free (actually, encouraged) to point out where specifically it is wrong. The above concerns from multiple editors are valid and explained with support. Very specific instances of improper citation are not just 'personal objections'. I take the point however that logical fallacies in cited articles may not be a concern of ours - I'm new here and not familiar with all the policy.
 * Moving forward, see the list of sources I cited above, including the Guardian article, New Yorker, The Intercept, The Chicago Tribune, etc. for a more balanced and mainstream coverage of FAIR than what is currently cited in the opener.  AnExtraEditor (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing what you personally feel is "balanced" with what WP:NPOV requires. Seeking out sources that better fit your personal opinions is cherry-picking, the very opposite of what NPOV requires. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur with AnExtraEditor about these sources. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hipal, the comments raised by @Springee, or those I’ve raised - can you please be specific in where these sources are unreliable or unbalanced or otherwise?
 * I’ve spent a good deal of time being very specific in where the current opener and citations seem to need improvement. Dismissing these efforts as cherry picking on its face doesn’t seem constructive and keeps bringing us back to accusations instead of progress on the article. I’m trying my best to access contributions with respect here, but I don’t feel it’s being reciprocated in this case. Let’s work together and be very specific in errors or corrections that others raise. AnExtraEditor (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Categorizing sources as "left" or "left-leaning" or similar is a dead-end. In the past, editors have tried to discredit sources by categorizing them as ideologically opposed to the topics they cover, but this obviously cannot work. We are looking for sources which are willing to oppose the thing they are covering. A willingness to look critically at a topic is part of what makes sources reliable and independent. To putit another way: We are looking for independent sources, and if those sources happen to be "left-leaning" according to you (or commonly used but unreliable blogs like WP:ADFONTES or WP:MBFC or similar) than so be it. Either they are reliable in this context or they are not. We don't look for right-wing sources to 'balance out' left-wing ones, because that would be false balance.
 * Likewise, it's not up to you as an editor to decide whether or not the organization's leadership is conservative or right-wing or whatever else, it is up to sources. If sources consistently mention that this organization is right-wing (which is not an extraordinary claim) our task is to figure out how to summarize them neutrally, not to disprove them individually via WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Likewise, it's not up to you as an editor to decide whether or not the organization's leadership is conservative or right-wing or whatever else, it is up to sources. If sources consistently mention that this organization is right-wing (which is not an extraordinary claim) our task is to figure out how to summarize them neutrally, not to disprove them individually via WP:OR. Grayfell (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023
"eough" = "enough" 2603:8000:D300:3650:E851:B5B3:6F7E:2292 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ interestingly, looks like the news source we copy/pasted this quote from made this error and we carried it on. Cannolis (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: Reverting recent vandalism and OR
Could somebody revert the recent IP vandalism to the article?
 * Here they updated the lead to say FAIR opposed antiracism initiatives that it calls "critical race theory" to antiracism initiatives rooted in critical race theory (CRT). This has already been discussed on the talk page, the RS are very clear that FAIR calls things CRT (and is often wrong), we don't have RS saying the initiatives they oppose are rooted in CRT.
 * In the same edit, they added It instead favors rooting them in liberalism and provides such programming along those lines such as its own ethnic-studies curriculum based on liberal ideals instead of CRT. to the lead, before adding a reference in the next edit to a New Yorker Article
 * The source does not actually support this, the closest thing it says is Under Bartning’s direction, FAIR created its own ethnic-studies curriculum, which was free for teachers and school districts to adapt.. It uses the word liberal twice, neither time attributing it to FAIR.

In addition, @ElrondPA's edit here should be partially reverted (keeping the spelling fixes) per WP:OR, WP:DUE, and WP:FRINGE.
 * It changes In May 2023, FAIR sponsored a letter to Springer Nature demanding they refuse to retract a methodologically flawed paper to ... demanding they refuse to retract an allegedly methodologically flawed paper (emphasis added)
 * To be clear, the paper in question has a retraction notice explicitly saying The Publisher and the Editor-in-Chief have retracted this article due to noncompliance with our editorial policies around consent. The participants of the survey have not provided written informed consent to participate in scholarly research or to have their responses published in a peer reviewed article. Additionally, they have not provided consent to publish to have their data included in this article.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It also added the text though consent in a form similar to that of other published papers had been obtained. This is citing a piece in UnHerd (a previous RSN discussion found it almost entirely undue opinion pieces at best, generally unreliable otherwise), which lauds the WP:FRINGE activist J. Michael Bailey and cites the FRINGE group SEGM. The author's bio in the article links to her substack, where she lists her writing for other FRINGE groups like Genspect and contains dozens of articles of her misgendering and ranting about trans people. Of note, as noted in this article, FAIR has frequently worked with Genspect/SEGM and shares board members, they are hardly independent. An opinion piece citing WP:FRINGE groups to attack a scientific publisher and defend their members is not WP:DUE


 * Please revert the vandalism/OR/undue additions discussed above. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Please keep discussions in one thread. You should be able to edit the page yourself. Thank you! My real namm  (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, it is in the same thread. Nevermind then. But, you don't need to add the "semi-edit request" because the page is not protected, so I've removed it for you. My real namm  (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 15:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Myrealnamm, sorry if I used the wrong template, I'm unused to edit requests - I would fix it myself, but I'm under strict 0RR for this article so cannot do so. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)