Talk:Heterodox Academy/Archive 3

Citing Gallup, Knight, and Heterodox Academy itself.
This edit isn't workable. The Gallup and Knight sources don't mention Heteredox Academy, so using them to argue "Heterodox Academy is right, tho, and those people are wrong" is WP:SYNTH. Additionally, Heterodox Academy itself is not an WP:RS, so we cannot cite them for statements of fact; Heterodox Academy can only be used here via WP:ABOUTSELF, which does not allow obviously self-serving statements like this. (The edit summary said "they weren't talking about themselves", but the point is the only thing we can cite to Heterodox Academy is uncontroversial things about themselves, since they're not a reliable source for anything else.) Finally, in addition to being synth (so we can't use it at all), the Gallup source - and the Knight source, which is essentially the same thing published elsewhere - also doesn't support the statement it's being used for. It just describes the opinion of the people it examines; that can't be used to just state that opinion as fact. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No opinion on whether they belong in this article, but such surveys are topical for  Political views of American academics, or a similar page about opinions of students if one exists. Some of the references there are published in RS by Haidt and company and possibly whatever data was on the Heterodox site eventually made its way into a formal publication. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Aquillon, I cite the Knight and Gallup studies to contradict Beauchamp's allegation that there is a "lack of data" about free speech limits on university campuses. Beauchamp is wrong, even though, if I am reading the edit history correctly, you yourself added the Beauchamp material and seem determined to keep it as the "final word" on the subject. Admittedly, you have a facility with Wikipedia's bureaucratic Newspeak that I do not, but from what I can gather, "WP synth" relates principally to unwarranted inferences from a synthesis of variegated sources. I am doing nothing of the kind. Beauchamp makes an allegation--that there is insufficient data on campus free speech crises to support Heterodox Academy's line of argument--that is specifically belied by the studies I cite.

You say that the surveys reveal opinions, not facts, but part of Heterodox Academy's argument is that many people on campus feel afraid to speak on contentious issues and that students increasingly favor "safe spaces" restricting speech. According to the Knight and Gallup studies, many students do indeed feel afraid to speak about contentious issues, and many do in fact approve of safe spaces that restrict speech. These are facts revealed by the cited studies. Beauchamp's method amounts to "bean counting"--noting how many instances of deplatforming, etc., have been recorded--whereas any satisfactory analysis of free speech crises must address "chilling effects" and self-censorship, and these studies do precisely that. The perception of a hostile environment creates the reality of self-censorship. (By the way, none of the studies I cite is redundant; they date to different years.)

Your claim that Heterodox Academy's study consists of "obviously self-serving statements" is itself merely a tendentious allegation. The scholars at Heterodox Academy conducted a study according to academic standards and published their results; they are not marketers selling a product. If a scholar responds to a journalist's charge by publishing a study refuting the journalist's claim, one cannot just dismiss the study as "self-serving." Someone would need to show that the study itself is flawed. Others will need to adjudicate this dispute, as the edit war has become tedious. I'll try to figure out how the appeals system works.
 * To the un-signed editor above: Wikipedia can be tough to get started in editing. I appreciate the work you are trying to do, but there are good reasons for the community standards we have. This can be especially irritating I know when you see something that you know there is clear evidence against like this. Wikipedia has rigorous sourcing requirements. I recommend reading the links Aquillion points to above to get more familiar with these. I do hope you stay engaged as an editor here despite the learning curve. In some ways Wikipedia embodies what Heterodox Academy aspires to: letting contrary opinions battle themselves out to work against our own confirmation and other biases to come up with a stronger product in the end.
 * To the more substantive topic at hand - I think it would be appropriate to cite the response from Heterodox Academy as long as we clear in the text that this is research/an argument coming from Heterodox Academy which makes the bias of the source clear. Unless there are objections to this I will work on an edit to this effect (hopefully someone else beats me to it)? - Pengortm (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd rather we work from a proposal given the recent editing. --Hipal (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Pengortm, thank you for your comments. I inadvertently neglected to sign my last round of remarks; I now see the wavy line thingy that enables you to post a signature. The paragraphs immediately above your response belong to "Free Speech Wikipedian"--it's a bit on the nose, I know. (I thought of naming myself "Free Speech Progressive," but in addition to the problem of wearing one's politics on one's sleeve as an editor, such a moniker would doubtless perplex most people, as the term now seems an oxymoron if not an outright contradiction.) I was about to file a dispute when I came across your reply. I appreciate what you're saying: obviously, any wiki needs rules and guardrails. The problem is that veteran Wikipedia editors and administrators can become pettifogging lawyers, manipulating arcane rules to impose their own opinions. On a related note, while pseudonyms serve a purpose, they can also provide a deceptive mask. For all I know, "Aquillion" is Beauchamp himself or an ally. Probably not, but who knows? Whoever he/she/they are, "Aquillion" is responsible for nearly 12% of the edits on the "Heterodox Academy" page. Attempts to provide broader context for, or cogent responses to, the Beauchamp-Quintana line of argument have been systematically blocked, as becomes evident when one searches the editing history. That looks less like rule-following than it does like censorship. --Free Speech Wikipedian. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

To Hipal: Forgive me, but what is a "proposal" in WikiSpeak? A blueprint on the "Talk" page? Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not WikiSpeak. I'm asking for a proposal on this talk page for the changes, rather than editing the article directly. --Hipal (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to cut the Gordian knot on the Heterodox Academy "Campus Expression Survey" by including details about it under the "Programs and activities" section. I still need to figure out a place for the Knight/Gallup surveys, as they provide evidence against the Beauchamp-Qunitana opinion pieces. I want to reiterate that I am not a member of Heterodox Academy and that I am not working on their behalf. I am an academic who studies free speech issues. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board. Two questions, if I may: 1) on what basis can studies by Heterodox Academy be excluded, even from the "Projects and activities" section? 2) Hipal asked for a proposal, but what would a proposal look like? Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If you could put a draft of your proposed text here, that would be helpful, and is at least one sort of possible "proposal." The problem is that Heterodox Academy is not (to my mind, but I'm open to persuasion otherwise) a reliable source per Wikipedia, and because we're treading into dangerous areas of primary documents and WP:SYNTH, but that's not an absolute bar.  I just noticed this, so if you would be so kind as to sum up for me the change you would like, I would appreciate it, and it might be a first "proposal."  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your note, Dumuzid. Your requests are eminently reasonable. Before I draft the text of a proposal, I'll try to convince you that Heterodox Academy is a reliable source. Heterodox Academy has an advisory council of acknowledged experts in their fields, including Cornel West, Nadine Strawson, Glenn Loury, Alice Dreger, and David Brooks. Their "Writing Groups" are generally helmed by PhDs. All of the member bios can be independently verified, and if you need me to do the grunt work of providing links outside Heterodox Academy for each member, I suppose that I can do that at some point. It was co-founded by Jonathan Haidt, and though I often have strong disagreements with him on some issues, he is a world-renowned psychologist. The current president is a Brown University economist.

Heterodox Academy is an advocacy group, but since they advocate open inquiry, they are, arguably, more independent than many universities. In fact, it would be hard to find a more extensive, and more distinguished, set of scholars in one place. Heterodox Academy members and their work continually appear in the news. Wired, for instance, quoted Haidt and referenced Heterodox Academy in a June article on echo chambers. In March, an article in Newsweek cited a Heterodox Academy study. Other outlets citing Heterodox Academy and its members (usually in a positive light) include the Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed, Forbes, Real Clear Education, the National Review, PBS, and the Atlantic. I've probably gone on long enough, but if you want me to elaborate, I'll try. (Like a ninny, I forgot to sign this, so I'll backfill my signature here: Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC).)


 * Okay, so, let's put that aside for a moment; while I agree that many people associated with Heterodox Academy are credible in many ways, I personally would be hesitant to accord that reliable status to the institution as a whole merely because it's fairly new, and as an advocacy organization (even one with whose stated goals I agree) they are a little harder to quantify than would be a straight news organization. But there are certainly things that could be credibly cited to members of HA or perhaps, the organization itself.  That said, context is key: if you don't mind summarizing what you'd like to add, I would appreciate it--I have purposefully not gone in to the history because I'd like to get your "pitch" with as few preconceived notions as possible.  And, not to nag, but if you could remember to 'sign' your posts with four tildes ('~') it would be appreciated.  Makes for a cleaner page history.  Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to formulate a compromise, but I'm caught in a Catch-22. If I draw on Heterodox Academy to refute the Beauchamp-Quintana argument, some editors object on "aboutself" grounds. If I draw on other sources to refute Beauchamp and Quintana (for example, the Knight/Gallup surveys on campus expression), the same editors object that I am synthesizing irrelevant sources, because the surveys do not specifically mention Heterodox Academy. Perhaps it is relevant that Heterodox Academy cites the Knight/Gallup polls and has even hosted a discussion about one of the Knight/Gallup surveys, but for some editors, such facts would, presumably, be dismissed on "aboutself" grounds. Catch-22. If Heterodox Academy is not a reliable source, then it's hard to see a path forward.

I maintain that a brief treatment of the Heterodox Academy studies on campus expression belongs in the "Projects and activities" section, as does Heterodox Academy's citation of the Knight/Gallup surveys. None of the studies, after all, are about Heterodox Academy ("aboutself")--they are about students' tendency to self-censor. Anyone reading the entry can see that Heterodox Academy conducted some of the studies and discount them accordingly, if he/she/they are so inclined. Plenty of other Wikipedia entries on non-profit organizations provide the details of studies conducted by the very non-profits that are the subject of the entry (see, for example, s.v., "Southern Poverty Law Center"--an organization that I admire but which has itself been criticized for inaccuracies). Other editors are free to cite studies that contradict Heterodox Academy's surveys as well as the Knight/Gallup polls. That sort of give-and-take seems fair. Free Speech Wikipedian


 * Well I am sorry to say that based on this precis, I am inclined to agree with those who don't think the material should be included. This is NOT because your additions are bad or wrong in some way; rather, they're falling in to one of Wikipedia's epistemic blind spots.  I will be the first to confess that Wikipedia's policies are about the worst I have ever seen, with the exception of all other sites attempting to collaboratively catalogue human knowledge on the internet (apologies to Winston Churchill for quote theft).  So, I think the policies are generally being properly applied (though I intend to dig a little deeper).  Your catch-22 is quite right--in Wikipedia terms, we're all waiting for some secondary sources to jump in and start telling us what is going on.  I am not sure exactly which SPLC studies you have in mind, but in general, they don't focus on themselves, in my experience.  I would say for WP:ABOUTSELF purposes, the sources at issue here are "self-serving."  That's again, not to say wrong or bad, but in furtherance of their general goal and arguments.  As I mentioned, I will be taking a closer look (for whatever that's worth), but in the meantime, I think we are kind of stuck.  As I am sure you are aware, however, this is all susceptible to changing consensus.  If you can convince enough people through new evidence or sheer rhetorical derring-do that you are correct, then you are well within your rights to ignore quibbling from me or anyone else.  Sorry I don't have a more constructive response, but happy Tuesday.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay, Dumuzid, challenge accepted! And thank you for your comments.


 * I’ll try to convince you and other Wikipedia editors of my point by expanding the argument’s scope. According to some editors’ interpretation of the “aboutself” rule, a journalist can criticize an organization of some 4,000 scholars, and someone can then record that criticism in a Wikipedia article about the group, but when that organization refutes the journalist’s claim with empirical data that they have collected according to academic standards, no one can record even the fact that the study took place, much less the data themselves, in that same Wikipedia article. That is perverse.


 * Dumuzid, you refer to the Churchill quotation about democracy being the worst system except for all of the others—I too am fond of that line—but if Wikipedia itself is indeed a democracy, then bad rules can be changed or reinterpreted to avoid perverse results.


 * But beyond reductio ad absurdum arguments—and bracketing for the moment the rewriting of a bad rule—I’m not convinced that this reading of the “aboutself” rule is the correct one, as this interpretation is not applied in similar entries. TLDR: The standard that putatively bars citation of studies by Heterodox Academy in the Wikipedia article devoted to it is one that no one abides by in a raft of other entries.


 * Here is a section in the Southern Poverty Law Center entry, for example, that cites SPLC’s documents:

SPLC Hatewatch (blog)[edit source] The Hatewatch blog, created in c. 2007, publishes the work of its teams, including investigative journalists who "monitor and expose" activities of the "American radical right".[175] Initially, its precursor—the "Klanwatch" project—which was established in 1981, focused on monitoring KKK activities. The Hatewatch blog, along with the "Teaching Tolerance" program and the Intelligence Report, highlights SPLC's work.[26] An in-depth 2018 Hatewatch report examined the roots and evolution of black-on-white crime rhetoric, from the mid-nineteenth century to the late 2010s. According to the report, "[m]isrepresented crime statistics" on "black-on-white crime" have become a "main propaganda point of America's hate movement".[176] The report described how Dylann Roof, the perpetrator of the June 17, 2015, Charleston church shooting had written in his manifesto about his 2012 Google search for "black-on-white crime", which led him to be convinced that black men were a "physical threat to white people."[176] One of the first sources was the Council of Conservative Citizens. The report shows that on November 22, 2015, then-Presidential Candidate Donald Trump retweeted a chart that had "originated from a neo-Nazi account" which displayed "bogus crime statistics".[176] The SPLC report cited a November 23, 2005, Washington Post article that fact checked the figures in the graph.[177] The tweet said that "81 percent of whites are killed by black people", while the FBI says that only 15 percent of white murder victims are killed by a black perpetrator; the large majority of white murder victims are killed by white perpetrators.[176]


 * Many of the notes above refer to SPLC’s own documents. Would it be legitimate to object to this section on “aboutself” grounds? If so, a voluminous amount of material on Wikipedia will need to go.


 * In the following list of think tanks and advocacy groups, editors repeatedly cite the groups’ own documents in ways that could be construed as “self-serving”; to a willfully unsympathetic reader, such citations might appear to justify the groups’ existence. (I’ve distinguished my own comments from the passages in the Wikipedia articles by using asterisks in front of my own text, which end up looking like bullet points. PLEASE NOTE THAT I CHECKED THESE ENTRIES ON 10/5/2021, SO THEY MIGHT HAVE CHANGED A BIT IN THE MEANTIME. I have not made a single change to any of these entries, ever.)

Amnesty International

In the aftermath of 11 September attacks, the new Amnesty International Secretary General, Irene Khan, reported that a senior government official had said to Amnesty International delegates: "Your role collapsed with the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York."[32] …. In 2009, Amnesty International accused Israel and the Palestinian Hamas movement of committing war crimes during Israel's January offensive in Gaza, called Operation Cast Lead, that resulted in the deaths of more than 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis.[40] The 117-page Amnesty report charged Israeli forces with killing hundreds of civilians and wanton destruction of thousands of homes. Amnesty found evidence of Israeli soldiers using Palestinian civilians as human shields. A subsequent United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict was carried out; Amnesty stated that its findings were consistent with those of Amnesty's own field investigation, and called on the UN to act promptly to implement the mission's recommendations.[41][42] … 2016[edit source] In February 2016, Amnesty International launched its annual report of human rights around the world titled "The State of the World's Human Rights". It warns from the consequences of "us vs them" speech which divided human beings into two camps. It states that this speech enhances a global pushback against human rights and makes the world more divided and more dangerous. It also states that in 2016, governments turned a blind eye to war crimes and passed laws that violate free expression. Elsewhere, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Iran, Thailand and Turkey carried out massive crackdowns, while authorities in other countries continued to implement security measures represent an infringement on rights.[61] In June 2016, Amnesty International has called on the United Nations General Assembly to "immediately suspend" Saudi Arabia from the UN Human Rights Council.[62][63] 2017[edit source] Amnesty International sign at the WorldPride Madrid in July 2017 Amnesty International published its annual report for the year 2016–2017 on 21 February 2017. Secretary General Salil Shetty's opening statement in the report highlighted many ongoing international cases of abuse as well as emerging threats. Shetty drew attention, among many issues, to the Syrian Civil War, the use of chemical weapons in the War in Darfur, outgoing United States President Barack Obama's expansion of drone warfare, and the successful 2016 presidential election campaign of Obama's successor Donald Trump. Shetty stated that the Trump election campaign was characterized by "poisonous" discourse in which "he frequently made deeply divisive statements marked by misogyny and xenophobia, and pledged to roll back established civil liberties and introduce policies which would be profoundly inimical to human rights." In his opening summary, Shetty stated that "the world in 2016 became a darker and more unstable place."[67]


 * All of the above footnotes cite Amnesty International reports. Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to purge this material—that it would make the entry better?

National Association of Scholars

In 2011 NAS launched its Center for the Study of the Curriculum to "document and to analyze important changes" to college curricula and "to propose improvements."[22] The center conducts yearly reviews of colleges and universities' common reading programs. The annual Beach Books report identifies the colleges that have these programs, the books they assign, and patterns in the assignments. The 2012–13 report found that 97 percent of colleges and universities chose books published in or after 1990. The most popular book assigned was The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot. Writing at The Guardian, the report's author, Ashley Thorne, criticized the lack of classics: "The choice of a recent book that is often the only book students will have in common with one another points to the death of a shared literary culture. To the extent that colleges want to approach that culture, they display willful selfishness in confining their sights to the present."[23]


 * The above paragraph cites an NAS document.

Humanists International

The Freedom of Thought Report[edit source] It has been suggested that this article be split into a new article titled Freedom of Thought Report. (Discuss) (July 2019) Cover of the downloadable 2016 edition of the IHEU Freedom of Thought Report - Key Countries Edition In 2012 Humanists International began publishing an annual report on "discrimination against humanists, atheists and the non-religious" called The Freedom of Thought Report.[31] The report centres around a "Country Index" with a textual entry for every sovereign state.[32] Each country is measured against a list of 64 boundary conditions, which are categorised into four thematic categories ("Constitution and government", "Education and children's rights", "Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals", and "Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values") at five levels of overall "severity" ("Free and equal", "Mostly satisfactory", "Systemic discrimination", "Severe discrimination" and "Grave violations").[33] The 64 boundary conditions include for example: "'Apostasy' or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death", which is placed at the worst level of severity, and under the category "Freedom of expression", and: "There is state funding of at least some religious schools", which is a middle severity condition, under the category "Education and children's rights". The data from the report is freely available under a Creative Commons license.[34] Findings of the Freedom of Thought Report[edit source] In 2017, the report found that 30 countries meet at least one boundary condition at the most severe level ("Grave violations"), and a further 55 countries met at least one boundary condition in the next most severe level ("Severe discrimination").[34] This composite map overlays the results from four separate categories of assessment in Humanists International Freedom of Thought Report, as to how countries discriminate against non-religious people. Countries block-filled in darker, redder colors are rated more severely in the report, while lighter, greener shades are more "free and equal". Responses to the Freedom of Thought Report[edit source] The various annual editions of the Freedom of Thought Report have been reported in the media under headlines such as: "How the right to deny the existence of God is under threat globally" (The Independent, UK);[35] "Most countries fail to respect rights of atheists – report" (Christian Today); and "Stephen Fry's mockery of religion could land him the death penalty in these countries" (The Washington Post).[36] The report has received coverage in the national media of countries that are severely criticised, for example "Malaysia's free thought, religious expression under 'serious assault', study shows" (the Malay Mail).[37]


 * Many of the above footnotes cite Humanist International reports.

Greenpeace

Greenpeace on golden rice[edit source] Greenpeace opposes the planned use of golden rice, a variety of Oryza sativa rice produced through genetic engineering to biosynthesize beta-carotene, a precursor of pro-vitamin A in the edible parts of rice. The addition of beta-carotene to the rice is seen as preventive to loss of sight in poverty stricken countries where golden rice is intended for distribution. According to Greenpeace, golden rice has not managed to do anything about malnutrition for 10 years during which alternative methods are already tackling malnutrition. The alternative proposed by Greenpeace is to discourage monocropping and to increase production of crops which are naturally nutrient-rich (containing other nutrients not found in golden rice in addition to beta-carotene). Greenpeace argues that resources should be spent on programs that are already working and helping to relieve malnutrition.[141] … “Although Greenpeace stated that the golden rice program's true efficiency in treating malnourished populations was its primary concern as early as 2001,[145] statements from March and April 2005 also continued to express concern over human health and environmental safety.[146][147] In particular, Greenpeace has expressed concern over the lack of safety testing being done on GMO crops such as golden rice and of "playing with the lives of people...using Golden Rice to promote more GMOs".[143] … Toxic waste[edit source] In July 2011, Greenpeace released its Dirty Laundry report accusing some of the world's top fashion and sportswear brands of releasing toxic waste into China's rivers.[151] The report profiles the problem of water pollution resulting from the release of toxic chemicals associated with the country's textile industry. Investigations focused on industrial wastewater disccorrharges from two facilities in China; one belonging to the Youngor Group located on the Yangtze River Delta and the other to Well Dyeing Factory Ltd. located on a tributary of the Pearl River Delta. Scientific analysis of samples from both facilities revealed the presence of hazardous and persistent hormone disruptor chemicals, including alkylphenols, perfluorinated compounds and perfluorooctane sulfonate. The report goes on to assert that the Youngor Group and Well Dyeing Factory Ltd. - the two companies behind the facilities - have commercial relationships with a range of major clothing brands, including Abercrombie & Fitch, Adidas, Bauer Hockey, Calvin Klein, Converse, Cortefiel, H&M, Lacoste, Li Ning, Metersbonwe Group, Nike, Phillips-Van Heusen and Puma AG.


 * The footnotes above cite Greenpeace reports.

World Wide Fund for Nature

Publications[edit source] This section may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. (July 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

WWF publishes the Living Planet Index in collaboration with the Zoological Society of London. Along with ecological footprint calculations, the Index is used to produce a bi-yearly Living Planet Report giving an overview of the impact of human activity on the world.[41] In 2019, WWF and Knorr jointly published the Future 50 Foods report identifying "50 Foods for Healthier People and a Healthier Planet".[42] The organization also regularly publishes reports, fact sheets and other documents on issues related to its work, to raise awareness and provide information to policy and decision makers.[43]


 * “World Wide Fund for Nature” is one of many entries that start with a caveat recommending the incorporation of “better” sources, but the highlighted material remains as a placeholder in the entry rather than being deleted. Such inconsistency across entries undermines faith in the editing process.

RAND Corporation

The achievements of RAND stem from its development of systems analysis. Important contributions are claimed in space systems and the United States' space program,[23] Current areas of expertise include: child policy, civil and criminal justice, education, health, international policy, labor markets, national security, infrastructure, energy, environment, corporate governance, economic development, intelligence policy, long-range planning, crisis management and disaster preparation, population and regional studies, science and technology, social welfare, terrorism, arts policy, and transportation.[27] RAND designed and conducted one of the largest and most important studies of health insurance between 1974 and 1982. The RAND Health Insurance Experiment, funded by the then–U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, established an insurance corporation to compare demand for health services with their cost to the patient.[28][29] According to the 2005 annual report, "about one-half of RAND's research involves national security issues".


 * Many of the above footnotes cite RAND documents.

Reason Foundation

“Some of his other videos for the foundation have promoted free trade; criticized the government's raids of local poker games and an Arizona attempt to ban dancing in a family restaurant (Footloose in Arizona);[31] highlighted a ban on bacon-wrapped hot dogs in Los Angeles; detailed abuse of eminent domain laws; called for more toll roads to relieve congestion; argued for deregulation of organ donation (including kidneys and other organs); and called for immigration reform.[32]”


 * The last footnote in the above paragraph cites Reason itself.

American Enterprise Institute

"Because of the agencies' dual public and private form, various efforts to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to fulfill their public mission at the cost of their profitability have failed—and will likely continue to fail", he wrote in 2001. "The only viable solution would seem to be full privatization or the adoption of policies that would force the agencies to adopt this course themselves."[49] Wallison ramped up his criticism of the GSEs throughout the 2000s. In 2006, and 2007, he moderated conferences featuring James B. Lockhart III, the chief regulator of Fannie and Freddie[50] In August 2008, after Fannie and Freddie had been backstopped by the US Treasury Department, Wallison outlined several ways of dealing with the GSEs, including "nationalization through a receivership," outright "privatization," and "privatization through a receivership."[51]


 * The above paragraphs cite American Enterprise Institute reports.

Ayn Rand Institute

“ARI holds that the motivation for Islamic terrorism comes from their religiosity, not poverty or a reaction to Western policies.[49]


 * The above note cites the Ayn Rand Institute.

Institute for Women's Policy Research From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia hideThis article has multiple issues. Please help to improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. (January 2014)

This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (March 2018)

“IWPR Projects and Initiatives[6][edit source] “Status of Women in the States Reports[edit source] “IWPR has analyzed data on a wide range of indicators at the local, state and federal levels, including demographics, economic security, educational attainment, reproductive rights, political participation, civic engagement, and access to health care and work support in order to publish a collection of comprehensive reports. Each report offers policy recommendations shaped by the research findings for that state, city or area. “Women and Social Security[edit source] “Women are more likely to rely on Social Security because they have fewer alternative sources of income, often outlive their husbands, and are more likely to be left to rear children when their husbands die or become disabled. Specifically, adult women are 57 percent of all social security beneficiaries aged 65 and older. IWPR produces and disseminates materials to keep women involved on the ongoing Social Security debate and to ensure that women’s concerns are addressed when or if any changes to the system take place.”


 * Again, this smacks of “arbitrary and capricious” editing: why offer criticisms at the outset rather than deleting the material that cites only IWPR’s own studies?

Médecins Sans Frontières

Statistics[edit source] In order to accurately report the conditions of a humanitarian emergency to the rest of the world and to governing bodies, data on a number of factors are collected during each field mission. The rate of malnutrition in children is used to determine the malnutrition rate in the population, and then to determine the need for feeding centres.[115] Various types of mortality rates are used to report the seriousness of a humanitarian emergency, and a common method used to measure mortality in a population is to have staff constantly monitoring the number of burials at cemeteries.[116] By compiling data on the frequency of diseases in hospitals, MSF can track the occurrence and location of epidemic increases (or "seasons") and stockpile vaccines and other drugs. For example, the "Meningitis Belt" (sub-Saharan Africa, which sees the most cases of meningitis in the world) has been "mapped" and the meningitis season occurs between December and June. Shifts in the location of the Belt and the timing of the season can be predicted using cumulative data over many years.[117] In addition to epidemiological surveys, MSF also uses population surveys to determine the rates of violence in various regions. By estimating the scopes of massacres, and determining the rate of kidnappings, rapes, and killings, psychosocial programmes can be implemented to lower the suicide rate and increase the sense of security in a population.[118]


 * The article above cites Médecins Sans Frontières’ own reports. At minimum, then, the fact that HxA publishes reports on campus expression should be allowed.

People’s Policy Project

“Crisis of overworking[edit source] “Much of 3P's research work focuses on the negative ramifications of overworking, which takes a physical and mental toll on those that experience it. A report by 3P in collaboration with the Gravel Institute found that American workers, by average, work longer than workers in any other developed country.[29]”


 * True, the above footnote does not cite the original PPP study, but instead that model of scholarship, Teen Vogue. By that logic, if Heterodox Academy somehow managed to get cited by Games Unplugged magazine, could I cite the study as quoted in the magazine? Would it confer more value on the study because it is a secondary source?

Peterson Institute for International Economics

“2017 tax reform debate[edit source] “The Peterson Institute has been at the forefront of research on the proposals by the Trump Administration of reforming the tax code. Comparative analyses in advanced economies show the tax proposal will increase the budget deficit, unless coupled with a reduction of tax loopholes.[non-primary source needed]”


 * Note the superscript at the end, “[non-primary source needed].” Here we run into a common inconsistency, raising the legitimate objection, once again, that Wikipedia editing is arbitrary and capricious. Why is some material allowed to stand with a caveat, whereas similar material in another entry is simply deleted?

National Bureau of Economic Research

Business cycle dates are determined by the NBER dating committee under contract with the Department of Commerce. Typically, these dates correspond to peaks and troughs in real GDP, although not always so.[8] The NBER prefers this method for a variety of reasons. First, they feel by measuring a wide range of economic factors, rather than just GDP, a more accurate assessment of the health of an economy can be gained. For instance, the NBER considers not only the product-side estimates like GDP, but also income-side estimates such as the gross domestic income (GDI). Second, since the NBER wishes to measure the duration of economic expansion and recession at a fine grain, they place emphasis on monthly—rather than quarterly—economic indicators. Finally, by using a looser definition, they can take into account the depth of decline in economic activity. For example, the NBER may declare not a recession simply because of two quarters of very slight negative growth, but rather an economic stagnation.[9]”


 * The notes cite NBER studies. Note too that in this case, criticism follows—part of the back-and-forth of a robust public sphere: “However, they do not precisely define what is meant by "a significant decline", but rather determine if one has existed on a case by case basis after examining their catalogued factors which have no defined grade scale or weighting factors. The subjectivity of the determination has led to criticism and accusations committee members can "play politics" in their determinations.[10]”


 * And then, in a confusing twist, an editor cites another reason in favor NBER definitions that NBER itself does not mention: "Though not listed by the NBER, another factor in favor of this alternate definition is that a long term economic contraction may not always have two consecutive quarters of negative growth, as was the case in the recession following the bursting of the dot-com bubble.[9]"


 * The above footnote nevertheless cites an NBER study. (Confused emoji.)

Annie’s List

In the 2018 midterm elections, Annie's List had an 84% win rate and 31 of the 37 candidates Annie's List endorsed in 2018 won their election.[4]


 * The above citation is to Annie’s List’s own documents.

Center for Media and Democracy

CMD disputes the characterization of "liberal" and describes itself as a "non-profit investigative reporting group" with a "focus on exposing corporate spin and government propaganda."[22][23]


 * The above reference is literally “aboutself,” as it cites CMD’s “About Us” page.

Our Revolution

“Our Revolution board member James Zogby disputed the Politico report in a series of tweets, calling it a "hit piece fueled [by] a few disgruntled souls out to harm [Nina Turner]."[35] The Politico article has also been criticized by others on similar grounds,[36][37] as well as for its anonymous sourcing and lack of quotes.[36] An article published by Common Dreams also broadly disputed the Politico article,[36] as did a Naked Capitalism piece.[37]”


 * Some of the above notes cite Our Revolution.

Oxfam

“A January 2014 Oxfam report stated that the 85 wealthiest individuals in the world have a combined wealth equal to that of the bottom 50% of the world's population, or about 3.5 billion people.[13][14][15][16][17] …. A 2017-released Oxfam report stated that eight billionaires possess the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of humanity.[19][20][21][22]


 * The notes cite Oxfam documents among the sources.

The Library Project

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "The Library Project" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Results[edit source] [1] •	Providing access to books to over 200,000 children •	Donating over 350,000 English and local language children’s books, encyclopedias and reference books •	Creating libraries •	Establishing over 600 libraries in rural elementary schools and orphanages in 21 provinces throughout China and Vietnam


 * The article above cites the New Library Project’s own report. This is another entry that’s allowed to remain in limbo, while similar material elsewhere is summarily deleted. This suggests “arbitrary and capricious” editing standards.

Human Rights Watch

Publications[edit source] Human Rights Watch publishes reports on many different topics[43] and compiles an annual World Report presenting an overview of the worldwide state of human rights.[44] It has been published by Seven Stories Press since 2006; the current edition, World Report 2020, was released in January 2020, and covers events of 2019.[45][46] World Report 2020, HRW's 30th annual review of human rights practices around the globe, includes reviews of human rights practices and trends in nearly 100 countries, and an introductory essay by HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth "China's Global Threat to Human Rights". Human Rights Watch has reported extensively on subjects such as the Rwandan genocide of 1994,[47] Democratic Republic of the Congo[48] and US sex offender registries due to their over-breadth and application to juveniles.[49][50]


 * All of the above notes cite Human Rights Watch’s own reports.

League of Conservation Voters

“In a 2012 report, the non-profit Rachel's Network examined the Scorecard scores for male and female members of Congress in the 107th through the 111th Congresses (2001 to 2010). The group found that "women in Congress vote for legislation supporting clean air, clean water, renewable energy, climate action, and public health much more often than their male counterparts."[25][26][27] The report found that some of the difference was attributable to the fact that there were "more women Democrats in both houses of Congress than there are women Republicans," and Democrats favor more pro-environmental policies, but also found that "the difference in voting patterns still persists when gender is isolated within each political party."[25] The report also found that "the gap between Republican men and women narrowed after the 2004 election cycle, which could be attributable to increased partisan pressures."[25]”


 * Is “Rachel’s Network” a reliable source for Wikipedia? If not, then the above paragraph needs to go.


 * One could argue, I suppose, that all of the instances I’ve cited are simply mistakes that have yet to be corrected, but to eliminate all such material would be to impoverish Wikipedia, gutting it of details that draw people to the site. One could also argue that Heterodox Academy does not have the same level of credibility as these other organizations, but who gets to determine this, and by what criteria? Does anyone sincerely believe that the Ayn Rand Institute, among others in the list, is more reliable than Heterodox Academy, which boasts thousands of scholars among its members, most of whom hold advanced degrees? I would like to see an argument to that effect rather than a bare assertion. On the issue of Heterodox Academy’s relative newness, it has been around for six years and in that time has drawn academic luminaries to the organization. At what point does it become credible—when it’s been around for nine years? Ten? And again, who gets to decide? The editors who happen to follow the “Heterodox Academy” page? (Vox, incidentally, which is cited in the article, dates to 2014.)

See WP:OSE and WP:TLDR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hipal (talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the goal of Wikipedia editing is consistency and evenhandedness across the platform, then editors should be able to cite Heterodox Academy studies in the Wikipedia article on it, just as editors have done in the articles above and indeed throughout Wikipedia. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

From WP:OSE: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based *solely* [my emphasis] on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. (This may be an argument that this article is not bad enough to be speedily deleted; but that does not mean it should be kept.) While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, ****comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, make a much more credible case.**** [my emphasis]" I will look for such articles and see whether they cite primary sources and the like. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of looking for articles that support a perspective, I recommend looking for RfCs, Noticeboard discussions, or other substantial policy-based discussions on strongly related issues. --Hipal (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

New edits
What language is off-kilter or inapposite in the article's final paragraph? As for the Quintana piece, nothing in the Chronicle article cited suggests he is "arguing that advocacy groups such as Heterodox Academy functionally do more to narrow the scope of academic debates than any of the biases they allege." Please point to a passage in the article that states or even suggests as much, or I will delete the portion devoted to Quintana. (Some discussion of the Chronicle piece may belong in the article, but in a different context, as I noted.) Indeed, Quintana distinguishes Haidt and Heterodox Academy from Betsy DeVos and her ilk in another Chronicle article from later the same year. On Heterodox Academy's opposition to the "Professor Watchlist," which I inserted into the "Activities" section, Heterodox Academy articulated its opposition to the project in its very first official statement, indicating its significance, so unless you adduce more cogent reasons for deletion, I will add it back. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Re the final paragraph: To start, it's huge given the references, and repetitive as well. --Hipal (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * re Quintana --Hipal (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the discussions to date, I don't understand why we care what is posted on twitter. --Hipal (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I can condense the paragraph. On the opposition to "Professor Watchlist," I'll try to verify this with a non-Twitter source and reinsert, though the "aboutself" objection would here seem inapt--Heterodox Academy would know what Heterodox Academy's first official statement was. What difference does it make *where* they noted that this was their first official statement? Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 03:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no need to condense it; I've removed it entirely. None of the sources in it are usable. The paper by Fossen just cites Heterdox Academy a single time, without mentioning it at all in the text, and is WP:UNDUE for any sort of inclusion at all, let alone the massive paragraph you cited to it. Newsweek is generally not considered reliable today per WP:RSP and is likewise unusable.  And the Atlantic piece is an opinion piece (in its Ideas section) briefly referencing a single study by Heterodox Academy; and even though they agree with the study, they acknowledge its low quality (To some, the evidence of Heterodox Academy’s member survey plus my correspondents will still qualify as mere “anecdata”—after all, both groups are self-selecting—such that only a long-term academic study carefully interviewing at length a good 3,000 professors and submitting their responses to statistical analysis would qualify as empirically compelling.)  These aren't the sort of sources that are usable for writing a paragraph like this, especially given that you presented it directly as a response to the paragraph above it; even if we accepted the sources, the best they could support is "some people have cited Heterodox Academy as support for papers or arguments", and even for that it would be WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I will file a dispute, since you seem unwilling to compromise. Among the many inconsistencies in your argument: Beauchamp's Vox article is an opinion piece, and he is hardly a master statistician or an expert on academia, so it's not clear why his voice counts more than Jonathan Zimmerman's in University World News or John McWhorter's in the Atlantic. As will be obvious to anyone who actually reads it in context, the passage you cite from McWhorter does *not* amount to an acknowledgment that the Heterodox Academy study is "low quality"; McWhorter simply entertains the possibility that others might regard it as limited. Indeed, he earlier refers to the Heterodox Academy's numbers as "hard data."

Your dismissal of the scholarly article I cite on the grounds that is "WP:UNDUE" strikes me misplaced. I did not say or suggest that the view expressed in the article was a majority view. As for "Heterodox Academy" not appearing in the article itself, the author of the Heterodox Academy study does, in fact, appear in a parenthetical citation in the article's first paragraph (Stiksma, 2021); this introduction, which sets the tone for the piece, also discusses Haidt and "cancel culture." I don't happen to be a fan of the term "cancel culture," which is susceptible to abuse, and, as an atheist, I would bring a very different argument to bear on the question of religious toleration, the article's subject; but none of this undermines the relevance of Heterodox Academy's study to the authors' argument or to the present Wikipedia article. To delete all such material is to leave a distorted impression of Heterodox Academy's "Reception" (see the section heading).

As for the suggestion that Newsweek does not count as a reliable source, mediabiasfactcheck.com rates Newsweek as less biased and more factually based than Vox. Adfontesmedia.com rates the two magazines at almost exactly the same level of reliability, judging Newsweek the less biased of the two. 05:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC) Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Moving to your own contributions to the page, your line on commentators "arguing [that] advocacy groups such as Heterodox Academy functionally do more to narrow the scope of academic debates than any of the biases they allege" has no basis in the articles you cite. Your account of the Vox article seems plus Beauchamp que Beauchamp: while Beauchamp clearly disagrees with Heterodox Academy, insisting at one point that they "provide ammunition" to conservative lawmakers who would pass laws to restrict academic freedom, he adds that "I would assume Heterodox Academy’s core staff are too principled to support such measures." Your spin on this passage is WP:Synth. To "provide ammunition" is not the same as "functionally do more to narrow the scope of academic debates than any of the biases they allege." The reading you impose on the Quintana piece is even more fanciful--please point me to a single passage in Quintana's article that is remotely equivalent to the line above. That material needs to be rewritten.Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have partially reverted the removals. I see no consistent standard of WP:DUE in which we include the views of some journalist writing in an opinionated article in Vox, but not that of a notable historian of education or that of an academic professor writing in The Atlantic. If someone is going to claim that these are views of "tiny minorities" - the circumstance when DUE says we need not include it at all - then that needs to be demonstrated with reference to other sources. Otherwise, these are RS, and per DUE, they are in fact to be included. If anything, these are WP:Secondary sources to the research papers they are citing, and thus all the more establish the DUE-ness of the material. Presenting the section as though RS only speak of the group as wrong about speech on campus is what is UNDUE and POV. Crossroads -talk- 05:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The WP:DUE issue doesn't come from the reliability of the source, in this case; it comes from the fact that they barely mention Heterodox Academy. Focusing on a random paper that happens to cite Heterodox Academy a single time is putting undue weight on a single aspect of it and is WP:SYNTH besides; the article should be built around secondary sources that discuss Heterodox Academy, not random examples that editors think are significant. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why are you circling back around to rehash this and engage in a disruptive removal months later? These are multiple WP:Secondary sources for the Heterodox Academy research. As I just explained in the comment you are replying to, WP:DUE is not an unlimited-power removal wand. That these sources do not spend whatever arbitrary length of material on the matter you personally deem sufficient before an RS suddenly becomes DUE is not relevant. This removal presents a false picture of the status of the reception of the group. Crossroads -talk- 07:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NODEADLINE applies; when I feel a dispute is intractable, I usually like to circle back around later to see if others have weighed in or if the situation has changed (as, I will point out, it has here - the sources you were comparing it to as an objection have largely been removed.) This is recommended per WP:DISENGAGE. If you want to resolve something in a lasting fashion, you need to establish a consensus - reverting once obviously isn't that, so naturally it makes sense to pick it back up later. As far as the actual dispute goes, the issue here isn't simply an arbitrary length of material - two of the sources make no mention of Heterodox Academy at all in their text and are plainly not appropriate for reception; I don't see how you can really argue they provide a window into how it is received when they do not discuss it at all. The third one mentions it, but merely in passing and, crucially, without any sort of evaluation, just as a quote of what Heterodox Academy itself thinks and feels (meaning it does not actually say anything meaningful about its reception.) I do understand that you feel that including these is vital to capturing what you personally believe to be an accurate picture of the reception of the group, but that's not a valid argument to include such clear WP:SYNTHesis, or to extend due weight to sources that do not even mention the subject in their text at all; we decide what an accurate picture of the reception of the group looks like by looking at what secondary sources say about them, not by consulting our gut feelings about what balance ought to look like, and these are simply not secondary sources that discuss the group at all.  In any case, since I gather that this discussion isn't likely to be any more productive the second time around, I've started an RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding Newsweek, "generally not considered reliable" is quite different from "not generally reliable", and the latter is what WP:RSP says. It lists it in yellow rather than red and says, "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". So it isn't a "generally unreliable" source. Wikipedians generally go by RSP than by those other sites. Crossroads -talk- 06:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Adfontesmedia.com and mediabiasfactcheck.com are not reliable, and no substitute for the general consensus on the reliability of sources. --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Crossroads, for the information about Newsweek. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the particular newsweek source, I am not seeing any red flags and it seems reasonable to add back in since no editors have raised particular concerns.-Pengortm (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Quintana ref removal
Could editors comment for or against the following changes :

"According to Vox's Zack Beauchamp, Heterodox Academy advances conservative viewpoints on college campuses by playing into or presenting the argument that such views are suppressed by left-wing bias or political correctness. Commenators such as Beauchamp and Chris Quintana, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, have disputed Heterodox Academy's contention that college campuses are facing a 'free-speech crisis,' noting the lack of data to support it and arguing that advocacy groups such as Heterodox Academy functionally do more to narrow the scope of academic debates than any of the biases they allege."

Was changed to the following, completely removing the Quintana reference. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC) "Zack Beauchamp of ''Vox' maintains that 'by working to promote the idea that liberal bias and...political correctness is [sic] a crisis, they provide ammunition' to conservative lawmakers who would pass laws to restrict academic freedom. On a more concessive note, Beauchamp acknowledges that 'Heterodox Academy’s core staff are too principled to support such measures.'"

As I suggested above, if anyone can point to a single passage in either the Beauchamp or the Quintana article equivalent to the line I replaced (Heterodox Academy "functionally do more to narrow the scope of academic debates than any of the biases they allege"), then I will happily revert the edits myself. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If it does in fact specifically discuss Heterodox Academy, and is represented accurately, then I would support including it. But that is an important "if". Crossroads -talk- 23:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

RFC: Using sources that cite Heterodox Academy as examples of reception
In the material in this diff, three sources are cited as examples of Heterodox Academy's reception. Should these be used as examples of reception? Should we use citations to it as examples of reception in general? See also the sentence immediately afterwards, which is broadly similar. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Marcy Van Fossen, James P. Burns, Thomas Lickona & Larry Schatz; references Heterodox Academy once in a footnote, no other mentions.
 * CS Monitor, saying Many students do express they are increasingly “walking on eggshells” and experiencing what free speech advocates have long called the “chilling effects” of self-censorship, says Kyle Vitale, director of programs at Heterodox Academy (HxA), a nonpartisan collaborative of college professors and students committed to open inquiry and diverse viewpoints in higher education. In a 2020 survey, HxA found that 62% of sampled college students agreed the climate on their campus prevents them from saying things they believe, up from 55% in 2019. And students across the political spectrum expressed reluctance to share their ideas and opinions on politics, with 31% of self-identified Democrats, 46% of Independents, and 48% of Republicans each reporting reluctance to speak their mind.
 * Matthias Revers & Richard Traunmüller; references Heterodox academy in several of its footnotes, no references to it in the text.

--Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 * No. These are WP:SYNTH (and the first and third refs have obvious WP:UNDUE issues, given that they don't mention Heterodox Academy at all.) Using these in the reception section is effectively trying to argue-by-example that Heterodox Academy is well-received; and stating the results of their study here has no relation to their reception in any case. The CS Monitor, the one source that actually mentions them in the text, says nothing about how Heterodox Academy is received - it just quotes their opinion and figures. This is the sort of thing that we might use for WP:USEBYOTHERS when discussing a source internally, but it's inappropriate synthesis to use it to try and use it to imply things about Heterodox Academy's reception in the article text.  Reception requires interpretation and analysis by definition, which means we need secondary sources discussing Heterodox Academy, not a handful of random citations to it or sources that simply quote its opinions and figures without commentary. The CS Monitor source could possibly be used elsewhere, but it shouldn't be used for reception.  The other two sources are totally unusable here, since they do not discuss Heterodox Academy at all. --Aquillion (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's POV to argue that we can't cite these sources that have received Heterodox Academy positively, leaving only a Vox opinion article by someone without any relevant expertise that is critical of the group, thus making it seem reception is only negative. The CS Monitor source alone would be sufficient for this. The other two only state the name "Heterodox Academy" in footnotes, true, but their research is discussed in the main text of those sources. When sources receive the group positively, of course that belongs in the reception section. Crossroads -talk- 20:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mostly No. To my mind, Aquillion has the better part of the argument here, especially as to sources 1 and 3.  They're citing to work hosted at Heterodox Academy ("HA"), but not actually mentioning the institution at all.  Citing a work with approval from a place does not necessarily mean general approval of the place.  This is simply too far a putt.  As to the CSM, while I think Aquillion is right that it's not strictly "reception," The author does in a sidelong way give a take on HA, and while it's not perfect, for me it will do.  As ever, just my opinion, and reasonable minds may differ.  Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Citing HA is not an opinion on HA, or a source for the reception of HA, and using it as such is obviously WP:SYNTH. Economists cite Karl Marx reasonably often because he's historically important, but that doesn't mean they like him. Similarly, asserting that there's a problem with free speech on college campuses is also not an opinion on HA, or a source for the reception of HA, because it's possible believe that that's a problem while not knowing about or even disliking HA. Loki (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Mostly move to another section. I think these passages could be ok to include, but that they don't really fit the ideology and reception section. Seems they would probably fit better in modified form in the "programs and activities" section. To fit in the "Ideology and reception" section I think we would need sources which more directly address either the ideology or reception of Heterodox Academy. One exception to this is the CS Monitor noting that HxA is non-partisan. This is important since it is an outside source, not just HxA, describing HxA as non-partisan-Pengortm (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I won't speak too much on which sources we should use to characterize their ideology, but as concerns their reputation, there is substantial precedent that we should require high-quality sources when describing academic reputations. See WP:HIGHEREDREP or NPOV. For 1 and 3, citing Heterodox Academy as a source doesn't say anything about its reputation, so I'm not sure what material it could be used to support. For 2, the CS Monitor is an RSP-greenlit source, but this is clearly a more opinion-esque article that only mentions Heterodox Academy in passing (using fairly promo-y language that seems drawn from a mission statement), and the author does not appear to have any expertise in higher education. If this was some incredibly niche group, perhaps we could go with the CS Monitor with in-text attribution, but for a group that's received as much attention as this, surely we can do better. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)