Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political views of American academics


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Numerically, opinions are divided, but in terms of strength of argument, I think the "keep" side has the stronger position. That's because the "delete" side argues with POV concerns, but doesn't address why this cannot be alleviated by editing, whereas the "keep" side puts forward the number of reliable sources covering this topic, which the "delete" side doesn't really contest. Still, given the divided headcount, I don't think we're close enough to a consensus to keep. Discussions about a possible merger can continue.  Sandstein  20:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Political views of American academics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An WP:essay style article written with a clear political purpose, and that is based primarily or only on sources with a clear slant. Recently renamed from Liberal bias in academia, but the content is problematic enough that the new title does nothing to improve the situation. Carl Fredrik talk 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –  TheGridExe  ( talk )  16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –  TheGridExe  ( talk )  16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. –  TheGridExe  ( talk )  16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Well sourced, has received continued coverage since the 50's, and easily meets WP:GNG. If you think there are POV issues, you are welcome to improve the article. Otherwise that is not a reason for deletion. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Carl Fredrik  talk 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly am. Unless you are arguing it is a content fork, which it does not appear to be, it does not meet any WP:DEL-REASON. PackMecEng (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What kind of response is that? I would warn you against WP:BLUDGEONING voters during this discussion with comments that contain no value like that. --Netoholic @ 17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the discussion below, do you have anything else to add to your nomination? I for one would certainly appreciate your input. PackMecEng (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete It's clear that, despite the title change, the subject is one that's notable only for the conspiracy theories and fake news spun around it by folks of a certain partisan persuasion. We do not have articles on the "political views" of medical doctors, firefighters, or other professionals. Moreover, in their capacity as academics these people are conducting research that is dedicated to neutral principles of investigation, documentation, and publishing. The current title, and certainly the article content, continue to insinuate that academics' personal opinions somehow taint their work and corrupt their institutions and students.  This article is never likely to rid itself of these fatal NPOV problems.  SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete The purpose of the article is to push a POV, as evidenced by the earlier title and the content. Numerous of the included studies say nothing about political views, instead only talking to party affiliation with the clear intent to suggest political views not in evidence. It leads off with a 1955 study. How does party affiliation in 1955 tell us anything about political views as parties were coalitions of citizens with opposing views? There is no evidence that the political views of academics has affected students. So, why would the political views of academics merit any more importance than the views of beekeepers or exotic dancers? O3000 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep spurious nomination. This is a subset of academic bias documented there and in several book articles we already cover. The Find Sources book links above easily show this issue has wide coverage and a significant number of sources to draw from. --Netoholic @ 17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, the article talk page has already rejected the POV that this article is about bias.  SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If that is such a "matter of fact" you won't mind linking to something conclusive to support your assertion then. Without that, you should be careful what you say is a "matter of fact". -- Netoholic @ 20:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Your proposed move to the POV title was rejected by an overwhelming consensus. Fact!  SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No link provided. Hitchens' razor applies. Keep your WP:ASPERSIONS somewhere else. -- Netoholic @ 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. (For editors who are new to the AfD process, the preferred terminology is "keep" or "delete", not "support" or "oppose".) There is no question that the page was created as a POV violation. But this is a WP:UGLY situation: the fact that it has been written in a POV manner does not mean that it cannot be written in an NPOV manner. (Note: I am not calling anything "ugly": that's a shortcut link.) The political views of university professors are an encyclopedic topic, and there has been more than enough written about it to establish notability. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is currently going through a period of editors using the editing process to proxy war over the current divisions in US politics. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have been further examining the page, it is becoming increasingly clear to me that there really is not reliable sourcing for there being that many more "liberal" than "conservative" professors. Much of the sourcing that argues for a big difference is turning out to be bogus. So there is no way that a "liberal bias" theme is going to hold up. I admit that this is somewhat diminishing my desire to keep the page. However, I'm still a "keep", because the political views of academics remain an encyclopedic and notable topic. But the page should become a summary of the research on the topic, rather than something that promotes the "liberal bias" trope. In fact, I think it is of value to our readers to provide accurate and unbiased facts about the topic, contra the political talking points that are widespread elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep This is arguably even a Speedy Keep per criterion 3.
 * WP:Essay has literally nothing to do with this article.
 * The nom provides no rationale for why it should be deleted in accordance with WP:DEL.
 * The article addresses a specific and eminently notable controversy.
 * The article is well-sourced, and it would remain well-sourced even if each controversial source were to be removed.
 * The article subject does not break WP:NPOV by its very nature, and can be covered in a neutral way.
 * The nominator does not appear to have attempted any of WP:ATD before nominating it, despite ample content worth saving.
 * Even if the article discussed a "conspiracy theory," it would pass WP:NFRINGE due to the sheer volume of independent sources.
 * If someone has an actual PAG-based reason that this article should be deleted, I'm all ears. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per Objective3000 and NPOV.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with Academic bias - These articles cover nearly identical topics. Academic bias is written in proper encyclopedic style and would benefit from expansion by adding any salvageable content from political views. –dlthewave ☎ 02:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have left a pointer to this discussion at Talk:Academic bias, as I think should be a required step whenever anyone proposes a merge at an AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NPOV. SportingFlyer  talk  05:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets GNG requirements. It's a perennial topic of interest in both academic and non-academic circles and covered widely in the press with in depth coverage over time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:1300:16E:21DC:54EE:B15C:A1D1 (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: hard to improve upon AlexEng's points.
 * Nominator has failed in their due diligence vis-a-vis WP:BEFORE
 * Stated reason for deletion WP:ESSAY is has no relevance here. NONE. And it is not listed at WP:DEL-REASON.
 * Editors who are claiming NPOV as a deletion rationale should familiarize themselves with our polices. NPOV is not a reason for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON.
 * Lastly deletion of large chunks of sourced content goes against the purpose of why we are here: to build an encyclopedia. WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. – Lionel(talk) 12:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:ESSAY isn't the applicable provision: WP:NOTESSAY is. SportingFlyer  talk  20:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which point in WP:NOTESSAY applies to the article? Alex Eng ( TALK ) 21:25, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that it might perhaps be that the page expresses editor opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear presentation of POV. No encyclopedic purpose, let alone value.Tvx1 14:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep not sure why Americans are scared of the fact the more educated you are the more liberal you lean.  academic topic that comes up all the time  in the debate over education.--Moxy (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What debate over education are you referring to? I thought it was pretty much considered a good thing, education.  SPECIFICO talk 17:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The one in the article.....what you talking about.--Moxy (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I only see "debate" mentioned a single time in the article in our paraphrase of a single "study" that is behind a paywall. I was asking you about "all the time". That's unsubstantiated and I don't know what it refers to, but we can continue on article talk if you wish.  SPECIFICO talk 19:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean as a whole.....the debate of where highly educated professors lie on the political Spectrum as outlined here. Deletion of an academically studied topic is a bit odd.-Moxy (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that it's normal for academics to be left-leaning. It's what happens to many in University as they discover analytical and critical thinking. .--Moxy (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Attributing the liberalism of young people and wine-sipping academics to the discovery of "analytical and critical thinking" is a mindbogglingly parochial and pretentious perspective, which completely ignores the possibility that perhaps liberal professors imparting their worldview on receptive and uninformed children (for years) inevitably has an effect on their political leanings. Liberalism isn't exactly renowned for leaning on data and objective analysis rather than raw emotion (see gun control, illegal immigration, black-on-black crime, etc.). Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please leave your personal biases out of this. WP:NOTFORUM O3000 (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding your own thoughts after every comment I make. There are plenty of other articles for you to edit. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the second time today you have suggested I stop editing articles that you edit. This must stop. O3000 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)!

* Keep Obviously. Well-sourced and lots of research and studies performed on this subject. Notable and verifiable. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Editor blocked as sock. O3000 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve to ensure NPOV. Professors have been investigated for their political and social beliefs since at least 1917. It's important to document this history. See the entry on W.E.B. DuBois in Stalking Sociologists: J. Edgar Hoover's FBI Surveillance of American Sociology, by Mike Forrest Keen.AnaSoc (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. – Lionel(talk) 11:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge with Academic bias. Some of the statistics (perhaps those of academics self-identifying their political ideologies) should find a place in the discussion there, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that what could work a subsection on that article deserves a lengthy, and somewhat repetitive, offshoot.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Having seen some interest in merging the page to Academic bias, I think it may be useful for me to point out that editors are discussing at the article talk page the idea of expanding the article to include the history of J. Edgar Hoover, Joe McCarthy, and others to misuse the US government to suppress political views in academia in the US. That's a specifically US topic, and it really has nothing to do with professorial bias. There is a big difference between political views and their history, taken as a whole, versus the much more narrow (and POV) concept of bias. It's very unfortunate that the page being discussed here was originally started as a POV piece about so-called "bias", but the page was renamed and editors need to consider the scope that it will have if it is kept. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The history of McCarthyism in academia is an interesting topic, but fundamentally it is neither about the views nor the biases of the academics affected by it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It certainly has nothing to do with biases, but the page needs to be rewritten to be about political views, whether or not they result in biases. And McCarthy directly targeted people based upon what he considered to be their political views. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "What he considered to be their views" is a very different thing than what their views might have been. And I am not convinced that he carefully analyzed the views of his political opponents, rather than first identifying them as opponents and then on that basis attributing unpopular views to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. He obviously is not a reliable source. But, just as there is the present-day canard that academics are hostile to conservatives and Republicans, there was that earlier canard that they were Communists. Although of course the page should cover what the range of political views actually are, it is also encyclopedic to cover how perceptions of those views have been used and misused for political purposes. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: not independently notable of Academic bias. The article can be best described as covering a conspiracy theory which can be better done in the context of the overall article. No need to preserve the article history, so a "delete" is a better option in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep whatever the flaws of the article as it stands, it covers a distinct and notable topic on which a substantial amount of research has been published. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or redirect to academic bias, no merge. To me the telling sentence in the article, from the middle of a huge wall of text, is "Many of these researchers, according to Gross, have made "a number of poor methodological choices, as well as leaps of logic, because of their strong political commitments."" That the article then goes on to quote in detail piles of the same research, with no attempt at digesting it or summarizing it, and no attempt to distinguish Wikipedia's point of view from the mostly-politically-motivated points of view of the critics, makes it not worth saving as a WP:POVFORK from the parent bias article. That academic bias is a notable topic is indisputable. That a specifically America-focused view on academic bias is notable as a subtopic of this topic also seems likely enough (although I question whether that's not what we already have in the parent article). But I can't make the jump from that truth to the salvageability of any content from the article as we have it now. And if it is to be an article about the political biases (not "views") of American academics, then the title is wrong. Or, if it is to be an article about the political views of American academics, then the current content is almost entirely off-topic, because there is nothing in the article that discusses the ways in which academic viewpoints on politics might be differentiated from the standard left-right spectrum that characterizes everyone else's viewpoints on politics. (Disclaimer: I am an academic, with viewpoints on politics that I try to keep out of my Wikipedia editing. But to try is not always to succeed.) —David Eppstein (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per K.e.coffmann and David Eppstein. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.