Talk:Heterodox Academy

Promotional Article / Objectivity

Reading through the article, it seems as if most of the text was imported straight from the group itself. It is generally positive in nature, includes no criticisms of the group, and outlines their publications with the same bylines as the original website. As written right now, it appears more like a promotional / propaganda article more than an objective article.

Some suggestions would be to include criticisms of the group, to remove words loaded with positive connotations, and to add more third person references to the group. If anyone has any other suggestions, please comment below. 128.189.73.93 (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

There's at least some editing here against a conflict of interest, so it's no surprise.

Adding more third person references isn't enough. The article should be written from clearly independent sources, with other sources being used sparingly for additional details that are clearly encyclopedic in nature. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Looking further, I think we need to start with WP:Notability. --Ronz (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Bipartisan versus multipartisan

Would "multipartisan" be more accurate than "bipartisan" in the lead sentence? I think that "bipartisan" frames it in terms of the two major US political parties, and I'm under the impression that the group is interested in more than just US politics. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The word is taken straight from 2 out of the 3 sources used in the lead. I think we have to use it until other sources are introduced that describe it in some other way. FWIW, my searches came up with nothing usable so far for "multipartisan"+"Heterodox Academy". -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

February 2019 edits

Regarding this revert, I've rewritten the lead to make it unambiguous that it doesn't describe itself as conservative; but we need to rely on secondary sources to describe it, not primary ones, and they're generally pretty clear about what angle it's arguing from. Regarding the rest, no explanation was made for deleting the entire ideology section beyond WP:SYNTH and it not matching the sources -- please be more specific. It seems to summarize the cited sources very closely to me, but I can reword it to be more close if there are specific objections. Sweeping reverts to the entire page, though, aren't very helpful! The current article relies far too heavily on cites to Heterodox Academy itself or to sources that just quote it without describing or analyzing it directly, so we need a section like this and sources like the ones that this revert removed. --Aquillion (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted because your summaries of the cited sources are far afield from what they actually say. Point in fact is that you you wrote that it "seeks to correct what it sees as the left-wing ideological tilt" - a statement which is not supported by either of the sources you had listed (if even those sources are high-quality) as to what they document the group's state goal is which is "promoting 'political and ideological diversity'" (Observer) and "promotes 'viewpoint diversity on college campuses'" (Vox). Now, those authors and User:Aquillion may interpret this goal as being "conservative" or "anti-left-wing"... but those views have to be attributed to the opinion-makers themselves - not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. I wholesale reverted because there were wholesale lapses in your interpretation of the sources. Let's start over though - can you list out here what references you think are of highest quality to add to this article - in a general sense, not to support any particular point. -- Netoholic @ 22:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Added: In another lapse, you cited a Salon page, which right at the top points out that it is a reprint from the Niskanen Center (think tank) blog - again using a POV opinion and falsely stating it as fact in Wikipedia's voice rather than attributing it to its source. -- Netoholic @ 22:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've restored the information based upon a quick review of the content and comments above.

I believe the references are reliable, but we can go over any that are disputed.

I think we must have independent descriptions of the organization if available, and those descriptions should be put above those of the organization itself if the sources are reliable for the information.

If there are V or OR problems, they should be addressed by changing the content to better fit the sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Netoholic, for identifying specific content within the article.

At a glance, they look like statements that may be overly generalized given what the sources state. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)