Talk:Political views of American academics

Xavier University

The description for the article at http://www.xavier.edu/xjop/documents/Hudson.pdf is not at all accurate. In fact it says there is no conclusive evidence of said hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarysa (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This is false. Read again in-depth and we'll talk. mezil (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Sarysa here, the study cited does not appear to support the content it is used as a ref for. It concludes that "In terms of the importance of salary, there was no significant difference between conservatives and liberals on how important this factor was in thinking about a career," and says that "there is no indication that conservatives in this group are more likely than liberals to self-select themselves out of academia," which seems to be the opposite of what the article currently says. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You would be correct, but my input includes analysis using said data. The other sources are more "in support" of the point of the article, which in itself is not saying that there absolutely is strong liberal bias in academia, but that there is evidence in support of the claim that there is some extent of liberal prejudice within the community of academics. If you do not agree with the article, please feel free to change and alter it as you find necessary with relevant sourcing. I don't own it, I'm only providing reasoning behind my actions. mezil (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained cleanup tag

@Pincrete: Is there any specific reason for the POV tag that you added to this article? Jarble (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The article conflates various terms and IMO, barely begins to address the topic. Specifically, liberal has a very different meaning in Europe and US. Further, economic liberalism, social liberalism, political liberalism are very different things, but I don't know which is being addressed. In Europe 'liberal' equates with moderate centrist political positions, whereas in US it equates more often with radical positions. Then, in education, we have the traditional use of 'liberal education' to mean a rounded, humanistic education, the traditional 'ideal' ironically of many educationally-conservative commentators.

At other times modern teaching methods appear to be equated with liberal bias, and PC and 'socio-cultural and political apologists' are presented as the alternative to centre-right positions. To be honest, the only sentence that was wholly clear to me was the opening one (perception). Perhaps 'neutrality' was the wrong tag and I appreciate that this is a difficult topic area, but I could not see anything resembling a 'rounded picture' of whether/why/in what way there might be a perceived or actual liberal bias in academia, nor whether that was necessarily a bad thing. Pincrete (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pincrete: I have reverted your "edit" of Jajhill's table as it appears to be unconstructive, bordering on vandalism. Please provide justification or do not revert, thank you. mezil (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal: imo it places undue weight on a single, out of date study. We should briefly summarize their findings in prose instead. Please don't restore without first discussing it and getting consensus here. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually I was unaware that I had removed any table, however, looking at it, what does it communicate? Are these self-identifications? Without context, I have no idea what it all means and largely agree with Fyddlestix that text about the basis of the study and main conclusions would be more informative. Pincrete (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Article here by Neil Gross, asking many of the questions that 'raw stats' don't ask. A taste: just because most professors are liberal doesn’t mean the average student is being force-fed liberal ideology. In interviews I conducted with professors, I found that a large number teach on highly technical subjects where it would be downright weird to let politics enter the classroom. As one engineering professor put it when asked how politics factored into his work, “a chunk of metal doesn’t have politics.” Pincrete (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Yavorpenchev: @Pincrete: @Fyddlestix: While the points about the age of the study and that there is only one study cited are reasonable, I would strongly disagree with everything else. What such a table communicates that a summary can't is the ideological balance of each academic department. Listing the data by department in prose makes less sense than constructing a table. These are self-identifications, and that they are self-identifications can be noted above the table. As for the quotation above from Neil Gross's article, it entirely misses the point about academic bias. The issue isn't its effect on students; students political attitudes largely come from their peer group (in other words, other students). The problem with academic bias is that it produces bad, ideologically motivated research that is not replicated, goes uncriticized, even when debunked often continues to be cited, and the most ideologically lopsided academic departments have hostile climates and discrimination directed at professors who do not lean to the political left and that is a major reason why. From the Inbar and Lammers study, "...conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues...[and] they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate." From a literature review by José L. Duarte, Jarret T. Crawford, Charlotta Stern, Jonathan Haidt, Lee Jussim, and Philip E. Tetlock, "[The] lack of political diversity can undermine the validity of social psychological science via mechanisms such as the embedding of liberal values into research questions and methods, steering researchers away from important but politically unpalatable research topics, and producing conclusions that mischaracterize liberals and conservatives alike... Increased political diversity would improve social psychological science by reducing the impact of bias mechanisms such as confirmation bias, and by empowering dissenting minorities to improve the quality of the majority’s thinking... The underrepresentation of non-liberals in social psychology is most likely due to a combination of self-selection, hostile climate, and discrimination." Jajhill (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jajhill: I completely agree, that is why I defended your actions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yavorpenchev (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but the value of listing the political leanings of physicists, theologians, geographers etc. (ie 95+% of academia), because there is a single paper saying that social psychological research may be negatively impacted as a result of political bias in that particular field is somewhat lost on me. Pincrete (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please prove that all professors are fair, that they don't influence their students or co-workers.

History, politics, sociology, law make more than 5% of academia.Xx236 (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Of course they do, but the studies Jajhill linked are of poor quality - the Lammers study only surveyed members of a specific association of psychologists, and by the study authors' own admission, had a response rate of 26% - they themselves compare that to the response rate that Klein and Western got in 2005, but fail to mention that Klein and Stern's paper was basically disregarded by serious scholars because of the low response rate. (See this paper for example). The Honeycutt and Freberg paper only surveyed scholars in a handful of California State University campuses, and again only got a response rate of 26%, which other RS have made clear is not a high enough response rate to draw meaningful conclusions from. The Duarte review, again, only talks about psychology. So while I have no problem with saying in the article that academia is generally liberal (in fact I added a bunch of sources to the article yesterday that say just that), these sources can't be used to verify that. They are very limited in scope and their methodology has been called out by other RS - and there are much much better and higher-quality sources out there that we can use to talk about academia in general. But the most important thing is that the numbers are properly contextualized, rather than presented as self-explanatory facts in a table. The higher-quality literature makes it very clear that it's more complicated than a simple tabulation of (mostly sketchy) survey results suggests. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Table again

I still strongly object to the table that purports to give percentages of party affiliation and and liberal-conservative percentages:

• The column titled "RLN" is currently sourced to a report by an obviously WP:BIASED conservative think tank, the American Enterprise Institute. But the data comes from this paper in The Forum. The paper is not peer reviewed and the authors never released their data. It was strongly challenged by other scholars in this paper, where they argue that "Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte's work is plagued by theoretical and methodological problems that render their conclusions unsustainable by the available evidence."
• For some reason, there is also a column for the NAASS survey, which is the same survey that Rothman, Lichter, and Nevitte based their study on. Rothman et al specifically say (on page 3) that "The data come from the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS)" So why are we reporting one survey's results as two? This is misleading to say the least.
• We have the same issue with the "2006 PAP Survey" and the "2007 Gross Simmons" survey - these are duplicate numbers from the same study - Gross' paper clearly states that "The study we undertook, which we called the Politics of the American Professoriate survey..." and the figures are clearly duplicated in both columns (rounded up in the first set). Gross' numbers appear to be solid, but the conclusions that he draws from them are clearly the primary thing worth noting about his work - in other words, the numbers need to be contextualized and Gross and Simmons' analysis of them need to be included if we're going to neutrally and fairly represent their work.
• The Langbert study says directly that their data "may be somewhat aberrational" and that they "cannot be sure" whether it is accurate.

In other words, these numbers are hugely controversial and should not be reported in a table as if it was something easily measured or factual. Most of these are rough, survey-based estimates at best, and for that reason I don't think any table of this type can be properly referenced or belongs in the article. The current table also cites the wrong sources (original studies should be cited instead of an AEI report), and repeats 2 sets of figures twice. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

My friend, you actually managed to sort of convince me. The Recent research, Theories and explanations and Implications sections have been written predominantly by you, so fair enough. Good effort and good nerves, thumbs up from me :)

mezil (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Questionable addition to wikipedia

As far as I can see this particular article has a very specific American leaning but the title of the article would suggest that the studies cited here apply to all higher education globally, additionally the focus on an absolute polarized Left/Right paradigm would in my view be largely construct and a consequence of a First Past the Post two party system rather than something that would be empirically quantifiable at a global scale, the qualities which make up a given "right" or given "left" vary from nation to nation.

It would be my view that the title of this article be updated to reflect the UScentric nature of this piece or that the article itself be nominated as a candidate for deletion outright as it is of it's current writing more of a skewed opinion piece than an article of substance.

Zardrastra (talk) 09:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

This article looks like a wall of nonsense. What is it doing in an encyclopedia? SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Why are we calling a "study" a "report"?

@Snooganssnoogans: what sources do you have that call the study a "report"? I can't find any RS that refer to the NAS study as a report, and the NAS itself refers to its study as a report. We don't call it a peer-reviewed study because it has not been peer-reviewed (to my knowledge), but a study it certainly is.[1] And a link to its journal entry: [2]. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not peer-reviewed, and should therefore be described as a report. Fox News is not a RS, in particular when it comes to scientific topics (the network is known for its promotion of falsehoods and misrepresentation of science on climate change). A study implies peer-review (especially when it's placed in an article full of actual peer-reviewed studies). I consistently use the term "paper" to refer to working papers and "report" or "analysis" for analyses by think tanks and advocacy organizations. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any policy that states studies that haven't yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal should be called reports, but it's quite possible I missed it. Where is this stated on Wikipedia? I also couldn't find any place on Wikipedia that states Fox News is not a reliable source. I don't know if we'll be able to keep "report" unless there's sound reasoning behind contradicting the source material. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It's just common sense. It's not a peer-reviewed study, so we refer to it as a paper or report. This is not a problem that I've ever encountered before. It's beyond me why you want to mislead readers into thinking this is a peer-reviewed study when it isn't. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Snoogans: Please remember to AGF. This is my second request in a 30 day period, if I'm not mistaken. Clearly I am not trying to "mislead readers" by directly quoting the sourcing. Nobody said anything about "peer-reviewed," so there is no reason for readers to get that impression. I'm fairly certain misrepresenting the source material is a policy violation, but I am more than happy to open up an RfC and help us iron this out. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

On Wikpedia, we never identify studies as "peer-reviewed" (see all the peer-reviewed studies in this article which are not explicitly identified as peer-reviewed). We simply say "study", because it's presumed that a "study" cited on Wikipedia will be peer-reviewed. "Report", "Analysis" or "Paper" do however avoid the ambiguity to a large extent. Please do a RfC. You can also bring this up on the 'Style Guide' noticeboard (or whatever it's called). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a document prepared by an advocacy group to promote its mission. For the moment it's OK to leave it in the article if clearly attributed, but this is not a "study" in any sense. It's a statement that cites various statistics according to methods chosen by the authors according to methods and purposes that have not been vetted by any independent review. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus has been reached to move this article, mainly on WP:NPOV basis.(closed by non-admin page mover) Kostas20142 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Liberal bias in academia → Political views of American academics – Title of the article should not assume the consequent, and furthermore, should make sense internationally (the Liberal Party of Australia is hardly "liberal" by American standards). The appropriate title of this article would create a platform for neutral discussion of all aspects of views of academics, not just purported "liberal bias." No doubt there are charges of conservative bias in academia as well (see the recent media discussions of large Koch-funded donations to George Mason University) and we shouldn't have to create separate partisan articles for each. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - What NorthBySouthBaranof said. The word liberal changes in meaning over time and location. The word bias is relative and suggests unfair prejudice. Having a political view does not mean you are biased. O3000 (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Proposed title is much clearer about the article's scope. Ibadibam (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly the proposed title better reflects article content, whereas the reinstated "Liberal bias" is POV, OR, and generally preposterous. SPECIFICO talk 15:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - This disguises what the article is really about, which is the perceived left-slant in American universities. Natureium (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• That's an OR conclusion. And "perceived" is what we call "weasel". SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• User:SPECIFICO, nicely put, though maybe Natureim is on to something--but that's not really the article we have, one on a "perceived" left-wing slant. If that were the real topic of the article, it would have to be treated like a FRINGE theory. But we could drop all kinds of fun stuff about global warming and the "perceived" knowledge of it. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Current title reflects much (most) of the coverage this topic has received in media. Arkon (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • That's very doubtful, giving how broad this liberal tent is, and how wide the term "bias". Drmies (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• This is all coming together now. It's the liberal media bias and the liberal Wikipedia bias. And speaking of tents... there's too many gays in the military. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed - follows naming given by reliable sources and is an accurate name for the topic at hand. Alternate proposal if the word "liberal" itself is the problem (which, honestly, it probably isn't): Left-wing bias in academia. Red Slash 20:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, neutral on adding the word "American" to the article. Depends on the scope we want this to have. Red Slash 20:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• You're going to need to show how the sources state, as fact, that there's this "liberal bias" thing. Otherwise you are stating a conclusion based on various studies and analyses that would be covered by the new title but not the one you seek to retain. Moreover jumping from "liberal" to left-wing is an absurd and preposterous bit of OR POV that is not supported by any RS cited. SPECIFICO talk 20:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
• The current title can not stand - if this move isn't done, it will have to be renamed something else. The current title is affirming the consequent - we cannot factually state that there is a "liberal bias in academia" absent a clear and unambiguous consensus of reliable sources doing so. There are certainly arguments that this is the case, but clearly those arguments must be presented as the contested opinions that they are. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The content in the article clearly proves that there is liberal bias in academia. I wouldn't say that the consensus is as strong as global warming--but it's close.– Lionel^(talk) 23:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Your problem is that the fact that academics tend to hold liberal personal views does not prove the existence of "liberal bias." The definition of bias is prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair; that such academics are prejudiced ... in a way considered to be unfair is in no way a proven matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: move rationale falls flat on its face. We have hundreds of thousands of articles that have a political modifier in the title. If the article contains some off-topic content, move the content--don't rename the article. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! There is nothing wrong with having "liberal" in the title.

That said, @Red Slash: offers an excellent alternative: Left-wing bias in academia.– Lionel^(talk) 23:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

There is absolutely something wrong with the word “bias” in the article title as it suggests unfair prejudice. It is an insult. We don’t even use the word bias in the title of the Klu Klux Klan article. I’m not a huge supporter of academia. But, to use a title suggesting that they are like the KKK seems a bridge too far. Do we have any articles on the beliefs of groups, say businessmen, Christians, farmers, and title it “conservative bias in …”? Bias means prejudice. We don’t put insults in WP titles – even for the Ku Klux Klan. O3000 (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Um, it may be hard for people with a certain POV to reconcile, but prejudice is exactly what this article is about. It may be inconceivable to some that White Male Republicans and their ilk face discrimination. The word "bias" is in common use in section titles. We have hundreds of sections with "bias." Some articles with "bias" are

• Gender bias on Wikipedia
• Racial bias in criminal news in the United States
• Second-generation gender bias
• Racial bias on Wikipedia

– Lionel^(talk) 02:10, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Political beliefs aren't gender or race. This is a category mistake. I mean we have an article on Spectrum bias but so what? Different kettle of fish. So just because the word "bias" appears in the title of other articles doesn't mean squat.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, we have an article on Gender bias which redirects to Sexism, which is a discussion of discrimination based upon gender, not a particular gender. The equivalent title here would be Political bias in academia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The proposed title would turn the focus into a duplicate of the existing article academic bias, and, at its current length, there is no reason to limit the scope to America. Certainly, other studies exist from around the world and can be included. I do think the suggested Left-wing bias in academia is more correct and clear to the greatest number of people. I also think that, in addition to the studies that prove there is a disproportionate number of leftist in academia compared to the general population, the article should expand on the "bias" part by including more information about the consequences of this imbalance, including the impact on students, research, and culture. -- Netoholic @ 00:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC) Changing to Oppose and procedural close. Its clear other voters are not using this WP:RM process as its intended (to discuss correct application of our naming conventions), but rather to fundamentally change the intended focus of the article to something different. This is not the appropriate forum for such discussions (WP:VENUE). -- Netoholic @ 06:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• You seem to be confusing the current title with the proposed move. Please check and explain your view in terms that are not internally inconsistent. SPECIFICO talk 03:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• My vote is clear. This topic isn't about general bias in academia, nor is it about general political bias in academia. It is about the claims of, and proof of, left-wing bias specifically. The OP is trying to generalize a topic which deserves specific focus. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Some folks see bias in their Wheaties. Keep in mind that there are 2,600 four-year colleges and universities in the US, 600 of which are Christian-affiliated. It is good to have an article on the political views of academics. But, bias is a derogatory term. Why would an encyclopedia wish to apply a derogatory, political label to academia in general in an article title? Basically, we are telling the reader that they needn’t read the article if they want to know if there is a liberal bias. Who needs nuance? We should not have far-left or far-right political blogs writing our article titles. O3000 (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• And the current article and sources simply do not evince "proof of left-wing bias". Anyone who believes there are RS references that would support such a conclusion would be well-advised to locate and cite them. Otherwise it's this move is a done deal. SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• You may wish to re-read the sources and article (and improve BTW), your POV is of no consequence. Arkon (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• This is far from a done deal. At the moment, it looks like it will be no consensus, which means the title will remain as is. Natureium (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Moves are not !votes, they're based on policy-based arguments, and it is clear that policy does not permit us to have an article whose title assumes the existence of the unproven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. People are trying to change much more than the name of the article here by arguing that the subject itself isn't valid. That's another matter entirely. Natureium (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Sorry, but I can't take "liberal bias" seriously as a non-POV title. Obviously, when conservatives choose to deny science and common sense, academia is going to have a slant towards liberals. That isn't an opinion, it's a fact, insamuch as you believe in actual facts._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support The "liberal bias" title is so over the top POV it's an embarrassment.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Add: first, "liberals are over represented in academia" (which is supported in sources) is not the same thing as "there's a liberal bias in academia" (which is NOT necessarily supported by sources). Second, to the extent that some sources do talk about "liberal bias in academia", it's mostly in the context of debunking such a thing. So not a good justification for such a title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Anytime men or whites or whatever are "over-represented" in a career, leftists will openly make claims of bias in hiring. The same applies here - this article can cover bias in academic hiring/promotion. -- Netoholic @ 07:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok here's your problem. Problems actually. And these are very typical. You use absolute qualifiers such as "anytime". And "men or whites". And "leftists" (wtf that's suppose to mean - one would think that any decent person, whether right or left, would oppose gender and race discrimination. None of these are actually applicable or true. Stop thinking in black vs. white (or red vs. blue or whatever). The way you make your statements really just betrays your own bias, non-neutrality and prejudices.

And it's already been pointed out that race and gender are not like political beliefs (one is a choice, the other not). I mean you might as well argue that flat-earthers are "discriminated against" in academia (not that conservatives are flat earthers, just that your logic applies to ANY group which chooses to believe ANYTHING, whether true or not).

Oh, and finally, in case you haven't noticed, I presume that you oppose it when "Anytime men or whites or whatever are "over-represented" in a career, leftists will openly make claims of bias in hiring". I mean, do you agree with "leftists" (sic) that "anytime men or whites are over-represented" (sic) there is biasing in hiring? Yes? No? If no, then why are you making an argument which you yourself don't believe in? That's disingenous and dishonest (if "yes", then you're good).Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I like how you try to shame me for using common terms like ""leftists" (sic)" (and include scare quotes to make your point) and then in the very next section use blanket ideological terms conservatives (sic) in the exact same way. -- Netoholic @ 22:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad that you like it, but dude, my usage of the "blanket ideological term" "conservative" was precisely to point out that you SHOULDN'T stereotype conservatives, whereas your usage of the "blanket ideological term" "leftist" was to make the ridiculous assertion that all leftist are exactly the same and act in the same way. See the difference? Not that hard. Also, how about you step up and instead of weaseling and deflecting you answer the question. Also not that hard.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

There's also the other 99 fallacies in Netoholic's argument. Bias in hiring? What's the proportion of "liberals" in the applicant pool? How does it compare to the proportion of installed faculty? What's the correlation of "liberal" views with education? What's the proportion of "liberals" among PhD's in the population? Or does that just show liberal bias in grad school admissions? And what's the relative propensity of marginalized right wing conspiracy-quaffers to believe in half-baked assertions of liberal bias even while citing evidence to the contrary? 4 down, 96 to go. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wait a minute, all I've been hearing lately is that different outcomes are definitely a result of bias and/or discrimination, and can't be simply due to individual choices or other factors. --Netoholic @ 22:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Netoholic, suppose that's true - that you have been hearing this lately. Do you agree with it? That different outcomes are definitely a result of bias and/or discrimination? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

What does an editor's agreement have to do with this thread? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not that hard to understand. His oppose argument is basically ""leftists" (sic) do this so I'm going to do it too", even though he presumably disagrees with when "leftists" do it. It's a crap argument.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hearing what? Like secret voices? Even the paltry and random assortment of sources in this article don't say that. What do you think "bias" means, anyway? Do you think faculty should be randomly selected like Powerball? How many variables can you fit on the head of a pin? SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you stay on topic please? Address sources and the like? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I already stated the indisputable reason why the requested move is inevitable: The sources and text of the article do not support the current title. Instead of telling others what to do, try finding additional sources that would support your preferred title/subject. I doubt you'll find any in RS. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Funny, because I stated the exact opposite of your "indisputable" statement. Weird right? How about you find/provide sources for your preferred title/subject. Arkon (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, this discussion supports the concept that there obviously exists a great deal to discuss in this particular arena. So, why would we put a conclusion in an article title? Particularly when it is so controversial. And, how many conspiracies fit on the head of a pin? O3000 (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per VM's astute comment above. Neutrality^talk 07:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Which "astute" comment may that be? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Can you please stop haranguing people? Or if you're going to do it, at least put a little effort and creativity into it, rather than repeatedly asking questions with obvious answers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Arkon - as others have pointed out, the "bias" title simply does not reflect the actual content of the article, nor does it reflect the reliable, non-opinion sources. There is plenty of material on the political views of U.S. academics, and how those vary by field. And the data shows that academics are more likely to be liberal Democrats than the general public. But overrepresentation is not the same thing as "bias" (whatever that means - I find it vague and unhelpful). Neutrality^talk 05:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• To editor Neutrality: - The broad "political views of academics" topic you're talking about is a different one than this article is intended to focus on, and I encourage you to go start that new article if you like. This topic is more narrowly focused and is named using a WP:COMMONNAME associated with it. This article is meant to cover any claims of bias AND the refutations of those claims of bias. This article will take the information about the well-documented ideological disparity, incorporate the claims of bias made in reference to that disparity, cite the research which investigates those claims of bias, and present the conclusions which either back up or refute those claims of bias. Trying to change the title and redefine the focus is WP:WRONGFORUM and ultimately pointless (since after the move, someone could split back out the new liberal bias content and start the article from scratch again). If you think this liberal bias topic doesn't belong on WP, then AFD it... but WP:RM is a process for simply applying our naming guidelines - not intended as a forum for discussing major changes in article scope nor the legitimacy of an article on Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 05:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Procedural comment. I have reverted the move that was performed today by a participant involved in this discussion. Please allow the Wikipedia:Requested moves process to proceed normally, including letting an uninvolved editor close the request after the usual period of discussion. Dekimasuよ! 07:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek has been on Wikipedia long enough to know not to move a page during a move discussion he's involved in. Please adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Natureium (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose No serious study has been done demonstrating anything resembling conservative bias in academia. Every study and survey shows clear-cut, purposeful, and pervasive liberal biases. The article title should reflect the subject matter. Hostility toward conservative students and guest speakers, the passionate acceptance of left-wing ideology and left-wing causes on their campuses, disparate treatment of conservative faculty and liberal faculty, the banning of the American flag, safe spaces, cry closets, anti-Trump courses, "Day of Absence" of white people, and it goes on. The article title should reflect the subject matter, which should be expanded and organized. Over-representation and bias are different, and both topics are pertinent to this article. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The current title doesn't appear to prepresent the larger body of reliable sources, nor does it correctly describe the text of the article. It looks like a WP:NPOV violation to me. The title certainly is worthy of an encyclopedia topic, but the current title isn't an accurate description of the body of the article. The current title implies it's a worldwide phenomenon, yet the article focuses only on the United States. I wouldn't object to a title like "liberal bias in American academia" to make it clearer what the article is about. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

  Its important to point out that several editors endorsing this rename have likewise been voraciously editing the article to make it conform to that view. This effort is futile because RM cannot establish consensus on inclusion of this subject on Wikipedia, only change its name. Content related to liberal bias can (and likely will) just be split right back out if the article is moved because the proposed title is too broad. -- Netoholic @ 04:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

  I guess the other supporters have a valid point that a population having a majority of liberal people doesn't automatically equate to a liberal bias. There is certainly a conservative perception of liberal bias in academia. Perhaps the article could be recast that way? ~Anachronist (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per "Neutrality in article titles". TFD (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• To editor The Four Deuces: - Would you confirm whether or not you arrived at this RM via this non-neutral post (per WP:CANVASS)? -- Netoholic @ 05:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support I learned of this move request from this post. Aside from the obvious issues of neutrality, this article is almost entirely about the political views of American academics rather than any liberal bias in academia (which is only mentioned briefly in the section "Effects"). Most of the sources referenced are research on the political views of professors at American universities, and most of the text of the article discusses that topic. One wouldn't say "liberal bias in American academia" to describe the fact that professors tend liberal anymore than one would say "conservative bias in rural America" to describe the fact that rural populations tend conservative, or "Democratic bias among African-Americans" etc. The phenomenon described by this article is political beliefs in one sub-population being unrepresentative of the population as a whole. That isn't what "bias" means, at least not in regular usage, and thus the current title is not just non-neutral, it's simply inaccurate. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per previous supporters. (summoned here by a selective post on WikiProject Conservatism).- MrX 🖋 12:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Would not Left wing bias in US academia better reflect that the article is about?, after all liberal does not mean the same thing to all people (even now). At the very minimum it should make it clear this is about the US higher education system.Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Either way, no “bias” (i.e. prejudice) has been shown. I suggest we change the title to Conservative bias that liberal bias exists in academe. O3000 (talk) 14:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The bias is systemic and pervasive but not surprising since higher education institutions have a long history of promoting free thinking.[3]--MONGO 15:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Strong support per the reasoning of the proposer. Gandydancer (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I wouldn't mind a new title perhaps with something different than bias, but the proposed title is to broad for the actual content of the article. PackMecEng (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support As the article should also discuss conservative academic politics too, even though they are generally outnumbered by those that slant left and thus will not have much coverage (but they do exist). --Masem (t) 17:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I became aware of this discussion from the posting at WikiProject Conservatism, and judging by the comments above, it sure looks like there has been a lot of posting by both "sides". Anyway, the change would much better reflect WP:NPOV. The problem isn't the word "bias", but rather the blanket implication that what our readers need to know is that it is a "liberal" one. That's assuming the existence of a bias that slants in that way. And please understand that I am saying that while being fully aware of the abundant reliable sourcing indicating that the bias does slant that way. But there is also a well-documented "conservative" minority in academia, and it's unencyclopedic to imply that the only information that matters is that the "liberals" are in the majority. The encyclopedic treatment would be to describe the "political views of American academics" in a comprehensive way, even as that description will prominently include the significant dominance of liberal views. Treating this page as a vehicle to tell our readers "hey, you better know this, academia is dominated by liberals" is entirely a violation of NPOV and WP:RGW. Consider: we have a page on Christianity and violence that (I assume, haven't looked recently) gives prominence to the information that violence is contrary to much of Christian theology while also dealing with concepts like Just war – but we would not call it Christian bias against violence. Gun politics in the United States is blue, but Republican bias against gun control and Democratic bias against gun rights are red, and would be blatant WP:POV forks if they existed. Looking at some other examples listed above, pages about bias at Wikipedia are, at least, about Wikipedia. The one about news bias probably is bad in the same way as this page is (surely there are differences between news outlets). And the one about second-generation bias doesn't attribute the bias to anyone in its title. The properly encyclopedic topic is the political views in their entirety, not whether they slant one way or the other. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per proposer and Tryptofish. You'd think after 16 years we'd figure out this "NPOV" thing but apparently not. Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Supportt' simply for neutral title ....but yes liberalism in higher educated people is the norm. ...... even during the 80s professors did not steer all that far away from the centerREAD ME.--Moxy (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support because the title has "American" in it. wumbolo ^^^ 21:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support as per the basics, see WP:NPOVTITLE of which it is a violation, let's fix this blemish.--Calthinus (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per proposer and Calthinus. To expand, the title does not only reflect a judgement but is also highly misleading, because liberal has many different meanings depending on the region and other criteria. wikitigresito (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support As it stands, it's clearly an NPOV violation stating as fact that there is a liberal bias (which in fact I question if every college in the US is considered, which of course hasn't happened). Left wing is even worse as it's complete nonsense. Yeah, all those Bible colleges pushing socialism. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support As per proposer and above comments. Parabolist (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• In a nutshell: support as this is indeed a POV embarrassment. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NPOVTITLE. The alleged "liberal bias" or "left-wing bias" can be covered as a term / theory within the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support With rare exceptions, the only people motivated to write about "liberal bias" are those dedicated to promoting the idea that such a bias exists and is evil. Until at least half the article describes evidence of real-world effects of liberal bias the term is not suitable as an encyclopedic topic. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support per NorthBySouthBaranof Ratatosk Jones (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - The current pagename sounds like some talking point out of Fox and Friends. There is bias by academia from all sides on the political spectrum. A move to the current proposal would allow the article to cater for that.Resnjari (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support seems like a clear WP:NPOVTITLE issue unless it's framed as something like "liberal bias in academia narrative". Also question how much this article adds beyond academic bias. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Pretty staraightforward case of POVTITLE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Left-wing targeting of academia

It's really ludicrous that the left-wing influence on academia is being challenged. This influence was a prime focus of the agenda of the New Left from the very beginning in the 60s. Just read our article Port Huron Statement which says "this 'will involve national efforts at university reform by an alliance of students and faculty' who "must wrest control of the educational process from the administrative bureaucracy."

If we are serious about improving and expanding this article then content addressing the efforts of the New Left and Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(1960_organization) in particular must be added.– Lionel^(talk) 23:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This would appear to be WP:SYNTH here absent any reliable sources making connections between these things. Your leap from "left-wing influence on academia" (which surely exists, just as "right-wing influence on academia" surely exists) to "liberal bias in academia" is not something you may just assemble from whole cloth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This is OR. On the other hand, the fact that starting in late 1970's because so much conservative money poured into setting up "independent" conservative think tanks, many educated conservatives CHOSE to go into these think tanks (AEI, Heritage, etc.) rather than traditional academia is pretty well documented. And they did so because, as long as you held or were willing to promote "correct" (i.e. conservative) beliefs, you got paid a lot better and you didn't have to worry about pesky things like peer review. So to the extent that there's a skewed representation of political beliefs in academia, a good chunk of that reflects simple self-selection.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:02, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt, just because the SDS (like conservatives) accused academia of having a liberal bias does not mean it was true. TFD (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

David Horowitz

I have removed a reference to a book by David Horowitz which was used to source the factual statement that "there is liberal bias in academia." Horowitz is a political ideologue, not an expert on academia. His work of popular political polemic might be useful to present Horowitz's attributed point of view, but I object to any statement therein being stated in Wikipedia voice as an unchallenged fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Such a statement is fine and welcome as long as it's attributed to him in the prose ("David Horowitz claims..."), just not if stated in Wikipedia's voice. Part of the scope of this article is to include points and counterpoints in regards to claims of bias made by pundits. You should modify such content, not remove it. --Netoholic @ 17:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

But why quote him anyway? TFD (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Recent re-write

I have reverted to before the recent wholesale rewrite and NSB's valiant effort to recover valid article content in the wake of it. Please state and discuss specific manageable components of this revision here on talk and seek consensus for your view as to how any of them improve the article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be a common problem in the realm of politics-related articles for a few specific editors to entirely revert any edits they don't like. You can't just revert everything without saying what you disagree with. I see that you and NSB want to change what the article is about, and change the title to reflect that, but that is not the topic of the article. I changed back to the edits NSB made, not because I agree with them, but because of the issue of mass reversions. Natureium (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. Their exist many NPOV problems with your mass rewrites. They should be reverted and consensus reached. O3000 (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The edits I made are descriptions of the studies done. They are not my own ideas.

Your change back to "Claims of liberal bias..." is an instance of weasel words per WP:WEASEL. I'm sure a compromise can be reached that states the topic of the article without editorializing. Natureium (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

They are claims by some sources you have picked. "Ideas" was weasely. And your perception of what this article was about does not match the perception of many other editors. O3000 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree, "Claims" is sort of weasely, but it's the best available solution to the problem created by the NPOV violation of this article's title. If the title was changed, we could use better wording. Some people are resistant to changing the title, however, so we're kind of stuck with this kludge of a lede paragraph. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead

Due a recent flurry of activity (May 2018), I've reverted the lead to the last stable version from March 2018, which was stable for well over a year. Use this section to discuss updates/changes to that lead section. -- Netoholic @ 05:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll start. The main problem with the stable version of the lead are that it defines the title of the article using the exact words in the title (its just bad writing to define a term with itself). "Bias" should be described as a systemic bias to differentiate from personal bias or overt discrimination. The lead should state matter-of-fact that left-wing beliefs are more prevalent in academia compared to general population, as this fact is universally accepted. The lead should state that the causes and effects of this known disparity are highly debated in a number of avenues, but should not include specific point-counterpoint. My recent attempt I think captures it neutrally (with an addition of the aforementioned link to systemic bias to define what we mean by "bias" in the title. -- Netoholic @ 19:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this meant to be parody? What's left-wing? How many academics are there in the country and how many were - what, asked if they were left wing? Doug Weller talk 19:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The exact criteria are in the various studies. Some use party affiliation, some use left-right paradigm, some use liberal-conservative paradigm. Wikipedia has articles about the various parties, Left-wing politics, and Liberalism - so we'll just link to whichever one matches whatever is used in any particular study to match the sources.-- Netoholic @ 19:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This is from Kalamazoo Fried Chicken, where it's all wings all the time -- no giblets, breasts, or thighs!! SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don’t think it makes any sense to claim that there is a left-wing bias in academe given that 600 of the 2,600 four-year institutions are Christian affiliated. And, that doesn’t count two-year institutions. Further, I don’t think it makes any sense to use the term left-wing based on articles that say Democrats when these words are not at all synonymous. Finally, I don’t think it makes sense to use the word “bias” at all as even those profs that are actually “left-wing” may not be biased (i.e. prejudiced). O3000 (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Using "I don’t think" arguments rather than citing sources isn't going to help this process. I agree the words aren't synonyms and we'll use them as presented by sources. "Bias" doesn't just mean discrimination - in this case it means a systemic bias which is not likely the fault of any one, but still results in a slant. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I use the words “I think” to be polite. “Left-wing” bias is absurd on its face. If you are using sources that use the term in reference to the preponderance of faculty, you are using biased sources. 20:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

Are you really trying to turn an encyclopedia into a slanted blog? "The exact criteria are in the sources" and they're all different, yet this is under some kind of umbrella as if it is all the same after all. "Liberal bias"--don't you get tired of yourself? Drmies (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

To editors Objective3000 and Drmies: Are you accusing me of something? The only substantial part I've added to this article is under Liberal bias in academia#On conservative professors, which includes a scholarly book-length study, 2 mainstream articles about the authors of it, and 2 scholarly book reviews. I don't see any egregious bias in those sources, but of course there is no such thing as a bias-free source, much like there is no such thing as a bias-free person. Wikipedia doesn't seek "unbiased" sources, just reliable ones. -- Netoholic @ 20:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You can drop in as many policy links as you like (trust me, we know them) and avoid the actual argument--but yeah, I'm accusing you of helping create a biased article with a biased title out of reliable (at least some of them) sources: well read! This entire article is a POV trap, starting with the title. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Damn, Drmies, I wanted to say that! Doug Weller talk 20:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Damn, DW, I wanted to say that! O3000 (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm not interested in you pinging me anymore. I'll be busy writing up White male bias in academia, followed by White male bias in Starbucks and a slew of other ones. Cause you know, it's all the same. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hallelujah, a de-pinging! It's like de-fooing for beginners. SPECIFICO talk 21:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of suggesting Resentment against people with doctoral degrees, but of course I would never say that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

These are what scholars call this phenomenon. The way to counter what you see as "biased" is to find other sources of equivalent value and include them, not argue on a talk page and cast accusations. My open challenge each of you to add even one new scholarly study or paper to this article of relevance. Improve the article, or leave it to us that will. -- Netoholic @ 20:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the way to counter something that already is biased is to get rid of it--at least in an encyclopedia that claims neutrality. Are you a product of that kind of education where everything is treated in terms of pro-con, as if the world is a stage for debates where all positions are in principle equal? And have you thought at all about the objection, voiced in a section above, that a percentage, or a ratio of liberals vs. conservatives (whatever that may mean--as you said yourself, that varies), doesn't make for bias? As it happens I do have a doctoral degree, and I do medieval shit. You can drive by my yard and see a sign posted for a "liberal" person running for the school board. You might call her liberal, that is; I call her moderately not right-wing. Anyway, pretend that I'm a "liberal" because of that yard sign, and because I want affordable health care for all (which Republicans claim they want too, by the way). And I'm an academic. Now kindly look at what I've been doing here, some of which is reflective of my academic work, and point out the "liberal bias" in Adso of Montier-en-Der, or Last Roman Emperor. Hey, I wrote Frobert of Troyes. Dude's a saint, a Catholic one--how biasedly did I write him up? And (since that's how you seem to operate) can you counter it with an article on the same topic from an opposed bias? (Not to mention Félix-Marie Abel, a Dominican priest--how did I bias him?) And then when you go back to your sources, do you not see that they talk about many different things, so many and so different that you are forced to acknowledge that this POV title is ridiculous? Drmies (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Lawn signs in the middle ages. Anti-vegetarian bias in medieval France. SPECIFICO talk 21:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

“Scholarly” books, studies and papers are often primary sources as they can be opinion pieces written by advocates. And, I really dislike it when someone asks me to find opposing primary sources, as I wouldn’t have any more trust in them.. I’m not here to promote a position looking for sources to back such up. I have no interest in a debate of the advocates, both sides of which will likely misconstrue and cherry pick data. I’m interested in presenting a neutral point of view from neutral sources. The human eye can see 10 million colors, TV peddlers are advertising how many colors new tech can provide, and humans are hell bent on seeing just two. O3000 (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This article cannot be improved until the title is changed. Indeed, perhaps the article shouldn’t exist at all. But, AfDs fail. In any case, material must be added that agrees with the title and the title is preposterous. I believe the current !votes are 1923-8 for a title change. I generally don’t like the concept of full protection. But, can we show the patience and self-discipline to stop adding material to support the current title until the title is determined? O3000 (talk) 23:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the nature of the lead will have to reflect the pagename. Therefore, plans to rewrite the lead should wait for the outcome of the move discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I was just going to say we should “leave the lede alone”, but it sounds like lyrics in a Celtic or Gaelic folk piece. O3000 (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The beauty of it is, we won't even have to re-write anything. We'll just undo the article back to one second before this move request. SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Liberal Bias: the motherlode 60 sources to add to this article

There is a new research organization whose main purpose is to gather research and study the liberal bias. I'm referring to Heterodox Academy. Their extensive list of research papers will keep us busy documenting liberal bias for months. I suggest we divvy up the list and start adding relevant content to the article. Any thoughts on how to proceed?

Heterodox library

– Lionel^(talk) 10:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are doing whatever you can to push one POV into this article by relying on agenda-driven sources. O3000 (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That is absurd. The topic is liberal bias. Since when is adding on-topic reliably sourced reliably sourced scholarly content POV pushing? That's like saying adding police-involved killings of Blacks to the Black Lives Matter article is pov-pushing.– Lionel^(talk) 13:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it's like writing an article on the Republican Party using as a major source, the Democratic Party. O3000 (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

But, that is what we do here. We write articles on the Republicans & conservatives using BuzzFeed, Mother Jones and SPLC.– Lionel^(talk) 13:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Posting such ridiculous statements simply makes my point. Your “motherlode” which you say will keep us busy documenting liberal bias for months is a POV organization. You and that organization believe that there is a liberal bias and you have forced a POV title and are now using a partisan source to “prove” your POV. O3000 (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, what you seem to have here is a collection of studies that say "professors are liberal." OK, so what? It has been explained time and again that the fact that faculty tend to be left of center on the American political spectrum is not necessarily evidence of anti-conservative bias; just as the fact that most top NBA players are African-American is not necessarily evidence of anti-white bias. You need studies that make a connection between professors' personal political viewpoints and something relevant - like, do professors disproportionately give conservative students bad grades? That would be evidence of an anti-conservative bias. Merely endlessly pointing to what professors personally believe is not helpful to this debate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt is correct, here. We use organizations as sources that exist for the primary purpose of pushing a left-wing worldview, advancing the agenda of the DNC, and attacking Republicans and President Trump for articles related to conservative issues, Republicans, and President Trump. Sources can be biased, as long as they're properly attributed. That's why it's so important that we make it very clear where this information is coming from, to put the information into context. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Lionel, but policy is against you. It says that articles should "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That means that the Heterodox Academy's views - or any heterodox views - cannot be given much weight and certainly cannot be used for us to state as a fact that published reliable, sources are biased. You need to get the policy changed. It could be they are absolutely correct, but that in itself would not help you. TFD (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. I'm not saying that we should use Heterdox as a reliable source. Heterodox has compiled a database of about 60 peer-reviewed scholarly sources from a variety of journals and publishers. These support the topic "Liberal bias in academia" succinctly. Here is a random sampling of the studies:

• "Why are there so few conservatives and libertarians in legal academia? An empirical exploration of three hypotheses." Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 39 (1), 153-207[4]
• Why are professors liberal and why do conservatives care?. Harvard University Press.[5]
• "Political Polarization on Campus at an All Time High" UCLA Higher Education Research Institute.[6]

So you see, these high quality studies directly support the topic "Liberal bias in academia." And there are about 57 more... And the list was compiled by Hererodox. No need to Google. Hererodox has done all the work. If any of their fellows are editors we should hand out barnstars. Obviously I can't go through 60 sources and add relevant material. That's why in the interest of efficiency that I suggested that we divvy up the 60 sources.– Lionel^(talk) 08:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

There are about 15 editors who have recently visited this page. Each editor could review 4 sources, and add anything they find about the topic of this article liberal bias. We'll have this article shipshape in no time.– Lionel^(talk) 08:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

OTOH this wealth of research into liberal bias could be used to source a new article Left-wing bias in American academia, since so many of the !voters support "American." – Lionel^(talk) 08:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Lionelt wrote: "So you see, these high quality studies directly support the topic "Liberal bias in academia.""

Umm, no they don't. Here is what one of your sources actually says:

"And before you blame colleges for liberal indoctrination, remember these were newly enrolled students, surveyed in the fall of their freshman year. That is, they arrived on campus with these political beliefs."
— Polarization on Campus at an All-time-high

If you would like to write the article, Liberal American students seek an education, feel free to do so.- MrX 🖋 11:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

They all show up with their Bernie beanies and leave with an MBA. That's American Education in the milennium. Unless they go to a "Christian college" -- then they show up with a bible and leave with a beer and a babe. SPECIFICO talk 12:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"Bernie beanies": Is that anything like beanie babies, or Bernie babies? Highly coveted until their value drops precipitously. - MrX 🖋 20:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps an over would help What Is a Liberal Education?.--Moxy (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

1955 survey - why is it being used? It only mentions political parties, not beliefs, at a time when there were a lot of right-wing Democrats

The article says " Lazarsfeld found that just 16% of the social scientists he surveyed self-identified as Republicans, while 47% self-identified as Democrats." Is this supposed to meant that in 1955 most of them were conservative? At that time almost all the south was Democrat and racist, many profoundly conservative. Identify political belief by party affiliation is not something Wikipedia should be doing. Doug Weller talk 14:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's also very outdated, unless we add a history section. Perhaps it should just be removed.- MrX 🖋 20:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Get rid of it.--Calthinus (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Claiming this information is "outdated" as reason for removal is spurious. This source provides us one of the earliest such studies of ideological disparity, and so adds to the history of the subject and context of the article overall. We don't remove information which is reliably sourced and provides a historical perspective. This study has 391 scholarly citations via Google Scholar - removal of it is tantamount to censorship of valid, well-reviewed, scholarly information. We should though expand upon it and add information from the 1977 follow-up of this study which has 212 scholarly citations via Google Scholar. -- Netoholic @ 23:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Or not. O3000 (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Really? That is the level of discussion you can produce? Someone makes reasonable points about inclusion of an academic study and your response is "or not"? Anyways, so what is a reasonable cutoff year where historic data about a time period becomes out of date? I notice we have studies from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and more current. Should those be removed as well? For the record I disagree with the removal. PackMecEng (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You do realize Democrat and liberal were not remotely the same in 1955? And when I posted this, the ridiculous liberal bias title still existed. As MrX says, if we had a history section, perhaps. Otherwise, it’s misleading at best. O3000 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is not that different a time frame from the source right after. That is the point I was making. Also the research is pretty much the history section since it goes back so far. PackMecEng (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said, the title at the time was about liberal bias. Only the article had all sorts of conflation between party and politics and claimed effects, as if a greater number of Dems meant a liberal bias. It meant neither liberal nor bias, and this particular cite made the suggested connection even worse, as if Strom Thurmond was a liberal. O3000 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is about the old title of this article, would it be fair to say you have changed your view as a result of the change? Since the article is no longer expressly about liberal bias, the boarder title should mean that work is okay by the new standard then. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Bye-bye. No good. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Data never becomes "outdated", and this study is directly in point with this article title, well-cited, and informative. It's inserting of POV to make some arbitrary date cutoff. If we had data from the 1800s about Whigs vs Jacksonians, we'd include that too. --Netoholic @ 16:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Clearly we agree there's a problem with this content as it appeared. It was just reinserted in the same form and I've reverted. At the least we would need to add contextualizing information either from the study or elsewhere. The Whigs bit is specious. SPECIFICO talk 16:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The reader is unlikely to conflate Whigs and Jacksonians with Reps and Dems. OTOH, the reader is likely to conflate 1955 Rep and Dem Parties with current Rep and Dem Parties. The section as stated is misleading. O3000 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

They are also likely to not conflate 1955 with 2018. The parties change all the time. --Netoholic @ 16:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, they are likely to conflate the two. How many times over the last year have you heard the line that Dems are racist, citing Byrd as an example, and the Republicans freed the slaves suggesting that these relate to the current parties? In any case, I took a shot at fixing it. O3000 (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

They don't change as greatly as they have in the last 70 years or so. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Objective3000: - do you have a page/chapter/section for that reference you added? Citing an entire encyclopedia to make a narrow point is not helpful to readers. Also, if that reference doesn't relate that information to the 1955 study itself, this could be WP:SYNTH. -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Pages 163-164 touch on this, but as far as I can see, it isn't in just one spot. It's not SYNTH to state that the parties were different. It would be SYNTH if we tried to draw a conclusion. O3000 (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Its SYNTH by inference. See the line "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated" and the examples on WP:SYNTH. By placing the new reference in only the section related to the 1955 study, you're drawing a conclusion which neither states - ie that academia in 1955 was dominated by "culturally conservative Southern Democrats". Neither source says that. -- Netoholic @ 18:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no way anyone could infer that. OTOH, without it, the implication is that the study suggested the schools were dominated by liberals. Is that the point that you're trying to make by including the study? If so, let's get rid of the misleading text. O3000 (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That inference seems, based on your points above, to be the primary reason you added that line. I don't see the word "liberals" anywhere in that section. The 1955 study seems to have been strictly about party identification. I am not trying to make a "point" - I didn't add this 1955 survey, I just object to it being removed or wrongly presented using that implication. It has excellent informative value, as evidenced by the hundreds of citations of it in other academic work. -- Netoholic @ 18:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be somewhere, as otherwise readers are not going to understand the implications of the survey - which we probably shouldn't use otherwise. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is about "Political views of American academics". This 1955 survey is about political affiliation of academics. It is entirely on point, well-cited, and of historical value to readers. -- Netoholic @ 18:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It could be argued that the entire article is SYNTH. O3000 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

An article cannot be about the political views of academics to the extent that their academic work has to do with anything political. As academics, their work is neutral. If they're Commie microbiologists, who cares? The insinuation that academics' research and analysis is ginned up to reflect underlying political views is at best a political POV in its own right -- and one that violates our core WP policies. This article is a dead man walking. SPECIFICO talk 19:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

For the immediate problem, the solution is for Netoholic to strike his reinsertion of the flawed Dixiecrat count and along with it the flawed fix that O3000 generously attempted to apply. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The immediate problem is that O3000 removed two inline warnings (for SYNTH and requesting a quote from the source) and has not put them back, despite the obvious active discussion happening here. In particular since he has a conflict of interest (being the person who put the source there), he should not remove the tags per WP:WNTRMT. -- Netoholic @ 20:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe it is clear the status of the discussion is you on one view and everyone else, AKA consensus on the other view. So I think O3000 is OK. SPECIFICO talk 21:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is a process by which we represent fairly ALL views. It isn't a poll. And an active participant is hardly a fair pollster anyway. -- Netoholic @ 22:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Consensus is how we find consensus. A minority of one is rarely going to find its way into article text. A minority RS of one -- sometimes. A minority editor who objects to the consensus, not really. SPECIFICO talk 22:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Per O3000's accidental removal of these tags, I've restored them as the issue of SYNTH is still present. -- Netoholic @ 19:38, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: If you are talking about the revert you just made in the lead, you made the wrong edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

My revert of the tags was accidental. But, I see no reason behind either tag. There is no synth and I don’t see why verification is needed. O3000 (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Related article: Passing on the Right

"Passing explores the presence and effects of liberal bias in academia after conducting interviews with 153 professors from 84 universities who identify as conservative." Note the statement in Wikipedia's voice that there is liberal bias in academia. Doug Weller talk 16:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This needs to stop. I made an edit taking it out of WP's voice. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

"all", "most" or "some" demographic studies

This article is chock full of major demographics studies which demonstrate the overall majority of left professors over right ones, which necessitates the use of "all". If someone can cite here one major study which doesn't show this (in reference to the population as a whole), we can settle on the word "most". If someone can cite a majority of studies over the ones given already in the article, we can use "some". This is basic word use guys. We have WP:VERIFIABILITY at stake. -- Netoholic @ 03:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Once again, the terms "left", "liberal", and "Democrat" are not synonymous. Further, party registration doesn't directly relate to views. There are people that register in one party and consistently vote for the opposing party, or for third parties. O3000 (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's why those terms are listed separately. Its the same as if an article was about bears said "studies indicate that there are more bears in X forest that have blue eyes or brown fur than there are that have brown eyes or black fur". We need to summarize the studies, and grouping the ideologies found most vs those found least is the way we've chosen. Now the point is what word to use, since "some" is woefully misrepresenting the content of this article. -- Netoholic @ 03:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That depends on where one draws the line between left and right. If one thinks that anyone who doesn't get their news from Breitbart is left-wing, then most academics are left-wing. But if you define right-wing as defending American values and capitalism, then most of them are right-wing. TFD (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The wording first used by Netoholic was "All major demographic studies", which I changed to "Multiple demographic studies": [7]. I think saying "all major" is very unsatisfactory: are there any "minor" ones that show otherwise? Is the implied POV that if a study does not show bias, then by definition it must be "minor"? Does "all" depend on ignoring some studies as being "minor", and if so, is there an objective criterion for distinguishing "major" from "minor"? Subsequently, Specifico changed "Multiple" to "Some": [8]. I think the problem with that is that it ends up being so vague that it sounds like there are lots of studies that show the contrary. I think that the source material does trend reasonably clearly towards there being some such skewing of opinion. We just shouldn't make it sound monolithic. I'd prefer to go back to "multiple", or as a second choice "various". Another approach would be to word it a different way: "There is demographic evidence that...". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"Demographic studies broadly indicate..." would be my suggestion. I agree the major/minor distinction is going to cause more disagreement than its worth. -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Including the text: “liberal, left-leaning, or Democrat” may mathematically mean a “logical or”. But, in English, it suggests they are members of a similar grouping. This is a POV problem. It’s like saying Republicans, right-leaning, or wife-beaters. That may be a true statement; but it suggests an association that does not exist. We need to cleanse this article of these POV problems. O3000 (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: - I've reverted because the language does not reflect the preponderance of evidence given in the surveys. There is not just evidence of the demongraphic difference, there is significant evidence and wide general acceptance of this fact across the political spectrum. Its frankly a WP:FRINGE claim for us to imply anything less. There are probably fewer people that believe that liberal/etc professors aren't the majority than believe climate change isn't real. This is only about the demographics, which is clear, and has nothing to do with causes/effects which is far more up in the air. -- Netoholic @ 19:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If indeed you have a "fact" to report, then simply propose article text and citation. There are no credible "facts" that I've seen to support your POV. SPECIFICO talk 19:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I realize that "demongraphic" (sic) was just a typo, but it somehow seems apt. That edit was a big mistake on your part. You keep citing WP:BRD in a manner that strikes me as more like WP:OWN. But if you think that going back to "Some" makes it any closer to what you are arguing for, you are dead wrong about it. If you can get consensus here for "Demographic studies broadly indicate" instead of "There is demographic evidence that", OK, but I think that you won't. But "There is demographic evidence that" is significantly stronger than "Some", which implies that there are plenty of studies that show no bias. And you reverted other things that were just good copyediting. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I hate the use of "some" but I want to see us reach a consensus here before we apply any change to the article. You suggested ""There is demographic evidence that" above and I suggested "Demographic studies broadly indicate" which you never replied to. I think your phrase definitely doesn't claim the opposite case at all, but it still implies "there is evidence, but its minimal". That doesn't seem to be the case. "broadly indicate" says it closer to the actual situation - that there is a lot of evidence, and its conclusive enough to be widely considered valid. -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Instead of complaining about my not replying, you should realize that I made the edit only after there had been a large amount of editing on this talk page without any further comment here. Instead of reverting, you could have stated your concern in talk. And reverting it to something that you admit that you hate was just plain WP:POINTy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Tryptofish: - Its not POINTy, its standard practice to revert to the most recent "stable" version while discussion is happening. The amount of discussion in other sections doesn't really relate to this very specific object of concern. Now, can we get to the topic at hand? What concerns do you have my suggested wording? -- Netoholic @ 20:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

A day or so does not make it "stable". And I stand by what I said. My biggest concern about your suggested wording is that I don't think anyone else here will agree to it (although I personally do not object to it). I'm perfectly willing to discuss alternative language. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Tryptofish: - If you're good with my wording ("Some demographic studies indicate" to "Demographic studies broadly indicate"), and I'm good with that wording, we seem to have consensus. Should we wait a bit more time for any others to explicitly object or suggest something else, or go forward with it? -- Netoholic @ 20:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing "stable" about edit-warring. Please self-revert. Somebody needs to get us back to the improved version that reflects talk page consensus and good copy-edits after the rejection of the POV move proposal. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic: First, that's no excuse for reverting better-written text per Tryptofish's comment about copy edits. Second, when its you against rest-of-the-world, we don't need to wait for you to change your mind before restoring the current consensus. Please self-revert. Edit-warring is not constructive and if you persist we're going to need a cumbersome RfC to shut it down. SPECIFICO talk 20:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No demographic studies have identified bias either way in all professors

Come on guys, no one has studied all academics. Why are we suggesting they have? Doug Weller talk 12:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Would seem a bit difficult considering the number of faculty at U.S. degree-granting postsecondary institutions is in the neighborhood of 1.5 million. [9] O3000 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

: perhaps metion sources like this.--Moxy (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how many of the sources were used by Horowitz, but the author says "The studies look compelling until they are more closely engaged.— The studies Horowitz cites rarely look at colleges, departments,or programs outside of the social sciences and humanities, thus excluding a large portion of the campus. For instance, these studies generally have nothing to say about the political affiliation of faculty in the schools of business, agriculture, education, computer science, medical sciences, and engineering. And yet, according to the Princeton Review, four of the top-ten most popular subjects are business administration and management, biology, nursing, and computer science, none of which is included in Horowitz’s studies." Doug Weller talk 15:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you heard of sampling in a cross-sectional study? --Netoholic @ 16:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Having studied statistics in social sciences, yes. Peer reviewed reports normally make this explicit, with all relevant details. Are you saying that our article does this for all reports? Doug Weller talk 16:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. These are not "samples" that a statistician would use across studies and across time to create a snapshot of a single state of nature. As so often happens in articles that make lists of most significant X or that try to broadly characterize a widespread tendency, the collation of content here depends on editors' OR and stitching of all these "studies". I'm pretty sure this article is going to be deleted or pared down to something of no significance whatsoever. Of course that could take a year or two of effort. This is simply an ill-defined topic, which is why there are no secondary or tertiary sources that summarize conclusions as to the named article topic. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an unbelievable statement to be made by a Wikipedia editor. First, if you think it should be deleted, post on WP:AFD. But for an editor to ever make the statement that a topic should be "pared down to something of no significance whatsoever" is counter to the philosophy of building an encyclopedia. We should always seek to enhance our coverage of the world. And we should NEVER take an approach with the end goal of making something "pared" down. That represents such arrogance of belief. It sounds as though there is some perfect vision for an article out there and "we could just get it there without all these obstacles in the way!". Wikipedia will never be "done" or "right". -- Netoholic @ 19:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Please have another look at what I wrote. I did not use the word "should". I'm saying that after we sort out all the available references and parse them through our editorial and sourcing policies, this subject is not likely to be considered meaningful and the current title, like the POV one we purged, will not survive. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Ah, the tried and true "death by a thousand cuts" approach. Challenge every addition and every source. Never add new content and new sources. That final point is the key. But if all someone ever does is challenge additions yet never make their own original contributions, then they are a net negative to Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand a word of that, but at any rate as long as you see that I did not say "should" -- the article will swim or sink on the merits. SPECIFICO talk 21:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We're misleading our readers if we don't make it clear who were studied

We need to say exactly what each study was looking it. Right now you could argue that many are being misrepresented. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

To take this point one step further -- even though we've gotten rid of the obviously POV title, it's still not clear that there's a well-defined article-worthy topic described by the title. In fact, does anybody care about the article that might be written about the current title? It's kind of bowtie/butterfly shaped with vast vague wings expanding from a very slim core. SPECIFICO talk 15:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Doug Weller, but I think that the subject of the page is notable enough to justify such a page. The problem is the need to avoid oversimplification. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Also agree. Now that the POV title is gone, the article needs a-fixin'. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

off-topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also agree. Now that the POV title is gone, the article needs a-fixin'. Unfortunately, one editor's combative input here and on two user talks is making this more difficult than it oughta be. O3000 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Who is that? PackMecEng (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC) We're not helping our readers if we discuss editors instead of content. Enough, already. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Agreed PackMecEng (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Generally I would agree. But, if one editor goes to two of the talk pages of the small number of editors contributing here, accuses one of being a liar and posts a spurious warning on another, I think these attempts are notable. This is not conducive to collaboration. O3000 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC) By now you know the drama board to head to, it isn't helpful to bring it up at the article talk page. PackMecEng (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Drama boards should never be the first option. I always prefer collaboration. O3000 (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Perhaps dispute resolution, talking with them on their talk page or the like. Vague accusations of "one editor's combative input" are not collaboration. PackMecEng (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC) What, you want me to go to DR because the editor posted insults suggesting I'm a liar on my TP? That is not the purpose of DR and would be instantly closed. I am merely stating that we do not need combative editing. That's all. I have zero interest of going to any notice board. I'm just suggesting that we engage in civil discourse O3000 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Perhaps you should extend an olive branch in order to achieve that goal? -- Netoholic @ 02:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

More articles is always better. But we'll need to avoid hidden assumptions. Do we need an article Political views of Irish Ophthamologists? No thanx. So are we starting from a hidden assumption that any such views influence their reasearch, teaching, students, choice of employer, wardrobe or any other vital component of their lives? We should be mindful of that because the old POV is still out there -- just not in the title right now. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

That's a straw man. If there were dozens of studies on that subject, then it would be notable for inclusion. If news media regularly debated the effects of their politics on eye care success results, it'd be notable. If Wikipedia editors spent hours discussing various aspects of the topic, rather than AFDing, it would seem to be notable. -- Netoholic @ 02:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, you're mistaken. A group of editors "discussing" XYZ does not make it WP:NOTABLE. Neither do fringe narratives, fake news, and right-wing blogomemes establish notability around here. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion part wasn't the key phrase there. The notability is due to the fact that you haven't AFD'd this. -- Netoholic @ 04:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If there is "significant coverage in reliable sources" which covers Political views of Irish Ophthamologists then per WP:GNG an article is supported. – Lionel^(talk) 06:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You are attempting to compare apples to pineapples. There are many studies of the political views of academics. If there were many studies of political views of Irish ophthalmologists, then an article could be created. Natureium (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Liberal, left-leaning, or Democrat

I remain opposed to the grouping: more professors in the US who identify as liberal, left-leaning, or Democrat. The sentence more professors in the US who identify as liberal, left-leaning, or Republican would be even more true. O3000 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this is a valid concern. I'd say pick one: liberal/conservative, or Democrat/Republican, depending on the sources. I think left/right-leaning is comparatively mismatched to US politics, and when it was piped to left/right-wing, that was linking to something that means something different. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)