Talk:Passing on the Right

Sentence in lead

I'm commenting about: [1], [2], and [3]. I think that it is necessary that the "extent and effects of liberal bias in academia" be attributed, rather than stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. To reduce it to simply "the perceived extent" seems to me to be WP:Weasel language, because it raises the obvious question of perceived. It is the position taken by the authors, so it's appropriate to present it as such. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, per WP:BRD, the next step when reverted is Discuss, not re-revert. The authors actually take an opposite position, so your wording is not accurate. The perceived extent is that of the subjects, which I think is clear from my last modification. Added: I would think reversing the sentence to something like "interviewed ... professors who identify as conservative about the perceived extent and effects of liberal bias in academia" to address your concern. --Netoholic @ 18:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I only reverted once, and I opened this discussion right away. Now that I understand what you meant about the subjects, which actually wasn't clear to me until now, I agree with you that it was a mistake on my part to attribute the view to the authors. In fact, that makes it all the more important to attribute the opinion clearly. Attributing it to the conservative professors who were interviewed is indeed the right way to go. I would still modify that by changing "about the perceived" to "about their perception that there is".

Here is how I would approach the lead:

Passing on the Right (subtitled: Conservative Professors in the Progressive University) is a book-length scholarly study published in 2016 and written by Jon A. Shields and Joshua M. Dunn Sr. They interviewed 153 professors from 84 universities who identify as conservative about their perception that there is a liberal bias in academia, and about its extent and effects.

I don't think that it really needs the phrase "and about its extent and effects", but I don't feel strongly either way about that. Does that work for you? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This version addresses the fundamental flaw of defining "liberal bias in academia" as a fact rather than opinion, and I have implemented it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Tryptofish: - There are three aspects we want to pass along: the focus of the study, the conclusions of the authors, and the experiences of the professors interviewed. I think your suggestions conflate these. NorthBySouthBaranof's premature attempt also conflates these three aspects.

1. The purpose of the study is to investigate the extent and effects of liberal/anti-conservative bias - this is simply a statement of intent, not a conclusion. The study might find that the "extent and effects" are nill. It could find the extent is pervasive. The wording would be the exact same in either case, and as presented, is neutral and not in WP's voice since it says "The study explores..." not anything like "liberal bias exists and this study investigates it" (to go to one extreme).
2. The conclusions of the authors were never part of that lead sentence. I think you read it that way, but its not the case. The authors conclusions will be part of the overview part (once I get done with it) and then can be summarized. I intentionally didn't include it yet.
3. The experiences of the professors is the method the study used to investigate #1. The interpretation of the experiences is what results in #2. Whether the professors themselves believe a liberal bias exists was also never part of the original lead.

If you read back the original sentence with this paradigm in mind, I think you'll see what mean. -- Netoholic @ 04:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Even if we take your first supposition at face value, it is inherently unclear and can be read multiple ways. By clearly stating that the existence (or not) of "liberal bias in academia" is a contested argument, we improve the clarity of the lede and prevent any misunderstandings or misreadings. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is fairly clear that we should not present contested opinions as facts, nor exclude those opinions from the encyclopedia; but rather include such opinions, clearly attributed, balanced by relevant opposing viewpoints and given due weight based on their prominence in mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

To use another example, we would not write a lede saying "The purpose of the study is to investigate the extent and effects of extraterrestrial abductions" because even if the actual extent is zero, the wording clearly creates an inference that such abductions must exist — or else why would anyone be studying them? The original wording of this article's lede has the same problem. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Another example of what would be wrong: The Special Counsel is investigating the extent and effects of Russian cooperation with Donald Trump's presidential campaign. That wording would clearly be creating an unacceptable inference that such cooperation is proven. Compare to what our Special Counsel investigation article actually says, including exploring any possible links or coordination between — which clearly and unambiguously tells our readers that no such links have yet been proven, but are merely "possible." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Netoholic, I'm sincerely confused about what you are telling me. I originally thought that the two authors of the study believed that a liberal bias exists, and were writing about it. After you replied to me, I then thought that the two authors, themselves, do not believe in such a liberal bias, but were examining the views of those conservative-leaning academics who do believe in it. Now, I think I'm hearing you say that the lead is not supposed to include anything about what actually turns out to be the case, but is intended as simply an introduction to what the authors were trying to find out about, and what methods they were using to study it.

I have one primary concern here (and it sounds like NorthBySouthBaranof shares this concern). When referring to a "liberal bias in US academia", we must not say or imply in Wikipedia's voice that it exists. We should, instead, say that according to so-and-so it is thought to exist: to attribute the opinion. I feel strongly about that. We can attribute it to the two authors, or we can attribute it to the professors who were interviewed, or we can attribute it to them both. But we have to attribute it.

Even if your original intention was to only cover the goals and methods of the study in the lead, I think that approach needs to change. After all, the WP:LEAD should summarize the page, not simply be a sort-of teaser about what will come later on the page. Some brief summation of what the two authors concluded must be part of the lead. So that means that we must be clear about who does or does not believe in the existence of a bias. Failing to specify that creates the further problem of being needlessly vague about the existence or nonexistence of the bias, and that can create a misleading appearance that we are saying in Wikipedia's voice that the bias exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Tryptofish: - How about we say "The study explores the question of liberal bias in academia after conducting interviews with 153 professors from 84 universities who identify as conservative."? Lets just drop the "extend and effects" since I think those words are what is leading you to think the sentence if making a conclusive statement about it. -- Netoholic @ 19:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Good, I think this is going in the right direction, thanks. I think that's a better sentence structure than what we have now, in multiple ways. But I would change that to: "The study explores the question of the existence of a liberal bias in academia after conducting interviews with 153 professors from 84 universities who identify as conservative." That is clearer about what that "question" actually is, and it also is more definitive about not presupposing the existence.

(Two other points that don't affect the bottom line here, but are just fyi. It actually wasn't the "extent and effects" phrase that made me concerned about it, just that the phrase seemed superfluous to me. My concern was referring to the "liberal bias" in Wikipedia's voice as though the bias definitely exists. Also, I've watchlisted here, so no need to ping me.)

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think "the question of the existence of a liberal bias" now swings it in the opposite direction, implying the premise that it doesn't exist. Perhaps brevity is our friend here. I also looked back and some reviewers describe it using the term "anti-conservative" interchangeably with "liberal". Also, we should also include the region. Not to throw an extra wrench into it, but how about "the study explores the question of liberal or anti-conservative bias in U.S. academia...". -- Netoholic @ 19:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that does not work for me, on WP:NPOV grounds. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I assume you don't mean the U.S. part is NPOV. Was it the addition of "anti-conservative"? Like I said, its used in the scholarly reviews interchangeably, so its WP:VERIFIABLE. -- Netoholic @ 19:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No, neither of those. I oppose "the question of liberal bias" as opposed to "the question of the existence of a liberal bias". We probably need a third way to go at that one. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we're basically there and as you said its at least better than the current one. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm satisfied ([4]), thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV in "Reception"

Minor point, the bit about scholarly reviews probably needs removing, as one of the entries isn't actually a review.

As this article is about academic bias, should the bias of the authors here be mentioned? I think so. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Which one do you think isn't a review? I can assure you, they all discuss the book. This article isn't about bias, its about a book, and we can only mention what the authors say or what others say about them. -- Netoholic @ 18:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

As there's been no reply to the tagger, and per his message it seems there may be a misunderstanding on his part, I'm going to remove the POV tag. If there are any POV concerns, it would help to tag them using inline tags so specific issues can be addressed. -- Netoholic @ 06:57, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this is over-cautious of me, but I'll ping Doug Weller to make sure that he is satisfied. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

My major point was about identifying the bias of the authors, and that hasn't been addressed. Doug Weller talk 17:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Then I'm glad that I pinged you. This is an issue that has also come up at the political views page. I have a concern that the sources used for the critical response, as well as the quotes selected from them, skew towards sounding like the book does not go far enough in exposing a supposed liberal bias. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we can do to address "identifying the bias of the authors" - we have quotes from them and quotes about their work. Also, from the scholarly reviews I read, there is a trend among the reviewers that the authors may have been slightly too reserved in their evaluation. Not universally, but definitely a trend. I think the mainstream commentary, as we incorporate more of it, will show a wider variation of interpretations as naturally you'd expect. -- Netoholic @ 03:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"'the right-wing critique of the university is overdrawn" is from the book but cited as a quote from someone else & explained by a source that isn't the book?

The quote is from page 7 of the book.[5] It should probably be in the lead, especially as it has itself been quoted by Watson. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Its a quote within a quote. I'm not sure why you'd want to put it in the lead. I could add it to the authors section maybe. That quote is one phrase several reviewers talk about. -- Netoholic @ 18:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Globalize context per WP:AUDIENCE

@Netoholic: This article could be confusing to readers not familiar with US politics and culture. Countries with direct first-past-the-post election of leaders tend to produce two-party systems and an ever-deepening social divide between political moieties. But in a lot of other countries, political affiliation is nowhere near as permanent or dual a part of one's identity. You meet people who strongly support political positions which in the US would be incompatible, and you see them change each others' minds. In the US you can often predict all of a person's political opinions from just one of them (I can't find the ref for that now, but there is a study on it), and a party rarely changes its position on a major issue. And the political parties are stable; you don't get new ones popping up and old ones disappearing, shoving one another about on the political spectrum. This all needs explaining.

Also, we need some background for the term "socialist". Do we mean Fidel Castro shutting down farmer's markets as a threat to socialism? Or do we mean Gerhard Schröder supporting Agenda 2010? I mean, in Germany, the idea that socialists and communists are the same is often considered archaic communist propaganda; in the US, people often consider the terms synonyms. This needs explaining too. HLHJ (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor HLHJ: I've kept that issue in mind and tried to accomplish it by wikilinking to US-focused topics where they are available (see the lead links to "liberal" and "conservative"). The context for "socialist" seems to be the Bernie Sanders-type, who he mentions by name just prior, but the source doesn't use "democratic socialism" by name, so I don't want to try to interpret meaning where its not clear. --Netoholic @ 03:01, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

To editor Netoholic: I hadn't even noticed those links. I mean, I know what "liberal" and "conservative" mean, right? :) Sorry. I'd have looked if I'd had a less generic cue, I think. Would it be useful to mention the American party system? It is explicitly referenced in the book cover. HLHJ (talk) 03:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Definitely, I've been thinking of how to approach creating an "overview" section for this page. That would be the place to go into the party system since the authors do of course ask the pool of interviewees about party preference. Added: I've replaced the generic socialist link with one to a section of a relevant page focused on the US, as well as updated some others. --Netoholic @ 07:11, 27 May 2018 (UTC)