Talk:Academic bias

433:

sources are welcomed at Knowledge that is news to me and there are a lot of other entries that need to be rewritten. Zipp and Fenwick argue that political representation of progressives is not as distorted as people think. Indeed some of their methods (such as merging moderate conservatives with conservatives) are controversial. But they do not deny that progressives are overreperentated. They argue that there is a trend towards more political moderation but as of their last survey in 1997 even with their measures they find that over half of academia is liberal and about a quarter is conservative. This is even when including "conservative" fields such as business. Unless you have a source that shows that there are twice as many progressives as conservatives in the general public then clearly progressives are overrepersented in academia. And that is all the original sentence says. The fact that even someone who argues against the research showing progressive overrepersentation produces data that illustrates that overrepersentation makes the point all the more certain. As it concerns Slife and Reber, the original sentence merely used them as an example of implicit bias, not as an example of employment discrimination. This is clear from their abstract where they state: The authors then provide practical examples of this prejudice in the following: (1) mainstream psychology and its history, (2) research design and explanation in the psychology of religion, and (3) interpretations of important philosophers and scholars relevant to psychology. I see no reason why the original sentence is inaccurate. I cannot see the changes you made on them so I cannot evaluate them. If you put on the talk page what those changes are I may agree but right now I am comfortable with it as is. Finally as it concerns Horowitz he clearly represents a perspective held by many on academic bias. He has published multiple books on the topic. I could seek a reference to someone like Dennis Prager or Charlie Sykes who also talk about this subject but he has written more from that perspective than anyone else. It is pretty clear in the entry that he is not treated as an expert but as someone with an argument and one that represents a certain perspective and one that is relevant for this topic. Once again I do not agree with him but neither do I agree with some of the others cited here. Including him, or at the very least someone like him, is valuable for providing balance.

331:

unless we are prepared to say that all citations in Knowledge must come from peer-reviewed journals. Furthermore the citations generally support what is already supported in peer-review work, which is that academic is disproportionately progressive and irreligious or making a general argument such as the possibility that academic bias exists in a certain cultural context. Horowitz is a public figure and is represented as such. He is not represented as a scientist or scholar. I do not agree with his arguments but he does have a following that should be represented in a discussion on academic bias since he has brought this issue to the forefront in his work. The Zipp piece is not used to argue for academic bias but to document that academics are disproportionately progressive. I do not understand how anyone can look at how they are cited and think otherwise. Likewise the sentence containing Slife and Reber is clearly arguing that they content that the bias against theism limits psychology. The sentence says nothing about employment discrimination. This entry contains several sources with different points of view. The inclusion of those sources in no way implies that this source agrees with all of the arguments of the other sources in this entry. Yet, this seems to be implied in your critiques. Thank you TMDrew for bring this to my attention to clear up these misconceptions.

506:

spirit of compromise I will agree to change that one sentence to the one you have and only that one sentence if that is the only change we make. As it concerns Horowitz you have to be more specific about what sort of evidence you want. You claim Horowitz to be a fringe figure yet he has his own Knowledge page and as I have pointed out multiple books on the subject. You make the claim he is a fringe figure and thus it seems to me that you have the responsibility to show this is the case even though he is well known. I can also assume that the concern about Academic Questions and Issues in Law and Medicine have been answered by ReformedArsenal unless you can provide positive evidence that they are unreliable sources. So if you agree to drop everything else go ahead and change that one sentence to the one above and I will not protest it or try to revert it back. I think that is fair.

1618:"If reliably sourced information “undermines” other reliably sourced information, that actually seems to me like a good argument for inclusion under WP:NPOV" - Not really, or at least not how it's being presented here. This isn't a case of, say, "one medical study says a thing, AMA standards disagree" or "newer Study B in source of equal or better quality specifically points out that Study A is superseded." Again, imagine if we were to flip the section and write "While George Yancey says that discrimination is just against conservatives, this study shows that discrimination is largely due to race, sex, etc." If not, perhaps you could find me the place in the Yancey source where he says these other axes of discrimination are irrelevant 1791:) 14:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC) I was able to take a look at the book. Really the entire book builds to the point of conservative groups face a bias that progressive groups do not. However for a word for word quote this will do as well as any on page 150 "This tendency can shape scientific inquiry in a way so that the interests of religious and political progressives are promoted at the expense of political and religious conservatives" I also did a quick look at the tables and did not see any significant findings that the transgendered are disfavored over other groups although they did score a little lower than average. 133: 154: 997:

looking at each article to see if it is an opinion piece or whether it is the result of research. Roscelese even takes out work by one of the authors in AQ (Yancey) that is contained in a book by an academic press. If this is to be rewritten it should be rewritten careful and looking at each citation to see what it claims as well whether it is used to point out a viewpoint or to discuss research evident in that article.

1204:"Research by a conservative group, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, argues that course curriculums betray a progressive bias. However, John Lee argues that this research is not based on a probability sample and uses a research design that cannot rule out explanations other than political bias. Furthermore, research suggests little or no leftward movement among college students while they are in college." 1515:

says, “At least one study suggests that perception of classroom bias may be rooted in issues of sexuality, race, class and sex as much or more than in religion.” ref: Boysen, Guy A; Vogel, David L; Cope, Marissa A; Hubbard, Asale (2009), "Incidents Of Bias in College Classrooms: Instructor and Student Perceptions", Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 2 (4): 219–231,doi:10.1037/a0017538, ISSN 1938-8934

71: 53: 2054: 22: 262:(simply assuming that scientists being irreligious creates bias, when the source doesn't say so; other essay-like material), and outright misrepresentations of sources (the Zipp piece says the opposite of what it's being cited for; Slife and Reber aren't talking about religious psychologists not being hired or anything like that, and my summary of their paper is more accurate). – 1330:

dimensions. At least one study suggests that perception of classroom bias may be rooted in issues of sexuality, race, class and sex as much or more than in religion. On the other hand, the willingness of academics to discriminate against colleagues indicate little appetite for such discrimination unless the target is religiously or politically conservative.”

1783:

conservative political and religious groups. The transgendered were a little lower in acceptance than average for a couple of disciplines but I do not remember if that was a significant difference or not. I am pretty confident in remembering the major findings but give me a couple of days if you want some sort of direct quote from the book.

1263:

after the sourced statements about discrimination based on non-political factors in an attempt to undermine those statements. The weight issue seems obvious; the article goes into a lot more detail about the studies that supposedly find academic bias than those that do not - even those that come from poor sources, like Academic Questions! –

1666:

If I understand you correctly you are arguing that the Boysen et al. study is superior to the Yancey study but I do not see where you base the argument on. In the Yancey study several different groups were tested and for the most part prejudice was only documented against conservative groups. I would

1182:

If people are going to repeatedly revert such edits as removing obviously unreliable sources like ACTA, removing synth, and fixing weight issues for sources that remain, it would be nice to have some indication of why they object to the edits. It is impossible to address these users' concerns if they

463:

I didn't read past the Zipp abstract, but I'm not sure why the authors would state something in the abstract that is the exact opposite of what they say in their article. The abstract says that the claim of a disproportionately liberal faculty and consequent academic bias comes from bad data. Are you

1468:

If reliably sourced information “undermines” other reliably sourced information, that actually seems to me like a good argument for inclusion under WP:NPOV. Additionally, the information does not appear to be redundant because I can find no place else in the article which specifies that according to

1347:

The inclusion of the last sentence appears to be for the sole purpose of undermining a reliably cited statement. The content is already stated earlier in the article. This is an encyclopedia, not an essay; editors shouldn't be using it to try to prove things. We might just as well add to the earlier

374:

I totally disagree with your representation of academic questions and issues in law and medicine. Do you have any evidence of your claims or it it merely your opinion. And you may not like Horowitz but he has played a role in the controversy of academic bias and it would be neglectful to ignore that

354:

are demonstrably bad sources - they come from agenda-motivated organizations with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. I disagree that we need to represent a poorly sourced fringe view simply because it exists; if Horowitz's view is notable or important, reliable sources will discuss it. The

1329:

To respond to what I think was your earlier objection regarding Yancey’s research, is the last sentence of this paragraph what you objected to as unnecessary and inappropriate repetition of Yancey’s thesis? : “There is some evidence that academic bias can be based in non-political and non-religious

996:

At the discussion of relevant sources I pointed out several articles in AQ and showed how scholars referenced them in literature review of scholarly material. No one has responded why we should not take those articles seriously. I also find the changes wanted by Roscelese to be butchery rather than

459:

I'm going to ask you for a third time to find a real source that supports the inclusion of Horowitz's views. The fact that they exist in the world is not sufficient to include them on Knowledge. I've also already pointed out that you're attacking a strawman in insisting that not everything needs to

1514:

If you have a reliable source that says: "On the other hand, evidence shows that classroom discrimination is based on race, class, sex, and sexual orientation, not on religion.", I think that should definitely be added to the article. The current text and source cited doesn’t go that far and only

1167:

Confused by your edit summary for this vague crickets comment where you said, "this utter refusal to discuss is very frustrating for people who would actually like to improve the article" Discussion has taken place and the sources that were in contention have had qualifiers added or ascribed to

556:

Fine. I tried to be fair. Given that you have made a number of claims and substantiated none of them I feel no inclination to make any changes much less the one I offered. If you can provide me with more evidenced than your opinion I will remain open-minded. Otherwise I vote to keep this as it is.

505:

Okay we are going to drop the Zipp conversation since you have not read the article and I have. Have you read the Slife and Reber article or did you just skim the abstract on that as well. I think my original sentence is simpler, easier to read, and is just as accurate as your sentence. But in the

432:

Once again I never claimed either to be a peer review journal. But neither is the Huffington Post, The Nation or the Weekly Standard and they are cited all the time in Knowledge. The pieces cited are generally actual studies and brought up by researchers such as Zipp. If only scholarly peer-review

1742:

Technically significance is a statistical term and that would not be quite accurate. I looked up the article and they did not run T-test or what you would need for making claims of significance. How about this. Instead of starting the last sentence with "However" let's start it with "On the other

1351:

So you really can't articulate any objections to my edit at all? Determined to give me the runaround anyway? (It's better than it used to be earlier on, thanks to the contributions of other users, so I'd have to take a look to see if there are still so many problems, but what you're describing is

471:

My summary of Slife/Reber: "Brent D. Slife and Jeffrey S. Reber write that the application of naturalistic thinking to science, specifically psychology, has the effect of bias against theism. Neutrality towards theism rather than the embrace of theism, say the authors, results in discrimination."

1370:

I don't get the "determined to give you runaround" comment or why you think I'm not adhering to BRD. I'm personally only minimally involved in article. I didn't add the disputed content or restore it when it was previously deleted, but looking it over, it appears reliably sourced. This is the

1281:

It does seem this article is heavily based on the research of one individual, George Yancy. He is a PhD who is published in a variety of sources, including a book published by Baylor University Press, but it does seem the article should probably better stress that the claim of academic bias is

1262:

Perhaps if reliable secondary sources talked about ACTA's claims, it might be appropriate to include them. Simply having a point of view is not enough to get that point of view represented on WP. I've already explained the synth issue; it's unnecessary and inappropriate to repeat Yancey's thesis

330:

The sources in Academic Questions and Issues in Law and Medicine have been cited in peer review journals. I can provide citations if someone wants to look them up to confirm them. If they are good enough to be cited in peer-review journals then they should be good enough to be cited in Knowledge

1097:

In the Slife and Reber abstract it states "This neutrality has long provided the justification for psychological science to inform and even correct theistic understandings." The article goes on to discuss the implicit bias against theism. My claims about clearing up what is actually said in the

417:

It isn't our responsibility to verify your claims. Just telling us to "look it up on Google" isn't demonstrating the veracity of your claim. Do your own work and prove your claim. Also, according to the hard-to-use Internet resource Knowledge... Academic Questions is "a quarterly peer-reviewed

1782:

If you are looking for a word for word quote it will take me a couple of days to look up Yancey's book, but as I remembered the only groups that were significantly (and Yancey did use the statistical tests to warrant that claim) more likely to be rejected based on their group membership were

1051:

I have removed literally nothing from Ames. What kind of bizarro world are you editing in? You need to stop this petty sniping right now and actually discuss the edits and the sources. You are not going to continue reverting indefinitely out of nothing but sheer spite at a "skeptic."

1718:

Then, again, consider as a thought experiment, presenting the information the other way: "Yancey says there's no discrimination except against conservatives. This study found that in fact there's discrimination based on sex, race, etc. but conservatism isn't a significant factor."

712:

I don't think I removed any Yancey material in this go-round. Obviously I still think it's unreliable, but I left it in the article while discussion continues. Is there something that you think is important that was altered or removed in my re-organizing the article structure?

1247:

Seems if we are going to have an article about the conservative claim that conservatives experience bias, conservative commentators and researchers that claim this will be part of the article. Honestly, I'm still not clear what your objection is regarding synth and weight.

833:

That could work, but I think it's probably not always necessary to name the author, but could be at times, especially if a wiki page exists for the author. This is a peer reviewed journal, but apparently a right wing journal. Something along the lines of "According to

398:

is harder to dig up data on, but it also appears to come from a political organization, not a scholarly source. Again, can you find a real source that supports the inclusion of Horowitz's views? "It exists" is not enough reason to include something on Knowledge.

928:

You're right, that page says the journal covers peer-review issues, and doesn't specify, but I was under the impression all journals published by Springer in this forum had to be peer reviewed. Does anyone know how to verify if this journal is or is not

1762:

convinced that this isn't just extrapolation from Yancey claiming that there's discrimination against conservatives, so before I can give my opinion on what portrayal of Yancey's work is appropriate, I'd like to know what it says on this topic.

1012:

What are you talking about? I'm not removing stuff from AQ while the discussion continues. Have you even looked at the edit you're reverting? As I've already stated, the only thing from AQ I removed was a repetition of something presented in a

696:

My apologies, I misread the edit record. However you did remove sourced published materials by Yancey (published by Baylor) without cause, explanation, or consensus. You keep trying to hatchet at this, it is like you think we won't notice...

460:

be peer reviewed. Not everything needs to be peer reviewed, but that doesn't mean that some sources aren't still unreliable because they come from organizations that are obviously agenda-based and lacking an interest in accuracy.

572:

Luckily, the article does not belong to you, even though you created it, and your opinion of it is not the only one that matters. Other users who care about reliable sourcing and neutral point of view can improve it for you.

2066: 2014: 1325:

Still not clear on exactly what your objections are. Maybe it could help if you copied and pasted text from article you consider synth or copied and pasted text which you think represents undue weight explaining

771:

sources shouldn't be used unless the views in question are going to be ascribed to the authors. The material relying on those sources shouldn't be re-added unless they're re-written along those lines.

605:

That's pretty funny Roscelese, since you're the only voice right now that is expressing any sort of dissent. You're welcome to call for an RFC if you like, that will bring more voices to the discussion.

1201:

I could only find one sentence attributed to ACTA in current version. It seems well qualified and balanced to me. Is this the sentence you object to? I'm including the following sentences for context:

1758:

Perhaps you could provide (on the talk page) a quotation from Yancey where he makes this claim at all? I don't have access to the book and given the amount of original analysis present before I'm not

644:

One of the sources you removed is published by the Princeton University School of Public Affairs... hardly a bastion of conservativism. You're clearly hacking at this article from a place of bias.

1667:

leave it up to academics to debate the merits of both studies and the way it is expressed in the article the results of both studies are acknowledged. That seems to be a balanced approach to me.

1035:

These edits have gutted well-cited information from the article. You cannot simply gut the information from Ames and the like and expect us to accept it. The April 9 edits are unacceptable.--

355:

Zipp article states outright that claims of significant disproportionate political progressiveness are inaccurate. Please explain what you find wrong with my summary of Slife and Reber. –

1625:

Re ACTA, I'm not sure if you've changed your mind. Do you agree now that it is inappropriate to include this self-published unreliable source? I'd like to go ahead and remove that now. –

961:

Well, it might actually be peer reviewed -- but I don't think we know that yet. Of course, even if it is, it's still an ideological vehicle -- not the usual sort of academic journal.

1207:

If this is what you're objecting to? Also, I'm not clear what you are referring regarding synth and weight issues. If complaints were more specific, they'd be easier to address. --

787:

Seems like a qualifier of: According to Academic Questions, a (insert brief description of journal as reported by reliable sources), followed by the content, should do the trick. --

731:

way as though to undermine another source. Yancey's claim that conservatives are discriminated against, using that source, is still in the article in the appropriate location. –

521:

No, I don't think holding a sentence that even you hold to be perfectly acceptable hostage in exchange for continuing to use obviously unacceptable sources is going to work. –

630:

Again, Roscelese is trying to push edits against consensus. I recommend that if this persists, we notify the admin board and get the account blocked from editing this page.--

1469:

social science research, academics tend to abhor discrimination, except when the discrimination is against the religious and/or conservative, except for that one sentence.

99: 1168:

authors. The article has been cleaned up by multiple editors and seems substantially improved. What further discussion/improvements are you looking for specifically? --

2017:. One of the proposed outcomes there is a merger with this article, so if you have an opinion on whether or not that merger would be a good idea, please comment. — 2110: 2105: 1955: 1951: 1937: 943:

Oy. I kind of just assumed that when people at RSN said they'd found a source claiming peer review, they were telling the truth. Should have been more cynical. –

914:

say it's peer reviewed. If it were peer reviewed, I'd strongly expect the journal webpage at Springer to say so -- so I do doubt that it is peer-reviewed.

1113:

And is that the same as "provides the justification for religious discrimination"? Perhaps you could explain that that's what you meant to say, Dr. Slife. –

2120: 302:, Please define your conditions for what you consider to be "fringe". Throwing around this kind of rhetoric is meaningless if not defined. Thanks. --Bobby 216: 206: 95: 1333:

If so, that last sentence seems on topic and reliably sourced, but certainly seems like it could benefit from editing to word it more encyclopedically.--

321: 539:

The source is only "obviously unacceptable" to you. You're welcome to call for a RFC if you like, but as of right now you clearly don't have concensus.

1132:

I think that is a fair compromise BoboMeowCat and I apologize for reverting your minor edits. I am still learning how to do be an editor in Knowledge.

1416:

Yancey, George A (January 2011), Compromising Scholarship: Religious and Political Bias in American Higher Education, Waco: Baylor University Press,

2125: 2115: 1348:

section "On the other hand, evidence shows that classroom discrimination is based on race, class, sex, and sexual orientation, not on religion."

1704:

I do not see it that way. I see it as both studies are presented and the information in them do not match up and thus they are both mentioned.

78: 58: 1420: 182: 1560:

Stronger evidence against religious discrimination would be on topic and if reliably sourced seems like it definitely belongs in article. --

2032:

The Political views of American academics article has taken a different direction than this one, so merging would not work in my opinion.

1903: 727:

Just remembered that I did remove one thing. It was a repetition of material included and cited elsewhere in the article, presented in a

375:

reality. His inclusion merely states that he is part of the debate. I gotta go for now but latter I will address your other arguments.

1072:

I basically agree with the reversion to the earlier version, as the edit warring had gotten out of hand, but I added "according to

2074: 885: 161: 138: 1772: 1728: 1695: 1634: 1361: 1316: 1272: 1238: 1192: 1156: 1122: 1061: 1026: 952: 824: 740: 722: 687: 582: 530: 489: 408: 364: 271: 317: 1743:

hand". That way neither study is seen in this entry as superior to the other but merely that we have conflicting findings.

1998: 33: 1078:, a quarterly journal with a conservative point of view" to content referenced by this journal per RSN discussion.-- 966: 919: 857: 806: 777: 181:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1815:

Duarte, José L.; Crawford, Jarret T.; Stern, Charlotta; Haidt, Jonathan; Jussim, Lee; Tetlock, Philip E. (2014).

702: 649: 611: 544: 423: 313: 1954:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

893: 852:

Bobo, what's the basis for saying it's peer-reviewed? I haven't seen anything definitively establishing this.

2022: 21: 1221:

I don't think obviously subpar sources should be used even if they're rebutted. WRT synth and weight, that's

1989: 1895: 1307:

We could stress the fact that this is largely coming from one source, yes. How about the rest of my edits? –

1286:. Who is he anyway? This article is the first I'd heard of him. I found this youtube lecture from him: 1973:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1961: 1565: 1338: 1298: 1253: 1212: 1173: 1083: 962: 934: 915: 901: 875: 853: 843: 802: 792: 773: 39: 1894:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 1282:

researched primarily by George Yancy. Maybe he needs a qualifier too, similar to qualifiers for source

1904:

https://web.archive.org/web/20131217043411/http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/facultybiasstudies1106.pdf

1017:

way to deliberately undermine another source. The original presentation of the claim is still there. –

801:

Better to ascribe to the writer(s), I think -- unless the article is written by the journal editors.

591:

We do care about it, but do not think that undermining his point counts as "improving" the article. --

480:

give the impression that we're talking about employment discrimination, unlike the original version. –

2086: 1928: 838:, a peer-reviewed right wing journal.....but "right wing" might need to be tweaked for neutrality. -- 698: 645: 607: 540: 419: 309: 1792: 1784: 1744: 1705: 1668: 1133: 1099: 998: 558: 507: 434: 376: 332: 282: 2018: 1796: 1788: 1768: 1748: 1724: 1709: 1691: 1672: 1630: 1357: 1312: 1268: 1234: 1188: 1152: 1137: 1118: 1103: 1057: 1022: 1002: 948: 820: 736: 718: 683: 578: 562: 526: 511: 485: 438: 404: 380: 360: 336: 267: 2057:

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between

1074: 867: 1958:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1843: 1974: 1907: 1832: 1417: 258:

aren't real scholarly journals, and David Horowitz is a notable fringe figure), instances of

2037: 1866: 1824: 1561: 1334: 1294: 1249: 1208: 1169: 1079: 1040: 930: 897: 871: 839: 788: 674:

Which one is that? The American Council of Trustees and Alumni? Was the unsourced paragraph

635: 596: 290: 153: 132: 83: 1981: 2082: 1847: 1014: 728: 815:

Why not both? George Yancey, writing for the right-wing Nat'l Assn of Scholars, says... –

390:

Uh, you can verify using such hard-to-use Internet resources as Google or Knowledge that

1940:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1764: 1720: 1687: 1626: 1353: 1308: 1291: 1264: 1230: 1184: 1148: 1114: 1053: 1018: 944: 816: 732: 714: 679: 574: 522: 481: 400: 356: 299: 263: 239: 1980:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2099: 2070: 1887: 465: 346:

It's not about peer review or the lack thereof necessarily, it's about the fact that

259: 242:, but I don't think "you didn't ask first" alone is a reason to revert; what did you 174: 170: 767:

There's a pretty robust view among previously uninvolved editors at RSN that the

2053: 2033: 1947: 1859: 1036: 631: 592: 286: 247: 394:

isn't a scholarly journal but rather the publication of a rightist think-tank.

1946:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 1828: 1816: 1287: 178: 87: 1835: 894:

http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/higher+education/journal/12129

888:, which apparently publishes open access peer-reviewed journals online, says 70: 52: 1682:

Actually, the furthest I'm going presently is that the Yancey study isn't

866:

It's been described as peer-reviewed on RSN and on the Knowledge page for

238:

The recent reversion of my edits was not a good idea. Obviously they were

1810:

Duarte et al. have a newish paper out which might be interesting/useful.

166: 91: 2090: 2041: 2026: 2003: 1872: 1851: 1800: 1776: 1752: 1732: 1713: 1699: 1676: 1638: 1569: 1365: 1342: 1320: 1302: 1276: 1257: 1242: 1216: 1196: 1177: 1160: 1141: 1126: 1107: 1087: 1065: 1044: 1030: 1006: 970: 956: 938: 923: 905: 879: 861: 847: 828: 810: 796: 781: 744: 706: 691: 653: 639: 615: 600: 586: 566: 548: 534: 515: 493: 442: 427: 412: 384: 368: 340: 303: 294: 275: 2015:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Political views of American academics

1686:, but it's presented in the article as though it refutes Boysen. – 1225:

my point. I can't address the objections of other users if I have

1817:"Political Diversity Will Improve Social Psychological Science" 1806:"Political diversity will improve social psychological science" 15: 234:

Removing bad sources and misrepresentations of usable sources

1913:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

1908:

http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/facultybiasstudies1106.pdf

1898:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1857:

That looks like a great and helpful article on this topic.

1622:

justify the superiority of that source over the other one.

94:

on Knowledge. Please visit the project page to join the

1891: 1292:

https://faculty.unt.edu/editprofile.php?pid=1525#6--

285:

give an explanation before we adjust the article. --

165:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 82:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1950:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1290:and his faculty page at University of North Texas 1936:This message was posted before February 2018. 8: 1288:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7jlKcGo_zc 19: 1886:I have just modified one external link on 910:See, that's just it: the link at Springer 127: 47: 250:? They removed a number of poor sources ( 870:. Do you dispute it's peer-reviewed? -- 129: 49: 108:Knowledge:WikiProject Higher education 2111:WikiProject Higher education articles 2106:Start-Class Higher education articles 1925:to let others know (documentation at 1183:refuse to identify or discuss them. – 111:Template:WikiProject Higher education 7: 159:This article is within the scope of 76:This article is within the scope of 1352:fundamentally not how BRD works.) – 476:summary of the article, which does 38:It is of interest to the following 2121:Mid-importance Skepticism articles 2062: 2058: 14: 1890:. Please take a moment to review 464:sure you're not reading your own 2065:. Further details are available 2052: 1147:Hello? *crickets, tumbleweeds* – 191:Knowledge:WikiProject Skepticism 152: 131: 69: 51: 20: 2126:WikiProject Skepticism articles 2116:Start-Class Skepticism articles 2048:Wiki Education assignment: FYSH 886:Springer Science+Business Media 211:This article has been rated as 194:Template:WikiProject Skepticism 1873:01:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC) 1852:09:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 678:cited to a Princeton source? – 1: 2081:— Assignment last updated by 1821:Behavioral and Brain Sciences 185:and see a list of open tasks. 2091:01:18, 12 October 2022 (UTC) 79:WikiProject Higher education 2004:04:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC) 2142: 1967:(last update: 5 June 2024) 1883:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 725:) 15:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 396:Issues in Law and Medicine 352:Issues in Law and Medicine 256:Issues in Law and Medicine 217:project's importance scale 1829:10.1017/S0140525X14000430 1801:18:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC) 1777:20:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC) 1753:16:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC) 210: 147: 114:Higher education articles 64: 46: 2042:00:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC) 2027:05:18, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 1733:19:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 1714:19:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 1700:17:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 1677:14:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 1639:05:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC) 1570:17:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC) 1366:14:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC) 1343:02:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC) 1321:16:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC) 1303:21:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC) 1277:20:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC) 1258:20:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC) 1243:19:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC) 1217:18:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC) 1197:17:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC) 1178:16:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC) 1161:14:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC) 1142:23:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 1127:00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 1108:22:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 1098:article is well-founded. 1088:23:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 1066:00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC) 1045:22:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 1031:17:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 1007:16:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC) 971:22:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 957:20:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 939:19:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 924:19:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 906:19:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 880:18:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 862:18:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 848:17:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 829:17:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 811:17:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 797:16:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 782:16:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC) 745:15:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 707:13:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 692:13:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 654:12:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 640:12:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC) 616:00:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 601:00:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 587:22:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 567:19:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 549:19:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 535:19:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 516:18:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 494:18:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 443:18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 428:18:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 413:17:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 385:16:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 369:15:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 341:14:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 304:02:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC) 295:01:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 276:00:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 98:, and see the project's 1879:External links modified 1423:, retrieved 2014-01-24 162:WikiProject Skepticism 28:This article is rated 2069:. Student editor(s): 1227:no idea what they are 1948:regular verification 466:original conclusions 314:Apologeticsaurus Rex 1938:After February 2018 1917:parameter below to 197:Skepticism articles 2067:on the course page 1992:InternetArchiveBot 1943:InternetArchiveBot 1284:Academic Questions 1075:Academic Questions 892:is peer-reviewed. 890:Academic Questions 868:Academic Questions 836:Academic Questions 769:Academic Questions 763:Academic Questions 392:Academic Questions 348:Academic Questions 252:Academic Questions 102:for useful advice. 34:content assessment 2059:12 September 2022 1968: 1869: 1421:978-1-60258-268-2 418:academic journal" 326: 312:comment added by 260:original research 231: 230: 227: 226: 223: 222: 126: 125: 122: 121: 100:article guideline 2133: 2093: 2075:article contribs 2064: 2060: 2056: 2002: 1993: 1966: 1965: 1944: 1932: 1871: 1867: 1864: 1839: 963:Nomoskedasticity 929:peer-reviewed?-- 916:Nomoskedasticity 854:Nomoskedasticity 803:Nomoskedasticity 774:Nomoskedasticity 325: 306: 199: 198: 195: 192: 189: 156: 149: 148: 143: 135: 128: 116: 115: 112: 109: 106: 105:Higher education 84:higher education 73: 66: 65: 59:Higher education 55: 48: 31: 25: 24: 16: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2096: 2095: 2080: 2063:5 December 2022 2050: 2011: 1996: 1991: 1959: 1952:have permission 1942: 1926: 1896:this simple FaQ 1881: 1860: 1858: 1814: 1808: 765: 699:ReformedArsenal 646:ReformedArsenal 608:ReformedArsenal 541:ReformedArsenal 420:ReformedArsenal 307: 246:to about them, 236: 196: 193: 190: 187: 186: 141: 113: 110: 107: 104: 103: 32:on Knowledge's 29: 12: 11: 5: 2139: 2137: 2129: 2128: 2123: 2118: 2113: 2108: 2098: 2097: 2049: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2019:David Eppstein 2010: 2007: 1986: 1985: 1978: 1911: 1910: 1902:Added archive 1880: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1841: 1840: 1807: 1804: 1780: 1779: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1623: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1349: 1331: 1327: 1285: 1205: 1202: 1164: 1163: 1130: 1129: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1077: 1070: 1069: 1068: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 891: 884:Additionally, 837: 764: 761: 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 623: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 554: 553: 552: 551: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 496: 469: 461: 450: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 372: 371: 328: 327: 297: 235: 232: 229: 228: 225: 224: 221: 220: 213:Mid-importance 209: 203: 202: 200: 183:the discussion 157: 145: 144: 142:Mid‑importance 136: 124: 123: 120: 119: 117: 74: 62: 61: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2138: 2127: 2124: 2122: 2119: 2117: 2114: 2112: 2109: 2107: 2104: 2103: 2101: 2094: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2078: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2055: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2008: 2006: 2005: 2000: 1995: 1994: 1983: 1979: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1963: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1939: 1934: 1930: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1888:Academic bias 1884: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1865: 1863: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1837: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1805: 1803: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1422: 1419: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1350: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1293: 1289: 1283: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1203: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1166: 1165: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1076: 1073: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 972: 968: 964: 960: 959: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 941: 940: 936: 932: 927: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 908: 907: 903: 899: 895: 889: 887: 883: 882: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 864: 863: 859: 855: 851: 850: 849: 845: 841: 835: 832: 831: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 813: 812: 808: 804: 800: 799: 798: 794: 790: 786: 785: 784: 783: 779: 775: 770: 762: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 726: 724: 720: 716: 710: 709: 708: 704: 700: 695: 694: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 655: 651: 647: 643: 642: 641: 637: 633: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 617: 613: 609: 604: 603: 602: 598: 594: 590: 589: 588: 584: 580: 576: 571: 570: 569: 568: 564: 560: 550: 546: 542: 538: 537: 536: 532: 528: 524: 520: 519: 518: 517: 513: 509: 495: 491: 487: 483: 479: 475: 470: 467: 462: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 444: 440: 436: 431: 430: 429: 425: 421: 416: 415: 414: 410: 406: 402: 397: 393: 389: 388: 387: 386: 382: 378: 370: 366: 362: 358: 353: 349: 345: 344: 343: 342: 338: 334: 323: 319: 315: 311: 305: 301: 298: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 279: 278: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 233: 218: 214: 208: 205: 204: 201: 184: 180: 176: 175:pseudohistory 172: 171:pseudoscience 168: 164: 163: 158: 155: 151: 150: 146: 140: 137: 134: 130: 118: 101: 97: 93: 89: 85: 81: 80: 75: 72: 68: 67: 63: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 27: 23: 18: 17: 2079: 2051: 2012: 1990: 1987: 1962:source check 1941: 1935: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1912: 1885: 1882: 1861: 1842: 1820: 1809: 1781: 1759: 1741: 1683: 1665: 1619: 1226: 1222: 1131: 1096: 995: 911: 768: 766: 711: 675: 555: 504: 477: 473: 395: 391: 373: 351: 347: 329: 308:— Preceding 255: 251: 243: 237: 212: 160: 88:universities 77: 40:WikiProjects 2013:Please see 2009:Related AfD 1929:Sourcecheck 1562:BoboMeowCat 1335:BoboMeowCat 1295:BoboMeowCat 1250:BoboMeowCat 1209:BoboMeowCat 1170:BoboMeowCat 1080:BoboMeowCat 931:BoboMeowCat 898:BoboMeowCat 872:BoboMeowCat 840:BoboMeowCat 789:BoboMeowCat 30:Start-class 2100:Categories 2083:Amyhuynh23 1999:Report bug 1868:Talk Page. 472:This is a 281:Let's let 188:Skepticism 179:skepticism 139:Skepticism 96:discussion 1982:this tool 1975:this tool 1836:0140-525X 1793:CaptainCS 1785:CaptainCS 1765:Roscelese 1745:CaptainCS 1721:Roscelese 1706:CaptainCS 1688:Roscelese 1669:CaptainCS 1627:Roscelese 1354:Roscelese 1309:Roscelese 1265:Roscelese 1231:Roscelese 1185:Roscelese 1149:Roscelese 1134:CaptainCS 1115:Roscelese 1100:CaptainCS 1054:Roscelese 1019:Roscelese 999:CaptainCS 945:Roscelese 817:Roscelese 733:Roscelese 729:synthetic 715:Roscelese 680:Roscelese 575:Roscelese 559:CaptainCS 523:Roscelese 508:CaptainCS 482:Roscelese 435:CaptainCS 401:Roscelese 377:CaptainCS 357:Roscelese 333:CaptainCS 300:Roscelese 283:CaptainCS 264:Roscelese 2071:Mlouis03 1988:Cheers.— 1823:: 1–54. 1773:contribs 1760:entirely 1729:contribs 1696:contribs 1635:contribs 1362:contribs 1317:contribs 1273:contribs 1239:contribs 1193:contribs 1157:contribs 1123:contribs 1062:contribs 1027:contribs 953:contribs 825:contribs 741:contribs 723:contribs 688:contribs 676:secretly 583:contribs 531:contribs 490:contribs 468:in here? 409:contribs 365:contribs 322:contribs 310:unsigned 272:contribs 92:colleges 1915:checked 1892:my edit 1223:exactly 912:doesn't 474:clearer 215:on the 167:science 2034:AnaSoc 1923:failed 1684:better 1015:synthy 248:TMDrew 244:object 90:, and 36:scale. 1844:Fteyg 2087:talk 2061:and 2038:talk 2023:talk 1919:true 1848:talk 1833:ISSN 1797:talk 1789:talk 1769:talk 1749:talk 1725:talk 1710:talk 1692:talk 1673:talk 1631:talk 1566:talk 1418:ISBN 1371:ref: 1358:talk 1339:talk 1326:why. 1313:talk 1299:talk 1269:talk 1254:talk 1235:talk 1213:talk 1189:talk 1174:talk 1153:talk 1138:talk 1119:talk 1104:talk 1084:talk 1058:talk 1041:talk 1023:talk 1003:talk 967:talk 949:talk 935:talk 920:talk 902:talk 876:talk 858:talk 844:talk 821:talk 807:talk 793:talk 778:talk 737:talk 719:talk 703:talk 684:talk 650:talk 636:talk 612:talk 597:talk 579:talk 563:talk 545:talk 527:talk 512:talk 486:talk 439:talk 424:talk 405:talk 381:talk 361:talk 350:and 337:talk 318:talk 291:talk 268:talk 254:and 240:bold 177:and 2077:). 1956:RfC 1933:). 1921:or 1906:to 1862:TMD 1825:doi 1620:and 1229:. – 1037:TMD 632:TMD 593:TMD 478:not 287:TMD 207:Mid 2102:: 2089:) 2040:) 2025:) 1969:. 1964:}} 1960:{{ 1931:}} 1927:{{ 1850:) 1831:. 1819:. 1799:) 1775:) 1771:⋅ 1751:) 1731:) 1727:⋅ 1712:) 1698:) 1694:⋅ 1675:) 1637:) 1633:⋅ 1568:) 1364:) 1360:⋅ 1341:) 1319:) 1315:⋅ 1301:) 1275:) 1271:⋅ 1256:) 1248:-- 1241:) 1237:⋅ 1215:) 1195:) 1191:⋅ 1176:) 1159:) 1155:⋅ 1140:) 1125:) 1121:⋅ 1106:) 1086:) 1064:) 1060:⋅ 1043:) 1029:) 1025:⋅ 1005:) 969:) 955:) 951:⋅ 937:) 922:) 904:) 896:-- 878:) 860:) 846:) 827:) 823:⋅ 809:) 795:) 780:) 743:) 739:⋅ 721:⋅ 705:) 690:) 686:⋅ 652:) 638:) 614:) 599:) 585:) 581:⋅ 565:) 547:) 533:) 529:⋅ 514:) 492:) 488:⋅ 441:) 426:) 411:) 407:⋅ 383:) 367:) 363:⋅ 339:) 324:) 320:• 293:) 274:) 270:⋅ 173:, 169:, 86:, 2085:( 2073:( 2036:( 2021:( 2001:) 1997:( 1984:. 1977:. 1846:( 1838:. 1827:: 1795:( 1787:( 1767:( 1763:– 1747:( 1723:( 1719:– 1708:( 1690:( 1671:( 1629:( 1564:( 1356:( 1337:( 1311:( 1297:( 1267:( 1252:( 1233:( 1211:( 1187:( 1172:( 1151:( 1136:( 1117:( 1102:( 1082:( 1056:( 1052:– 1039:( 1021:( 1001:( 965:( 947:( 933:( 918:( 900:( 874:( 856:( 842:( 819:( 805:( 791:( 776:( 735:( 717:( 713:– 701:( 682:( 648:( 634:( 610:( 595:( 577:( 573:– 561:( 543:( 525:( 510:( 484:( 437:( 422:( 403:( 399:– 379:( 359:( 335:( 316:( 289:( 266:( 219:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index