Political views of American academics

Political views of American academics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An WP:essay style article written with a clear political purpose, and that is based primarily or only on sources with a clear slant. Recently renamed from Liberal bias in academia, but the content is problematic enough that the new title does nothing to improve the situation. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – TheGridExe (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Well sourced, has received continued coverage since the 50's, and easily meets WP:GNG. If you think there are POV issues, you are welcome to improve the article. Otherwise that is not a reason for deletion. PackMecEng (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@CFCF: I certainly am. Unless you are arguing it is a content fork, which it does not appear to be, it does not meet any WP:DEL-REASON. PackMecEng (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of response is that? I would warn you against WP:BLUDGEONING voters during this discussion with comments that contain no value like that. --Netoholic @ 17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's clear that, despite the title change, the subject is one that's notable only for the conspiracy theories and fake news spun around it by folks of a certain partisan persuasion. We do not have articles on the "political views" of medical doctors, firefighters, or other professionals. Moreover, in their capacity as academics these people are conducting research that is dedicated to neutral principles of investigation, documentation, and publishing. The current title, and certainly the article content, continue to insinuate that academics' personal opinions somehow taint their work and corrupt their institutions and students. This article is never likely to rid itself of these fatal NPOV problems. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The purpose of the article is to push a POV, as evidenced by the earlier title and the content. Numerous of the included studies say nothing about political views, instead only talking to party affiliation with the clear intent to suggest political views not in evidence. It leads off with a 1955 study. How does party affiliation in 1955 tell us anything about political views as parties were coalitions of citizens with opposing views? There is no evidence that the political views of academics has affected students. So, why would the political views of academics merit any more importance than the views of beekeepers or exotic dancers? O3000 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep spurious nomination. This is a subset of academic bias documented there and in several book articles we already cover. The Find Sources book links above easily show this issue has wide coverage and a significant number of sources to draw from. --Netoholic @ 17:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• As a matter of fact, the article talk page has already rejected the POV that this article is about bias. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• If that is such a "matter of fact" you won't mind linking to something conclusive to support your assertion then. Without that, you should be careful what you say is a "matter of fact". -- Netoholic @ 20:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Your proposed move to the POV title was rejected by an overwhelming consensus. Fact! SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (For editors who are new to the AfD process, the preferred terminology is "keep" or "delete", not "support" or "oppose".) There is no question that the page was created as a POV violation. But this is a WP:UGLY situation: the fact that it has been written in a POV manner does not mean that it cannot be written in an NPOV manner. (Note: I am not calling anything "ugly": that's a shortcut link.) The political views of university professors are an encyclopedic topic, and there has been more than enough written about it to establish notability. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is currently going through a period of editors using the editing process to proxy war over the current divisions in US politics. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is arguably even a Speedy Keep per criterion 3.

1. WP:Essay has literally nothing to do with this article.
2. The nom provides no rationale for why it should be deleted in accordance with WP:DEL#REASON.
3. The article addresses a specific and eminently notable controversy.
4. The article is well-sourced, and it would remain well-sourced even if each controversial source were to be removed.
5. The article subject does not break WP:NPOV by its very nature, and can be covered in a neutral way.
6. The nominator does not appear to have attempted any of WP:ATD before nominating it, despite ample content worth saving.
7. Even if the article discussed a "conspiracy theory," it would pass WP:NFRINGE due to the sheer volume of independent sources.

If someone has an actual PAG-based reason that this article should be deleted, I'm all ears. AlexEng^(TALK) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Objective3000 and NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]