Free speech scholar

Hello Free Speech Wikipedian! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hipal (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

A lengthy welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, editors are also expected to focus on content and conduct themselves with civility. --Hipal (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Editing a User's Talk Page

Have you ever noticed that Wikipedia talk pages have the oldest discussions at the top and the newest discussions at the bottom?

Also, have you ever noticed that there is a New Section tab at the top of a talk page that you should use to add a new section (and it adds it at the bottom)?

Also, if you start to edit a user's talk page, and a long set of instructions appears, do you think it would be useful to read the instructions?

I will read your post within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, isn't one of the dicta at Wikipedia to be patient with newcomers? You've clearly been with Wikipedia a long time, and I'm sure that I would be jaded too if I had toiled away in the Wikipedia mines for years, but would you please do me the courtesy of passing this case along to someone who seems to give a shit? Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Heterodox Academy. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, would you please desist with the faux courtesy? An editor named "Crossroads" partially reverted the edits just as I was planning to file a dispute, so I don't know what you're on about. If anyone is engaged in an edit war, it is you and Aquillion, as a cursory glance at the page's version history will show. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

August 2024

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Friedman, to my knowledge, is not in the pay of Heterodox Academy. His prose is at least as "objective" as Beauchamp's and Quintana's. Indeed, Beauchamp and Quintana promote an anti-Heterodox Academy view. Why should comments supporting an organization's claims with data be deleted and critical comments remain, especially when the latter are no more "objective" than the former? Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:OSE

The ref you used is poor, deserving no weight in an encyclopedia article about Heterodox Academy. --Hipal (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times is certainly a legitimate source. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't address the problem nor the policies. Best to work on articles not under special editing restrictions until you understand Wikipedia's content policies. --Hipal (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that the burden is on you to explain why a pertinent New York Times article is a "poor reference," though I'd be happy to take this matter to arbitration. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to arbitrate when policy is being ignored. --Hipal (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hipal, this is a spurious warning. Based on the recent edits to the Heterodox Academy article, Free Speech Wikipedian did not ignore policy nor fail to understand policy. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, given the reference (an opinion piece), it's use, the other discussions about it, and the editing history of Free Speech Wikipedian. --Hipal (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The editing history of this page shows that Hipal will accept no stated opinions about Heterodox Academy except those of Beauchamp, Quintana, and perhaps those who agree with them. It is most peculiar.

I don't wish to censor Beauchamp's and Quintana's opinion. I am simply challenging the idea that theirs is the only relevant opinion. Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The editing history of this page shows that... Please retract. That comments like that could result in a ban or block. --Hipal (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Which part would you like me to retract? Free Speech Wikipedian (talk) 02:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The entire sentence. --Hipal (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me modify the sentence to make it less dogmatic. Instead of the above sentence, I would say this: Every time I have tried to add a third party opinion about Heterodox Academy, aside from modifying those of Beauchamp or Quintana, Hipal has deleted it or justified the deletion of it on what strike me as tenuous grounds. Sifting through the article's version history will show that I am not alone in this experience. If my editing history is relevant, then so is yours.

The "soapbox" charge that you keep trying to pin on me is false, full stop. I am not promoting the organization. It is simply a fact that Heterodox Academy has produced data to support some of their arguments, contradicting Beauchamp's claim. Legitimate secondary sources have cited these data. To exclude these sources from the article while letting the criticisms stand is to place the organization and its mission in a false light. If qualified critics have identified flaws in the sources I've cited, then by all means add their work to the article.

There is rightly a rule against advertising and promotion. I have a question for all veteran editors: is there also a rule against "demotion"--that is, against placing an organization in a worse light than the evidence warrants? If not, there should be. Free speech scholar (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation.

If you have concerns about any of my edits, this is not the place for discussing them.

As far as soapboxing is concerned, generally it's a POV and NOT problem due to the use of primary sources. In this situation, there are coatracking problems as well.

We write articles from the best sources. Primary sources and opinions are rarely good enough to be used without better ones.

Your subsequent blanking of content has put you at high risk of a block or ban. Please be very careful with how you continue. I'd avoid any more edits to the article directly, unless there's is no question they will not be disputed. --Hipal (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In deleting the references to Quintana and Beauchamp, I was following the advice of another editor--see the article's "Talk" page. And none of the sources that I have recently posted are primary sources, so I'm not sure why you keep insisting on this point. Free speech scholar (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

In deleting the references... Best avoid such mistakes again. Such explanations won't go far, and may be used against you.

Almost all that you've offered are primary sources. It's troubling that you are unable to identify them at this point. The few others didn't mention HA enough to work from. --Hipal (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Let me try to explain the difference between primary and secondary sources, as you seem to have a shaky grasp of the distinction. If I had directly cited a Heterodox Academy study. I would have been using a primary source. But by citing sources that merely rely on primary sources such as Heterodox Academy studies, I was drawing on secondary sources. If there is some rule that Wikipedia editors cannot cite secondary sources that themselves rely on primary sources directly related to the article's subject, I have not been apprised of its existence. Free speech scholar (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the distinction you're making. Wikipedia's definitions are at WP:PSTS. NOT, BLP, and POV are the main policies that have other restrictions on their use.

Maybe it would help you to list the references on the article talk page and we can go over them one by one. --Hipal (talk) 03:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Re What seems disingenuous is to exclude legitimate sources that you happen to disagree with and then claim that an organization is biased simply because you refuse to admit any evidence that might contradict your view, and valid argument doesn't matter You're crossing the line, again. [1] --Hipal (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Your enforcement of the rules seems selective. I don't recall you tsk tsking when ElKevbo called my argument "disingenuous." Free speech scholar (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Why not reach out to ElKevbo? If you can demonstrate that this is part of a pattern, then I'll do so. --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll handle things in my own way, thanks. What I'm saying is that you would be more credible as an arbiter if you didn't just call out people who happen to disagree with you, but hey, you'll handle things in your own way. As this "Talk" page abundantly shows, you didn't wait for anything like a "pattern" to pounce on me. Free speech scholar (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your retractions on the article talk page. [2][3]. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

You bet. Second thoughts are often better than first ones. Free speech scholar (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Please retract the last two paragraphs. --Hipal (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise, I've modified the language while conveying the point. I've also deleted your cut-and-paste warning, as it may not apply any longer. Feel free to add it back; I won't re-delete it. Free speech scholar (talk) 03:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That was very inappropriate. I've restored your comment and my response. If you want to refactor your comment, please do so in a manner that follows WP:REDACT. --Hipal (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)