Talk:Caroline Hoxby

message: I have protected the article page (currently for 3 days) against editing by new or unregistered users due to an active pattern of disruptive editing by multiple IPs. There are some contentions about the article content that appear to have merit; let's discuss them on this page rather than edit-warring on the article. If registered users continue edit-warring and other disruption, the article can be fully protected. --Orlady (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any registered users edit-warring or disrupting now?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Registered users aren't edit-warring currently, but if they continue the edit-warring, the article can be fully protected. --Orlady (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is protected  

message: A brief passage about Hoxby's allegations of race/gender bias on Rothstein's part has been "hidden" -- perhaps because Hoxby said in a later interview that she disputed that element of the Crimson story. This should be discussed.  Since the Crimson was later reported to say that its original story was accurate, I don't think the passage should stay hidden.  We should however briefly convey Rothstein's reaction/response.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: i dont know how those details about a story in a college newspaper really add to a real understanding about the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sort of a big deal for one scholar to say that another scholar's critique emerges from race and gender bias.  It was discussed not only in the college newspaper but in a later article as well; that's one of the ways we know it was sort of a big deal.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe if there were reliable sources covering it. but their are not really any. there is the student news paper (questionable at best for BLP content) and the WSJ covering that the claims in the student newspaper were false. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that we step back from focusing on that specific snippet of information and work toward presenting a more balanced overall picture of Hoxby's research, including -- but not so strongly focused on -- the controversial aspects. Given the highly politicized nature of the topic of school choice in the United States (not to mention the often-contentious culture of the social sciences), it's hardly surprising that some of her work is controversial. Furthermore, several sources indicate that she rose to prominence partly because of the controversial nature of her work, so the controversy absolutely needs to be covered in the Wikipedia article. From the Wall Street Journal article, this article in Inside Higher Ed, and my skimming of her 1994 study that led to the 2000 AER paper, I have gathered that the controversy was/is complicated. Thus, it is overly simplistic to mention allegations of "race and gender bias" (or proxy battles on behalf of a parent) without also providing an intelligent discussion of criticisms and defenses of the methodology (which was a novel approach that probably was guaranteed to be criticized for its unorthodox aspects). The various users (however many individual people there might be) who have been eager to modify the article might be able to provide some insight into the controversy (and, ideally, some reliable sources), if they are willing to assume good faith. Additionally, some of what I've read about Caroline Hoxby and her work (since first coming to this article from WP:ANI) leads me to think that much of her research is not controversial (for example, the work on higher education choice that is documented in this book); a balanced article ought to tell more about that. --Orlady (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the Hoxby Rothstein contratemps is widely covered not only as part of the particular voucher issue, but being cited as an example of policy studies being used for political spin  as an example where econ theorists come up with differing interpretations from same data as it relates to the Tiebault model etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good! This means it should be possible to document the controversial aspects, based on independent reliable sources, without relying on the Harvard Crimson and the Wall Street Journal. --Orlady (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we not want to rely on the WSJ?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: cause the WSJ flat out states that it is relying on the Harvard Crimson. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Only re the "bias" issue.  Are we talking about "controversial aspects" more generally, or about "bias"?  If the former -- as it seems from your post at 20:04 -- then the WSJ article is fine.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why rely solely on the WSJ when it's possible to read Rothstein's analysis and Hoxby's rebuttal to make sure they are quoted accurately by the third parties, and when there are third-party sources like this one that expand upon the WSJ article and tell about its impact? --Orlady (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the letter to the Crimson in which Hoxby said she had been misquoted regarding "race and gender bias": http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article/2005/7/15/hoxby-article-presents-slanted-veiw-of/ . I don't think the Wikipedia article should repeat a quotation by a student reporter if the originator of the supposed quotation claims to have been misquoted. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoxby does not say in the letter that she was misquoted re race/gender bias.  Nor does she directly state that she did not originally assert race/gender bias on Rothstein's part.  She complains about "invert[ing] my emphasis" -- whatever that means.  The original article says: '“I think there is quite a lot of race and gender bias going on here,” Hoxby said in an interview with The Crimson.'  If that direct quote is inaccurate, Hoxby should have said so.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that her "inverting my emphasis" comment refers to her assertion that, when asked to speculate on Rothstein's motives, she blamed "self-interest" first and "ideological bias" second, but the reporter talked only about the item that she considered secondary. --Orlady (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

text: we really really really do not want to get into the "She did not deny that she had not stopped beating her wife" level of coverage. A student newspaper, even Harvard's does not have the weight of authority needed that I would ever consider using it for anything even remotely controversial about a BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty uncooked characterization of my point.  The Crimson quoted her; Orlady said Hoxby's letter asserted she had been misquoted -- but that's not what the letter says.  If nothing else, I prefer to have discussions that accurately convey what is in a source.  Your point about the 'weight' of the Crimson is fine; it only missed the mark in relation to what I had written immediately above.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: whether or not she told the Crimson directly that they had misquoted her, she told someone "by e-mail" (i am assuming it the WSJ themselves) that the Crimson had misquoted her . We have a reliable source covering he claim that the Crimson, a student newspaper, screwed up. So we have a case of he said/she said with a student newspaper, and I see no real value in covering an aspect of a dispute where that's all we have. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I come to the same bottom line as RedPen. That is, there isn't a solid enough basis for the "race and gender bias" statement. She may have said it, but it's a he-said, she-said situation. Anyway, it's truly a very minor point in the context of "controversy". It doesn't need to be reported in her encyclopedia biography. --Orlady (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegation of race/gender bias 

message: Request that the following paragraph ... be removed. ...
XprincetonY (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite confident Jesse Rothstein is not editing this article.  Instead, it is being edited by long-standing Wikipedia editors.  The paragraph in question is perfectly normal here -- including it is amply justified by the coverage this debate has had in mainstream newspapers.  If anything, the concern we should now have about this article is the parade of sockpuppets showing up here...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Not done: Requester has made a second similar request below Mlpearc (open channel) 18:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015 

message: I would like to request again that the paragraph below be removed. ...
XprincetonY (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll let someone else respond to this one -- but please note that exactly the same request was posted immediately above...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

text: XprincetonY, it might help you to know that there is no advantage in having two active edit requests regarding the same issue -- so it's pointless to do this.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Not done: This has also been discussed in the section above these requests. This paragraph appears to be well-sourced and accurate based on what I'm reading. Without consensus to remove it, I see no reason within policy to do so. Please feel free to continue discussion on the talk page to resolve this. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015