Talk:Caroline Hoxby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reardon's critique[edit]

A bilateral dialogue on BLPN ended with a plea for input from others, and I concur on that score. An edit removed a passage about critique of Hoxby's work by another scholar (one of her department colleagues, in fact), on the basis of insufficient sourcing. I would be grateful to know whether the following sources are to be considered sufficient for this passage:

  • Paul Lee Thomas, 2009, Parental Choice?: A Critical Reconsideration of Choice and the Debate About Choice, IAP, p. 166
  • John Merrow, The Influence of Teachers: Reflections on Teaching and Leadership, p. 204
  • Paul Lee Thomas: Ignoring Poverty in the U.S.: The Corporate Takeover of Public Education, 2012, p. 162 (quoting several sentences from Reardon's piece)
  • Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2011, edited by Erik A. Hanushek, Stephen J. Machin, Ludger Woessmann, p. 553 (in chapter by Eric Bettinger)
  • Coverage in Education Week
  • Charleston Gazette
  • Paper by the Economic Policy Institute, hosted at the Education Research Information Center
  • article in the NYTimes

Now, I can't see why there would be a problem even with half the sources listed above. It is normal for a biography of a scholar to focus on that scholar's research, it is normal for other scholars to write critically about a prominent person's work -- and when debates of this sort receive the sort of attention indicated here, we should cover it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's important to point out that, at the time the content was first removed, there weren't any secondary reliable sources cited, so trying to frame the argument as you have is misleading, at best. Regardless, the "debate" between Rothstein and Hoxby, as it was covered in a significant number of mainstream sources, currently has due coverage in the article. It would not be "normal," as you say, to go down the path of mentioning every other sociologist, economist, student, professor, researcher, or colleague — Reardon, included — who has written or will write a response to or critique of Hoxby or her paper.
  The threshold for inclusion is when a viewpoint, according to reliable sources, becomes biographically relevant to Hoxby. Rothstein arguably became biographically relevant, Reardon clearly has not (at least based on the sources you've provided to date and my own searches). It's also important to note that the majority of the sources you cite above mention Reardon only in passing, which is difficult for other editors to ascertain given the paywall most of those sources live behind. (I'd also note that the New York Times piece is not an "article," but rather a 'counterpoint' opinion piece on one of their blogs, but it's not necessary to quabble over each and every source, given the outcome is the same per wp:blp, wp:coatrack, and wp:undue.) Even the sources where Reardon is quoted or mentioned in greater detail do not rise to the level of indicating this his paper is a significant fact or event in the life of Hoxby.
  In short, yes, "it is normal for other scholars to write critically about a prominent person's work." Normal, but rarely biographical. In the case of Rothstein, his paper on Hoxby's research received significant, widespread, and deep coverage, thus making a case for it being biographical in terms of Hoxby; the sources simply do not make that case with Reardon. Once again, I'll leave further comment to other editors, as my argument has proven to be less than persuasive for you (given you're still pushing to get Reardon mentioned in this article). jæs (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As anyone can see via the link I provided ([1]), the passage did have a secondary source when you removed it. I do hope other editors check the listed sources -- it will be quite obvious that "mention in passing" is absurd, indeed #s 5 through 8 above are all about Reardon's critique. Jaes's view on what is required for inclusion are idiosyncratic in my view and I'd be quite interested to hear other views. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if primary sources are objectionable, do we also take out the primary source claim that her paper is the 8th most downloaded from that site? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Nomoskedasticity, you know full and well that during much of the discussion on wp:blpn and when the content was first removed, there were no secondary sources. You've continued tirelessly to try to get some — any — mention of Reardon back in this article by flooding the discussion with every possible source you could find where Reardon is even barely mentioned (although he is only in passing in the majority of your sources). When you readded it against consensus with a source that did not assert any biographical relevance to Hoxby, I removed it again.
 It's worth pointing out that my "idiosyncratic" view that the material was poorly sourced and was not biographically relevant was supported by several other editors at the noticeboard. Also, I agree with TheRedPenOfDoom that we ought to be very closely adhering to wp:rs in excluding any primary source material here. jæs (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So go ahead and remove that SSRN bit. As for "several other editors" and "against consensus": only DeliciousCarbuncle seemed to share your concern about Reardon. RunnerOnIce was concerned about synthesis (addressed); Binksternet and a13ean supported inclusion. For someone who says "I'll leave further comment to other editors" an awful lot, you seem to have a keen desire to continue introducing new inaccuracies into the discussion.
RPOD, I would support removing the "8th downloaded" passage. FWIW, I didn't write much of this article, and perhaps none of it via original addition -- even so, I see no reason to delete properly sourced stuff (the SSRN bit doesn't really fall in that category). Any thoughts on Reardon? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet and a13ean were quite clearly referring to Rothstein, not Reardon. And the issue of synthesis and coatracking has not been addressed, as you're still using it to try to get Reardon into the article. The fact remains that the Rothstein controversy was arguably notable; the Reardon paper has no secondary sources indicating that it has become biographically relevant to Hoxby. Trying to use the Rothstein controversy as a ramp to get Reardon into the article is inappropriate, and your continued efforts to get it in there by forumshopping, framing the earlier debate inaccurately, or flooding any discussion with a multitude of sources that don't actually support your position is the very definition of wp:crush. jæs (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is clear to you is mud to others; I see no sign that they were referring to Rothstein not Reardon. Now, are you going to hush up a bit and "leave further comment to other editors"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reardon's commentaries has been quoted in several reliable sources. my big question is that from the free online sources I saw, Hoxby and Rothstein were going to be having their rebuttals co published. what happened with that? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coming here in response to an invitation on WT:ECON. The critique is notable, attested to in RS and is well sourced. It should be included. LK (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this make sense?[edit]

Do the years at the different schools make sense? And when she worked at Harvard? I also removed the African-American part that was sort of jammed into that section. --Malerooster (talk) 03:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know if it is important or how to fit it in if it is important, but at least one of the sources that I was reading about the rebuttal that she gave to Rothstein's critique was that she was being attacked because she was African American. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Her CV indicates that she graduated from Harvard in 1988, so the 1998 date was a typo. If you have other questions about her life details, verify them by checking the CV. Note also that her CV probably documents the awards/recognitions that you deleted as unsourced.
I added the detail about her being an African American, based on the Harvard Crimson article and because I think it is a significant element in her biography. Not only is it still generally considered significant for a black woman to be a Harvard graduate, Rhodes scholar, and well-regarded academic, but (as RedPen notes) it is specifically relevant here because her ethnicity was cited as a factor in the contention over her research on school choice. --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just not sure about the way it, her being African-American, was introduced or placed in the bio. Also not sure about generally considered significant for a black woman to be a Harvard graduate, Rhodes scholar, and well-regarded academic by today's standards. I must admitt that I don't know what the contention was about her research related to her ethnicity. --Malerooster (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
someone's CV is not a reliable source for awards they have won. that type of info clearly falls in the "self serving" category that is inappropriate for WP:SPS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the WSJ article here quoting the Harvard Crimson, stating that "quoted Dr. Hoxby, whose father is African- American, as saying that "there is a lot of race and gender bias going on here." but "Dr. Hoxby says that the paper misrepresented her views and that she had made no allegation of racial or gender bias."] that WSJ also states that Jesse Rothstein's critique of Hoxby is following in the footsteps of his father Richard Rothstein who also had been critical of Hoxby. This is getting more juicy and tabloidal all the time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is protected[edit]

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)[reply]

Are there any registered users edit-warring or disrupting now? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Since protecting the article, I've made several edits that I characterize as having been mostly "cleanup" -- fixing formats to comply with WP:MOS, adding details to ref citations, etc. --Orlady (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allegation of race/gender bias[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Why would we not want to rely on the WSJ? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [3]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Based on the discussion here and also on the BLP noticeboard, I'm removing the race/gender bias statement. LK (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted addition by subject[edit]

Could someone explain why the following material, which is all sourced, relevant, and neutral in tone, got blanked successfully by nomoskedasticity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.232.219 (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's preferred version
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hoxby, Christopher Avery, Mark Glickman, and Andrew Metrick demonstrate how to construct a revealed preference ranking of colleges in the U.S.[1] A revealed preference ranking reveals which college students are more likely to choose when they are admitted to multiple colleges.

Hoxby and Christopher Avery observe that students choose colleges based on expected factors like how similar their test scores are to the scores of students already enrolled. They also observe, however, that students appear to be confused about the value of various forms of financial aid such as grants versus loans.[2]. Hoxby and Avery also demonstrate that a large share of low-income, high-achieving students choose colleges very differently than high income students with the same achievement.[3].

Using a regression discontinuity design based on school districts' maximum and minimum class size rules, Hoxby finds that class size has little to no effect on student achievement in Connecticut schools between 1986 and 1998.[4]

Hoxby, Jennifer Kang, and Sonali Murarka evaluate the effect of attending a New York City charter school on achievement by comparing students who won and lost charter school lotteries.[5] They find an average effect that is positive but also show that the effect differs among schools in the city.

Hoxby analyzes school finance equalization laws, many of which stem from court cases, and finds that some have the unintended consequence of leveling education spending at a lower level.[6] [7] She argues that the consequences of a school finance law depend on whether it redistributes revenues based largely on property values instead of households' ability to pay.

Some of Hoxby's articles made be found on the NBER Publications page for Caroline M. Hoxby.[8]


Selected works

  1. ^ http://www.nber.org/papers/w10803/
  2. ^ http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10102.pdf/
  3. ^ http://www.nber.org/papers/w18586/
  4. ^ http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/115/4/1239.abstract/
  5. ^ http://educationnext.org/new-york-city-charter-schools/
  6. ^ http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/116/4/1189.short/
  7. ^ http://www.nber.org/papers/w10722/
  8. ^ http://www.nber.org/authors/caroline_hoxby/
  9. ^ http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/E/bo3627349.html/
  10. ^ http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo3643231.html/
  11. ^ http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/qje/forthcoming/
  12. ^ http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.23.4.95/
  13. ^ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0327.2009.00238.x/abstract/
  14. ^ http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/111/3/671.short/
  15. ^ http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/115/4/1239.abstract/
  16. ^ http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.90.5.1209/
  17. ^ http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/116/4/1189.short/
  18. ^ https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.94.2/
  19. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/381474/
  20. ^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272799000250/
  21. ^ http://www.aeaweb.org/content/articles/articles_detail.php?doi=10.1257/jep.10.4.51/
Biographies on wikipedia depend mainly on independent reliable sources. The sources you provided are written by Hoxby herself (you?). Please also see WP:AUTOBIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll try to expand upon Nomoskedasticity's response (but I may not have covered all relevant points).
  • Secondary sources. Regardless of the subject matter, Wikipedia tries to rely on secondary sources for content of encyclopedia articles. In respect to Hoxby's research, this means that statements about the findings (and significance) of her published research should be based on published reviews/critiques of the literature; the original journal articles are not by themselves an appropriate basis for describing the research findings they reported. The content that was removed described the findings of several individual research papers, identifying the research papers themselves as the only source(s).
Hoxby's research has received an unusual amount of attention in both academia and the mainstream media, so it should not be particularly difficult to find secondary sources that provide a basis for discussing her work and its implications.
  • Writing style and tone. Writing style and tone appropriate for an encyclopedia are not necessarily the same as what's appropriate in other forms of writing (including, but not limited to, press releases, CVs, newspaper articles, and reviews of the literature in academic journals). The added text, while generally neutral in POV, did not read like an encyclopedia. I found the sentence "Some of Hoxby's articles made be found on the NBER Publications page for Caroline M. Hoxby" particularly inappropriate. Some of the wording looks like it may have been lifted from somebody's review of the literature, which is fundamentally plagiarism and could also be a copyright violation. Related to the concerns about style were concerns about reference citations, external links, and formatting. See Wikipedia:Writing better articles, WP:Citing sources, and WP:External links for some additional information.
  • Autobiographies and CVs are not wanted here. See WP:AUTOBIO and WP:RESUME for details.
  • Promotional content. Some of the disputed content -- notably including discussion of a paper that is not yet published -- was truly promotional in nature.
Considering the number of issues raised by this content (and the amount of work required to fix the problems), it was my opinion that it was better to discuss the disputed content here than to attempt to repair it all myself. The fact that IP users were edit-warring to add/keep the content, using false and misleading edit summaries, did not make me feel particularly charitable toward the content. I've done some cleanup and repair (most recently including adding more standard reference information for the "selected pubs" and finding/adding valid DOI and JSTOR references for several links that didn't work for me).
Since the IPs appear to be editing on behalf of the article subject, there is a conflict of interest that makes it inadvisable to edit the article directly. However, you can use this page to provide information about errors in the article, topics that you consider to be under-represented, additional sources to use, etc. Please help build a better article, rather than disrupting Wikipedia by edit warring. --Orlady (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a bit weird if she is a public figure because of her research and the research is not mentioned in the biography except for a criticism of it? Also, only one topic gets mentioned and she works on lots of other issues. It seems extremely unbalanced. Here is a list of articles that could easily be incorporated:

http://chronicle.com/article/Students-Dont-Always-Respond/13281/ http://chronicle.com/article/The-Missing-Pool-of-Low-Income/1428/ http://chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Propose-a/17421/ http://chronicle.com/article/For-First-Time-in-30-Years/18218/ http://chronicle.com/article/Do-Smaller-Classes-Mean-Better/100581/ http://chronicle.com/article/Mary-Ingraham-Bunting/74415/ http://chronicle.com/article/A-Better-Way-to-Rank-Colleges/102911/ http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/12/11/study-says-many-highly-talented-low-income-students-never-apply-top-colleges http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/27/hoxby http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/08/hoxby http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/04/15/research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.64.232.219 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note: yet another IP from Stanford - yep the University at which Hoxby works. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Isn't a bit weird " - not really. Wikipedia articles are developed by volunteers under no coordinated oversight. Most articles suffer from bias, extreme focus on some areas, major areas that are not sufficiently covered etc. Unless there is a volunteer coordinated effort such as the goal to bring an article to Good Article or better status, all Wikipedia articles should be considered a work in progress that will require time, effort, access to a wide variety of sources, to bring them to the highest quality standard. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there is some coverage of the scope of her research, in the first paragraph of the "Research" section, which presents a list of topics ("college choice, the effects of financial aid, the outcomes of graduates from different colleges, college tuition policy, public school finance, school choice, the effect of education on economic growth and income inequality, teacher pay and teacher quality, peer effects, and class size ... public finance (property taxes, government finance), labor economics (earnings, returns to skills), and quantitative methods"), and in the list of selected publications.
In my experience here, articles that are subject to edit-warring and POV-pushing often are in poor condition overall, as editor attention that might have been focused on article improvement gets diverted into unproductive activity. That appears to have happened here. --Orlady (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Critique by Rothstein[edit]

Discuss here, please. It's obvious to me that the attention given to Hoxby by another scholar is worthy of attention here. Happy to discuss, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected this, and I'm commenting here only as an admin. Evanthius is effectively complaining about a BLP violation, so the question is whether the disputed material is properly sourced. Rothstein was a student when he wrote the paper, so that would suggest it's not an RS (the link is to a university website and is currently dead). But Hoxby did respond to it in the American Economic Review, so that response is an RS and makes the dispute something this article can refer to.
The article says the dispute gained mainstream news coverage, but provides only a dead link to a student newspaper, so sources are needed for that claim. Sarah (SV) (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Being a PhD student is not simply being "a student"; he wrote his critique while doing a PhD in Economics at Berkeley. The debate was covered in the Wall Street Journal [4] -- an extended piece, well worth a read. Also the NY Times [5] -- there's no lack of coverage here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone in the Economics profession, I can attest that this controversy is well known. In any case, the WSJ and NYT article certainly makes it notable enough for inclusion. It's not often that major newspapers write about academic controversies. Also this from the Harvard Crimson:[6] LK (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nomoskedasticity and Lawrencekhoo, thanks for explaining. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015[edit]

Request that the following paragraph ... be removed. ... XprincetonY (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of Hoxby's most-cited papers, "Does Competition among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers?" (American Economic Review, 2000), argues that increased school choice improves educational outcomes for all students by improving school quality. Jesse Rothstein (at the time, a PhD student at the University of California at Berkeley under Professor David Card) published a paper in which he stated that he was unable to independently replicate her results. Hoxby later published a response in defense of her original work, and the debate received coverage in the mainstream press. Hoxby alleged that Rothstein's allegations represented "race and gender bias".

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)[reply]
Not done: Requester has made a second similar request below Mlpearc (open channel) 18:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2015[edit]

I would like to request again that the paragraph below be removed. ... XprincetonY (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of Hoxby's most-cited papers, "Does Competition among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers?" (American Economic Review, 2000), argues that increased school choice improves educational outcomes for all students by improving school quality. Jesse Rothstein (at the time, a PhD student at the University of California at Berkeley under Professor David Card) published a paper in which he stated that he was unable to independently replicate her results. Hoxby later published a response in defense of her original work, and the debate received coverage in the mainstream press. Hoxby alleged that Rothstein's allegations represented "race and gender bias".

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline_Hoxby&oldid=1207655011"