Talk:Christopher Rufo: Difference between revisions
→Didnt just stretch the truth: signing |
→Discovery Institute: forgot to sign |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
== Discovery Institute == |
== Discovery Institute == |
||
The lede says he’s a fellow at the Discovery Institute, but I can’t find that on their web site.<ref>https://www.discovery.org/about/fellows/</ref> |
The lede says he’s a fellow at the Discovery Institute, but I can’t find that on their web site. [[Special:Contributions/24.163.84.190|24.163.84.190]] ([[User talk:24.163.84.190|talk]]) 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)<ref>https://www.discovery.org/about/fellows/</ref> |
||
Revision as of 14:02, 27 June 2021
 | Biography Stub‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Text of executive order
If you can point me to a section of the primary document (The Executive Order itself) that bans "diversity training", I will happily cede my point. But otherwise I don't think "What Jim said David said" supercedes the actual text of what David said.
Have I misunderstood?
I don't have a political ax to grind here, I just think the article should be accurate
- We don't cherry pick contents from primary sources on Wikipedia. We reflect what reliable sources say. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think it was “cherry picked” at all, and my understanding is that outside of medical research, primary sources are acceptable. It’s also my tentative understanding that you bent the rules a bit by reverting me w/o discussion after I requested a move to the talk page, but that’s a minor point.
What your edit does is to replace the literal text of the Executive Order with a secondary source summary of what it says. I suppose I could dig up some conservative secondary sources that summarize it differently than the sources you chose. But maybe the best thing would be to include both what the primary source actually says and the secondary source interpretations of what it meant?
Not trying to be a butthead here. I think your edit was an improvement over the language I edited but still leaves something to be desired in terms of accuracy and balance
Please also note that I placed “divisive concepts”, a value judgment by the ex President, in scare quotes.
Thanks.
Didnt just stretch the truth
What the WaPo article highlights is misrepresentations of the contents of those diversity training pamphlets and programs. The way that the content is currently structured misleads readers as to what the WaPo article said. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
No, it’s better to stick to the RS’s characterization of events, not insert your own. 2600:1004:B058:CC51:4C1D:F5A7:8F7C:20F0 (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. This version is NPOV, but User:Snooganssnoogan's version is verging on POV pushing, as it censors the WaPo-quoted part of the document ("virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are, contribute to racism.") which is the key element in understanding what exactly WaPo is getting here. "Misrepresentation" becomes inapplicable when you look at this from a fuller context, thus whoever replaced it with the WaPo-quote “stretched beyond the facts” did it right. If anyone disagrees, they should explain it by including further context from the cited source, but in a way the article is looked at in balance without cherry-picking to suit a POV. Yegourt (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Figured I’d jump in since I reverted, but I can’t find anything in the Post story saying he “frequently misrepresents” facts, and the New Yorker content seems relevant. I gather the Post story itself has been a source of controversy, though mostly written up in right-wing media.[1] 24.163.84.190 (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Discovery Institute
The lede says he’s a fellow at the Discovery Institute, but I can’t find that on their web site. 24.163.84.190 (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[2]