Talk:Dennis Prager

Additional information on religious beliefs

According to the article:

"...Prager abandoned his Orthodoxy as an adult but continues to maintain many traditional Jewish practices."

This seems to indicate that he is a somewhat(?) actively practicing Jew. I have been reading through The Rational Bible: Exodus, and it seems to have both a strong tone, and multiple implications towards a strong Christian belief; i.e. the Birth of Christ, which I would not tend to expect a practicing Jew to acknowledge or accept as valid. My experience speaking on religious topics is extremely limited, so perhaps my understanding is flawed in some way regarding how Jews view New Testament theology. Is anyone able to provide sources confirming more precisely what Mr. Prager's beliefs are? Thanks. Sawta (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Prager's issues with your page on him

It seems to me an odd thing to rely only on third party sources to characterize what someone has said, or says he believes, when his own views are readily available for comparison. It's not as if Prager is, or has been, shy about posting his own specific views about each of the issues presented. Which isn't to say that his comments should replace the third party source views, just that it would be fairly easy to verify if those third party sources are unbiased. Further, and probably more importantly from the aspect of trying to determine neutrality (even absent a careful review of his work against claims by others about his work), is the simple fact that only controversial issues are presented, and presented in a negative perspective (that he is wrong, or was wrong). For instance, Prager has often talked about his love for various homosexual persons he knows, but the LGBTQ section makes no mention of the nuance in his views.2602:306:BDE1:C0E0:CD8F:9D7D:B446:3A41 (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Prager can say anything he wants, but to echo his statements would be using this article as a soapbox for him, rather than an encyclopedia article about the person. That's why we need to rely upon independent, reliable sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ronz , re your recent deletions, you're way off by claiming that The Atlantic is not a reliable source. Please consider removing yourself from involvement in this matter and bringing in some different, objective editors to make this decision.Localemediamonitor (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Localemediamonitor , re your recent additions, you're way off by claiming that The Atlantic is a reliable source. Please consider removing yourself from involvement in this matter and bringing in some different, objective editors to make this decision. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling Snooganssnoogans or someone else, can we get some adult supervision here? The Atlantic is used as a source all throughout Wikipedia, but certain "editors" are forbidding it here.Localemediamonitor (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog, Ronz, and Localemediamonitor: The Atlantic is generally considered to be a reliable source. No source is reliable for every possible statement, if you think a particular soruce is not reliable in a particular instance, WP:RSN is the place to get an opinion on the issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed the source re what Prager said should be Prager, as WP:IRS says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." For example, the article has a quote "entirely manufactured by the Left" with a cite to the New York Times, but he actually wrote the sentence with those words in National Review, and that has context (such as the full sentence), so that's what should be cited. I'd say WP:PRIMARY doesn't say otherwise, we could argue if someone makes such an assertion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The quotes are only relevant because of the secondary sources, but we could do without the quotes if necessary in order to prevent this article from being used as a soapbox or giving undue weight to anything. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Our policies are clear on this. Primary sources are acceptable per WP:PRIMARY. Furthermore, including Prager's own comments from his website, Twitter feed or his blog is not a violation of policy.

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities..." WP:ABOUTSELF

– Lionel^(talk) 05:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

If you'll read just a little further in ABOUTSELF, you'll see five qualifiers that help us avoid violating other policies, especially NOT and POV. It's repeated at WP:BLPSELFPUB with slightly different wording. I think the first three of the five may apply depending upon the specific viewpoints, but the first always is an issue. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

• When it is a relevant citable fact that the subject of an article has made particualr statements or expressed particualr views, that person should usually be quoted directly, using a relaible source that has verified the quote. His own published works (including his web site) can be a relaible source for this purpose. WP:SELFPUB says:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

A source which gives a fuller version of a quote should usually be preferd to one that lacks fuller context. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

NPR claims that Prager "targets multiculturalism, Muslims, and LGBTQ people" in the cited piece. I contacted them to ask for their evidence of this, and in response they added links to the piece to provide their evidence. It seems to me reasonable to link their evidence rather than the NPR article, and in place of the characterization of Prager as "targeting" these groups, I'd suggest writing "Prager is well known for a number of his controversial political positions. For example, he has argued that multiculturalism is a "morality-denying doctrine", he has called on Muslim spokespeople to condemn violence in the name of Islam, and he opposes judicial decisions that overturn laws banning same-sex marriage." This, it seems to me, would provide a more informative and factual report of the views that NPR was trying to report based on the links they provided. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

If one was to promote Prager, that's the way to do it. We should not, per WP:SOAP and WP:POV. We care what the independent, reliable sources have to say. In this case, it's that Prager "targets multiculturalism, Muslims, and LGBTQ people". --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, suppose that for the reasons you give we should keep the claim that he "targets multiculturalism, Muslims, and LGBTQ people" in the piece. What would you say to adding the additional information from NPR that the linked stories are evidence for their claim? For example, we could revise it like this: "Prager is well known for a number of his controversial political positions. For example, he has argued that multiculturalism is a "morality-denying doctrine", he has called on Muslim spokespeople to condemn violence in the name of Islam, and he opposes judicial decisions that overturn laws banning same-sex marriage. On these grounds, NPR has said that he is an "outspoken conservative" who "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." If we were to edit the opening sentences in this section in this way, we would not be taking anything away from what is already reported there, but would only be adding information that is present in the NPR piece. I would argue that such a change would provide additional information from the NPR piece that improves neutrality and makes it more informative. I think that some readers would read that revised version and think NPR was being totally reasonable in describing Prager as "targeting" in this way, while others would read it and think that NPR was being unfair. But everyone would have all the facts at that point. Seems like an improvement to me.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, this comes across as marketing. Pulling information out of context and highlighting it in that manner once again creates SOAP and POV problems.

The fact is, he's not well known, at least not enough to have much written about him of any substance. We require substance. Sound-bytes, puffery, and ambiguous statements simply don't make for an encyclopedic treatment. --Ronz (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand your reply. I'm proposing that the piece should include more information from the NPR article. If you don't like the wording I proposed, then we can write it a different way. But the underlying idea is to simply include additional specific information from the NPR piece in order to improve informativeness and neutrality. Can you reply to that suggestion?Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The NPR simply has little substance and encyclopedic value to draw upon. --Ronz (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, I do not understand your reply. I am claiming that there is information provided in the article that is of encyclopedic value, namely the evidence the piece draws on for the assertion that Prager "targets multiculturalism, Muslims, and LGBTQ people." You appear to be claiming that the bald assertion about "targeting" is of encyclopedic value, while the basis for making for this claim, which the NPR reporter herself provides in her story, is not of encyclopedic value. But that's an obviously absurd position, so I must not understand your reply.Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Then I suggest you follow the advice on your talk page for the reasons given there. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Your advice was not to edit this page until I have more experience, since I am a new user. Thank you for this advice. However, I think the proposal to include the evidence that the NPR reporter appealed to in the piece was a reasonable proposal, and and I would like to hear additional comments on it if possible. I'd really like to hear from someone else, so I think I'll post a request for comments on this.Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should NPR evidence be included?

The article currently quotes NPR as saying that Prager "targets multiculturalism, Muslims, and LGBTQ people." The NPR article in question also provides evidence for this claim. I have suggested that this evidence should be included in the piece to make it more informative what the NPR report is getting at. Ronz disagrees, and apparently takes the view that while the assertion about Prager targeting these things is of encyclopedic value, the evidence for this claim about targeting is not of encyclopedic value. Ronz also believes that I should not pursue this matter further, as I am a new user. Perhaps he is right, and I apologize if I'm in violation of some policy. But, since I felt I had made a reasonable suggestion in good faith, I was hoping to get some more people to give a perspective on this matter.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'd suggest sticking with the NPR source as it is a reliable third-party source. I would not suggest that we get into the sources which NPR cites for their "targets multiculturalism, Muslims, and LGBTQ people" statement. Since those sources are written by the subject, they are essentially first-party sources. It is not our job to distill the subject's writings to come up with a statement about the subject's general views. The NPR source has done this for us... used the first-party sources to make a statement. Therefore it is in good form to cite the NPR source (and the inline attribution makes it even stronger!) for the statement in question. Beyond that, I think this is a good learning experience for you as a Wikipedia editor and would encourage you to stay involved; however, you may want to avoid getting overly wrapped up in controversial articles while you're learning the swing of things around here... but that decision is yours to make. Best of luck and happy editing! SueDonem (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, SueDonem. I'm surely learning! It seems to me that including the NPR reporter Garcia-Novarro's evidence, which she cites in her piece, does not require us to "distill the subject's writings to come up with a statement about the subject's general views." Rather, we just need to find a neutral way of describing the specific evidence that was cited. I tried this above and Ronz didn't like what I came up with. Fair enough: as you say, this is a controversial article. But surely it isn't impossible for us to build a consensus on a brief and neutral description of the evidence that the Garcia-Novarro is relying on, is it? Such an inclusion of her evidence is just adding facts to the piece. On the other hand, I think that leaving the piece as-is arguably allows Garcia-Novarro a soapbox for her more or less obvious anti-Prager view, it allows her (via Wikipedia) to give those who don't know anything about Prager--among the most common to come to his wikipedia page, no doubt--a very negative impression of him, and it therefore violates neutrality. So my view is that the soapbox and neutrality complaint can very reasonably be made by both sides, so why not just put all the information out there (as Garcia-Novarro does!), in a neutral way, so that the reader can make his or her own judgment?Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe your suggestion may lead to a WP:SYNTH violation. Other than saying that the NPR source references these three pieces to support its "targets multiculturalism, Muslims, and LGBTQ people" conclusion, I'm not really clear how you'd like to use those three first-party sources. Would it be to make an argument that the NPR article is wrong in it's assessment of the subjects views on multiculturalism, Muslims, and LGBTQ people? If that's the case, it's a Wikipedia policy violation for sure. On the other hand, if you found a reliable, third-party source which claims that the subject does not target multiculturalism, Muslims, and LGBTQ people, then that could likely be included. Just remember, we are not here to construct arguments for-or-against a subject; we are merely here to report on what is verifiable by reliable (preferably third-party) sources. Hope that helps! SueDonem (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for your reply. It would be a SYNTH violation only if we draw a conclusion from several sources. But we would not be doing that if we followed my suggestion: we would be appealing to a single source, namely, the third-party NPR piece by Garcia-Novarro, who cites the three Prager pieces as evidence for her assertion about him. We do not need to argue that the NPR article is wrong. We can just say: Garcia-Novarro interprets Prager's piece on this and that topic to support an assertion that he "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." That doesn't amount to relying on the first-party writing at all, beyond just stating that she relies on those articles (as in fact she does) and giving a brief, neutral description of the topics of those pieces. I take it you think that it is just impossible to give a brief, neutral description of the topics of the first-party pieces without relying on them, or without giving Prager a soap box. But that seems to me both implausible and to ignore the competing worry about Garcia-Novarro having a soapbox. Surely it is possible to describe her basis in a neutral way without criticizing her or giving him a soapbox. My stab at doing this is to say that the three Prager pieces are (i) a piece that criticizes multiculturalism, (ii) a piece arguing that Muslim spokespeople should be asked to condemn violence done in the name of Islam, and (iii) a piece arguing that judges should not overturn laws against same-sex marriage that were passed by majority vote. These are not tendentious descriptions of his work, I think. But maybe you disagree. My main point is that it seems possible to describe his pieces without relying on them or promoting their content. Doing this would just add factual information to our article and create a more neutral and fully informed presentation of the Garcia-Novarro report. I have a sense of progress in this discussion. I hope you do to; I really do appreciate the constructive tone, and your effort to understand where I'm coming from.Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

We are able to cite what the reliable third-party says about the primary sources. That's not giving the reliable third-party source a "soapbox". Rather, that's precisely what Wikipedia is... citing reliable third-party sources to neutrally present verifiable information. The third-party sources themselves might not be neutral, but our job is to cover what is verifiable neutrally. Those primary sources are sourced in the third-party source. If a researcher wants to know how the author arrived at the conclusion, they are free to click through to the third-party source. But we cannot present those primary sources as a means to support what the third-party source is saying. It seems to me that your main contention is the word "targets". You feel this phrase is too harsh or incendiary. Is that correct? SueDonem (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think the use of 'target' is incendiary and expresses Garcia-Novarro's controversial opinion about Prager. This is made better in her actual piece by the inclusion of the links that are her evidence. But when it is translated to the wikipedia article, the links are absent and so her assertion is not presented as her controversial opinion but rather as if it is just a factual report. For this reason, I would prefer to paraphrase her point, which I take to be that he has controversial opinions about these topics. Or, if not that, then I think we should include her evidence.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Without discussing the primary sources, how would you proposed to rewrite this? According to National Public Radio, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." Please just give me your suggestion next. Thank you. SueDonem (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a proposal, though I'm open to alternative suggestions: "According to NPR, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who holds a number of controversial opinions about multiculturalism, Muslims, and LGBTQ people."Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that's a pretty good re-write which may garner support from other editors. Maybe propose that in a new and separate section of this Talk page outside this RfC. And then be open to other editors' suggestions and opinions. Nice work. SueDonem (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I've added the separate section below.Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• Do not include - I'll suggest in general just WP:PARAPHRASE the gist of NPR, do not go thru the evidence unless the evidence is independently notable in being shown by other RS. And I'd suggest that the article text attribute the NPR conclusion 'according to NPR'. Going into the evidence is sort of circular logic display of NPR providing the conclsion and then NPR being source of NPR evidence... the additional detail would not be a help in article text and it is visible if folks go to the cited material. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems totally reasonable to me. Here's a proposal along these lines. Alter the sentence in question to read "According to NPR, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who holds a number of controversial opinions about multiculturalism, Muslims, and LGBTQ people." This seems to me a good paraphrase of the point being made in the NPR piece; those interested in which opinions are deemed controversial can go the the NPR report, where they will find the charge that he "targets" these groups together with links to the pieces that are being interpreted that way. I think this would be a huge improvement in terms of neutrality.Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

• no it is excessive detail. The current content is appropriate per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. What we do here, generally, is summarize independent, secondary sources; we do not rely on primary sources to drive content. This proposal is based on a misunderstanding of what we do here, and why. Shinealittlelight I suggest you read user:Jytdog/How, which I wrote to try to help new editors understand how we build content, and why we do it that way. Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I made two different proposals above, and I'm not sure which one you are talking about. Neither proposal relies on primary sources, as explained. The current article violates NPOV, and the proposals (both of them) mitigate this. Perhaps you disagree, but you're not saying why you disagree.Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I responded directly to both proposals in the RfC in the first two sentences. The current content does not violate NPOV. You are not listening to anybody and there is no point in responding to you further. Jytdog (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I frustrated you, it is not my intention. I am trying to be responsive to the concerns that are raised. For example, in response to SueDonem's claims that my proposal to include the evidence would rely on the first-part source, I argued that it would not rely on that source, but would only rely on the third-party NPR report from Garcia-Novarro. And, in response to Markbassett's alternative suggestion that we "paraphrase the gist of the NPR report" rather than including their evidence, I agreed with his proposal and suggested some specific wording that would in my view improve neutrality significantly. So maybe I'm wrong on all counts here--neutrality is not easy, I think--but it is unfair to say I'm not listening to anyone, or that I'm somehow not being responsive to the points being made. I tend to agree with you that my proposal to include the evidence is "excessive detail". I would prefer my proposed paraphrase of Garcia-Novarro's point to fix what I see as a clear violation of NPOV in the current version. You have asserted that I'm wrong that the current content violates NPOV. Do you really not see how someone might reasonably think that Garcia-Novarro is expressing a controversial opinion in describing him as "targeting" gays and Muslims?Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever concept of "neutrality" you are working with, has nothing to do with WP:NPOV. There is no violation of NPOV here and your trying to "fix" it amounts to just throwing mudpies at the wall to see what will stick for people who do understand NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree. I think you're accepting the Garcia-Novarro report uncritically because NPR is a generally reliable source and they published her opinion as a news piece. This is itself a misunderstanding of WP:RS, which clearly states that reliability is case-by-case.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

What is your basis for calling this "her opinion". Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The evidence she bases her statement that he "targets" gays and Muslims are pieces which Prager (i) call on Muslim spokespersons (not Muslims in general) to condemn violence done in the name of Islam, and (ii) he thinks that judges should not overturn laws against same-sex marriage that were passed by the voters. These are mainstream conservative opinions--controversial, for sure, but mainstream. To say that mainstream conservative opinions on these topics amount to "targeting" these groups is clearly an opinion. If you don't see that, I don't know what else to say and I think we are at an impasse.Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This is reporting, not opinion. This is what we use reliable sources for. I get it that you don't like this reporting. That is too bad. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We're at an impasse. I repeat myself: I think you're accepting the Garcia-Novarro report uncritically because NPR is a generally reliable source and they published her opinion as a news piece. This is itself a misunderstanding of WP:RS, which clearly states that reliability is case-by-case.Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah you can keep repeating that; it doesn't make it any more persuasive to me and is unlikely to persuade anyone else. You don't how I work in WP but I am very critical of sources, all the time. Reporting is reporting. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I didn't expect it to persuade you. As I said, we're at an impasse. I think there's a typo in your last comment. I think you meant to say that I don't know how you work in WP. That's certainly true, and irrelevant to the present case. Here you are insisting that because the NPR story is a news report, and NPR is generally reliable, we must take all content from the report to be reliable. That's a violation of policy in my view. You will of course disagree, and I see no reason to continue discussing it. You have sure taken an angry tone with me, and I am very sad about that, and wish we could be constructive, even if we are unable to build a consensus together. In any case, I do appreciate your taking the time to reply to me.Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Balancing the Views Section

A reasonable way to balance the Views section of the Dennis Prager article would be to indicate who posted each comment and then to post Mr. Prager's response to each comment. For example: The first item in the Views section is a negative criticism of Mr. Prager's position on Keith Ellisons's having taken the oath of office with his hand on the Koran. Conspicuously missing it the identity of the person or persons who posted this comment. More importantly, it would be helpful to know Mr. Prager's responses to the charges. This approach would make the Prager article more interesting, as well as more informative. 71.84.5.132 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not how WP works. Wikipedia is neutral per WP:NPOV not "balanced". Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The new editor is correct. That is exactly how Wikipedia works. They just don't know the policies. I do. And here it is:

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it ... If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." (emph. mine) WP:WELLKNOWN

– Lionel^(talk) 05:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that ArbCom Enforcement applies.

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented Seems like these qualifiers are being ignored, as are my concerns that Wikipedia is not soapbox. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not guarantee article subjects the last word. If someone is objectively wrong, we certainly do not close by quoting them saying how they are right really, for example - and we can ignore their statements altogether if they are obvious self-serving twaddle. Importantly, we are also at liberty to say "while $PERSON denies $THING, $RELIABLESOURCES have $EVIDENCE". Nothing in the policy mandates the subject having the final say, or requires us to offer false balance. We are not a newspaper. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy is quite correct above. However, when specific accusations or allegations have been published, and a response to them has also been madeby the subject and published by reliable sources, that response should generally be quoted or mentioned. It need not come last, and it need not be given undue weight. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It was suggested above that A reasonable way to balance the Views section of the Dennis Prager article would be to indicate who posted each comment and then to post Mr. Prager's response to each comment. If the editor with an IP ending in 132 means to identify the Wikipedia contributor who added mention of any issue to an article, that is what the article history is for. If that editor means to identify people who express opinions about Prager, yes, that should generally be done. However if it is a citeable fact that Prager has done certain things, or expressed particular views, we need not specify individuals who first raised objections to those acts or statements, but notable opinions that are relevant should perhaps be mentioned, and if mentioned, should of course be properly attributed and cited. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

All editors to this page should be aware that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions apply to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people which quite definitely includes this page.

Editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:

1. adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
2. comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
3. follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
4. comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
5. refrain from gaming the system.

Please keep this in mind during current discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

recent deletion of content

In this edit, Ronz removed sourced content critical of Prager with the summary same content previously rejected twice, 13 and 15 June 2017. Only the second of the two points deleted had as far as i can tell been previously removed, that is Prager's statement about a false accusation of rape. And that was removed by Ronz, without any talk page discussion that I can find in the archive of this page. The part where he is said to have claimed that the number or reported rapes and assaults on campuses was being exaggerated had not previously been removed from the article as far as i can tell, surely not on the specified dates. That doesn't prove that the content should stay, but please be accurate in summaries. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring, in a BLP to restore disputed content without consensus, twice without the use of edit summaries : 15 June , 13 June , 11 June 2018 --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither of the previous (2017) edits included the text:

Prager claimed during a Republican rally in Florida in 2014 that the number of reported rapes and sexual assaults on college campuses were being exaggerated by Democrats in order to gain votes. The Republican organizers of the event called the comment "inappropriate."

References

That text has never been discussed here, Ronz, it is sourced, and there was no consensus for its removal. The other text, which had previously been removed, could have been removed again without removing unrelated text in the same edit. Is there any reason why i shouldn't restore it? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You're correct. While the topic of rape was brought up, the context was different. My mistake. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is the repeated content:

In another column, Prager wrote that a false accusation of rape can be "worse" than being physically raped, a notion that received criticism 13 June 2017

In a published column, Prager wrote that a false accusation of rape can be "worse" than being physically raped, a notion that received criticism. 11 June 2018

I think that content is close enough that edit-warring applies. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

there was no consensus for its removal. Consensus is required for inclusion, not removal. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe you're right. Re-inserting without consensus looks to me inconsistent with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE because your edit was good faith and there are indications that the text you removed wasn't done with great care. The cited source doesn't say that the one (1) person used for the "inappropriate" quote was in fact the "organizers of the event", and a better -- or at least more complete-looking -- source would have been the Sarasota Herald Tribune where we see Prager objecting to the way assaults are defined. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

So where are we at? Can any/all of these deletions go back in? Localemediamonitor (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest editors wanting to include the material break it down into separate proposals, and please focus on content.

Please remember that Prager is in the business of creating interest in himself, so we're always going to have to be watch for WP:NOT problems, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS.

Even if we fixed the verification problems that Peter Gulutzan points out, I'm not sure that two local news reports made soon after the event demonstrate any encyclopedic value. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Churnalism

@Ronz:, re. these edits, I'm familiar with churnalism, specifically company press releases being shopped around to media outlets and oftentimes misleadingly being republished under newspaper mastheads (such as by PR Newswire). I've never known The Hollywood Reporter to engage in this practice, though. It seems to meet the basic standards for WP:RS and a look through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard shows it has generally been regarded as such. Has something changed, and how do we go about identifying churnalism (is there a process for this?) (THR is currently used as a reference in 20,000 articles, so if there is a broader issue with reliability here, it would have wide implications.) Marquardtika (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "churnalism" was the best reason to remove that, but i agree with the removal. Prager is apparently unhappy with this page, accurately recording what he actually wrote and this page has been beset by all kinds of people trying to add content just as you did, giving Prager's take on it. This has been discussed to death here. Given that you will need to get consensus to add this. Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, didn't realize this had been discussed here already. I'll take a look at the past discussion. FWIW, I added the content because I think it's pretty much always worth noting if an article subject disagrees with the way their views have been described (however accurately). But that may be a minority view. Marquardtika (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Deb, Sopan (2017-08-07). "Santa Monica Symphony Roiled by Conservative Guest Conductor". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-08-27.

Bond, Paul (August 10, 2017). "Dennis Prager Lashes Out at N.Y. Times Over Orchestra Controversy". Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 13 July 2018.

Thanks for starting a discussion. The Hollywood Reporter ref as it was used was simply a voice for Prager in this context, and the author, Paul Bond, notes and qualifies Prager's claims to a large extent, hence how it was used in this article comes across as churnalism. Sorry if I use the term inaccurately in a way that caused confusion.

Basically, the changes removed the NYTimes reporting from Wikipedia's voice and qualified the material, while giving more voice to Prager without noting the qualifications that Paul Bond included. --Ronz (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Got it. I do think it could be worth including (in a more artful way than I had evidently done) the back and forth between Prager and NYT (which THR covers). According to THR, he asked NYT to issue a correction, but they declined, as there was no correction to issue. It is a weird situation, as he clearly wrote the odd stuff about incest, and the NYT accurately reported that...and then it seems he is basically saying, as best I can tell, that the writing didn't mean what people think it means (i.e. he doesn't want to stone the gays). Maybe this gets into too much nuance. But it does seem to me worth mentioning that he disputes the NYT. Marquardtika (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

People sometimes don't like it when the press reports on things they do. That is not our concern. The NYT did not issue a retraction; they do issue retractions when they make mistakes. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe this gets into too much nuance Way too much. This is not some private person, but someone whose business it is to promote certain viewpoints. We need to be careful how caught up we get in Prager's publicity campaigns. --Ronz (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• by the way this bit of content that was then elaborated and then moved to its own section, about him conducting a "sold-out performance" is both promotional and trivial per WP:NOTNEWS. I removed it. The encyclopedic, enduring content that arose from that incident is his view on same sex marriage. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep. And I just noticed that this bit about "No Safe Spaces" was authored by Paul Bond and looks like routine news coverage of an announcement. That leaves it mentioned in the Filmography section, but I wonder if a bit more might be due, especially teaming with Adam Carolla. --Ronz (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2018

"incorrect" should be removed from the "Islam" section, as this is extremely biased. Benjammin1997 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It was precedented, as the source cited points out. Please do review WP:NPOV. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

incorrect asssertion

The article says "Prager made the incorrect assertion that an oath on any book other than the Bible would be unprecedented." Mr. Prager never said this and the article referenced in the footnote doesn't say he said this. Please remove this statement.

 Done. You don't appear to be completely correct, but the source did not say "incorrect", and even if it does, almost everything is quoted. If you can think of a better word than unprecedented, feel free to edit. Next time, please sign your post by placing for tildes (~) at the end. -GDP⇧ 16:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted. The paragraph summarizes Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress, focusing on Prager's part.

Prager's comments about the use of the Bible for swearing in are incorrect in multiple respects, as is clear from that article. The section in this article should summarize it, though focusing on Prager. from talk page archive

Should we copy some of the refs from that article to this to better support the statement?--Ronz (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Ronz (talk), Yes. I looked through the citation and thought I didn't see anything saying the assertion was incorrect. Maybe I missed something. It would be easier to verify if we add refs or more sources. -GDP⇧ 07:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I've added one. There are some others in Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress that we could use if there are still concerns. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Quoting out of context

The use of his statement “unfit to be a presidential candidate, let alone president” is misleading and suspicious when taken out of context. The complete statement reads:

In 2011, Prager wrote that Trump, at the time bandying about the idea of a presidential run, was “unfit to be a presidential candidate, let alone president,” because of his repeated use of the word “fuck.”

This needs to be fixed to include the complete sentence because leaving this as is exhibits an obvious bias.

The following sentences and their sources provide the context. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of opening remarks in the "Views" section

The opening of the "Views" section, we have this: "According to National Public Radio, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people."" I think that the following paraphrase significantly improves neutrality: "According to National Public Radio, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who holds a number of controversial opinions about multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." It seems to me that this proposal captures the factual content of the NPR report in a more neutral fashion than the direct quote, especially because it avoids the incindiary term 'targets'. I am of course open to alternative suggestions for rewording the sentence.Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Nobody really cares what "opinions" people have; what matters is what people do with them. What the current content expresses, is that he does things. "Targets" is an active verb. This content fails NPOV by mushifying what is important here. Jytdog (talk)

I think you and I are at an impasse, as above. I'd like to hear what others have to say. As I said above, I think you're accepting the Garcia-Novarro report uncritically because NPR is a generally reliable source and they published her opinion as a news piece. This is a misunderstanding of WP:RS, which clearly states that reliability is case-by-case.Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I asked you above to provide the basis for your claim that this is "her opinion". Please answer - you may as well do so here. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Answered above.Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yep, and what you wrote is incorrect and invalid. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. I'm hoping to hear from others as well, who may not agree.Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

In your response above, you didn't respond to the key objection. Nobody cares about opinions people "hold"; what matters is what they do with them. The proposal for the passive-ish "holds" does not summarize the source and is basically WP:WEASEL and so fails NPOV. Think about a different active verb describing what he does that is summarizing what high quality sources say he does. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a fair critique and a reasonable suggestion. Shinealittlelight, how about coming up with a different active verb than target and see if how others respond to that? SueDonem (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that the word choice is the problem. I don't know what a "passive-ish" verb is. But I agree that my formulation in terms of 'holds' is not synonymous with the source's formulation in terms of 'targets'. That's in fact the point: I am suggesting that my formulation gives the clear, factual content in her report without using the controversial and incendiary use of 'target'. I think that so long as I provide a formulation not equivalent to the original, Jytdog will say that I'm violating NPOV. I think that's because Jytdog accepts NPR across the board as a reliable source, and is unwilling to consider that maybe this particular example from NPR involves some bias. But, just to play along, I'll suggest an alternative formulation, which I fully expect Jytdog to dislike: "According to National Public Radio, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who [advances/advocates/asserts/expresses] a number of controversial claims about multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." This is of course not a formulation that is equivalent to what Garcia-Novarro has written, because in my view what she wrote includes an implication that Prager is a bigot who is unfair to certain groups, and I'm trying to paraphrase in a way that leaves that part of what she said out, since it's plainly editorializing on her part.Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"Targeting" is clearly imprecise given the subject of our biography. He doesn't "target" anyone or anything. He "holds" opinions that some disagree with, obviously. The source is itemizing the factors that a particular audience disagrees with. Bus stop (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, aside from the very general verbs I've suggested ('holds', 'advances', 'advocates', 'asserts', 'expresses') there is no single thing that he does with his views. And it's particularly weird to say that he "targets" multiculturalism. I mean, he disagrees with multiculturalism, sure, and he thinks it is a destructive doctrine and he advocates that people not believe it. But he doesn't "target" it.Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

What I wrote is "Think about a different active verb describing what he does that is summarizing what high quality sources say he does." If you would rather make shit up about my motivations and not do that, well that is your own dead end alley for this thread. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"Targets" suggests that he advocates actions, which he does not. These are conversational presentations. They are low-keyed. He "shares his thoughts" with others. I don't think Prager cares if anyone does anything or nothing in response to his presentations. It represents a tinge of bias to characterize what he does as "targeting" anyone or anything. Just sharing your thoughts should not be characterized as "targeting" anything. He doesn't suggest that his listeners do anything at all. They come to listen. That is the totality of the experience for listeners and speaker alike. Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, Bus stop. I think he advocates actions, but not actions that can all be summarized by one word, and he certainly doesn't "target" anyone. The actions he advocates in this case are: (i) not believing in multiculturalism anymore, (ii) condemning violence done in the name of the group on behalf of which you are a spokesperson (if you are one), and (iii) not overturning certain laws against same-sex marriage if you're a judge. So these are real actions, but not actions that can be summarized by a single word. That's why I suggest a paraphrase in terms of "advancing controversial opinions". But you and I definitely agree that 'target' is inaccurate and biased.Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The key distinction is between actions and ideas. His primary focus is on presenting ideas. Actions can follow ideas. But his preoccupation appears to be articulating ideas. The writer is not wrong in using the word "targets" but it is not the most apt term. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I have responded to your point, Jytdog, by making some proposals. I expect you won't agree with me, as is your right. But I'll thank you to maintain a civil tone and not curse at us. I would also like to point out that if we disagree, and cannot build consensus, that is not necessarily a "dead end alley". I am following the guidelines for dispute resolution. For my part, I still want to hear what you think, but I would like to keep a civil tone please.Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Prager is a talking head. His actions are indeed speech acts. So the verbs offered like "advocates" or "advances" are better. Part of the problem that I didn't address yet is the "controversial ideas" phrasing; based on that weasel phrasing, he could perhaps promote multiculturalism, advocate for gay marriage, and, say, want to give sharia law in place in the US. The advantage of something in the semantic field of "target" is a) it is active; and b) one can infer that he is attacking. Jytdog (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Targeting" implies "aims to destroy". Does Prager say "go out there and tackle this problem head-on"? That would be a mischaracterization of what he does. He juggles ideas. Yes, consequences flow from ideas. But "targets" suggests immediacy of results. It is an inapt term. His ideas are also all over the place. They are not confined to "multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." Is it apt to say that he "targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people" when he is musing about the role of "the American experiment", or what he sees as one's "moral duty to be happy"? And on and on and on—his subject matter is wide-ranging. When he compares socialism to capitalism, is he "targeting" multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people? Most of the time he is not even speaking about "multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people". When he is distinguishing between "liberals" and "leftists" is he "targeting" multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people? It would be more correct to say that occasionally he has made reference to multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people. The NPR source presents a particular perspective. The source says "Santa Monica is a famously liberal town." Prager is conducting a symphony orchestra in a "famously liberal town." The writer of that source is highlighting the clash in sensibilities between many of the musicians in that orchestra and Prager. "Target" is an appropriate word to use to emphasize the clash in sensibilities between the conductor and the musicians. But in the context of our article it is sufficient to merely point out that Prager "holds" very different ideas on for instance multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people. I think it is important not to make a simplistic caricature of Prager but rather to allude to some of his qualities as noted by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bus stop that the NPR piece isn't very good for these and other reasons. Does anyone know of a better piece from a reliable source that gives an overview of the sorts of views that Prager advances? I'll look around later and see what I can find.Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This Atlantic piece provides a general characterization of Prager as "an unapologetic public moralist who champions Judeo-Christian values in American life." This seems to me to be preferable to the NPR characterization. But I see that Ronz apparently regarded the Atlantic (not sure if it was this piece) as unreliable in discussion above. Thoughts?Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I think The Atlantic is a reliable source. The wording "an unapologetic public moralist who champions Judeo-Christian values in American life" is a description of Prager that lacks the more strident tone of the NPR article. We are merely trying to portray the man rather than put any particular "spin" on his presence in the current societal environment. Bus stop (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't only "champion" things (talk about them positively); he attacks others as well as part of his public advocacy. The Atlantic piece is btw very much a political essay; it sets up Prager's self-description as a moralist to draw in Prager fans and set up the contradictions with that, with regard to his support for Trump, then says this has shattered Prager's credibility, and ends with the very essay-like conclusion "Perhaps setting all this down will help folks on the right who are angry at Never Trump conservatives to better understand the wisdom of the choice they’ve made. Never Trumpers correctly believe that they cannot support Trump without abandoning their long-held principles while undermining the place of those principles in civic life. Seeing what supporting Trump has done to Prager’s principles should reassure Never Trumpers that rejecting the GOP nominee is the best course." The line you quote is part of the rhetorical framework, drawing in Prager fans as part of the persuasive effort. The section of this page drawing on that as a source does a pretty good job of avoiding the essay-like parts; this quote draws directly from it. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're worried about, Jytdog. We could write something like this: "According to National Public Radio, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who advances a number of controversial claims. For example, he is critical of multiculturalism, and he calls on Muslim spokespeople to condemn violence in the name of Islam, and he opposes judicial decisions that overturn elected laws against same-sex marriage." The problem I see with this proposal is that it seems to make parts of the subsequent discussion in the section redundant. E.g., the section on "LGBT Rights" starts with the statement that he "opposes same-sex marriage" so we'd end up repeating that line unless we made another change. I think that the formulation I suggested before ("According to National Public Radio, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who advances a number of controversial claims about multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people") is acceptable because (i) this is the introduction to the section, (ii) it says he's an outspoken conservative, which gives the reader some idea of what sorts of views he advances, and (iii) the views are immediately detailed below. If you like, we could write "(see below)" at the end to indicate that these things are clarified below in the article, so that the proposal would be: "According to National Public Radio, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who advances a number of controversial claims about multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people".Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is still not summarizing the source, which is indeed the goal as you noted above. This page has been battered by Prager fans and this round of bludgeoning is just the latest. The other thing to note here is that this sentence is also a WP:LEAD for the section; it got a source due to all the battering of this page by Prager fans who see the sentence as controversial. It is just summarizing what is below. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe we're at a dead end, other than seeing if the NOT-, OR-, and POV-violating arguments demonstrated here escalate into anything further. ArbCom enforcement applies here, and I'd hate to see a new editor be formally sanctioned before making a single edit in article space. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Be "sanctioned" for what? User:Shinealittlelight made a good suggestion. "Policy" does not support mischaracterizing the subject of a biography. We don't always quote verbatim from a source. There is no compelling reason—policy-based or otherwise—that we must use the term "targets" specifically from this source. That source is not even analyzing Prager's politics. That is an article primarily concerned with the examination of such questions as "Is it possible to separate a person's views from the art he or she participates in?" By way of contrast The Atlantic article actually does address as a primary concern Prager's politics. I'm sure there are many articles on the political stances of Prager. Aren't we cherrypicking a source to portray the politics of Prager in the worst possible light? Some of the members of the orchestra described in that piece are troubled by Prager's other job. We read "Dennis Prager's day job, however, has members of the orchestra up in arms — and laying down their instruments. He is a conservative talk show host who often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." But do all share that perspective? One member of the orchestra is quoted as saying "Music trumps politics. That's how I approach this." A source should be appropriate. My main problem with The Atlantic source is that it is somewhat old. But in its favor it is actually an analysis of Prager's politics. There is no mention of Prager's involvement with music, conducting, or orchestras in The Atlantic article. We should be choosing sources that are appropriate for the material they are intended to support. It is less appropriate to choose a source relating to Prager's role conducting an orchestra and some orchestra members voicing objections to his political views than it is to use a source on his political views to portray his political views. We are discussing a sentence in the article with a section heading reading Views. Therefore we should prefer a source primarily addressing Prager's "views" rather than one addressing a few musicians in an orchestra Prager conducts. Bus stop (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, I think the discussion is still developing. I'm sorry that you've had some frustrating experiences on this page in the past. I have tried very hard not to be frustrating, but I think that if you don't like controversy, it's sort of an odd choice to be involved with a page like this. Obviously enough it is a controversial page, and is probably going to continue to be controversial. But, to my way of thinking, if people can be civil, give others the benefit of the doubt, refrain from cursing and threatening people, etc., then the discussion can just go on indefinitely (as it no doubt will), with the hope that reason prevails in the end and improvements are made. If I'm in violation of some policy just by respectfully throwing out some proposals and arguments on the talk page, then I apologize and welcome correction. So far, I don't see that I am in violation of any such policy. At least a couple of other editors have thought that some of my suggestions were at least worth talking about. I'm sorry you disagree, and I'm glad to hear your voice. But I would like to politely request that you maintain a civil demeanor, and please stop trying to discourage me from making contributions here. And, in any case, if I'm somehow out of line and I just can't see it, and the only way to correct me is to bring in ArbCom, then please feel welcome to do so.Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is reaching the point of Sealioning. Please stop cluttering the discussion with meta-crap about politeness and focus on the content and sourcing. If you are unaware please read WP:Civil POV pushing, WP:SPA, and WP:BLUDGEON which are all reasons that we actually do topic ban people. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Please make a clear proposal. Reviewing past discussions and the available references would help immensely. --Ronz (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

In response to "Please make a clear proposal" I will suggest the following: The article presently reads According to National Public Radio, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." I would change that to read: According to National Public Radio, Prager is an "outspoken conservative" who expresses opinions concerning "multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." The source may use the term "targets" but we need not. There is no action advocated by Prager. He is speaking about these and myriad other topics. He merely discusses these topics. And he discusses a huge number of other topics as well. If, in a talk, he mentions these topics, it is only momentarily, because his talks cover a wide range of topics. And no action whatsoever is advocated. You can't equate talking about something with "targeting" it. And the NPR article is not primarily about the views of Prager. It is primarily about the reaction of some members of the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra to having Prager as a conductor, and the article itself says that "Santa Monica is a famously liberal town". We should not be lifting the terminology "targets" out of that source and using it out of context. Bus stop (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems to me a reasonable proposal from Bus stop. I would also suggest that, if other editors disagree with this suggestion, I'd like to hear whether they think that the NPR source is free of editorial bias. I think it is not free of editorial bias, and I think Bus stop thinks that it is not free of editorial bias. But we need to try to reach consensus here, so we need to hear whether Ronz and Jytdog and others who may disagree with implementing Bus stop's suggestion think about the underlying issue of whether the NPR piece is free of editorial bias.Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal. Given what the NPR ref and others say, it seems a very good summary and would be a POV-violation to remove, even if the proposal wasn't based upon original research to promote personal viewpoints over those of the sources. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It is true that one of the difficult things about working on this topic is that the notability is so marginal. There are so few high quality independent sources outside of his bubble that have extensive discussion about him, per se. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, I'm not sure if saying that I'm "sealioning" is calling me a name; it certainly doesn't feel like it's very nice! But despite that, I think you make good points above about the Atlantic piece, and I think I agree that using that quote out of context is sort of out of the spirit of the overall piece. Also, I agree that there's a lack of high quality third-party sources on Prager that summarize his overall views, and that this creates difficulty. I think (I don't know if you agree with this) that most of the pieces on him seem to be focused on attacking him in one way or another, which makes it difficult to get factual content about what he actually advocates. If we could agree that this was true--that the high-quality sources on him are all somewhat critical of him--then perhaps we could at least agree that as editors we need to find a way to separate the factual information in one of the existing pieces from the editorial content. That's basically what I've been suggesting and trying to do in the latter part of this discussion. I will think more about what other proposal I could make that might more fully summarize the factual content of the NPR piece. I do agree that the proposals so far are not ideal. (Hey, that's progress, right?)Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What you are fundamentally misunderstanding is that NPOV =/= "not negative". All the high quality independent sources do report negative things about him, and continually trying to frame that as "opinion" that is "critical" is simply tendentious per WP:TENDENTIOUS. You are reading hard against the surface of high quality sources. Stop doing that. I mean that. Stop it. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I accept your point that NPOV =/= "not negative". You're definitely right about that. And forgive me if I have made that mistake in this discussion. But Prager is being characterized by Garcia-Novarro as "targeting" gays and Muslims because he advocates mainstream conservative positions related to controversial topics involving these groups. Just to be clear: do you honestly think that this characterization is NPOV? That is: you think it is just a fact that mainstream conservative opinions "target" these groups?Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

It is your opinion that these are "mainstream conservative opinions". Each of our opinions do not matter here and are explicitly disallowed when discussing living people. Stop doing that. I mean that. Stop it. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Wait. When we assess the reliability of the NPR piece, we have to be able to assess whether it is NPOV. How are we to do that if we cannot make judgments about whether it contains editorial content?Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That is non-responsive. Reliability is not based on your opinions. As with the other threads you have opened, this entire thread is driven by your misunderstanding of everything we do here. What a "reliable source" is, what NPOV means, etc. Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

NPOV includes the idea that the article should avoid "editorial content". We therefore must assess sources like this NPR article for editorial content.Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit: sorry, I meant "editorial bias" not "editorial content".Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

God damn it. You have dodged/ground shifted three times in a row. Stop doing that. Stop it. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What you did do, was make it absolutely clear that you believe you have found a wikilawyering window through which you can classify negative content in high quality independent sources into "editorial bias" based on your opinion of what "mainstream conservative positions" are. We summarize high quality independent sources. Period. Keep your opinions out of these discussions. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

In WP:NPOV, the first sentence says that we should try to avoid editorial bias. All I am saying is that we must therefore assess the NPR source for editorial bias. This is not a tricky or advanced point. So I ask again: do you think the NPR source is free of editorial bias?Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That does not mean "treat everything that doesn't agree with your opinions as opinion" Stop doing that. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not doing that. I'm asking you whether you think that the NPR source is free of editorial bias in an attempt to reach consensus. It's true that I think it is not free of editorial bias. What I alone think is not determinative of how we should proceed, however: we are to reach consensus. And so we discuss and try to persuade, with a willingness to compromise and find a solution. But if you won't even tell me what you think about this, it's hard to reach a consensus with you!Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Diff: But Prager is being characterized by Garcia-Novarro as "targeting" gays and Muslims because he advocates mainstream conservative positions related to controversial topics involving these groups. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

That is an invalid analysis in Wikipedia. Stop doing that. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This is my basis for saying that the NPR source contains editorial bias, so it is not an invalid analysis. It is an expression of my basis for saying that the NPR source is not free of editorial bias. We are supposed to assess sources for editorial bias and try to build consensus about whether they are biased. But you will apparently not say what you think on this score.Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2018 (UTC)