![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities..." WP:ABOUTSELF
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:
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)
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)
@ 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)
Maybe this gets into too much nuanceWay 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Dennis Prager has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"incorrect" should be removed from the "Islam" section, as this is extremely biased. Benjammin1997 ( talk) 14:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
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.
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
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 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)
"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 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)
"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)
"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)
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)
Bus stop adds that "targets" suggests something too active (in practical terms)That is the personal opinion of Bus stop, which the discussions above show is an attempt to change the pov of the article by ignoring sources and their context. This is just more of the typical attempts to whitewash the article by fans of Prager and his views.
Jytdog thinks they don't adequately convey the negative side of Prager's approach ("attacking" as well as "championing")I'd say that is an outright misrepresentation. @ Morte: Please strike or substantiate with diffs. As Jytdog points out, "All the high quality independent sources do report negative things about him..." We're not looking to "convey a negative side", we're reporting what the best references we can find say. Attempts to "balance" what the sources say with personal opinion and personal biases is the problem here. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
He doesn't only "champion" things (talk about them positively); he attacks others as well as part of his public advocacy. "Negative" was clumsily phrased, I meant that Jytdog thinks changing to say only what Prager is in favor of, not what he attacks, would be to the detriment of the article. If Jytdog asks me to, I'll happily strike. › Mortee talk 16:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mortee, welcome aboard. The NPR source is not only less on-topic than The Atlantic source but it contains the word "targets" which I see as a problematic term. This is the NPR source and this is The Atlantic source. We are discussing the Views section of the article. Material for inclusion in the "Views" section has certain requirements. It should be general. It should present an overview of Prager. We are less interested in details and more interested in general themes. At present the "Views" section reads, in part, According to National Public Radio, Prager is an 'outspoken conservative' who 'often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people.' That is not a general overview. Those are details, and the selection process for those details remains unclear to the reader. Regardless of the "reliability" of the NPR source, the term "targets" is off-target. Doesn't the word "target" imply "taking aim at"? Prager's discourse is more of a meandering commentary. The first verbal definition for "target" at Wiktionary is "To aim something, especially a weapon, at (a target)." Is his speech comparable to a weapon? NPR is exaggerating. He doesn't "target" anything. The implication of the verb "target" is purposefulness and the intention of bringing about results. In order to remedy the flaws inherent in the term "targets" we would have to change it to something like "touches upon" or something similar. We could do that, with editorial consensus. But we don't have to use the NPR source in the Views section. The NPR source has as its primary concern the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra and the reaction of some of its members to having Prager as its conductor. The NPR source is not an article that could be called a general overview of the principles of Prager. By contrast The Atlantic article addresses the sweeping themes that motivate Prager. The title is "What Supporting Donald Trump Did to Dennis Prager's Principles". This is an article examining Pragers "principles". Its first sentence is a good overview of Prager: "The talk-radio host, writer, and speaker Dennis Prager has spent most of his career as an unapologetic public moralist who champions Judeo-Christian values in American life." That is the sort of material that is preferable for our "Views" section. Bus stop ( talk) 17:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Mortee's suggestion seems helpful. Here are some additional sources for consideration. I'm not making a proposal here, just drawing some attention to some stuff I found googling around. Jytdog, your thoughts on these sources would be appreciated.
He’s been called a hypocrite by “The Atlantic,” a dope by the “Huffington Post” and a spreader of lies by Media Matters. Even fellow conservatives such as Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz have recently taken him to task for his opinions.We have The Atlantic. It would be worthwhile to hunt the rest to see if they meet BLP for anything.
"unbalanced". It is bullshit. We don't just include willy-nilly bullshit if no one has a clue what it means. You say
As I said above, I think "targets" here means "criticises", not "persecutes" or worse.Then tell me, how does Prager criticize multiculturalism? Bus stop ( talk) 22:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The Commentary source is fine. We find good material in that source. For instance "Prager addresses ... race relations, capital punishment, abortion, pacifism, and religious extremism." For instance, quoting whole paragraphs: "He is not one to mince words. Capital punishment, he argues, is a moral imperative, being both just and compassionate. Single women should not bear children—it is selfish to conceive a child without a father. Contrary to current practice, social workers should encourage rather than discourage interracial adoption. An unmoderated pacifism is immoral, for it involves acquiescence in evil. Whatever the revisers of biblical language may say, we must go on depicting God as a father; young men, the primary perpetrators of criminal behavior, need to be reminded of the father’s civilizing role." I don't want to quote the whole article. There is much that can be written about Prager's views from that article. It would involve paraphrasing and quoting. Bus stop ( talk) 23:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi again, Mortee, I've made an attempt to write an overview of some of the "views" of Dennis Prager:
Prager responds to the argument that "other societies manage nicely without" capital punishment, by responding that those other societies "should count themselves lucky—perhaps they can afford the luxury; America, alas, cannot." Prager feels that "one’s attitude toward punishment in general, and toward the death penalty for murder in particular, offers a Rorschach test of one’s commitment to ethical monotheism." Prager is a religiously observant Jew who feels that God's "central demand is that people act decently toward one another." Prager addresses a range of issues, "among them race relations, capital punishment, abortion, pacifism, and religious extremism."
[4] In regards to race Prager writes
"The liberalism I learned held that the skin color of a person is no more important than his or her eye color; that the American ideal is integration, and that liberals must oppose segregation, yet today liberalism supports racial quotas, race-norming (grading an exam differently for members of different races), and segregating students in college dorms by race and ethnicity."
(The above is from "Think a Second Time", by Dennis Prager, August 30, 1996.)
Prager aligns himself with what he calls "classical liberalism", but he distinguishes that from contemporary liberalism, which he deems in part "responsible for the problems of widespread welfare dependency, the increase in out-of-wedlock births, the erosion of public-school standards, and the Balkanization of society along racial and ethnic lines."
I think the above is a reasonable overview of the views of Dennis Prager. Bus stop ( talk) 06:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any further thoughts about the two proposals that have been made above? Bus stop, are you withdrawing your request to drop the NPR source, at least for the time being? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 14:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is a concrete suggestion. Let us create a section within the Views section titled "Race". We have in the Commentary article the following: Since the late 1960’s, Prager writes mordantly, “liberalism has become identified with positions that were always regarded as Left or even radical, but not liberal, and sometimes not even moral.” Nowhere is this discrepancy more salient than with regard to race. The Commentary article then goes on to quote Prager as follows: "The liberalism I learned held that the skin color of a person is no more important than his or her eye color; that the American ideal is integration, and that liberals must oppose segregation, yet today liberalism supports racial quotas, race-norming (grading an exam differently for members of different races), and segregating students in college dorms by race and ethnicity." Following that quote the Commentary article says: In holding that racial identity matters more than individual behavior—color more than character—today’s liberalism is the very antithesis of ethical monotheism. Indeed, the racial philosophy of the contemporary Left, Prager notes, ironically echoes what was once the great “Lie of the Right”: the one which “enabled the Nazis to view ‘Aryans,’ no matter what their behavior, as inherently superior, and Jews, no matter what their behavior, as innately ‘subhuman.’” I think our article can contain all or part of the quote and our article could paraphrase that which the Commentary article says before and after the quote. Are there any preliminary responses to this suggestion? Bus stop ( talk) 15:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
"The liberalism I learned held that the skin color of a person is no more important than his or her eye color; that the American ideal is integration, and that liberals must oppose segregation, yet today liberalism supports racial quotas, race-norming (grading an exam differently for members of different races), and segregating students in college dorms by race and ethnicity."Please tell me what your objection would be to the inclusion of the above quote in a sub-section of the "Views" section titled "Race". You refer to "the concerns about the Commentary book review". Do you doubt that this is a verbatim quote from Prager? Wouldn't Commentary (magazine) be a reliable source for such a quote? Bus stop ( talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I want to propose that we table the question whether to expand the "views" section with further sections until we first agree on some wording for the introductory remarks in that section. Is that ok with everyone? Ronz, in my proposed rewrite of the opening remarks, I used the commentary piece, which had some nice language about the range of topics that he has taken up. You complained that the book is old and you speculated that the language from the commentary piece comes from a press release or media guide. Here are some considerations that may be relevant. First, you're right that it is one book, but it is a collection of forty-six essays that Prager wrote on a very wide range of different topics and over a long period of time. So I think that despite the fact that it is one book, it does give a good sense of the broad range of his thinking. Second, I'm not really sure what the evidential value is of a speculation that the language in the commentary source may have come from a press release. In any case, I understand that Commentary is a partisan source, but then so is the Mother Jones article I quoted. I want to suggest that there's some value to the reader of Wikipedia in hearing so many different perspectives from the many different sources I assembled in my proposal. You get a sense of how divided and mixed opinion of Prager is, and that's really the sense I think that we get from looking at all available sources. I agree with your point about the source being old--this could be fixed by saying that he takes up the relevant topics in his 1995 book. But that seems like an easy fix. An I addressing the worries you have about the Commentary source? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 18:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
A big bolus of COPYVIO was added back in March 2015 in these diffs. That is too far back to REVDEL. Argh. Jytdog ( talk) 00:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The above discussion has long since moved into the realm of
WP:TLDR. But I am going to make a few general observations as an uninvolved editor/admin who has been asked to look in...
|
Thanks for the advice, Jytdog! Here's my newest proposal. Comments and tweaks welcome. I would especially welcome any suggestions about how to give a sense of the age of the commentary piece.
References
Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
the first five books of the Hebrew Biblehave to have anything to do with his views to warrant inclusion in the text. I don't conceive of this section as only being about his views. It is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion, to include what could arguably be called extraneous material if it improves the overall article. We can of course still debate whether the mention of "the first five books of the Hebrew Bible" improves the article as a whole. I think it might. According to one source he has written "the most important book on the Torah in a generation". And even more importantly he cites "ethical monotheism" as an underpinning for the thoughts he espouses. This is surely "biblical" and our article benefits from articulating this. Bus stop ( talk) 12:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
"he abandoned the Modern Orthodoxy in which he was raised after he became an adult but retained many Jewish practices".In my opinion it would be sufficient to simply say he is a "Jew", and to leave it at that. In my opinion it is not even necessary to say that he is a "religious Jew". The sentence in the proposed text could simply say "He is a Jew, and has taught and written extensively on the first five books of the Hebrew bible." It is not even necessary to say that he is a "religious Jew". Prager touches upon religion. He does not delve deeply into religion as a rabbi might. Therefore I question the concern expressed for fine-tuning the language used to describe the sort of Jew he is. "Religious" is acceptable but I find much of the additional commentary to be excessive. He is not for instance a congregational rabbi so I question the impetus to add on the suggested language. He says that he's a "religious Jew" so I find that language acceptable and appropriate. But simply saying "He is Jewish and has taught and written extensively on the first five books of the Hebrew bible" would also be acceptable and appropriate. Bus stop ( talk) 00:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight—we go by sources. Which source says that he is a "practicing Jew"
? Which source says that he is a "believing Jew"
? You aren't presenting sources. The
American Council for Judaism (1998) says:
Beyond this, as Dennis Prager, an Orthodox Jew and radio talk show host points out, "Since antiquity people have been predicting the demise of the Jews, some with dread, others with glee. But despite all the travails and tests faced by Jews over the centuries, it is only of late that such predictions seemed plausible, at least in the U.S. where Jewry is on its way to becoming half its present number.... This is not altogether a cause for lament ... the freedom of American Jews to assimilate is also a blessing — it means acceptance instead of bigotry.... Intermarriage is indeed a mixed curse. As a religious Jew myself, I want Jews to marry Jews for religious, not ethnic reasons. But intermarriage also represents great advantages — personal freedom and physical security. As Rabbi Leo Baeck, the German Jewish leader, said after World War II: 'If every German family had a Jewish relative, there would not have been a Holocaust.'" [6]
The above says that he is an Orthodox Jew. Dennis Prager himself says that "As a religious Jew myself, I want Jews to marry Jews for religious, not ethnic reasons." We should not follow the assertion in the source that says that he is "Orthodox" because other sources contradict this assertion. But we should follow the above assertion made by Prager that he is a "religious Jew" because no other source contradicts that assertion.
Bus stop (
talk)
01:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Prager explained to me that because “the universities have all but shut down, not to mention demonized, nonleft ideas,” and the media “are not far behind,” it is his duty to provide a conservative take “on things that matter—economics, good and evil, America, Israel, religion, God, etc.”Bus stop ( talk) 05:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
So the NPR ref is now a footnote at the very end, and the old book review is highlighted. It doesn't appear the sources are driving any of this. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The following may be far from uninteresting to assessing who DP is, so I took the liberty of adding it to the external links section: Who Is Dennis Prager? by Allen Estrin. Asteriks ( talk) 18:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, here's a revised version that incorporates the feedback above. Further thoughts welcome.
References
Shinealittlelight ( talk) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Prager advocates conservative views on a broad range of moral, political, and religious issues. [1] [2] Prager is Jewish and deeply religious; he abandoned the Modern Orthodoxy in which he was raised after he became an adult but retained many Jewish practices. [3] He believes that morality requires a religious basis, and that God primarily requires human beings to “act decently toward one another. [1] [2] He opposes the political advocacy of “leftists”, who he regards as undermining western civilization. [2] His moral and political views on these and other topics have garnered a wide range of both positive and negative reactions. Positive reactions include praise for his emphasis on thinking through moral issues, and his “cogent mind and humane sensibility.” [1] [4] [5] Critics, however, have sometimes accused Prager of hypocrisy, idiocy, and worse. [6] For example, NPR writes that he "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." [7] And Mother Jones writes that he holds views that are “irrational and apocalyptic”. [2]
References
--same as above, but actually giving a fuck about citations. No other comment at this point Jytdog ( talk) 21:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Ronz—you are writing "redundancy is not always a bad thing". Under discussion is a two-sentence lede. It only needs to be said in one of those two sentences that his perspective is a "conservative" one. It doesn't have to be said in both sentences. Bus stop ( talk) 12:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog—you write "as discussed on talk. and what kind of writer adds a quote to WP without attributing it". I've made this edit which provides for attribution. If there is still something that you take issue with concerning my edit please feel free to address it here. Thank you. Bus stop ( talk) 15:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
"He doesn't only "champion" things ... he attacks others as well"? I know I have asked you this before but you still have not responded. The source says "The talk-radio host, writer, and speaker Dennis Prager has spent most of his career as an unapologetic public moralist who champions Judeo-Christian values in American life." Why are you reverting here? Bus stop ( talk) 21:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
In your first post in this section you link to this post. In that post you write "If we were to use that sentence, it would need to be attributed." That is a reference to this article. You did not only say that once. You said it twice. You also wrote "It would need to be attributed." In this edit I provided attribution. (In a subsequent edit I provided the year of the source.) Yet in this edit you reverted. That was the second time you reverted this area of the article. In your first revert you left an edit summary reading "as discussed on talk. and what kind of writer adds a quote to WP without attributing it". What I am showing you is that you are calling for attribution, which is a valid and smart request, but when I provide attribution you revert anyway. Bus stop ( talk) 01:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
:I think The Atlantic is a reliable source.- I replied to that and said
The Atlantic piece is btw very much a political essay;(that is a direct response to your assertion about reliability)
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.
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.In other words, the part you want to cite is pure rhetoric -- pure "spin". Not at all a good source for an effort to "merely describe". See Rhetoric. Jytdog ( talk) 01:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I think we should blend the Views section into the body of the article. It is mostly event driven in any case. Jytdog ( talk) 00:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities..." WP:ABOUTSELF
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:
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)
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)
@ 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)
Maybe this gets into too much nuanceWay 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Dennis Prager has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"incorrect" should be removed from the "Islam" section, as this is extremely biased. Benjammin1997 ( talk) 14:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
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.
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
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 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)
"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 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)
"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)
"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)
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)
Bus stop adds that "targets" suggests something too active (in practical terms)That is the personal opinion of Bus stop, which the discussions above show is an attempt to change the pov of the article by ignoring sources and their context. This is just more of the typical attempts to whitewash the article by fans of Prager and his views.
Jytdog thinks they don't adequately convey the negative side of Prager's approach ("attacking" as well as "championing")I'd say that is an outright misrepresentation. @ Morte: Please strike or substantiate with diffs. As Jytdog points out, "All the high quality independent sources do report negative things about him..." We're not looking to "convey a negative side", we're reporting what the best references we can find say. Attempts to "balance" what the sources say with personal opinion and personal biases is the problem here. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
He doesn't only "champion" things (talk about them positively); he attacks others as well as part of his public advocacy. "Negative" was clumsily phrased, I meant that Jytdog thinks changing to say only what Prager is in favor of, not what he attacks, would be to the detriment of the article. If Jytdog asks me to, I'll happily strike. › Mortee talk 16:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Mortee, welcome aboard. The NPR source is not only less on-topic than The Atlantic source but it contains the word "targets" which I see as a problematic term. This is the NPR source and this is The Atlantic source. We are discussing the Views section of the article. Material for inclusion in the "Views" section has certain requirements. It should be general. It should present an overview of Prager. We are less interested in details and more interested in general themes. At present the "Views" section reads, in part, According to National Public Radio, Prager is an 'outspoken conservative' who 'often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people.' That is not a general overview. Those are details, and the selection process for those details remains unclear to the reader. Regardless of the "reliability" of the NPR source, the term "targets" is off-target. Doesn't the word "target" imply "taking aim at"? Prager's discourse is more of a meandering commentary. The first verbal definition for "target" at Wiktionary is "To aim something, especially a weapon, at (a target)." Is his speech comparable to a weapon? NPR is exaggerating. He doesn't "target" anything. The implication of the verb "target" is purposefulness and the intention of bringing about results. In order to remedy the flaws inherent in the term "targets" we would have to change it to something like "touches upon" or something similar. We could do that, with editorial consensus. But we don't have to use the NPR source in the Views section. The NPR source has as its primary concern the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra and the reaction of some of its members to having Prager as its conductor. The NPR source is not an article that could be called a general overview of the principles of Prager. By contrast The Atlantic article addresses the sweeping themes that motivate Prager. The title is "What Supporting Donald Trump Did to Dennis Prager's Principles". This is an article examining Pragers "principles". Its first sentence is a good overview of Prager: "The talk-radio host, writer, and speaker Dennis Prager has spent most of his career as an unapologetic public moralist who champions Judeo-Christian values in American life." That is the sort of material that is preferable for our "Views" section. Bus stop ( talk) 17:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Mortee's suggestion seems helpful. Here are some additional sources for consideration. I'm not making a proposal here, just drawing some attention to some stuff I found googling around. Jytdog, your thoughts on these sources would be appreciated.
He’s been called a hypocrite by “The Atlantic,” a dope by the “Huffington Post” and a spreader of lies by Media Matters. Even fellow conservatives such as Jonah Goldberg and John Podhoretz have recently taken him to task for his opinions.We have The Atlantic. It would be worthwhile to hunt the rest to see if they meet BLP for anything.
"unbalanced". It is bullshit. We don't just include willy-nilly bullshit if no one has a clue what it means. You say
As I said above, I think "targets" here means "criticises", not "persecutes" or worse.Then tell me, how does Prager criticize multiculturalism? Bus stop ( talk) 22:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The Commentary source is fine. We find good material in that source. For instance "Prager addresses ... race relations, capital punishment, abortion, pacifism, and religious extremism." For instance, quoting whole paragraphs: "He is not one to mince words. Capital punishment, he argues, is a moral imperative, being both just and compassionate. Single women should not bear children—it is selfish to conceive a child without a father. Contrary to current practice, social workers should encourage rather than discourage interracial adoption. An unmoderated pacifism is immoral, for it involves acquiescence in evil. Whatever the revisers of biblical language may say, we must go on depicting God as a father; young men, the primary perpetrators of criminal behavior, need to be reminded of the father’s civilizing role." I don't want to quote the whole article. There is much that can be written about Prager's views from that article. It would involve paraphrasing and quoting. Bus stop ( talk) 23:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi again, Mortee, I've made an attempt to write an overview of some of the "views" of Dennis Prager:
Prager responds to the argument that "other societies manage nicely without" capital punishment, by responding that those other societies "should count themselves lucky—perhaps they can afford the luxury; America, alas, cannot." Prager feels that "one’s attitude toward punishment in general, and toward the death penalty for murder in particular, offers a Rorschach test of one’s commitment to ethical monotheism." Prager is a religiously observant Jew who feels that God's "central demand is that people act decently toward one another." Prager addresses a range of issues, "among them race relations, capital punishment, abortion, pacifism, and religious extremism."
[4] In regards to race Prager writes
"The liberalism I learned held that the skin color of a person is no more important than his or her eye color; that the American ideal is integration, and that liberals must oppose segregation, yet today liberalism supports racial quotas, race-norming (grading an exam differently for members of different races), and segregating students in college dorms by race and ethnicity."
(The above is from "Think a Second Time", by Dennis Prager, August 30, 1996.)
Prager aligns himself with what he calls "classical liberalism", but he distinguishes that from contemporary liberalism, which he deems in part "responsible for the problems of widespread welfare dependency, the increase in out-of-wedlock births, the erosion of public-school standards, and the Balkanization of society along racial and ethnic lines."
I think the above is a reasonable overview of the views of Dennis Prager. Bus stop ( talk) 06:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have any further thoughts about the two proposals that have been made above? Bus stop, are you withdrawing your request to drop the NPR source, at least for the time being? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 14:07, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Here is a concrete suggestion. Let us create a section within the Views section titled "Race". We have in the Commentary article the following: Since the late 1960’s, Prager writes mordantly, “liberalism has become identified with positions that were always regarded as Left or even radical, but not liberal, and sometimes not even moral.” Nowhere is this discrepancy more salient than with regard to race. The Commentary article then goes on to quote Prager as follows: "The liberalism I learned held that the skin color of a person is no more important than his or her eye color; that the American ideal is integration, and that liberals must oppose segregation, yet today liberalism supports racial quotas, race-norming (grading an exam differently for members of different races), and segregating students in college dorms by race and ethnicity." Following that quote the Commentary article says: In holding that racial identity matters more than individual behavior—color more than character—today’s liberalism is the very antithesis of ethical monotheism. Indeed, the racial philosophy of the contemporary Left, Prager notes, ironically echoes what was once the great “Lie of the Right”: the one which “enabled the Nazis to view ‘Aryans,’ no matter what their behavior, as inherently superior, and Jews, no matter what their behavior, as innately ‘subhuman.’” I think our article can contain all or part of the quote and our article could paraphrase that which the Commentary article says before and after the quote. Are there any preliminary responses to this suggestion? Bus stop ( talk) 15:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
"The liberalism I learned held that the skin color of a person is no more important than his or her eye color; that the American ideal is integration, and that liberals must oppose segregation, yet today liberalism supports racial quotas, race-norming (grading an exam differently for members of different races), and segregating students in college dorms by race and ethnicity."Please tell me what your objection would be to the inclusion of the above quote in a sub-section of the "Views" section titled "Race". You refer to "the concerns about the Commentary book review". Do you doubt that this is a verbatim quote from Prager? Wouldn't Commentary (magazine) be a reliable source for such a quote? Bus stop ( talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I want to propose that we table the question whether to expand the "views" section with further sections until we first agree on some wording for the introductory remarks in that section. Is that ok with everyone? Ronz, in my proposed rewrite of the opening remarks, I used the commentary piece, which had some nice language about the range of topics that he has taken up. You complained that the book is old and you speculated that the language from the commentary piece comes from a press release or media guide. Here are some considerations that may be relevant. First, you're right that it is one book, but it is a collection of forty-six essays that Prager wrote on a very wide range of different topics and over a long period of time. So I think that despite the fact that it is one book, it does give a good sense of the broad range of his thinking. Second, I'm not really sure what the evidential value is of a speculation that the language in the commentary source may have come from a press release. In any case, I understand that Commentary is a partisan source, but then so is the Mother Jones article I quoted. I want to suggest that there's some value to the reader of Wikipedia in hearing so many different perspectives from the many different sources I assembled in my proposal. You get a sense of how divided and mixed opinion of Prager is, and that's really the sense I think that we get from looking at all available sources. I agree with your point about the source being old--this could be fixed by saying that he takes up the relevant topics in his 1995 book. But that seems like an easy fix. An I addressing the worries you have about the Commentary source? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 18:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
A big bolus of COPYVIO was added back in March 2015 in these diffs. That is too far back to REVDEL. Argh. Jytdog ( talk) 00:15, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | The above discussion has long since moved into the realm of
WP:TLDR. But I am going to make a few general observations as an uninvolved editor/admin who has been asked to look in...
|
Thanks for the advice, Jytdog! Here's my newest proposal. Comments and tweaks welcome. I would especially welcome any suggestions about how to give a sense of the age of the commentary piece.
References
Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
the first five books of the Hebrew Biblehave to have anything to do with his views to warrant inclusion in the text. I don't conceive of this section as only being about his views. It is perfectly reasonable, in my opinion, to include what could arguably be called extraneous material if it improves the overall article. We can of course still debate whether the mention of "the first five books of the Hebrew Bible" improves the article as a whole. I think it might. According to one source he has written "the most important book on the Torah in a generation". And even more importantly he cites "ethical monotheism" as an underpinning for the thoughts he espouses. This is surely "biblical" and our article benefits from articulating this. Bus stop ( talk) 12:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
"he abandoned the Modern Orthodoxy in which he was raised after he became an adult but retained many Jewish practices".In my opinion it would be sufficient to simply say he is a "Jew", and to leave it at that. In my opinion it is not even necessary to say that he is a "religious Jew". The sentence in the proposed text could simply say "He is a Jew, and has taught and written extensively on the first five books of the Hebrew bible." It is not even necessary to say that he is a "religious Jew". Prager touches upon religion. He does not delve deeply into religion as a rabbi might. Therefore I question the concern expressed for fine-tuning the language used to describe the sort of Jew he is. "Religious" is acceptable but I find much of the additional commentary to be excessive. He is not for instance a congregational rabbi so I question the impetus to add on the suggested language. He says that he's a "religious Jew" so I find that language acceptable and appropriate. But simply saying "He is Jewish and has taught and written extensively on the first five books of the Hebrew bible" would also be acceptable and appropriate. Bus stop ( talk) 00:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Shinealittlelight—we go by sources. Which source says that he is a "practicing Jew"
? Which source says that he is a "believing Jew"
? You aren't presenting sources. The
American Council for Judaism (1998) says:
Beyond this, as Dennis Prager, an Orthodox Jew and radio talk show host points out, "Since antiquity people have been predicting the demise of the Jews, some with dread, others with glee. But despite all the travails and tests faced by Jews over the centuries, it is only of late that such predictions seemed plausible, at least in the U.S. where Jewry is on its way to becoming half its present number.... This is not altogether a cause for lament ... the freedom of American Jews to assimilate is also a blessing — it means acceptance instead of bigotry.... Intermarriage is indeed a mixed curse. As a religious Jew myself, I want Jews to marry Jews for religious, not ethnic reasons. But intermarriage also represents great advantages — personal freedom and physical security. As Rabbi Leo Baeck, the German Jewish leader, said after World War II: 'If every German family had a Jewish relative, there would not have been a Holocaust.'" [6]
The above says that he is an Orthodox Jew. Dennis Prager himself says that "As a religious Jew myself, I want Jews to marry Jews for religious, not ethnic reasons." We should not follow the assertion in the source that says that he is "Orthodox" because other sources contradict this assertion. But we should follow the above assertion made by Prager that he is a "religious Jew" because no other source contradicts that assertion.
Bus stop (
talk)
01:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Prager explained to me that because “the universities have all but shut down, not to mention demonized, nonleft ideas,” and the media “are not far behind,” it is his duty to provide a conservative take “on things that matter—economics, good and evil, America, Israel, religion, God, etc.”Bus stop ( talk) 05:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
So the NPR ref is now a footnote at the very end, and the old book review is highlighted. It doesn't appear the sources are driving any of this. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The following may be far from uninteresting to assessing who DP is, so I took the liberty of adding it to the external links section: Who Is Dennis Prager? by Allen Estrin. Asteriks ( talk) 18:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, here's a revised version that incorporates the feedback above. Further thoughts welcome.
References
Shinealittlelight ( talk) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Prager advocates conservative views on a broad range of moral, political, and religious issues. [1] [2] Prager is Jewish and deeply religious; he abandoned the Modern Orthodoxy in which he was raised after he became an adult but retained many Jewish practices. [3] He believes that morality requires a religious basis, and that God primarily requires human beings to “act decently toward one another. [1] [2] He opposes the political advocacy of “leftists”, who he regards as undermining western civilization. [2] His moral and political views on these and other topics have garnered a wide range of both positive and negative reactions. Positive reactions include praise for his emphasis on thinking through moral issues, and his “cogent mind and humane sensibility.” [1] [4] [5] Critics, however, have sometimes accused Prager of hypocrisy, idiocy, and worse. [6] For example, NPR writes that he "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." [7] And Mother Jones writes that he holds views that are “irrational and apocalyptic”. [2]
References
--same as above, but actually giving a fuck about citations. No other comment at this point Jytdog ( talk) 21:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Ronz—you are writing "redundancy is not always a bad thing". Under discussion is a two-sentence lede. It only needs to be said in one of those two sentences that his perspective is a "conservative" one. It doesn't have to be said in both sentences. Bus stop ( talk) 12:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog—you write "as discussed on talk. and what kind of writer adds a quote to WP without attributing it". I've made this edit which provides for attribution. If there is still something that you take issue with concerning my edit please feel free to address it here. Thank you. Bus stop ( talk) 15:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
"He doesn't only "champion" things ... he attacks others as well"? I know I have asked you this before but you still have not responded. The source says "The talk-radio host, writer, and speaker Dennis Prager has spent most of his career as an unapologetic public moralist who champions Judeo-Christian values in American life." Why are you reverting here? Bus stop ( talk) 21:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
In your first post in this section you link to this post. In that post you write "If we were to use that sentence, it would need to be attributed." That is a reference to this article. You did not only say that once. You said it twice. You also wrote "It would need to be attributed." In this edit I provided attribution. (In a subsequent edit I provided the year of the source.) Yet in this edit you reverted. That was the second time you reverted this area of the article. In your first revert you left an edit summary reading "as discussed on talk. and what kind of writer adds a quote to WP without attributing it". What I am showing you is that you are calling for attribution, which is a valid and smart request, but when I provide attribution you revert anyway. Bus stop ( talk) 01:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
:I think The Atlantic is a reliable source.- I replied to that and said
The Atlantic piece is btw very much a political essay;(that is a direct response to your assertion about reliability)
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.
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.In other words, the part you want to cite is pure rhetoric -- pure "spin". Not at all a good source for an effort to "merely describe". See Rhetoric. Jytdog ( talk) 01:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I think we should blend the Views section into the body of the article. It is mostly event driven in any case. Jytdog ( talk) 00:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)