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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
@ Ronz: I was trying to draw the wording in my edit directly from the MJ source. I'm not clear on what you're thinking; you say some rewording may be in order, so what did you have in mind? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 20:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. A page where no one person is NOT allowed to make final decisions on all matters would lead to a more balanced, informative page. Please read my point point of view on positively contributing to the success and legitimacy of Wikipedia over personal biases on my Home Page. I am a new editor on Wikipedia and I am surprised by so much bias towards one end of the political spectrum. Anyhow, I remain committed to truth and positive contribution respecting both the literal meaning and intent of these Wikipedia rules. Alainlambert ( talk) 23:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Slatersteven, could you please explain your copyright concerns? I got this list from Media Matters which is a public source. Thank you fro the input. Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 10:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I have spoken with a lawyer friend of mine who does copyright work and your arguments do not stand to legal analysis. I will repost the information later and amend it to be consistent with Wikipedia policies. Thank you, Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 11:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Alainlambert:, I appreciate your enthusiastic editing as well as what looks like an attempt to provide a bit of counter balance to an article that often reads as if the intent was to disparage the subject rather than describe it. However, we have to watch sourcing. I would suggest reviewing WP:RS. Keep in mind that while we can cite papers I see some issues with how it was done here. The Penn State paper appears to be unpublished based on the link I found.[ [1]], but I also found RS articles talking about it [ [2]] as well as sources like The Daily Wire. This puts me in a bit of a conundrum. The Daily Wire was declared "deprecated" here. Right or wrong that means we aren't supposed to cite it outside of WP:ABOUTSELF cases. I think Wired is still RS. So the study is starting to make waves in part because it notes issues with the previous Youtube influencer paper. Anyway, as an unpublished paper I'm not really happy with citing it. As "research" cited by Wired I guess it can be. Anyway, this is one where I would suggest asking other editors how to handle this content. It could turn into some back and forth article changes if we don't get some consensus first. Springee ( talk) 14:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, I will edit the source for now and let's see what others think. Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 15:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
What;s ArbEnf? Regards Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 17:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I just read this: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:POV_and_OR_from_editors,_sources,_and_fields. Not only it clarifies that my edits are in line with Wikipedia rules, but I thought I'd get a thank you for adding content to the article that removed it's previous POV nature. Anyhow, it is substantially more balanced and informative now. I'm glad they add the Internet on my flight from Paris to Montreal. It allowed me to do a lot of constructive research which leads to meeting Wikipedia's objectives on this article. Best regards, Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 17:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Slatersteven, thank you for pointing out. I now read this: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I assume this is a policy. If it is, I believe it supports my edits of today on this article. More specifically, I believe by following certain particular rules, I did make the article more neutral, informative and balanced:
"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased or you think it constitutes as "fake news". Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."
"A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view."
"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."
Again, it is a learning process, no doubt. I am happy to read all rules and learn from more experienced editors. Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 18:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Ronz, why did you revert to the two descriptions which did not accurately describe the actual source material? I read the source material in great detail and my edits were meant to remove bias. Did you read the source material in detail as well? I'm just not understanding where you're coming from. Why would removing bias and accurately summarizing sources not be a good thing? Best regards Alainlambert ( talk) 18:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:PragerU#Sludge criticism and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258#Sludge for background.
I'm concerned about the recent attempts to change what we have in the Reception section sourced to the Sludge ref. Adding original research is a non-starter. Expanding it further, all based upon only a single paragraph from the reference seems grossly undue.
Looking back at the discussions, would it be worthwhile to try including something from the previous paragraph, where the author accuses the video of evoking the White genocide conspiracy theory? -- Ronz ( talk) 21:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
At the very least any information sourced from Sludge should be attributed to Sludge in text, and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Even then, given the other issues, I'm not so sure it's a great source for facts. I would be inclined to agree with you that it should probably be treated more like a blog.The other editor who expressed reservations said
it certainly isn't an impartial organization, despite the pretence to neutralityand agreed with me that there was reason to be concerned about the quality of reporting. So I think that these three (of four) editors who spoke at RSN thought that the source was biased, that it should be at the very least attributed, but that it is more likely better to source the facts somewhere else. Furthermore, to repeat, nobody has explained how we know that this source isn't self-published (as it appears to be). Shinealittlelight ( talk) 11:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
This Guardian source citing Tripodi says that she found that there were non-ideological reasons for YouTube to remove several of PragerU's videos. But my understanding, based on other sources, is that YouTube did not remove any videos, but only placed them in a "restricted" category. The report is apparently therefore inaccurate. Am I missing something? Did YouTube actually remove PragerU videos? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Tripodi reviewed several of the videos and found that there were plausible, non-ideologically motivated explanations for why they were removed.But as far as I know, PragerU videos were not removed from YouTube. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 01:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Plaintiff does not allege, however, that any of Plaintiff’s videos have been completely removed from YouTube. As discussed above, Plaintiff alleges only that some of Plaintiff’s videos have been demonetized or censored (in the form of an age restriction or exclusion from the Restricted Mode setting) based on Defendants’ intolerance towards Plaintiff’s political views.Shinealittlelight ( talk) 11:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
What about getting the facts right by reading the case and then citing the sources' opinion on the actual facts of the case? How informative is it that two sources get the facts wrong? Weight should be given to facts first. Regards Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 19:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
How is it that this editor can revert edits but he doesn't even have a User Page? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Gachet_Ziman&action=edit&redlink=1
thank you. alain Alainlambert ( talk) 21:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
looking at his edits today, he seems to be importing religion onto articles. alain Alainlambert ( talk) 21:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Apathetizer, many thanks for the info and recommendation. I’m still learning Wiki world. Best Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 23:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what this is? It seems to be Tripodi's coinage, and it seems to me that it isn't going to be clear what it means to the casual reader, so I'd like to summarize what it means. But, after reading her work, I am unable to summarize what she means by it. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 19:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Scriptural inference goes beyond a textual translation of the Bible, the Constitution, the president’s speeches, or mainstream media coverage. It is rooted in an idea that to find truth one needs to dig in and, in the words of my respondents, “do their own research.” Chrissy, a middle-aged woman with a daughter who had just started her first year at a highly competitive university, said, “I can’t just take any source that I can go to and just read and take it for what it’s worth. I take bits and pieces of it to further explore, but I have to explore every bit of information out in several different ways.” In a separate interview, Phoebe describes how she skims CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC to “see what topics are trending” but then does her “own studying and research elsewhere.” William, a college senior, also does his “own research,” especially when it comes to breaking news. This was particularly important for him during the Russian investigation. In an effort to combat what he articulated as “an avalanche of information” he would search for “calmer sources.” “What I would do is stop,” William said, making a gesture with his right hand like he was clicking a mouse, “new tab. Then I go over to a little more of a drier source that is just giving you a timeline. NPR is a good place but nobody’s sharing stuff from NPR on Facebook. Everybody’s posting Buzzfeed stuff and CNN stuff and clips of Tucker Carlson going off on, that’s what people are going to share, so that’s what you tend to see on Facebook.…Then I evaluate the facts [emphasis mine].”
The real question is SPLC an RS at all? PragerU has a very informative video on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNFNH0lmYdM&t=153s
Regards, Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
SPLC is an RS as long as we attribute, RSN has said this more then once. Thus as long as we say "SPLC has said" no problem. If we do not do so at this time, change the text to say it. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok - I changed "that" to "who" and Horse Eye Jack reverted so it's back to the original "PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization co-founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager that creates videos on various political, economic and philosophical topics from a conservative or right-wing perspective." In formal English grammar, ( WP is an encyclopedia; therefore, formal), the relative clause, "who creates videos on various political...", is not required to identify Dennis Prager. He is already identified by his name and as co-founder, and "that" cannot be used. Horse Eye Jack argues that it is not Dennis Prager who creates videos and that Prager University creates them. I've never known a "structure" that could be creative, much less shoot, edit, direct, or write scripts, all of which is typically done by people. A publisher does not create the work - they issue, offer, produce, or sell it - so if Dennis Prager is not doing the creating, the sentence needs to be reworded. What I noticed at the website is that PragerU promotes a playlist of videos by various producers, and they also produce videos of their own. They distribute those videos via a YouTube Channel (they aren't big enough to be Amazon Prime, etc.) and other means of online distribution. One suggestion: "PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization that offers an online playlist of videos, some of which they produce, about various political, economic and philosophical topics from both a conservative and right-wing perspective. The organization was co-founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager." Conservativism can also be from a left-wing perspective. I'm not going to edit war over a grammar issue so whoever is of the mind to, please fix it for accuracy. Atsme Talk 📧 17:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This section is already all criticism of prageru, only the first line would need to be reviewed, and would be a more useful and accurate description of the section. Also, as prageru is an oft-criticized organization, I think there should be an addition to the header to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasianpower ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If there's encyclopedic, noteworthy commentary on PragerU, we should include it in that section.Yep, that's what I said. Obviously including any such commentary that's positive or negative. Glad we agree. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 22:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I looked over the article while adding the NYT article to the page, and noticed that the content section as it currently stands is very disorganized in the second and third paragraphs. I'm worried that it focuses in on specific claims made by PragerU while excluding or minimizing other beliefs, so as to paint a skewed view of the general set of beliefs which PragerU pushes. For example, a view which PragerU frequently promotes, capitalism: Videos on PragerU have defended capitalism, gets less coverage than a view PragerU rarely promotes, anti-legal immigration: In 2018, PragerU published an anti-legal immigration video by Michelle Malkin, a conservative known for defending the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Maybe I'm just nitpicking, but I think we should consider finding a way to get around this problem. -- Apathetizer ( talk) 03:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The information presented in the article is only coming from a negative anti-prageru side. could we include the other side of the picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.219.85 ( talk) 14:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
well these reliable sources are all coming from one side of the picture 173.14.219.85 ( talk) 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
PragerU has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The number of views claimed by PragerU does not correspond the reality. Their counter is a fake: With Wi-Fi at the location disabled completely, all the sites on the computer screen immediately become unresponsive - as well as all the links on the PragerU page. The counter, however, remains running with absolutely unchanged speed. 173.76.83.50 ( talk) 16:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The content under discussion:
Writing about the video of the electoral college in Mother Jones, Mark Oppenheimer said that it "doesn’t mention how the Electoral College was born of a compromise with slave states or note the degree to which it skews the will of the majority—for example, by effectively giving a Wyoming resident’s vote almost quadruple the power of a Californian’s".
@ Doug Weller, Apathetizer, and BullRangifer:, we just had a back and forth edit. Currently we are, by the numbers 2:2 on this change [ [8]]. My opinion is we have a NOCON state based on the reverts so the next set should be move to the talk page. I don't think BR's restoration follows BRD but I'd rather we has it out before making additional article level changes.
I oppose the addition of the Mark Oppenheimer due. It's better with the material later in the article but it begs the question, is Oppenheimer qualified to make the critique in question? Is this a consensus view or just his specific view? Do scholars/experts in the field agree with Mark? If not, why give his opinion weight? For that reason I think it's best left out. Springee ( talk) 17:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The best location for the content can always be discussed, but complete deletion isn't the answer. It's better to move it to a better location. We must avoid anything that can appear to be censorship or whitewashing. We see far too much of that around here. Per NPOV, "neutrality" refers primarily to "editorial" neutrality, not source or content neutrality. It's an egregious violation (one of the worst) of NPOV to leave out criticisms.
Also, the writer of the content does not have to be notable. The fact that what they write is published in a RS gives what they write enough weight for consideration. The source does that. That's not the only thing to consider, but we shouldn't be seeking excuses for leaving out criticisms. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 01:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this back and fourth is useful. Neither side looks like they're gonna relent. Such an impasse necessitates the drafting of an RfC, which granted, is a pain and takes a long time, but at least you come out at the end of it with consensus (or lack thereof) codified. So, unless someone has a better idea, I suggest skipping to that dispute resolution request stage. El_C 16:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. My revision 958388562 was reverted by Slatersteven. I would suggest that this revision is included.
Slatersteven's reasons for reversion: (1) "We do not need every dispute" (relevance) (2) "nor am I sure some of this is even RS" (reliability)
If we do not need every dispute, then perhaps we should remove mentions of earlier disputes? If in May 2020 the last dispute mentioned is from August 2018, this may result in the article creating a false impression that no more disputes are happening. This is not so.
On reliability. Slatersteven doesn't point out what exactly is unreliable. That specific video about polar bears is presently (May 23, 2020) displaying on Facebook with a warning is a verifiable fact (is there a standard for confirming this? Screencasts?). That the video that this PragerU video criticizes was misleading was acknowledged by NatGeo themselves.
The two websites arguing over assessment of polar bears population dynamic (one positive, one negative) may not be RS by themselves, but both provide research publications to back up their points of view. By doubting these articles we will be challenging the underlying research publications. Is it acceptable for Wikipedia articles to take sides in a research debate?
Vshabat ( talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics-- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I accept your judgement in this case, it appears that I am overruled. As a personal aside, I have undertaken this edit as a bet against my conservative friend (I myself am liberal) who tried a similar revision earlier, but with a biased text full of POVs. My bet was that with a (more) balanced and better sourced text the edit will stand a chance. Apparently I lost. Vshabat ( talk) 09:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven:@ Hipal: Thanks for adding the cbc source on "doesn't hold classes". I still don't see a source for "not a university"; am I missing it? "Despite its name" is what Newsweek says, not "contrary to its name". The difference is that "despite" suggests to my ear that the name is possibly misleading, whereas "contrary to" sounds as if the name is outright dishonest or something like that. It seems to me that we're better to stick to the word the source uses for this reason. What do you think? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 17:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Currently it says
Contrary to its name, PragerU is not a university or academic institution, [2] [3] and does not hold classes [4], grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited. [5]
I'd lean to the proposed changes. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 20:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
"Prager University, styled as PragerU, is not a university." https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/10/05/youtube-allows-horrifically-transphobic-advertising-on-its-videos/, "The website, though billed at a university, does state “PragerU is not a university" https://www.mediaite.com/news/samantha-bee-takes-aim-at-prageru-bullshit-conservative-propaganda-akin-to-monsters-university/. Even they used to say it. No they are not a university. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Does PragerU states on their home page they are not [see edit comment below] a university. The article should make it clear that PragerU is not claiming to be a college/university. Phrases like "contrary to it's name..." imply an effort to mislead. On their homepage they say they are not a academic institution and they don't offer classes. This can easily be included as an about self, especially since it's supported by RSs which can also be cited.
Springee (
talk)
12:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Despite its name, PragerU is not an accredited university or an academic institution,[5][4][6] it does not hold classes,[7] and does not grant certifications or diplomas.[6]
How about https://www.dailydot.com/debug/what-is-prager-university/ " “Prager University is not a university" https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/16/21066906/youtube-climate-change-denial-avaaz-samsung-uber-nintendo "PragerU (which is not a university". Slatersteven ( talk) 12:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
How about " It isn’t truly a university" https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-22/dennis-prager-university-conservative-internet-sensation. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
PragerU is not truly a university,[5][4][6] and does not hold classes[7], grant certifications or diplomas, and denies it is a accredited academic institution.[8]
...a nonprofit media company called Prager University...While it is not an accredited institution of higher learning, Prager University is most definitely an education...“I regard Prager University as a university every bit as much as a traditional university,” Dennis Prager told BuzzFeed News.What about:
PragerU is a nonprofit media company, and it is not an accredited university or an academic institution. It does not hold classes or grant certifications or diplomas.
More https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2020/01/some-colo-gop-say-poverty-programs-deliver-votes-to-dems-and-keep-black-people-down/20439/ "Prager U, a non-profit entity (not a university)",
Definition of university 1: an institution of higher learning providing facilities for teaching and research and authorized to grant academic degrees.
PragaU does not meet that definition. So (again) we have sources that say it is not university, none that say it is. So we say it is not one. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Still leaves out that they are not an accredited academic institution. But the version I proposed says "not an accredited university or academic institution". So, I have to say, I have no idea what you mean here. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 16:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
PragerU is a nonprofit media company, and it is not, and does not claim to be, an accredited academic institution. It does not hold classes or grant certifications or diplomas.
PragerU is a nonprofit media company, and it is not, and does not claim to be an academic institution. It is not accredited, it does not hold classes, and it does not grant certifications or diplomas.
Shall we have a book https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Vd2yDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT97&lpg=PT97&dq=Prager+University+%22not+a+university%22&source=bl&ots=NUcuZEqMgL&sig=ACfU3U3Rcdhjz2uUwRnkH_LrroPdtiWd0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAwYaPt5vsAhURqXEKHeGGATQ4KBDoATACegQIBBAC#v=onepage&q=Prager%20University%20%22not%20a%20university%22&f=false. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
What about something like "PragerU is a media company. The company states it is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas." This can be ABOUTSELF'ed to the PragerU home page as well as to a few articles. This way it avoids looking like the company is trying to hide this fact while also making it clear that many sources about PragerU note that it isn't a university. I suppose the concern is people might assume it's something like a Phoenix University or other for profit college. I don't think the particular phrasing is that critical so long as it doesn't suggest they are trying to hide the obvious. Springee ( talk) 19:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
the fact they deny it means its not just an accusation, they accept it. Not sure if you want to reply to that point. In any case, the new proposal would be something like this:
PragerU is a media company. It is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas.
References
:1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Kodiologist, rather than revert your change here [ [10]] I wanted to open a discuss to explain why I disagree with it. This was a discussion topic a while back.[ [11]][ [12]] My concern then (and now) is that one only needs to watch the several of the videos to see that MJ's summary of the content is not correct. Mother Jones summarized a PragerU video stating PU said there was "There is no police discrimination." The video actually claims that the idea that police use of lethal force is systemically racist is not supported by data. I wasn't able to convince editors that the MJs summaries were so inaccurate as to discredit the specific MJ article. The compromise was to attribute the summaries. For that reason I think the attribution should remain. What is your feeling? Springee ( talk) 18:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The widespread lambasting of the reliability of PragerU's content is one of the most significant things about them, so I think it is appropriate for that to be mentioned in the introduction. Anybody searching the company to check their legitimacy should probably be aware of this controversy, but I've tried to boil out just the most elementary criticisms from the various sources since I do not believe more specific criticisms would be appropriate to repeat in the introduction. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 04:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's the content with refs: -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 16:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The company has been frequently criticised for their ideological & political bias, use of poor sources, and misrepresentation in many of the videos they produce, in addition to their inclusion of far-right speakers. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
- ^ Tripodi, Francesca (May 2018). Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 22 October 2020.
- ^ Gregory, John. "prageru.com" (PDF). NewsGuard. Retrieved 22 October 2020.
{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status ( link)- ^ "PragerU". Media Bias/Fact Check. Retrieved 2020-10-22.
- ^ Molloy, Parker. "PragerU relies on a veneer of respectability to obscure its propagandist mission". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 2020-10-22.
References
References
particularly from left-leaning sourcesThat's SYN/OR. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 14:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Thanks for the self revert. I think my sourcing concerns are largely the same as above as well as the concern that you are taking criticisms that are often of specific videos and then expanding that into a view that most/all their videos are criticized as such. If the article lead is going to say something about generalized criticism I think we need a source that says as much. We do have a bit of a dumping ground for criticism of various videos already but again that's more focused on specific videos. As for the sources, SPLC shouldn't be cited directly. If other sources say "SPLC said X" then that is OK, but in general we don't see SLPC claims as having weight unless a RS reports the claim. MJ is generally a reliable source but as I said before, in this particular case they are using misleading summarizes of some of the videos to the point that I feel the article shouldn't be considered reliable or at least reliable for those specific claims. The AC seems to have only a beef with one video and mostly due to the presenter, not PragerU videos in general. MediaMaters isn't considered a quality source. The Tripodi work needs to be handled careful as it isn't peer reviewed. The general conclusion that "alt-light" sources lead people to alt-right views is challenged and the specific opinions about PragerU weren't the primary focus of the paper and aren't why it was viewed as notable. Really, I think if you want to make these generalized statements about PragerU we need sources that say about the same thing. We can't bundle a bunch of specific criticisms and decide we have enough to call it generalized. That runs afoul of synthesis. Springee ( talk) 05:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The problems with sources Springee raised...It's not just Springee raising them, and I don't see much progress. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Noteduck, your expansion of the Murray video content is UNDUE here[ [18]]. This appears to be a direct copy of the content you are pushing into the Douglas Murray (author) article[ [19]]. Perhaps this would be a good time to rework that material but any more than a sentence or two is too much give the scope of this article isn't Murray or Islam. Springee ( talk) 04:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Text from article
|
---|
A 2018 video produced for PragerU by Douglas Murray titled "The Suicide of Europe" led to considerable media discussion and controversy. The video, which has thus far received 7.4 million views on PragerU's website, [1] drew criticism for purportedly "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'. [2] Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism Mark Pitcavage said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric". [3] [4] Similarly, the Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a " dog whistle to the extreme right", [5] while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times argued that the video "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right". [6] References
|
Noteduck the new, shortened paragraph that you added was clumsily worded to say the least. In the current paragraph, there are 4.5 sources:
I think the references to all are due and I don't think you can remove any of them or shorten the paragraph any further without compromising its quality. If none of the information is contested, why not leave the paragraph the way it is? Noteduck ( talk) 03:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm following the WP:BRD process here; I reverted to the original version of the text so we can work out a consensus here. Here's Noteduck's last version:
A 2018 PragerU video about immigration to Europe presented by author Douglas Murray titled "The Suicide of Europe" drew criticism for purportedly "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'.[Sludge] Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism Mark Pitcavage said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric".[Sludge][Bridge] Similarly, the Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right",[SPLC] while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times said the video "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right".[LAT]
I agree with Springee that (i) this is awkwardly written, (ii) the Bridge reference is redundant, and (iii) this version does not summarize the video at all. I would add that the claim about "white genocide" needs to be attributed to Kotch if it is to be included. However, I don't see why a remark from Kotch is WP:DUE in the article, so I think it should not be included. Also, the reference to the LAT piece inaccurately quotes Halper. On review of his piece, I cannot tell that Halper means to cite Murray's video (rather than just D'Souza's) as an example of a video that echoes "some of the movement’s talking points" (that's the accurate quote), so this has to come out in my opinion. In light of these issues, I propose this:
A 2018 video by Douglas Murray argued that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate.[LAT] Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said that although he does not regard the video as being fascist or white nationalist, there was "certainly prejudice inherent in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric."[SLUDGE] The SPLC described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right."[SPLC]
Shinealittlelight ( talk) 06:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Prager says he disavows the alt-right ideology that has gained ground in the Trump era, but the online lessons often echo some of the movement’s talking points.
A video of Dinesh D’Souza, the right-wing author, opining on why Western cultures are superior to others has been viewed 4.7 million times, for example. Another, featuring Douglas Murray, the British author of several books about Europe and immigration, laments that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate. It has 6.7 million views.
The clear implication is that both the D'Souza and Murray videos echo alt-right talking points. Why remove material when we don't need to? How about the paragraph start with:
"A 2018 video hosted by Douglas Murray that displayed the purported negative consequences of immigration to Europe titled "The Suicide of Europe" drew criticism for..."
I don't get what your objection to the Kotch quote is at all. Here you have three separate articles with the added weight of an expert from the Anti-Defamation League criticizing PragerU's video in very harsh terms, encapsulated in three short sentences - I'm not sure how you can argue any of that is not due Noteduck ( talk) 07:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm seeing a repeated pattern where material is being deleted from PragerU's page on the basis of undue weight. This seems to be mostly the work of Shinealittlelight and Springee, who appear to have been doing this for a while. Material related to the video on Robert E. Lee and the videos hosted by Douglas Murray and Owen Benjamin. My question is - if a reputed media or academic source criticizes a video made by PragerU, what grounds do you have for excluding the material? The brief paragraph under "critiques of videos" about the Douglas Murray "Suicide of Europe" video includes three respected sources and comprises three short sentences. What grounds are there for excluding any of this?
Shinealittlelight, you wrote the following comments about the PragerU page on your talk page [21] in November 2019:
Now if you really want to see a revert, you should add a positive conservative opinion of Prager U to the reception section, which is now reserved for critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I think this demonstrates that you are struggling to view the source impartially, and should perhaps step back from editing this page. You also describe yourself as a "reasonable conservative" (19 May 2019) in discussion with an editor who seems to perceive Wikipedia as full of leftist bias. It seems that you keep a kind of watch over this page, but I think it's best to engage with your own biases first. Noteduck ( talk) 07:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Individually these might not be due but with the three of them taken together, the deletion of this material looks like egregious pro-Prager bias. I don't understand how Prager platforming a controversial speaker who turned out to be a holocaust denier, then removing his videos, could not be due weight. I'll leave it open to the floor but I think this is quite overt right wing bias Noteduck ( talk) 08:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).[6] When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8]
Have a look at the author Bethany Mandel's portfolio on Muck Rack [27] - she's actually quite esteemed. Here she is in the NY Times [28] and The Atlantic [29]. So I'm not sure if I'd call her a "specialist or recognized expert" but she certainly is an experienced journalist writing in a high-quality publication (feel free to make a counter-argument on the quality of JTA if you wish). This is backed by the Media Matters for America source and the Business Insider source, which are two fairly mediocre sources. The JTA article is a detailed exposition of Benjamin's beliefs and ideology. The author reached Benjamin for comment and spoke to some of his supporters, which is a level of professionalism absent from a lot of opinion journalism. In other words, this is not just an anti-Owen Benjamin or anti-Prager spray. I see one good source here backed by two mediocre ones, which I think is surely enough to establish due weight. Of course the material should not be written in Wiki's voice, but "X expressed concern about PragerU's platforming of Owen Benjamin, who later expressed support for white supremacism and holocaust denial" hardly seems undue on this page Noteduck ( talk) 23:50, 6 January 2021 (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 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
@ Ronz: I was trying to draw the wording in my edit directly from the MJ source. I'm not clear on what you're thinking; you say some rewording may be in order, so what did you have in mind? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 20:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. A page where no one person is NOT allowed to make final decisions on all matters would lead to a more balanced, informative page. Please read my point point of view on positively contributing to the success and legitimacy of Wikipedia over personal biases on my Home Page. I am a new editor on Wikipedia and I am surprised by so much bias towards one end of the political spectrum. Anyhow, I remain committed to truth and positive contribution respecting both the literal meaning and intent of these Wikipedia rules. Alainlambert ( talk) 23:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Slatersteven, could you please explain your copyright concerns? I got this list from Media Matters which is a public source. Thank you fro the input. Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 10:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I have spoken with a lawyer friend of mine who does copyright work and your arguments do not stand to legal analysis. I will repost the information later and amend it to be consistent with Wikipedia policies. Thank you, Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 11:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Alainlambert:, I appreciate your enthusiastic editing as well as what looks like an attempt to provide a bit of counter balance to an article that often reads as if the intent was to disparage the subject rather than describe it. However, we have to watch sourcing. I would suggest reviewing WP:RS. Keep in mind that while we can cite papers I see some issues with how it was done here. The Penn State paper appears to be unpublished based on the link I found.[ [1]], but I also found RS articles talking about it [ [2]] as well as sources like The Daily Wire. This puts me in a bit of a conundrum. The Daily Wire was declared "deprecated" here. Right or wrong that means we aren't supposed to cite it outside of WP:ABOUTSELF cases. I think Wired is still RS. So the study is starting to make waves in part because it notes issues with the previous Youtube influencer paper. Anyway, as an unpublished paper I'm not really happy with citing it. As "research" cited by Wired I guess it can be. Anyway, this is one where I would suggest asking other editors how to handle this content. It could turn into some back and forth article changes if we don't get some consensus first. Springee ( talk) 14:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
OK, I will edit the source for now and let's see what others think. Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 15:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
What;s ArbEnf? Regards Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 17:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I just read this: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:POV_and_OR_from_editors,_sources,_and_fields. Not only it clarifies that my edits are in line with Wikipedia rules, but I thought I'd get a thank you for adding content to the article that removed it's previous POV nature. Anyhow, it is substantially more balanced and informative now. I'm glad they add the Internet on my flight from Paris to Montreal. It allowed me to do a lot of constructive research which leads to meeting Wikipedia's objectives on this article. Best regards, Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 17:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Slatersteven, thank you for pointing out. I now read this: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I assume this is a policy. If it is, I believe it supports my edits of today on this article. More specifically, I believe by following certain particular rules, I did make the article more neutral, informative and balanced:
"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased or you think it constitutes as "fake news". Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."
"A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view."
"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."
Again, it is a learning process, no doubt. I am happy to read all rules and learn from more experienced editors. Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 18:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Ronz, why did you revert to the two descriptions which did not accurately describe the actual source material? I read the source material in great detail and my edits were meant to remove bias. Did you read the source material in detail as well? I'm just not understanding where you're coming from. Why would removing bias and accurately summarizing sources not be a good thing? Best regards Alainlambert ( talk) 18:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:PragerU#Sludge criticism and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258#Sludge for background.
I'm concerned about the recent attempts to change what we have in the Reception section sourced to the Sludge ref. Adding original research is a non-starter. Expanding it further, all based upon only a single paragraph from the reference seems grossly undue.
Looking back at the discussions, would it be worthwhile to try including something from the previous paragraph, where the author accuses the video of evoking the White genocide conspiracy theory? -- Ronz ( talk) 21:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
At the very least any information sourced from Sludge should be attributed to Sludge in text, and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Even then, given the other issues, I'm not so sure it's a great source for facts. I would be inclined to agree with you that it should probably be treated more like a blog.The other editor who expressed reservations said
it certainly isn't an impartial organization, despite the pretence to neutralityand agreed with me that there was reason to be concerned about the quality of reporting. So I think that these three (of four) editors who spoke at RSN thought that the source was biased, that it should be at the very least attributed, but that it is more likely better to source the facts somewhere else. Furthermore, to repeat, nobody has explained how we know that this source isn't self-published (as it appears to be). Shinealittlelight ( talk) 11:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
This Guardian source citing Tripodi says that she found that there were non-ideological reasons for YouTube to remove several of PragerU's videos. But my understanding, based on other sources, is that YouTube did not remove any videos, but only placed them in a "restricted" category. The report is apparently therefore inaccurate. Am I missing something? Did YouTube actually remove PragerU videos? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Tripodi reviewed several of the videos and found that there were plausible, non-ideologically motivated explanations for why they were removed.But as far as I know, PragerU videos were not removed from YouTube. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 01:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Plaintiff does not allege, however, that any of Plaintiff’s videos have been completely removed from YouTube. As discussed above, Plaintiff alleges only that some of Plaintiff’s videos have been demonetized or censored (in the form of an age restriction or exclusion from the Restricted Mode setting) based on Defendants’ intolerance towards Plaintiff’s political views.Shinealittlelight ( talk) 11:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
What about getting the facts right by reading the case and then citing the sources' opinion on the actual facts of the case? How informative is it that two sources get the facts wrong? Weight should be given to facts first. Regards Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 19:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
How is it that this editor can revert edits but he doesn't even have a User Page? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Gachet_Ziman&action=edit&redlink=1
thank you. alain Alainlambert ( talk) 21:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
looking at his edits today, he seems to be importing religion onto articles. alain Alainlambert ( talk) 21:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Apathetizer, many thanks for the info and recommendation. I’m still learning Wiki world. Best Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 23:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what this is? It seems to be Tripodi's coinage, and it seems to me that it isn't going to be clear what it means to the casual reader, so I'd like to summarize what it means. But, after reading her work, I am unable to summarize what she means by it. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 19:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Scriptural inference goes beyond a textual translation of the Bible, the Constitution, the president’s speeches, or mainstream media coverage. It is rooted in an idea that to find truth one needs to dig in and, in the words of my respondents, “do their own research.” Chrissy, a middle-aged woman with a daughter who had just started her first year at a highly competitive university, said, “I can’t just take any source that I can go to and just read and take it for what it’s worth. I take bits and pieces of it to further explore, but I have to explore every bit of information out in several different ways.” In a separate interview, Phoebe describes how she skims CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC to “see what topics are trending” but then does her “own studying and research elsewhere.” William, a college senior, also does his “own research,” especially when it comes to breaking news. This was particularly important for him during the Russian investigation. In an effort to combat what he articulated as “an avalanche of information” he would search for “calmer sources.” “What I would do is stop,” William said, making a gesture with his right hand like he was clicking a mouse, “new tab. Then I go over to a little more of a drier source that is just giving you a timeline. NPR is a good place but nobody’s sharing stuff from NPR on Facebook. Everybody’s posting Buzzfeed stuff and CNN stuff and clips of Tucker Carlson going off on, that’s what people are going to share, so that’s what you tend to see on Facebook.…Then I evaluate the facts [emphasis mine].”
The real question is SPLC an RS at all? PragerU has a very informative video on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNFNH0lmYdM&t=153s
Regards, Alain Alainlambert ( talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
SPLC is an RS as long as we attribute, RSN has said this more then once. Thus as long as we say "SPLC has said" no problem. If we do not do so at this time, change the text to say it. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok - I changed "that" to "who" and Horse Eye Jack reverted so it's back to the original "PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization co-founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager that creates videos on various political, economic and philosophical topics from a conservative or right-wing perspective." In formal English grammar, ( WP is an encyclopedia; therefore, formal), the relative clause, "who creates videos on various political...", is not required to identify Dennis Prager. He is already identified by his name and as co-founder, and "that" cannot be used. Horse Eye Jack argues that it is not Dennis Prager who creates videos and that Prager University creates them. I've never known a "structure" that could be creative, much less shoot, edit, direct, or write scripts, all of which is typically done by people. A publisher does not create the work - they issue, offer, produce, or sell it - so if Dennis Prager is not doing the creating, the sentence needs to be reworded. What I noticed at the website is that PragerU promotes a playlist of videos by various producers, and they also produce videos of their own. They distribute those videos via a YouTube Channel (they aren't big enough to be Amazon Prime, etc.) and other means of online distribution. One suggestion: "PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization that offers an online playlist of videos, some of which they produce, about various political, economic and philosophical topics from both a conservative and right-wing perspective. The organization was co-founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager." Conservativism can also be from a left-wing perspective. I'm not going to edit war over a grammar issue so whoever is of the mind to, please fix it for accuracy. Atsme Talk 📧 17:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This section is already all criticism of prageru, only the first line would need to be reviewed, and would be a more useful and accurate description of the section. Also, as prageru is an oft-criticized organization, I think there should be an addition to the header to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasianpower ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
If there's encyclopedic, noteworthy commentary on PragerU, we should include it in that section.Yep, that's what I said. Obviously including any such commentary that's positive or negative. Glad we agree. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 22:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I looked over the article while adding the NYT article to the page, and noticed that the content section as it currently stands is very disorganized in the second and third paragraphs. I'm worried that it focuses in on specific claims made by PragerU while excluding or minimizing other beliefs, so as to paint a skewed view of the general set of beliefs which PragerU pushes. For example, a view which PragerU frequently promotes, capitalism: Videos on PragerU have defended capitalism, gets less coverage than a view PragerU rarely promotes, anti-legal immigration: In 2018, PragerU published an anti-legal immigration video by Michelle Malkin, a conservative known for defending the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Maybe I'm just nitpicking, but I think we should consider finding a way to get around this problem. -- Apathetizer ( talk) 03:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The information presented in the article is only coming from a negative anti-prageru side. could we include the other side of the picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.219.85 ( talk) 14:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
well these reliable sources are all coming from one side of the picture 173.14.219.85 ( talk) 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
PragerU has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The number of views claimed by PragerU does not correspond the reality. Their counter is a fake: With Wi-Fi at the location disabled completely, all the sites on the computer screen immediately become unresponsive - as well as all the links on the PragerU page. The counter, however, remains running with absolutely unchanged speed. 173.76.83.50 ( talk) 16:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
The content under discussion:
Writing about the video of the electoral college in Mother Jones, Mark Oppenheimer said that it "doesn’t mention how the Electoral College was born of a compromise with slave states or note the degree to which it skews the will of the majority—for example, by effectively giving a Wyoming resident’s vote almost quadruple the power of a Californian’s".
@ Doug Weller, Apathetizer, and BullRangifer:, we just had a back and forth edit. Currently we are, by the numbers 2:2 on this change [ [8]]. My opinion is we have a NOCON state based on the reverts so the next set should be move to the talk page. I don't think BR's restoration follows BRD but I'd rather we has it out before making additional article level changes.
I oppose the addition of the Mark Oppenheimer due. It's better with the material later in the article but it begs the question, is Oppenheimer qualified to make the critique in question? Is this a consensus view or just his specific view? Do scholars/experts in the field agree with Mark? If not, why give his opinion weight? For that reason I think it's best left out. Springee ( talk) 17:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The best location for the content can always be discussed, but complete deletion isn't the answer. It's better to move it to a better location. We must avoid anything that can appear to be censorship or whitewashing. We see far too much of that around here. Per NPOV, "neutrality" refers primarily to "editorial" neutrality, not source or content neutrality. It's an egregious violation (one of the worst) of NPOV to leave out criticisms.
Also, the writer of the content does not have to be notable. The fact that what they write is published in a RS gives what they write enough weight for consideration. The source does that. That's not the only thing to consider, but we shouldn't be seeking excuses for leaving out criticisms. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 01:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think this back and fourth is useful. Neither side looks like they're gonna relent. Such an impasse necessitates the drafting of an RfC, which granted, is a pain and takes a long time, but at least you come out at the end of it with consensus (or lack thereof) codified. So, unless someone has a better idea, I suggest skipping to that dispute resolution request stage. El_C 16:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. My revision 958388562 was reverted by Slatersteven. I would suggest that this revision is included.
Slatersteven's reasons for reversion: (1) "We do not need every dispute" (relevance) (2) "nor am I sure some of this is even RS" (reliability)
If we do not need every dispute, then perhaps we should remove mentions of earlier disputes? If in May 2020 the last dispute mentioned is from August 2018, this may result in the article creating a false impression that no more disputes are happening. This is not so.
On reliability. Slatersteven doesn't point out what exactly is unreliable. That specific video about polar bears is presently (May 23, 2020) displaying on Facebook with a warning is a verifiable fact (is there a standard for confirming this? Screencasts?). That the video that this PragerU video criticizes was misleading was acknowledged by NatGeo themselves.
The two websites arguing over assessment of polar bears population dynamic (one positive, one negative) may not be RS by themselves, but both provide research publications to back up their points of view. By doubting these articles we will be challenging the underlying research publications. Is it acceptable for Wikipedia articles to take sides in a research debate?
Vshabat ( talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics-- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Ok, I accept your judgement in this case, it appears that I am overruled. As a personal aside, I have undertaken this edit as a bet against my conservative friend (I myself am liberal) who tried a similar revision earlier, but with a biased text full of POVs. My bet was that with a (more) balanced and better sourced text the edit will stand a chance. Apparently I lost. Vshabat ( talk) 09:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Slatersteven:@ Hipal: Thanks for adding the cbc source on "doesn't hold classes". I still don't see a source for "not a university"; am I missing it? "Despite its name" is what Newsweek says, not "contrary to its name". The difference is that "despite" suggests to my ear that the name is possibly misleading, whereas "contrary to" sounds as if the name is outright dishonest or something like that. It seems to me that we're better to stick to the word the source uses for this reason. What do you think? Shinealittlelight ( talk) 17:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Currently it says
Contrary to its name, PragerU is not a university or academic institution, [2] [3] and does not hold classes [4], grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited. [5]
I'd lean to the proposed changes. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 20:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
"Prager University, styled as PragerU, is not a university." https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/10/05/youtube-allows-horrifically-transphobic-advertising-on-its-videos/, "The website, though billed at a university, does state “PragerU is not a university" https://www.mediaite.com/news/samantha-bee-takes-aim-at-prageru-bullshit-conservative-propaganda-akin-to-monsters-university/. Even they used to say it. No they are not a university. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Does PragerU states on their home page they are not [see edit comment below] a university. The article should make it clear that PragerU is not claiming to be a college/university. Phrases like "contrary to it's name..." imply an effort to mislead. On their homepage they say they are not a academic institution and they don't offer classes. This can easily be included as an about self, especially since it's supported by RSs which can also be cited.
Springee (
talk)
12:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Despite its name, PragerU is not an accredited university or an academic institution,[5][4][6] it does not hold classes,[7] and does not grant certifications or diplomas.[6]
How about https://www.dailydot.com/debug/what-is-prager-university/ " “Prager University is not a university" https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/16/21066906/youtube-climate-change-denial-avaaz-samsung-uber-nintendo "PragerU (which is not a university". Slatersteven ( talk) 12:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
How about " It isn’t truly a university" https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-22/dennis-prager-university-conservative-internet-sensation. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
PragerU is not truly a university,[5][4][6] and does not hold classes[7], grant certifications or diplomas, and denies it is a accredited academic institution.[8]
...a nonprofit media company called Prager University...While it is not an accredited institution of higher learning, Prager University is most definitely an education...“I regard Prager University as a university every bit as much as a traditional university,” Dennis Prager told BuzzFeed News.What about:
PragerU is a nonprofit media company, and it is not an accredited university or an academic institution. It does not hold classes or grant certifications or diplomas.
More https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2020/01/some-colo-gop-say-poverty-programs-deliver-votes-to-dems-and-keep-black-people-down/20439/ "Prager U, a non-profit entity (not a university)",
Definition of university 1: an institution of higher learning providing facilities for teaching and research and authorized to grant academic degrees.
PragaU does not meet that definition. So (again) we have sources that say it is not university, none that say it is. So we say it is not one. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Still leaves out that they are not an accredited academic institution. But the version I proposed says "not an accredited university or academic institution". So, I have to say, I have no idea what you mean here. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 16:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
PragerU is a nonprofit media company, and it is not, and does not claim to be, an accredited academic institution. It does not hold classes or grant certifications or diplomas.
PragerU is a nonprofit media company, and it is not, and does not claim to be an academic institution. It is not accredited, it does not hold classes, and it does not grant certifications or diplomas.
Shall we have a book https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Vd2yDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT97&lpg=PT97&dq=Prager+University+%22not+a+university%22&source=bl&ots=NUcuZEqMgL&sig=ACfU3U3Rcdhjz2uUwRnkH_LrroPdtiWd0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAwYaPt5vsAhURqXEKHeGGATQ4KBDoATACegQIBBAC#v=onepage&q=Prager%20University%20%22not%20a%20university%22&f=false. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
What about something like "PragerU is a media company. The company states it is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas." This can be ABOUTSELF'ed to the PragerU home page as well as to a few articles. This way it avoids looking like the company is trying to hide this fact while also making it clear that many sources about PragerU note that it isn't a university. I suppose the concern is people might assume it's something like a Phoenix University or other for profit college. I don't think the particular phrasing is that critical so long as it doesn't suggest they are trying to hide the obvious. Springee ( talk) 19:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
the fact they deny it means its not just an accusation, they accept it. Not sure if you want to reply to that point. In any case, the new proposal would be something like this:
PragerU is a media company. It is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas.
References
:1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Kodiologist, rather than revert your change here [ [10]] I wanted to open a discuss to explain why I disagree with it. This was a discussion topic a while back.[ [11]][ [12]] My concern then (and now) is that one only needs to watch the several of the videos to see that MJ's summary of the content is not correct. Mother Jones summarized a PragerU video stating PU said there was "There is no police discrimination." The video actually claims that the idea that police use of lethal force is systemically racist is not supported by data. I wasn't able to convince editors that the MJs summaries were so inaccurate as to discredit the specific MJ article. The compromise was to attribute the summaries. For that reason I think the attribution should remain. What is your feeling? Springee ( talk) 18:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The widespread lambasting of the reliability of PragerU's content is one of the most significant things about them, so I think it is appropriate for that to be mentioned in the introduction. Anybody searching the company to check their legitimacy should probably be aware of this controversy, but I've tried to boil out just the most elementary criticisms from the various sources since I do not believe more specific criticisms would be appropriate to repeat in the introduction. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 04:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's the content with refs: -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 16:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The company has been frequently criticised for their ideological & political bias, use of poor sources, and misrepresentation in many of the videos they produce, in addition to their inclusion of far-right speakers. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
- ^ Tripodi, Francesca (May 2018). Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices (PDF) (Report). Retrieved 22 October 2020.
- ^ Gregory, John. "prageru.com" (PDF). NewsGuard. Retrieved 22 October 2020.
{{ cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status ( link)- ^ "PragerU". Media Bias/Fact Check. Retrieved 2020-10-22.
- ^ Molloy, Parker. "PragerU relies on a veneer of respectability to obscure its propagandist mission". Media Matters for America. Retrieved 2020-10-22.
References
References
particularly from left-leaning sourcesThat's SYN/OR. -- Hipal/Ronz ( talk) 14:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
References
Thanks for the self revert. I think my sourcing concerns are largely the same as above as well as the concern that you are taking criticisms that are often of specific videos and then expanding that into a view that most/all their videos are criticized as such. If the article lead is going to say something about generalized criticism I think we need a source that says as much. We do have a bit of a dumping ground for criticism of various videos already but again that's more focused on specific videos. As for the sources, SPLC shouldn't be cited directly. If other sources say "SPLC said X" then that is OK, but in general we don't see SLPC claims as having weight unless a RS reports the claim. MJ is generally a reliable source but as I said before, in this particular case they are using misleading summarizes of some of the videos to the point that I feel the article shouldn't be considered reliable or at least reliable for those specific claims. The AC seems to have only a beef with one video and mostly due to the presenter, not PragerU videos in general. MediaMaters isn't considered a quality source. The Tripodi work needs to be handled careful as it isn't peer reviewed. The general conclusion that "alt-light" sources lead people to alt-right views is challenged and the specific opinions about PragerU weren't the primary focus of the paper and aren't why it was viewed as notable. Really, I think if you want to make these generalized statements about PragerU we need sources that say about the same thing. We can't bundle a bunch of specific criticisms and decide we have enough to call it generalized. That runs afoul of synthesis. Springee ( talk) 05:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The problems with sources Springee raised...It's not just Springee raising them, and I don't see much progress. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Noteduck, your expansion of the Murray video content is UNDUE here[ [18]]. This appears to be a direct copy of the content you are pushing into the Douglas Murray (author) article[ [19]]. Perhaps this would be a good time to rework that material but any more than a sentence or two is too much give the scope of this article isn't Murray or Islam. Springee ( talk) 04:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Text from article
|
---|
A 2018 video produced for PragerU by Douglas Murray titled "The Suicide of Europe" led to considerable media discussion and controversy. The video, which has thus far received 7.4 million views on PragerU's website, [1] drew criticism for purportedly "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'. [2] Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism Mark Pitcavage said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric". [3] [4] Similarly, the Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a " dog whistle to the extreme right", [5] while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times argued that the video "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right". [6] References
|
Noteduck the new, shortened paragraph that you added was clumsily worded to say the least. In the current paragraph, there are 4.5 sources:
I think the references to all are due and I don't think you can remove any of them or shorten the paragraph any further without compromising its quality. If none of the information is contested, why not leave the paragraph the way it is? Noteduck ( talk) 03:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm following the WP:BRD process here; I reverted to the original version of the text so we can work out a consensus here. Here's Noteduck's last version:
A 2018 PragerU video about immigration to Europe presented by author Douglas Murray titled "The Suicide of Europe" drew criticism for purportedly "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'.[Sludge] Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism Mark Pitcavage said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric".[Sludge][Bridge] Similarly, the Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right",[SPLC] while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times said the video "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right".[LAT]
I agree with Springee that (i) this is awkwardly written, (ii) the Bridge reference is redundant, and (iii) this version does not summarize the video at all. I would add that the claim about "white genocide" needs to be attributed to Kotch if it is to be included. However, I don't see why a remark from Kotch is WP:DUE in the article, so I think it should not be included. Also, the reference to the LAT piece inaccurately quotes Halper. On review of his piece, I cannot tell that Halper means to cite Murray's video (rather than just D'Souza's) as an example of a video that echoes "some of the movement’s talking points" (that's the accurate quote), so this has to come out in my opinion. In light of these issues, I propose this:
A 2018 video by Douglas Murray argued that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate.[LAT] Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said that although he does not regard the video as being fascist or white nationalist, there was "certainly prejudice inherent in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric."[SLUDGE] The SPLC described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right."[SPLC]
Shinealittlelight ( talk) 06:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Prager says he disavows the alt-right ideology that has gained ground in the Trump era, but the online lessons often echo some of the movement’s talking points.
A video of Dinesh D’Souza, the right-wing author, opining on why Western cultures are superior to others has been viewed 4.7 million times, for example. Another, featuring Douglas Murray, the British author of several books about Europe and immigration, laments that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate. It has 6.7 million views.
The clear implication is that both the D'Souza and Murray videos echo alt-right talking points. Why remove material when we don't need to? How about the paragraph start with:
"A 2018 video hosted by Douglas Murray that displayed the purported negative consequences of immigration to Europe titled "The Suicide of Europe" drew criticism for..."
I don't get what your objection to the Kotch quote is at all. Here you have three separate articles with the added weight of an expert from the Anti-Defamation League criticizing PragerU's video in very harsh terms, encapsulated in three short sentences - I'm not sure how you can argue any of that is not due Noteduck ( talk) 07:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm seeing a repeated pattern where material is being deleted from PragerU's page on the basis of undue weight. This seems to be mostly the work of Shinealittlelight and Springee, who appear to have been doing this for a while. Material related to the video on Robert E. Lee and the videos hosted by Douglas Murray and Owen Benjamin. My question is - if a reputed media or academic source criticizes a video made by PragerU, what grounds do you have for excluding the material? The brief paragraph under "critiques of videos" about the Douglas Murray "Suicide of Europe" video includes three respected sources and comprises three short sentences. What grounds are there for excluding any of this?
Shinealittlelight, you wrote the following comments about the PragerU page on your talk page [21] in November 2019:
Now if you really want to see a revert, you should add a positive conservative opinion of Prager U to the reception section, which is now reserved for critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I think this demonstrates that you are struggling to view the source impartially, and should perhaps step back from editing this page. You also describe yourself as a "reasonable conservative" (19 May 2019) in discussion with an editor who seems to perceive Wikipedia as full of leftist bias. It seems that you keep a kind of watch over this page, but I think it's best to engage with your own biases first. Noteduck ( talk) 07:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Individually these might not be due but with the three of them taken together, the deletion of this material looks like egregious pro-Prager bias. I don't understand how Prager platforming a controversial speaker who turned out to be a holocaust denier, then removing his videos, could not be due weight. I'll leave it open to the floor but I think this is quite overt right wing bias Noteduck ( talk) 08:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).[6] When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8]
Have a look at the author Bethany Mandel's portfolio on Muck Rack [27] - she's actually quite esteemed. Here she is in the NY Times [28] and The Atlantic [29]. So I'm not sure if I'd call her a "specialist or recognized expert" but she certainly is an experienced journalist writing in a high-quality publication (feel free to make a counter-argument on the quality of JTA if you wish). This is backed by the Media Matters for America source and the Business Insider source, which are two fairly mediocre sources. The JTA article is a detailed exposition of Benjamin's beliefs and ideology. The author reached Benjamin for comment and spoke to some of his supporters, which is a level of professionalism absent from a lot of opinion journalism. In other words, this is not just an anti-Owen Benjamin or anti-Prager spray. I see one good source here backed by two mediocre ones, which I think is surely enough to establish due weight. Of course the material should not be written in Wiki's voice, but "X expressed concern about PragerU's platforming of Owen Benjamin, who later expressed support for white supremacism and holocaust denial" hardly seems undue on this page Noteduck ( talk) 23:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)