Talk:Dennis Prager/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Prager's issues with your page on him

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Should NPR evidence be included?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Churnalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2018

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

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

incorrect asssertion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting out of context

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

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

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

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

Proposed rewrite of opening remarks in the "Views" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You say that my suggested wording is original research but you don't specify what that original research might be. We of course need not use the NPR source to show Prager's "views" because we have a more appropriate source—The Atlantic. It is a more appropriate source because it actually addresses Prager's "views" which is actually the heading of the relevant section of the article that we are discussing. The NPR source is primarily concerned with the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra and the reaction of some of its members to having Prager as its conductor. The Atlantic article is more squarely on the topic of our article and particularly of that section of our article. It is a reliable source and it squarely addresses the views of Prager. For instance it 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." These are two different sorts of sources. The article in The Atlantic provides a good overview of the things that motivate and guide Prager. It is the more appropriate of the two sources that we are considering. Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the original research and attempts to undermine pov with personal opinion: [1] [2].

Both Jytdog and myself have said much about the various sources. The NPR source has the summarizing information that the others lack, but the other sources support.

You're veering off to a new proposal maybe? --Ronz (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I am still discussing this with you and others. Please see below, as I will momentarily be posting there. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Jytdog:, @Shinealittlelight:, I came here because of a Teahouse question. Having read this far, I have a couple of thoughts, but I want to make sure I've understood first, and it's a long discussion. Would this be a fair summary of the debate so far?

• Shine would rather say "holds a number of controversial opinions about" rather than "often targets"

• Bus stop adds that "targets" suggests something too active (in practical terms)

• Jytdog prefers the original because a) it's more direct; b) it's a statement of NPR's views, not Wikipedia's, so NPOV isn't such a concern
• Shine thinks it's really the view of one writer (Lulu Garcia-Navarro), hence WP:UNDUE, and it's better to temper the language to mediate between Wikipedia's non-opinion and the NPR opinion we're giving as typical
• There are some suggested alternative sources to refer to, but Jytdog thinks they don't adequately convey the negative side of Prager's approach ("attacking" as well as "championing")

I hope now's a good point in the conversation to step back and summarise, so that I'm not simply interrupting here, but if I'm getting in the way, let me know and I won't reply again. › Mortee _talk 01:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I would say this is a fair summary. I should add that Alexander McCall is also on the by-line of the NPR piece, and I should have noted that, so it really is two people. I hadn't noticed his name before; it was an honest mistake. I do think the NPR piece is biased, and I believe that's the root of the disagreement.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Morte. Thanks for the outsider's viewpoint.

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)

I got the "attacking" as well as "championing" part from 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)

Thank you for the clarification and quotes. --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The question at Teahouse is here. It arose directly from the discussions in the threads above, where it is very obvious that Shinealittlelight (who is a 100% WP:SPA per their contribs) has come here to soften the criticism. Mortee if you review the history you will see that Prager doesn't like this article and complains about it on his radio show fairly often and his fans come here in response and keep trying to change it per Prager's wishes. Shinealittlelight is just the latest in a long, long line. It is clear, that to this person, "bias" is anything not aligned with what they view as "mainstream conservative positions", which a) is how this person characterizes Prager's views (already an unsourced personal opinion) and b) this person appears to believe that the authors of the NPR piece do not hold or even oppose -- hence the claim of "bias"). These are invalid bases for any discussion in WP; if it were valid this place would be even more a Mad Max world than it already is sometimes. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I do not think that bias is "anything not aligned with" what I view as "meainstream conservative positions." That is not my view. I do think--and of course it is my opinion--that the claim that anyone who holds such positions "targets gays and Muslims" is an opinion, and not a factual report of news. We must rely on our opinions to assess sources for bias. So it seems to me that we have a disagreement of opinion about whether the NPR story contains bias. I and (I think) Bus stop think it does, and these two editors think that it does not. This is the root of our disagreement. I would like to calmly discuss how we might come to consensus given our disagreement. But Ronz and Jytdog seem to be very upset with me when I try to do this!Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Your response demonstrates the problem I am describing. You are brand new here, you came with a very clear agenda, and are grabbing bits of policy to support what you came here already wanting to do; this is what we call "wikilawyering" and it is unproductive. My description of what you have been doing and how you have been arguing is drawn directly from what you have written above. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I am brand new. I saw what I thought was bias in the NPR source and thought I could help to improve neutrality in the article, so I got involved. Saying that editors are required to assess sources for bias is not "wikilawyering". It isn't tricky, or somehow a gaming of the system. And I never said that any non-conservative source is biased. I said that it is biased to say that mainstream conservative opinions "target" gays and Muslims. This is of course my personal opinion, and the basis of my view that the NPR piece is biased. You are welcome to hold a different personal opinion than me, in which case we need to try to persuade, compromise, and build consensus.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:27, 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)

Here's a suggestion: Post your question about the reliability of the NPR source and the Atlantic source to WP:RSN and see if there is a consensus reached there. My assessment is that regardless of whether there is editorial bias in the NPR source, the fact that the article attributes the statement (According to National Public Radio...), brings it into accordance with NPOV. SueDonem (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not argued that the wording presently in our article is a violation of WP:NPOV. It is inapt. It is inappropriate. Just because something is found in a reliable source is not a reason to put it in an article. We are not compelled to do so. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me. I’ve read the NPOV argument made by another editor. Curious, if not NPOV, which editing policy do you feel the wording is in violation of? There may be a particular noticeboard or forum to discuss the merits of your claim with third parties who focus on that particular policy. SueDonem (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Bear in mind that we are discussing the Views of Dennis Prager. This source is a more appropriate source for the views of Prager than this source. In the section of the article under discussion we want to present a general overview and we should want to do so using even-handed language. One source has as its primary purpose the documenting of the reaction of some members of the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra to having Prager as a guest conductor. The other article is addressing the "principles" of Prager, meaning what motivates Prager? and what are his guiding principles? These are general questions, and more in keeping with what is required of a "Views" section of an article on Prager. Bus stop (talk) 18:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop, good to meet you too. At the risk of just being one more chef in a crowded kitchen, my thoughts on the content side:

1. Keep the NPR source as a clear statement at a decent level of summary in a reliable source. It is the work of a more than one writer (two on the byline, one named contributor at the bottom). Any statement about someone's ideology as a whole will be a result of the writers' judgement, so the fact that there's opinion in there is inevitable. Saying "NPR says..." is important, which we do. The "champions Judeo-Christan values" is too high-level a summary to be a replacement because it wouldn't distinguish him from other Christians with the opposite political views.
2. Keep the "targets" part because it's a direct quote and rewording it would inevitably represent the source less accurately. It's not for us to debate if NPR's right to say "target", but in any case here I think it means "make the target of criticism (on his talk show)", nothing violent.
3. Find some second highly reliable source that gives a clear expression of Prager's overall views and add that as well. Two sources are better than one. If the second takes a different view then we've gained some nuance. If it covers different aspects of his ideology then we've gained some completeness. If it's very much the same then we've gained robustness of referencing and shown readers that the NPR view isn't an isolated one.
4. I'm not sure the Atlantic quote ("... champions Judeo-Christian values...") sums up that source well enough to be a good excerpt on its own, since the article goes on to quote Prager seeming to say that defeating the left is a more important principle than that. Perhaps something combining those would be usable. (As we quote in the 'Donald Trump' section)

Just my view, so take it for what it's worth. This is in no way my area of expertise so I'll butt out now. Just hoped a disinterested eye on this might help to settle it down a little, so I hope I've offered that at least. › Mortee _talk 18:24, 24 August 2018 (UTC); edited › Mortee _talk 18:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Atlantic piece is a political essay, not a straight up source that is reporting. It would need to be attributed. See my description of the Atlantic piece and the role of the "Judeo-Christian" sentence in the rhetoric of the essay, here. If we were to use that sentence, it would need to be attributed. The proposal is also missing the role that the sentence plays, where it is functioning as a WP:LEAD for the section. The proposed alternative sentence does not summarize what is below. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

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.

1. Fox News.
2. Commentary. (An old review of a collection of his essays, but they cover a very wide range of his views).
3. Publishers Weekly. (A review of a more recent book he wrote outlining his views on a very broad range of topics).Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Those are possibly useful. Why don't you propose content in a new section. Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Lots of WP:SOAP, especially Fox News.

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.

Nothing else really stands out. --Ronz (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

There's quite a bit on Huffington Post. I've never paid much attention to when Huffington Post is reliable and for what, but the few I glanced at looked like unusable opinion pieces.

I'm not finding the specific quote from Media Matters, but there's a number of articles, mostly just using Prager's words against him, occasionally pointing out inaccuracies and "nonsense". Again, I'm not familiar with the use of Media Matters. The articles appear slightly better than those of Huffington Post, but in a BLP?

I don't have time atm to look into the others. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The Commentary one gives an overview, at least. Perhaps the addition would be something like "In Commentary, Jay Lefkowitz writes that Prager's views in favor of capital punishment and interracial adoption, and against single motherhood and "unmoderated" pacifism, stem from his monotheism, and that his core critique of modern American culture is its tendency to "embrace abstract notions like love, compassion, and self-esteem, while neglecting self-discipline and ethical behavior"". The article also suggests some new subsections that could be written under Views (combining other sources). For example it discusses race, which isn't currently covered. Shinealittlelight, as Jytdog suggests, perhaps make a specific proposal in a new section and see what others think? › Mortee _talk 18:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Mortee—I believe you support the inclusion of the quote presently in the article sourced to the NPR article therefore I have a question for you. In what way does Prager target multiculturalism? The sentence in the article of course says that he "targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people". I don't think any of this elucidates for the reader the views of Prager. Can you tell me any way in which Prager targets multiculturalism? Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bus stop. I don't have to think the NPR writer is correct in order to agree that it's fair to include a quote from them here. The essay at WP:TRUTH is useful on that point. What matters is what reliable sources say, as long as they're presented properly. The right way to address concerns about the NPR source, in my view, is to balance it out by adding other reliable sources, which may or may not agree. (As I said above, I think "targets" here means "criticises", not "persecutes" or worse). I understand you'd rather see the NPR quote removed regardless. Would you mind waiting until any additions have been rejected/agreed and then revisiting this? I think debating that one point further right now might be distracting. If, after any changes resulting from that discussion, you still think it's unbalanced, that would be a better time to pursue the point. › Mortee _talk 21:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Mortee—it is not a matter of "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)

I don't think that's entirely fair, but I'd ask the same either way: can we revisit this after any additions have been discussed? My only goal here is to help this debate reach conclusions, and at the moment I think it's fragmented, with no consensus to remove the NPR quote. After additions it might be easier to discuss it without the current weight caused by it being the only reference in the summary. › Mortee _talk 22:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Problems with Commentary: It's old. It's solely about a single book. There's a strong possiblility that portions are taken from a press release or media guide. If used at all, the presentation would need to be specific to the book and time period.--Ronz (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Ronz—I think you also support the inclusion of the quote from the NPR source reading "targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people". Can I ask you the same question? In what way does Prager target multiculturalism? Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

It's in the context of a book review (as the NPR source is in the context of a musical performance), but it addresses Prager's views as a whole, so I think it's worth evaluating. Something like the sentence I quoted doesn't seem overly promotional on the face of it, but I'm only bringing it up for others to discuss. It might be edited to note the context better, sure, and objections might be based on that principle. If interested editors propose a specific edit based on it, that's one point worth bringing up. › Mortee _talk 22:33, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The NPR source writes "The Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra will have a guest conductor this week: Dennis Prager. He'll conduct Haydn's Symphony No. 51 at an orchestra fundraiser."[3] That is probably one performance. Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, I think I said that. Anyhow, if one of the editors who would like to see a change could propose a concrete addition taking the conversation above into account, that might help to keep this focused. › Mortee _talk 22:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That the NPR source can say that he "targets multiculturalism" shows that the source wishes to skewer him. This is a form of bias. And that source, unlike any other source that we are considering, such as the Commentary (magazine) source, is myopically focussed on one incident. The NPR source is not an overview of the ideas that motivate and guide Prager, which is what we are looking for in a "Views" section of our article. If our aim is to ridicule Prager, the NPR source will serve that purpose well. Bus stop (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly not the aim. Let's address additions for now and come back to the original later. › Mortee _talk 23:13, 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)

Thanks to Bus stop for the suggestion. I've written another attempt for everyone's consideration as well. I refer to a piece by Mother Jones, and also this Brooks piece in the NYT. I also include an older quote from the LA Times, which isn't online and I would have to hunt down in the archives to verify it and make sure the context isn't misleading. But here's my attempt:

Prager addresses a range of issues, "among them race relations, capital punishment, abortion, pacifism, and religious extremism." He is a religiously observant Jew who feels that God's "central demand is that people act decently toward one another." In Mother Jones, Mark Oppenheimer writes that Prager has a “self-image not of a partisan warrior but rather of a socially ambidextrous everyman: a Jew who's popular on conservative Christian campuses, an East Coaster gone native in Southern California, a civility maven who thinks our runaway train of a president is terrific. He's untortured by these contradictions—indeed, he denies they are contradictions.”

His stances on these and other issues have garnered a wide range of reactions. For example, the Los Angeles Times has written that he is an “amazingly gifted man and moralist whose mission in life has been crystallized – ‘to get people obsessed with what is right and wrong’”. And Jay Lefkowitz from Commentary writes that Prager brings a “cogent mind and a humane sensibility to bear on whatever he surveys.” And David Brooks writes that he “intelligent 99 percent of the time.” On the other hand, Steve Kurtz writes for Fox News that Prager has “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.” And National Public Radio writes that he is an "outspoken conservative" who "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people."

Lots of changes are possible here; this is just a suggestion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

My first observation concerns the quote from the NPR source. There is nothing of value in the NPR quote. It should be dropped. There is no point in putting misinformation in the article. Please see the essay WP:TRUTHMATTERS. I challenge anyone to show us how Prager targets multiculturalism. NPR wishes to say that but we are not compelled to include baseless and disparaging material in our article. An excerpt from the referenced essay reads: "truth on Wikipedia does matter, and that claiming that it doesn't is at best disingenuous, and at worst, counterproductive to nuanced content dispute conversations." Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you, Bus stop, about the value of the NPR source. But I think that we have to try to build a consensus here, and I think (although it's hard to tell for sure just yet) that we may all be able to agree first about how to make the article better without dropping the NPR source. And then maybe we can return to further discussion of the question whether the NPR source should be included subsequently. But at least two editors here have very clearly said that dropping the NPR source would in their opinion be a violation of NPOV. I disagree with them, as you no doubt do as well. But I think we can make the article better here--both by making the overview of Prager's views more complete and by providing additional perspectives from a number of sources--without removing the NPR source. Does that seem unreasonable?Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The NPR source is problematic on multiple levels. For instance: it is saying virtually nothing. Does saying that Prager "targets" certain entities shed any light on the way in which he allegedly targets these entities? Emphatically not. Any material under serious consideration for inclusion in the "Views" section must be forthcoming with sufficient information to make that comment comprehensible. A mere assertion that Prager "targets" something tells the reader exceptionally little. In what way does he "target" these entities? The NPR source does not elaborate. There are several other sources available that are categorically better for our purposes than the NPR source. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• "he is a religiously observant Jew" has been stated twice in the tentative proposals offered here, sourced from the 1996 Commentary piece. The 2005 Encyclopedia of Judaism ref says: "Prager abandoned his Orthodoxy as an adult, although he continues to maintain many traditional Jewish practices". Please be aware that a) in general people and views with change with time; b) WP:RELTIME. There should be dates attached to these sorts of statements about beliefs and views. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you make a valid point, Jytdog, and I struck through "religiously observant" in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

He is definitely not orthodox, but are we sure it follows that he isn't observant? From googling around it looks like observant and orthodox are not equivalent, but I don't have an authoritative source on this.Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources seem to differ, calling each source into doubt. Perhaps another source can resolve this. In the meantime I've eliminated the language that has been called into question, in this edit. Bus stop (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'd be happy to change my wording to "he is a religious Jew".Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• The Commentary piece becomes unavailable after you have clicked it a few times. I have it, if anybody wants it.Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Same. I had to work around that while writing my original reply. Shame their paywall filter doesn't distinguish between people reading multiple articles and reading the same one multiple times. › Mortee _talk 20:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, Mortee—I find that in Firefox one can toggle to "reader view" and bypass the paywall restriction at that source. "Reader view" is a little less fancy, but usable. Bus stop (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop interesting! How do I toggle to reader view? I don't see anything in the burger menu. I used a wholly different method to read it once more and have kept that tab open since in case I need it. › Mortee _talk 20:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Mortee—not in the burger menu, it is a little "page" icon just to the right of the web address, just to the left of the degree of magnification, or "zoom". Bus stop (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop that's fantastic, thank you! I had no idea that toggle existed. › Mortee _talk 20:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. It doesn't always work. I think its primary use is to eliminate advertising. Bus stop (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been able to get it to open a few times using incognito in chrome.Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:34, 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)

I don't think there's enough progress yet. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The NPR source can be left in, Shinealittlelight. I don't care. But considerably more material on the "views" of Prager should be added. Bus stop (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that additional sub-sections could be added to the section to fill it out, though no specific proposal like this has yet been offered. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean that the two proposals (or one or the other) for the opening remarks of the section are not sufficiently broad in their general description of his views? And Ronz, can you be more specific? I can't tell what you mean by that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Ronz—can you clarify what you mean by "I don't think there's enough progress yet"? There are some suggestions mentioned for expanding the "Views" section of the article. I'm particularly impressed by the Commentary Magazine source's capacity to inject Prager's ideas into this article in a form that accurately reflects them. Do you have objections or suggestions? Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 28 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)

As long as the concerns about the Commentary book review are ignored, I don't see what progress we can make.

Also, all the quotes seem grossly UNDUE and SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I would argue Prager expresses himself very well. His ability to express himself verbally is excellent. He states in no uncertain terms what his views are on race. This is not WP:SOAP nor is it WP:UNDUE: "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)

As concerns WP:UNDUE, the article at this time does not contain any reference to "race", so how can my suggested addition be seen as an instance of WP:UNDUE? Bus stop (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Your feelings about how Prager expresses himself have no place here. Please stop giving your personal opinions.

The italicized text is not an actual content proposal but more like a book report. If you want to make a content proposal that summarizes accepted knowledge about Prager's views, please do so. Extensive quoting is not the way to go.Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 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)

What you offered above is not a useful suggestion. If you want to propose content, please propose the actual content you would like to have considered. Ideally it summarizes the sources used. If something is a strong statement such that it should be attributed, a quote is fine, otherwise please just summarize. It would be best to do that in a new section, with the actual citations, etc. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The value of academic integrity

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)

Eugh. › Mortee _talk 19:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

New Proposal on Opening Remarks in the Views Section

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.

Prager advocates conservative views on a broad range of moral, political, and religious issues. He is a religious Jew, and has taught and written extensively on the first five books of the Hebrew bible. He believes that morality requires a religious basis, and that God primarily requires human beings to “act decently toward one another.” He opposes the political advocacy of “leftists”, who he regards as undermining western civilization.

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.” Critics, however, have sometimes accused Prager of hypocrisy, idiocy, and worse. For example, NPR writes that he "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people."

References

Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

That is very good, Shinealittlelight. That provides a good overview of ideas and views pertaining to Dennis Prager. Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the fact of having taught and {{bracket:edit: written}} about those parts of the Bible informative? It doesn't describe his opinion about them. Perhaps combine and condense the first two sentences to e.g. "Prager is a religious Jew who advocates conservative views on a range of issues.", simply for conciseness. No over-all view on this - not my area - but it looks like a new proposal that retains elements of the original. › Mortee _talk 01:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

How about: "He's a religious Jew whose moral views are informed by his extensive commentary on the first five books of the Hebrew bible." Would that make the relevance clearer? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure, possibly. I'm not clear as a reader how that part of his commentary informs his views as described below this, but it states more clearly that it is so. Other editors will probably have stronger views on whether keeping that subclause is helpful. › Mortee _talk 01:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be getting things backwards. If this is an improved, more informative summary of his views as reported in the sources, then the rest of the section should be brought into line with this improved opening, rather than seeing the opening as hostage to the anemic remainder of the section. But we have to work one tiny step at a time on this article, since so much controversy results from every single proposed word. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the rest of the section, just saying that as a reader without expertise, reading the text as you wrote it I don't see what the first five books of the Hebrew Bible have to do with his views, except that he's talked about them. The two solutions are either drop that bit (my suggestion, for now) or expand on it (perhaps in a new subsection) to explain what those books' influence is. › Mortee _talk 02:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Mortee—I don't think the first five books of the Hebrew Bible have 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 is a religious Jew" is not apt, based on the encyclopedia reference discussed above. I don't know that "conservative" is the most apt and have struggled with this label as I have read the sources; he is very much social conservative for sure. I cannot figure out his politics yet based on the sources.... But overall this is a place to start. 02:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

He's called a conservative repeatedly in the sources, I think. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, Jytdog, I thought what we talked about was dropping "observant". He's clearly seen as a religious Jew in the sources, isn't he? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight—The Forward, in 2018, writes "Not only is Prager Jewish — and deeply religious at that — but he is a graduate of the prestigious Yeshiva of Flatbush, was the director of the Brandeis-Bardin Institute, and has just published what I consider to be the most important book on the Torah in a generation"[5] so I think your wording "religious Jew" would be correct. Bus stop (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Being religious + being Jewish =/= "religious Jew" which very much implies "observant", since so much (not all) of Judaism is about what you do and observing the traditions/law for behavior. The Forward's description is much more apt. Something like "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" would be more clear. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I am happy with your proposed sentence as a replacement of what I wrote. If we replace the sentence in my version with this sentence you've suggested, that would also satisfy Mortee's desire to drop the statement that he has written about the bible. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I oppose the suggestion made by Jytdog. In 2018 Prager is asked "How would you describe your Jewish identity and affiliation today?" Prager responds "Then and today my identity has been the same — a deeply religious Jew, though not strictly Orthodox." He says he is a "deeply religious Jew". From that we can derive that he is a "religious Jew". Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Even he in the quoted text has the caveat "though not strictly Orthodox". Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what your point is. We are not calling him "Orthodox". Bus stop (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Here (2009) he says "Thanksgiving has always been my favorite national holiday. In fact, although I am a religious Jew (or rather, because I am a religious Jew), it rivals my favorite Jewish holidays for my affection." Bus stop (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Bus stop, Jytdog, I really believe that we're at the stage where, if we're going to improve the article, we're going to need to compromise here and there. I would humbly suggest that we should perhaps ask: is the proposal, altered as Jytdog has suggested, better than the currently published text? If you don't, then say that of course. But if you do think it would be an improvement, maybe we could see that as a success? Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to know that "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)

Other possibilities: "practicing, believing Jew" or "a Jew who is observant to a degree that approaches but falls short of orthodoxy"? I'm ok with any of these. Is there any one choice we can all agree to?? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:12, 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)

I think that the suggestions I made are reasonable paraphrases of what we know from the sources. Maybe you disagree. That's ok. I'm fine with all of the above. Jytdog is worried that 'religious Jew' will suggest that he is observant in the sense of orthodoxy. Rather than argue about this, can we just please compromise by picking something else that we can all accept? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I think "conservative" is also acceptable because this source says 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)

I also find "Some of them dabble in topics like parenting or financial advice, but most cover core conservative doctrines."[7] "Conservative" seems to be a source-supported term. (Although I realize this is not 100% supported across all sources.) Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting. So you start off with his "conservative views" sourced to, among others, the Mother Jones article. How about you start with "irrational and apocalyptic" views, also sourced to the same Mother Jones article? Given the counterfactual of a bunch of the videos, that might not be unfair. Happy POVing, Drmies (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to including the MJ claim that he holds "irrational and apocalypic" views. Would you regard that as an improvement? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Ditto here, Drmies, if you feel that "irrational and apocalyptic" needs to be worked into the chunk of proposed wording above, please provide a re-write of the entire proposed new chunk of text. I will be glad to evaluate it. I will provide feedback that will be equally as intelligible as anything that bird says here. Bus stop (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Easy way to include that MJ quote: just put a sentence at the end that says And Mother Jones has written that Prager holds views that are "irrational and apocalyptic" with a citation to the MJ article. Would that be an improvement from your perspective, Drmies?

• At least there's something to chew on here. I'll keep this on my watchlist for a few days, but by default I'll leave it with editors who know more on the subject. Regardless of the above, I'm glad this has at least moved to the point of concrete proposals rather than simple wheel-spinning. Clearly there are still disagreements, but it looks more constructive on balance. › Mortee _talk 02:21, 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)

Hi Ronz. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the NPR ref is a footnote. It's quoted in-text, so it isn't a footnote. I think you must mean that it isn't given appropriate weight in my proposal? Is that right? I'm also gathering that you think the Commentary source should be excluded and not relied upon at all. Is that also correct? I'm trying to make progress here, and I'd be happy to try again, but I can't tell what exactly you're recommending. Or maybe it's your view that the current language in the article is as good as it can get? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest reading my past comments on these references. --Ronz (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I have sincerely, and to the best of my ability, tried to be responsive to the things you have said. It would really help out if you could work with me a little more, perhaps by proposing some specific langauge (e.g., as Jytdog does above), unless, as I say, your position is just that the language currently in the article simply cannot be improved upon. I am open to any specific language you might suggest. Do you think that the language I proposed is worse than the language currently in the piece? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:06, 30 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)

Revised attempt

Ok, here's a revised version that incorporates the feedback above. Further thoughts welcome.

Prager advocates conservative views on a broad range of moral, political, and religious issues. 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. He believes that morality requires a religious basis, and that God primarily requires human beings to “act decently toward one another.” He opposes the political advocacy of “leftists”, who he regards as undermining western civilization.

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.” Critics, however, have sometimes accused Prager of hypocrisy, idiocy, and worse. For example, NPR writes that he "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." And Mother Jones writes that he holds views that are “irrational and apocalyptic”.

References

Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

That is fine with me. I give it my stamp of approval. Bus stop (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Revised attempt with refs fixed

Prager advocates conservative views on a broad range of moral, political, and religious issues. 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. He believes that morality requires a religious basis, and that God primarily requires human beings to “act decently toward one another. He opposes the political advocacy of “leftists”, who he regards as undermining western civilization. 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.” Critics, however, have sometimes accused Prager of hypocrisy, idiocy, and worse. For example, NPR writes that he "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people." And Mother Jones writes that he holds views that are “irrational and apocalyptic”.

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)

Yes, that is fine. Bus stop (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The Forward piece is a blog and we can't use it except with attribution and the WP:BLPSPS purists would say not at all. The Atlantic piece is a blog and we can maybe use it but probably shouldn't (and the WP:BLPSPS purists would say not at all), and all it is, is Friedersdorf's musings; it we use it, it needs attribution. The Hugh Hewitt ref is two guys talking, giving their opinions. What the hell is that even doing here. Again, we can't use it except with attribution and the WP:BLPSPS purists would ~probably~ say not at all; less sure how they would react to this. But none of these are sources that are aiming to describe, where we can find accepted knowledge that we can summarize.

The "positive reactions" sentence is, in general, generating content by thinking, "I will write X, and then throw some citations after it that 'prove' X." That is not how we edit - we summarize sources. This principle has been stated many times already on this talk page. The not-learning is getting tedious.

The quotation “cogent mind and humane sensibility" is not attributed. Where I come from, we learned that quotations need attribution in grade school.

Neither NPR nor Mother Jones is a person; neither "writes" anything. Jytdog (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, again, there is no sense of time here, other than the religious change. Are these current views, old views, consistent views?? No sense of that.

Several sources make it appear that he made some kind of turn to seeing the world around him as on the brink of disaster leading up to 2016 and his endorsement of Trump (Mother Jones, the Atlantic piece already cited in the article)... Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I think? I agree with several of the points you are making, and would welcome friendly help in improving what I wrote. I agree that it can be improved. But it seems to me that it's relevant to ask whether this, or a somewhat revised version of this that is still not perfect, would be better than the text currently in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it would violate policy in several ways and is just poor basic scholarship. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Redundancy

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)

More descriptive labels would be preferred of course, and we don't want to work with the assumption that PragerU is simply a venue for his viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Quote from The Atlantic

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)

The remaining issue is described here], as I even restated here. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You link to your earlier post saying "He doesn't only "champion" things ... he attacks others as well". Perhaps he does, perhaps he doesn't, but either way—why would that matter? 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) 20:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The objection to pulling out that phrase is after the first sentence. Please read all of what i wrote here, not just the first sentence, and respond to it. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog—can you please tell me why you are saying "He doesn't only "champion" things ... he attacks others as well"? What point do you feel that you are making in saying that "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)

See your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog—why are you reverting here? Bus stop (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

See my response to your OP. Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 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)

Please eee your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You wrote this, to which I replied with this (same diff I have cited several times here).

You wrote :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)

You wrote 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.

My reply that was 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)

Views

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)

Definitely worth a try. Summarizing anyone's views is difficult, nearly impossible when they are in politics as Prager is. --Ronz (talk) 00:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

done. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A good step in getting this article out of Start Class. Thank you.

Any idea who the authors of the Encyclopedia of Judaism entry are? We're giving the ref a lot of weight, and I'm unimpressed with how it identifies major life events, but provides little in the way of analysis or summary. One bit that really stands out is how we cover The Nine Questions.... I can't believe there are no reliable sources that summarize it worlds better.

The lack of sources that analyze or summarize really stands out, but we have to work with what we have.

How close are we to moving this article beyond Start Class at this point? --Ronz (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't really care about classification. Other people can judge that. About the Encyclopdia, it seems decent to me. I can't find info on Sara E. Karesh but here is info on Mitchell M. Hurvitz. Yes there are more sources on 9 questions.

I've been using proquest to find older sources about Prager to fill in the history. Interesting ride for me... Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)