Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:PragerU/Archive 5) (bot |
→Climate change 29 April edits: new section |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
The article says both for some reason. [[User:X-Editor|X-Editor]] ([[User talk:X-Editor|talk]]) 00:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC) |
The article says both for some reason. [[User:X-Editor|X-Editor]] ([[User talk:X-Editor|talk]]) 00:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Climate change 29 April edits == |
|||
{{ping|PaleoNeonate|North8000|Ixocactus}}, I have an issue with this recent edit [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=1020556015&oldid=1020003705]]. This is content that should be presented as an attributed POV. First, the source as reported by The Independent is InfluenceMap. I don't see that the article supports claims that the PragerU videos "lie about the scientific consensus" etc. I think this one where we have to be careful to stick to the content that is clearly supported by the source. Additionally, we need to be careful because if a specific ad is identified as "lying" it would mean we are saying the presenter (likely a BLP subject) is lying. Anyway, as the edit stands I think it should be removed. Is there a way to fix it rather than just remove it? [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 16:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:14, 3 May 2021
Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Websites: Computing C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Uneccisary Credits
From the article: "According to Mother Jones, some PragerU videos argue there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans and that the gender pay gap does not exist.".
Why is the "according to Mother Jones" part even necessary? Did the videos say it or not? It doesn't matter what Mother Jones stated, but if their videos contained it. Why do we need to reference them when there is plenty of possible ways to prove it.
Either they did say it, and you can provide a link to the video in which they said it, or they didn't, and this isn't neccesary. EytanMelech (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- I reframed the attributed criticism to be of the content of the video rather than an interpretation of the content, since even the title and description on PU's site directly states the concept that was being criticised so it does not need to be framed as an interpretation. I think the attribution of criticism should remain though, unless this passage is modified to fit into the content section. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I think it is there to avoid "but who said it" tags.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- I restored the previous wording. I previously raised objections about MJ's summary of the videos as inaccurate. MJ reframes the video arguments in a way that isn't true to the source. This is why we make it clear that it's MJ interpretation in question.[[1]] Springee (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is a statement of fact, not opinion, about the video and there is existing consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable for statements of fact. Since the discussion you linked didn't reach consensus that MJ is unreliable for this statement, we go with the existing community consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- That was not the consensus of the RSN discussion and the general MJ assessment does not automatically apply to all MJ articles. The MJ assessments of the videos are their options. The consensus was that absent treating the MJ article as unreliable we attribute and that is what we are doing here. Springee (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
- This is a statement of fact, not opinion, about the video and there is existing consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable for statements of fact. Since the discussion you linked didn't reach consensus that MJ is unreliable for this statement, we go with the existing community consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
That summary (essentially that it PragerU or some of their videos said that there is ZERO of those things) is very far reaching (probably reaching far into falsehood) and sounds like a straw-man version of what they actually said and certainly needs attribution if it is even retained.North8000 (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- "the gender pay gap does not exist" is indisputably the central message that is explicitly stated in the "There Is No Gender Wage Gap!" video, the fact that they present information contradictory to the messaging is irrelevant. The "are the police racist?" video almost goes so far as to imply that police are less likely to shoot black people and cherry picks singular statistics from specific cities that have extreme poverty/crime problems to construct it's narrative, the video contains so many generalisations that the "no police discrimination" summary is pretty reasonable even though it is somewhat editorial hyperbolae, but since it is a little interpretational it might still be best to attribute it anyway. I don't know why these were even sourced as a commentary from MJ though, since it's just summaries which can be sourced from the primary with sources like MJ just providing weight, although WP:FRINGE would dictate how they are presented. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
This is investigative reporting by Mother Jones, not an opinion piece, and we can rely on them to accurately describe the videos in question. After watching the videos myself I would summarize them the same way, particularly the one entitled "There Is No Gender Wage Gap!" –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
I took a look at the MJ article. It's a combination of real reporting (it actually has a lot of content that is missing from this Wikipedia article) but with a pretty heavy "hit piece" and op ed bias. (Those two are no longer mutually exclusive or distinct.) I took a look at the two videos/articles in question. The basically said that the claims of police bias being made are factually wrong, but did not make the straw-man broad statement that it doesn't exist. Similarly they acknowledged that the "pay gap" by the definitions of those using that term does exist, but said that those claims are misleading.North8000 (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- The video is literally called "There Is No Gender Wage Gap!" –dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, there is, but if there is one, then why do we need to cite Mother Jones? EytanMelech (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- We need secondary sourcing to establish due weight. The video itself can't really be used as a standalone source, but I'll add it as an additional supporting reference if that would help. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- laughable, complaining it's a "hit-piece," gee, let me see, a nutty right-wing organization funded by fracking billionaires and old rich white folk who want to pay less tax while trying to indoctrinate gen-z's with their Judaeo-Christian zealotry - while attacking climate science, minority groups, women's rights, academia, etc. - and run by some dude who complains because "the left have made it impossible to say the n-word any longer." ROFL at the level the apologists are prepared to sink here. Acousmana (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- You clearly haven't looked into the context.
- While I have never said the N word, and agree that it is the most disgusting word in the English language, the whole point was the context surrounding it. The whole point of his argument was that the word is so off-limits that one cannot even use it in context to explain a quote, or discuss the racism around it. While I do not agree with his argument completely, this is the exact reasoning that he gave for articles like this. This, also has nothing to do with the discussion of unnecessary citations. EytanMelech (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- so some old white dude is railing against the injustice of not being able to use a word... the injustice of it eh? the injustice of having to do something about racism, global warming, police brutality, women's rights, LGBT rights, [insert unjust cause here], that's some BS right there. And editors are happy to roll up here and defend this stuff. Speaks volumes. Acousmana (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for injecting these unrelated arguments into a conversation that didn't even need them. The line was edited, and it was over with. If you have a position about sourcing that you'd like to use, feel free to share it, but if you don't, please kindly leave this conversation as this side conversation adds nothing of value. This is a talk page, not a slack channel. EytanMelech (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- What's the source for your novel spelling of "unnecessary"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for injecting these unrelated arguments into a conversation that didn't even need them. The line was edited, and it was over with. If you have a position about sourcing that you'd like to use, feel free to share it, but if you don't, please kindly leave this conversation as this side conversation adds nothing of value. This is a talk page, not a slack channel. EytanMelech (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- so some old white dude is railing against the injustice of not being able to use a word... the injustice of it eh? the injustice of having to do something about racism, global warming, police brutality, women's rights, LGBT rights, [insert unjust cause here], that's some BS right there. And editors are happy to roll up here and defend this stuff. Speaks volumes. Acousmana (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- laughable, complaining it's a "hit-piece," gee, let me see, a nutty right-wing organization funded by fracking billionaires and old rich white folk who want to pay less tax while trying to indoctrinate gen-z's with their Judaeo-Christian zealotry - while attacking climate science, minority groups, women's rights, academia, etc. - and run by some dude who complains because "the left have made it impossible to say the n-word any longer." ROFL at the level the apologists are prepared to sink here. Acousmana (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- We need secondary sourcing to establish due weight. The video itself can't really be used as a standalone source, but I'll add it as an additional supporting reference if that would help. –dlthewave ☎ 18:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, there is, but if there is one, then why do we need to cite Mother Jones? EytanMelech (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Founding in 2009 or 2011?
The article says both for some reason. X-Editor (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Climate change 29 April edits
@PaleoNeonate, North8000, and Ixocactus:, I have an issue with this recent edit [[2]]. This is content that should be presented as an attributed POV. First, the source as reported by The Independent is InfluenceMap. I don't see that the article supports claims that the PragerU videos "lie about the scientific consensus" etc. I think this one where we have to be careful to stick to the content that is clearly supported by the source. Additionally, we need to be careful because if a specific ad is identified as "lying" it would mean we are saying the presenter (likely a BLP subject) is lying. Anyway, as the edit stands I think it should be removed. Is there a way to fix it rather than just remove it? Springee (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)