→Blatant partisan politicking on this page: new section |
|||
Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
: PS: [[User:Springee|Springee]] has deleted the post on tendentious editing that I added to their talk page. While they are entitled to remove content on their own talk page, it's a shame that they didn't engage with the substance of the material. For more evidence of my above points, here is the archived thread[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&oldid=998760630] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Noteduck|Noteduck]] ([[User talk:Noteduck#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Noteduck|contribs]]) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
: PS: [[User:Springee|Springee]] has deleted the post on tendentious editing that I added to their talk page. While they are entitled to remove content on their own talk page, it's a shame that they didn't engage with the substance of the material. For more evidence of my above points, here is the archived thread[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Springee&oldid=998760630] <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Noteduck|Noteduck]] ([[User talk:Noteduck#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Noteduck|contribs]]) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::Noteduck, given your assessment of the JTA ref and comments above, I'm finding it difficult to see how your opinions demonstrate the necessary understanding of content policy. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC) |
::Noteduck, given your assessment of the JTA ref and comments above, I'm finding it difficult to see how your opinions demonstrate the necessary understanding of content policy. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Blatant partisan politicking on this page == |
|||
I've spoken about this indirectly on the talk page before but it now leads to be overtly said. There is a repeated pattern on this page whereby any material perceived to be unflattering to PragerU is systematically removed, [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentiously edited]] and questioned. |
|||
Let's have a look at some of the material that has been removed: |
|||
* material related to [[Douglas Murray (author)]]'s video "The Suicide of Europe", based on four sources (both journalistic and academic) whose credibility was not questioned[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PragerU#Critiques_of_videos] |
|||
* material related to the removal of [[holocaust denial|holocaust denier]] [[Owen Benjamin]]'s material for PragerU, based on three journalistic sources (admittedly, there have been robust discussions about these sources but I believe at least one of them is very high quality)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU#Owen_Benjamin_content] |
|||
* material related to PragerU's recent video about [[Robert E. Lee]]. This has not been widely reported but at least one journalistic source with editorial control has reported on it[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU#Robert_E._Lee] |
|||
* material related to PragerU's platforming of far-right figures such as [[Milo Yiannopoulos]], [[Stefan Molyneux]] and [[Paul Joseph Watson]]. This was based on two sources and its factual basis was never disputed[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PragerU&diff=998702825&oldid=998696397] and the only conclusion I can reach is that it was removed for being unflattering to PragerU. PragerU's extensive connections to the [[far right]] have been documented on the talk page[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU#PragerU_connections_to_the_far_right] based on multiple academic and journalistic sources - as an editor I have pitched the wording of these far right links to the talk page so they can be properly discussed. |
|||
As can be seen from the above examples, the only consistent factor in the material that is tendentiously questioned and removed is that it can be perceived as unflattering to PragerU. Now, PragerU is of course a controversial topic on which there are likely to be disputes, and we all need to make ourselves familiar with [[Wikipedia:Controversial articles]]. However, we also need to acknowledge that [[Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content|NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content]], and that material should not be removed simply because PragerU could perceive it as unflattering. |
|||
This is the last attempt I'm going to make to put a stop to these tendentious edits. The editors engaged in this process of tendentious editing know who they are and I'm not going to ping them for now. If we cannot agree on how this page should be written, I'll escalate the matter to an administrator, but in the meantime I call upon the editors in question to set aside their biases and aim to improve this page in line with Wikipedia's policies [[User:Noteduck|Noteduck]] ([[User talk:Noteduck|talk]]) 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:29, 7 January 2021
Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Websites: Computing C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Owen Benjamin content
Jlevi, I don't think this contribution is DUE on a number of levels[[1]]. The three sources are Media Matters, Right Wing Watch and an opinion article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. None are good sources (JTI might be but the article is clearly labeled "Opinion"). Next, it's a BLP violation to call Benjamin a "conspiracy monger, and holocaust denier" in wiki voice. These accusations may be true but they are also contentious labels and thus we have to be careful with how we use them. Finally, the content really doesn't say much other than these groups are unhappy PragerU allowed this person to speak. However, without saying what Benjamin said or why the comments were controversial this is basically a he said, she said with little information conveyed to the reader. For this reason and the poor sourcing I think this is UNDUE. Springee (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- I removed it. The refs fail BLP criteria as far as I can see, it's grossly UNDUE, and there appears to be SYN/COAT problems by drawing from Owen Benjamin. --Hipal (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
- PragerU took down Owen Benjamin's videos afterward, which may make him of more interest to this article. From Business Insider[2]: "Benjamin's "anti-PC" comedy repertoire — previously praised by the conservative free-speech crowd despite being replete with racist and homophobic slurs — started to feature overt anti-Semitism in 2018. Not too long after, his PragerU videos disappeared without explanation from YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter." Llll5032 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
So, in 2018, PragerU made several videos made by the "comedian" Owen Benjamin, later revealed to be a holocaust denier. This was written about by:
Individually these might not be due but with the three of them taken together, the deletion of this material looks like egregious pro-Prager bias. I don't understand how Prager platforming a controversial speaker who turned out to be a holocaust denier, then removing his videos, could not be due weight. I'll leave it open to the floor but I think this is quite overt right wing bias. I'll listen to responses but currently I think this might call for admin intervention. I'm concerned that material unflattering to PragerU is being systematically removed from this page Noteduck (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia. Please focus on content and assume good faith.
- WP:CIVIL:
editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.
. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC) - I commented just above on how the Business Insider piece is poor.
- The opinion piece published by the Jewish Telegraph Agency is not useable.
- We've repeatedly rejected the Media Matters piece. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Robert E. Lee
Content regarding PragerU's video on Robert E. Lee has been repeatedly deleted. In the video (which can be viewed in its entirety here: https://www.prageru.com/video/robert-e-lee/), it is argued that Lee is a "great historical figure" who deserves a statue because, among other dubious rationales, "Lee led U.S. marines to crush an attempted slave rebellion," resulting in all the slaves and abolitionists being "killed or captured." This is a provocative and controversial take to say the least (e.g., see https://hillreporter.com/prager-university-praises-confederate-general-robert-e-lee-after-his-statue-was-removed-from-the-united-states-capitol-88088). Is there any serious argument that this isn't noteworthy?23.242.198.189 (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- No idea about this specific indident, but we do not need a list of everything they have ever realeased.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- A commenter with a music degree has a negative comment about a PragerU video on what appears to be a left-wing political blog with no established reputation. Yeah, this is not due. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Describing the crushing of a slave rebellion as a positive act for which someone should be held in high esteem is an inarguably contentious position and is therefore noteworthy, there is no reason to keep deleting contributions for any of the reasons listed here, and a quote from PU's video needs no other source in this case. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- I should probably mention that the quote from the commentator is unnecessary and not particularly noteworthy, this should be an addition to the "content" section without a critique quoted, unless a suitably notable critique has been made. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- You might want to review WP:DUE and related policies. We depend on secondary sources to establish that some information is due for inclusion. Since the source provided is not a good source, it does not establish that the material is due. And you can't establish due weight using a primary source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
- "you can't establish due weight using a primary source" Despite the ways in which this is correct, I am sure you are aware that if this was the bar that information had to pass to be included then WP would be a very barren place, including this page. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- You might want to review WP:DUE and related policies. We depend on secondary sources to establish that some information is due for inclusion. Since the source provided is not a good source, it does not establish that the material is due. And you can't establish due weight using a primary source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Did PragerU take down this video? The link above did not work, but the Internet Archive shows there was a video: https://web.archive.org/web/20201108073810/https://www.prageru.com/video/robert-e-lee/ but does not seem to have the transcript (which PragerU normally includes). If this is the 2-minute video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N839Z38w_AU then its mention belongs at Michael Medved who is credited at the beginning of the video. DougHill (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
- Here is the Hill Reporter article[6]. Note that Hill Reporter is not a "left-leaning blog" as stated before. Critically, Hill Reporter does seem to have editorial control[7]. It has made it onto the foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration page[8] and I believe should be treated as a RS in this context unless other evidence can be adduced against it. Another point to make is that it seems clear that PragerU has gone into damage control mode and deleted/made private the Robert E. Lee video. They are no strangers to controversy but as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) this is the first time they have ever deleted one of their own videos. It's hard to measure the significance of this objectively but I think it certainly deserves at least a passing mention on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 03:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Noteduck, the content you restored twice today [[9]] was originally added by Llll5032 and a IP account. I was also removed by myself Slatersteven and 331dot. The only reason to restore it to the article is if this discussion has reached a consensus that it's DUE. I will only speak for myself but I do not think this discussion represents a consensus for inclusion. The Hill Reporter does not look like a source with WEIGHT. The video appears to have been removed by PragerU but even if it hasn't, the argument that not every criticism of a PragerU video belongs in the wiki-article has yet to be addressed. For these reasons restoring the text is premature at this point. Springee (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- just checking, you accept that Hill Reporter is an RS in this case? Your complaints are with whether it has due/weight issues? Also, would you not concede that it's significant that this appears to be the one time PragerU have voluntarily deleted their own video> Noteduck (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I do not see evidence that Hill Reporter is considered reliable per RS standards. Additionally, I do not see evidence that it would be considered DUE. Springee (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'm removing this; please don't continue to edit war. The story is not due, and the points I and others made above stand. Specifically, they state about themselves that they employ two editors and four staff writers on their "about" page, but I don't know that this is sufficient evidence to show that the piece in question is not self-published. Moreover, the author in question does not appear to have any particular expertise in this area: he holds a music degree. Finally, in any case, the site does not have a significant reputation, and is thus not able to establish DUE weight. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Shinealittlelight so your sole problem is whether Hill Reporter is an RS? I'm happy to flick it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, that is not my
sole problem
. This material is not DUE aside from the fact that the sourcing is arguably not RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)- I would like to interject that not a single argument for why this is not DUE has been given aside from vague imputations of the reporter and the news agency. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take objections like these seriously and I would recommend not continuing to do so. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, that is not my
- Shinealittlelight so your sole problem is whether Hill Reporter is an RS? I'm happy to flick it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
UNDUE Douglas Murray content
Noteduck, your expansion of the Murray video content is UNDUE here[[10]]. This appears to be a direct copy of the content you are pushing into the Douglas Murray (author) article[[11]]. Perhaps this would be a good time to rework that material but any more than a sentence or two is too much give the scope of this article isn't Murray or Islam. Springee (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- What would your amended paragraph on the subject look like? Given that you have responses from luminaries of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League specifically discuss this video, it clearly made quite a splash. Do you think the paragraph should be shortened, or removed completely? Noteduck (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Let's start with a clean up and removal of claims not supported by sources. I've copied the text you created below. You have some good stuff here so this isn't a case of throw it all out. It needs a better topic sentence as well as not citing Sludge back to back. Ideally a single source shouldn't appear in the references twice. It can be used many times but with only a single citation. Since the number of views is transitory that information should be excluded.
Text from article
|
---|
A 2018 video produced for PragerU by Douglas Murray titled "The Suicide of Europe" led to considerable media discussion and controversy. The video, which has thus far received 7.4 million views on PragerU's website,[1] drew criticism for purportedly "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'.[2] Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism Mark Pitcavage said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric".[3][4] Similarly, the Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right",[5] while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times argued that the video "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right".[6] References
|
- The opening sentence contains subjective content not supported by the rest of the paragraph. "Considerable media discussion and controversy" is your WP:OR, not from the sources. Also, since this is the PragerU article there is no reason to say the video was produced by PragerU. Since this is the opening sentence we should tell the readers what the video content is before saying what others said about it. Perhaps an opening sentence like this:
- A 2018 video by Douglas Murray argued that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate[cite LA Times article]. The article was criticized as supporting a white genocide narrative and being anti-Islam and anti-immigration[cite sludge - bridge just repeats sludge so the it isn't a useful citation]. The video was also seen as echoing extreme-right and alt-right talking points [cite SPLC and LA Times].
- This cleans up the text, keeps the points in place and helps the reader understand what the video is before we tell them why it was criticized. Springee (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Springee, I'd prefer that the we keep the in-text attributions that your proposal removes. Did you have a reason for pulling those out? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The primary intent was to streamline the text. I felt like it reads awkwardly when you have too many X of the Y Institute say Z about A vs Z was said about A. However, I don't see a huge issue with keeping them. What about:
- A 2018 video by Douglas Murray argued that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate[cite LA Times article]. The article was criticized as supporting a white genocide narrative[sludge]. Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said the video contained anti-Islam and anti-immigration rhetoric[cite sludge]. The SPLC said the video included far-right dog whistles[cite SPLC].
- That restores the specific attributions. Springee (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Noteduck, the changes I made to the paragraph here [[12]] were discussed above. Why did you revert them including restoring a number of double citations? Other than cleaning up the paragraph text, the content was nearly identical. The bulk of the reduction of edit bites was simply due to replacing the redundant citations with links to those already in the article. At this point the changes you made don't have consensus. Per wp:NOCON we can come to a consensus version of the edit or revert to the long standing stable text. Springee (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The primary intent was to streamline the text. I felt like it reads awkwardly when you have too many X of the Y Institute say Z about A vs Z was said about A. However, I don't see a huge issue with keeping them. What about:
- Springee, I'd prefer that the we keep the in-text attributions that your proposal removes. Did you have a reason for pulling those out? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- The opening sentence contains subjective content not supported by the rest of the paragraph. "Considerable media discussion and controversy" is your WP:OR, not from the sources. Also, since this is the PragerU article there is no reason to say the video was produced by PragerU. Since this is the opening sentence we should tell the readers what the video content is before saying what others said about it. Perhaps an opening sentence like this:
Noteduck the new, shortened paragraph that you added was clumsily worded to say the least. In the current paragraph, there are 4.5 sources:
- LA Times
- SPLC - which thankfully you no longer seem to regard as "self-published"
- Bridge Initiative - which thankfully you no longer seem to regard as "self-published"
- Sludge
- +.5 of a source - Mark Pitcavage in Sludge
I think the references to all are due and I don't think you can remove any of them or shorten the paragraph any further without compromising its quality. If none of the information is contested, why not leave the paragraph the way it is? Noteduck (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- In the updated paragraph the only removed source was Bridge Initiative. It is redundant since the relevant content comes from BI citing the Sludge article. If source B is just citing source A and we have source A in the article then common practice is to not include B. Also, BI's status as a secondary source was not resolved. The Pitcavage material is not a second source. It is not sourced to an ADL publication. It is simply an interview in a story which makes it sourced to Sludge alone. The updated text was better in large part because it started by telling the reader objectively what The video was about and then offering the assessments. Springee (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Springee, delete the reference to the Bridge Initiative if you want. The direct quotes are all quite critical to getting a sense of the specific objections these sources had to the Murray video. Unless you have further rebuttals please leave the text of the paragraph unchanged Noteduck (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The direct quotes are not needed. It comes across as trying to insert "sound bites" rather than summarize which is what we are supposed to do. You are welcome to contributed by looking at the changes I've proposed above vs what you created and suggest otherwise to harmonize them but the current text in the article should be fixed. We should at least agree that any citation which already exists in the PragerU article should not be duplicated. The next part is the LA Times reference should be first since it summarizes the video content. The other sources can go after as they contain the bulk of the criticism. It makes for a more logical presentation of the information. Springee (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- each and every other example of a "critique of a video" from this page utilizes direct quotes. There are three sources in this paragraph (as distinct from one source in each other paragraph) and this material is all important. I'm also somewhat concerned that you have followed me over from the Murray page and are dedicating yourself to contesting my edits without proposing any positive content of your own. Unless you have further rebuttals please refrain from deleting without justification Noteduck (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- The direct quotes are not needed. It comes across as trying to insert "sound bites" rather than summarize which is what we are supposed to do. You are welcome to contributed by looking at the changes I've proposed above vs what you created and suggest otherwise to harmonize them but the current text in the article should be fixed. We should at least agree that any citation which already exists in the PragerU article should not be duplicated. The next part is the LA Times reference should be first since it summarizes the video content. The other sources can go after as they contain the bulk of the criticism. It makes for a more logical presentation of the information. Springee (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Springee, delete the reference to the Bridge Initiative if you want. The direct quotes are all quite critical to getting a sense of the specific objections these sources had to the Murray video. Unless you have further rebuttals please leave the text of the paragraph unchanged Noteduck (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
new proposal
I'm following the WP:BRD process here; I reverted to the original version of the text so we can work out a consensus here. Here's Noteduck's last version:
A 2018 PragerU video about immigration to Europe presented by author Douglas Murray titled "The Suicide of Europe" drew criticism for purportedly "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'.[Sludge] Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism Mark Pitcavage said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric".[Sludge][Bridge] Similarly, the Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right",[SPLC] while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times said the video "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right".[LAT]
I agree with Springee that (i) this is awkwardly written, (ii) the Bridge reference is redundant, and (iii) this version does not summarize the video at all. I would add that the claim about "white genocide" needs to be attributed to Kotch if it is to be included. However, I don't see why a remark from Kotch is WP:DUE in the article, so I think it should not be included. Also, the reference to the LAT piece inaccurately quotes Halper. On review of his piece, I cannot tell that Halper means to cite Murray's video (rather than just D'Souza's) as an example of a video that echoes "some of the movement’s talking points" (that's the accurate quote), so this has to come out in my opinion. In light of these issues, I propose this:
A 2018 video by Douglas Murray argued that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate.[LAT] Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said that although he does not regard the video as being fascist or white nationalist, there was "certainly prejudice inherent in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric."[SLUDGE] The SPLC described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right."[SPLC]
Shinealittlelight (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Shinealittlelight, that's a silly argument. This is the paragraph from the LA Times:
Prager says he disavows the alt-right ideology that has gained ground in the Trump era, but the online lessons often echo some of the movement’s talking points.
A video of Dinesh D’Souza, the right-wing author, opining on why Western cultures are superior to others has been viewed 4.7 million times, for example. Another, featuring Douglas Murray, the British author of several books about Europe and immigration, laments that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate. It has 6.7 million views.
The clear implication is that both the D'Souza and Murray videos echo alt-right talking points. Why remove material when we don't need to? How about the paragraph start with:
"A 2018 video hosted by Douglas Murray that displayed the purported negative consequences of immigration to Europe titled "The Suicide of Europe" drew criticism for..."
I don't get what your objection to the Kotch quote is at all. Here you have three separate articles with the added weight of an expert from the Anti-Defamation League criticizing PragerU's video in very harsh terms, encapsulated in three short sentences - I'm not sure how you can argue any of that is not due Noteduck (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
What is "due" for PragerU's page
I'm seeing a repeated pattern where material is being deleted from PragerU's page on the basis of undue weight. This seems to be mostly the work of Shinealittlelight and Springee, who appear to have been doing this for a while. Material related to the video on Robert E. Lee and the videos hosted by Douglas Murray and Owen Benjamin. My question is - if a reputed media or academic source criticizes a video made by PragerU, what grounds do you have for excluding the material? The brief paragraph under "critiques of videos" about the Douglas Murray "Suicide of Europe" video includes three respected sources and comprises three short sentences. What grounds are there for excluding any of this?
Shinealittlelight, you wrote the following comments about the PragerU page on your talk page[13] in November 2019:
Now if you really want to see a revert, you should add a positive conservative opinion of Prager U to the reception section, which is now reserved for critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I think this demonstrates that you are struggling to view the source impartially, and should perhaps step back from editing this page. You also describe yourself as a "reasonable conservative" (19 May 2019) in discussion with an editor who seems to perceive Wikipedia as full of leftist bias. It seems that you keep a kind of watch over this page, but I think it's best to engage with your own biases first. Noteduck (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I have had issues with this also. I made the assumption that the deletions and the immediate jump to policy lawyering was done in good faith, but after watching for a while it seems I was naïve. Some particular issues are the offhanded rejection of reputable sources and overreaching interpretation of the WP:DUE policy, but overall there seems to be an attempt to create WP:FALSEBALANCE by excluding negative content. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- MasterTriangle12 I just went over this talk page and I realized how egregious the problem with pro-Prager bias is on this page. In 2018, PragerU made several videos made by the "comedian" Owen Benjamin, later revealed to be a holocaust denier. This was written about by:
Individually these might not be due but with the three of them taken together, the deletion of this material looks like egregious pro-Prager bias. I don't understand how Prager platforming a controversial speaker who turned out to be a holocaust denier, then removing his videos, could not be due weight. I'll leave it open to the floor but I think this is quite overt right wing bias Noteduck (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Repeating what I wrote above[17]:
editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.
- First, we need to agree on the quality of the references. Then we can look into how noteworthy and due the information from those references are. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is a good example of part of the problem, all that is given is rejection of sources and content, and any debate about the validity of these decisions comes only from the contributor and is barely even engaged with by these complainants. It would seem that the policies and processes of WP are being misused and misinterpreted without the backing of reasoned argument in order to exclude certain content in furtherance of an editorial bias. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Content policy starts with reliable sources. If we can't agree to that, then we'll quickly be heading to enforcement of the sanctions that apply here. --Hipal (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think we can all agree that there is one high quality journalistic source here (JTA) and two of mixed quality. One high quality source and two mixed quality sources - which have not been deprecated by any means - discussing a controversy about a PragerU video certainly seems due weight. If this is not "due", then I don't understand how any material on this page is Noteduck (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- As I pointed out above [18], the JTA ref is the worst of the three. --Hipal (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- sorry, why? Is it that you don't regard the Jewish Telegraph Agency as an RS? Or because the piece is marked 'opinion'? Or some other reason? Noteduck (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking. Yes, because it's a clearly identified opinion piece, as explained in WP:RSEDITORIAL. --Hipal (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Is the contention that opinion columns are completely off-limits for inclusion? This is what I can see on the WP:RSEDITORIAL page:
- Thank you for asking. Yes, because it's a clearly identified opinion piece, as explained in WP:RSEDITORIAL. --Hipal (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- sorry, why? Is it that you don't regard the Jewish Telegraph Agency as an RS? Or because the piece is marked 'opinion'? Or some other reason? Noteduck (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- As I pointed out above [18], the JTA ref is the worst of the three. --Hipal (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think we can all agree that there is one high quality journalistic source here (JTA) and two of mixed quality. One high quality source and two mixed quality sources - which have not been deprecated by any means - discussing a controversy about a PragerU video certainly seems due weight. If this is not "due", then I don't understand how any material on this page is Noteduck (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Content policy starts with reliable sources. If we can't agree to that, then we'll quickly be heading to enforcement of the sanctions that apply here. --Hipal (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- This is a good example of part of the problem, all that is given is rejection of sources and content, and any debate about the validity of these decisions comes only from the contributor and is barely even engaged with by these complainants. It would seem that the policies and processes of WP are being misused and misinterpreted without the backing of reasoned argument in order to exclude certain content in furtherance of an editorial bias. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).[6] When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8]
Have a look at the author Bethany Mandel's portfolio on Muck Rack[19] - she's actually quite esteemed. Here she is in the NY Times[20] and The Atlantic[21]. So I'm not sure if I'd call her a "specialist or recognized expert" but she certainly is an experienced journalist writing in a high-quality publication (feel free to make a counter-argument on the quality of JTA if you wish). This is backed by the Media Matters for America source and the Business Insider source, which are two fairly mediocre sources. The JTA article is a detailed exposition of Benjamin's beliefs and ideology. The author reached Benjamin for comment and spoke to some of his supporters, which is a level of professionalism absent from a lot of opinion journalism. In other words, this is not just an anti-Owen Benjamin or anti-Prager spray. I see one good source here backed by two mediocre ones, which I think is surely enough to establish due weight. Of course the material should not be written in Wiki's voice, but "X expressed concern about PragerU's platforming of Owen Benjamin, who later expressed support for white supremacism and holocaust denial" hardly seems undue on this page Noteduck (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
PragerU connections to the far right
Suggestion that a new subheading should be created for the PragerU page, "Links to the far right" or something like that. Here are some relevant sources - links to sources posted BELOW quotes:
Reporting by Buzzfeed in 2019 found that PragerU’s videos do not focus on the news cycle, rather addressing “almost every divisive national issue in the United States today: racism, sexism, income inequality, gun ownership, Islam, immigration, Israel, police brutality,” and free speech. In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center said that “more than a few [of Prager’s video topics] function as dog whistles to the extreme right.”
- Georgetown University Bridge Initiative Factsheet: PragerU[22]
For example Prager University (PragerU), an online video portal created by the conservative talk radio host Denis Prager, explains the warped worldview of the extreme right in simple videos with themes, such as police are not biased against black men; man-made climate change is debatable; why we should oppose animal rights and the $15 minimum wage; and that the gender wage gap does not exist (Openheimer, 2018).
- Barbara Franz, "The New Right on American Campuses: Challenges for Higher Education," in Digital Culture & Education 12(1): 2020 1-25[23]
Famous for its weekly five-minute videos which have garnered billions of views, PragerU argues that “the Left” is “akin to hate groups” (p. 39) and that mainstream media is untrustworthy. It also promotes white nationalist thought by far-right thinkers such as Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Stefan Molyneux (Tripodi, 2017).
- Noah Krigel, "“We’re not the party to bitch and whine”: Exploring US democracy through the lens of a college
Republican club," in Interface: a journal for and about social movements 12(1) 2020: pp492-514[24]
“Sites like Prager U,” Tripodi argues in a report from Data & Society that will be published in May, “create an opportunity to dabble in content that seems extremely innocuous, yet makes connections to the same kinds of ‘revelations’ pushed out by the alt-right.”
- Joseph Bernstein, "How PragerU Is Winning The Right-Wing Culture War Without Donald Trump," Buzzfeed News, 3 March 2018[25]
At the same time, Prager’s amplification strategy also regularly promotes the ideas of white nationalist thinkers, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, and Stefan Molyneux via the same networked strategies. As Tripodi (2018) and Lewis (forthcoming) describe, the implications of creating a dense network of extremist thinkers allows for those who identify as mainline conservatives to gain easy access to white supremacist logic. Leveraging the thoughts of someone like Stefan Molyneux can have disastrous consequences considering that Molyneux regularly promotes “alt-right” “scientific racism” on his own YouTube shows (Evans 2018)
- Francesca Tripodi, "Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices," Data & Society Research Institute 2018, page 36[26]
“[PragerU] gets people questioning and looking for more information, and if nothing else, it is very blatantly algorithmically connected” to the extreme right content found on YouTube, Tripodi explains...As Tripodi’s study demonstrates, PragerU seems to be yet another node on the internet connecting conservative media consumers to the dark corners of the extreme right.
- Southern Poverty Law Center: PragerU's Influence[27]
Third, I explore how the language of culture and identity is taken up in right-wing educational sites. I look at the forum Conservative teachers of America, as well as the online school PragerU and the Far Right YouTube Channel RedIce. Right-wing users adopt discussions of culturally sustaining curriculum to call for a White idenititarian pedagogy—a White power curriculum they disguise in calls for a return to a traditional curriculum, a patriotic curriculum, and above all a curriculum that valorizes the western world. This idea of the “West,’’ and a classical curriculum that valorizes it, is a theme that moves to the conservative PragerU, into White nationalist spaces like RedIce. To twist Wayne Au’s words, they want to teach for White lives.
- Catherine Tebaldi (2020): Speaking post-truth to power, Review of Education,Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, DOI: 10.1080/10714413.2020.1729679[28]
"This latter theory is argued by British author Douglas Murray in his book The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (2017), and is neatly summarized in an educational video Murray did for the far-right fake university PragerU"
- Simon Strick, "The Alternative Right, Masculinities, and Ordinary Affect," in Right-Wing Populism and Gender: European Perspectives and Beyond, eds. Gabriele Dietze, Julia Roth (published by transcript Verlag, 2020) [29]
Homa Hosseinmardi, Amir Ghasemian, Aaron Clauset, David M. Rothschild, Markus Mobius, Duncan J. Watts, "Evaluating the scale, growth, and origins of right-wing echo chambers on YouTube," submitted by Cornell University and awaiting peer review lists PragerU as a "far right" channel.[30]
Feel free to add any additional relevant sources Noteduck (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, here's another relevant source.
- Drew Anderson, "BACKGROUNDER: PragerU’s Ties to White Supremacy, Horrific Anti-LGBTQ Record," glaad.org[31], 6 August 2019 Noteduck (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure we need a sub heading by certainly something like "and has been accused of having connections to the far-right" might be in oredr.Slatersteven (talk)
- Agree that a subheading may not be correct. Also, we have to be careful that we don't say/imply PragerU is working with far-right groups. Some of the views expressed in PragerU videos overlap with far-right ideas. Also, both the Bridge Initiative and Tripodi papers are self published and the Tripodi framework was challenged by another academic in a self published paper. The connection aspect of the Tripodi paper has been widely reported but the individual characterizations in the paper are simply self published opinions. I think the other sources should be reviewed before assuming they are all valid. Springee (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Review of suggested sources from above:
- Bridge Init: This is a self published work. It is out of a university group but still self published. It should only be used if referenced by others.
- Barbara Franz: This is a paper published in an open access journal. I don't see anything regarding it's impact factor. As such this source is little more than a self published opinion of the author. Her source for the characterization of PragerU is the Oppenheimer Mother Jones article which is already in the Wiki-article (and contains demonstrably false characterizations).
- Noah Krigel: Again a paper from an open access journal. In this case their characterization of PragerU is taken all but verbatum from the Tripodi self published work. This paper has but a single author and again should be viewed as little more than a self published work.
- Bernstein/BFN: This source is already widely quoted in the article so I'm not sure why it is here.
- Tripodi: Already in the article. Again this should be used with care as it is self published but cited by others. The paper's fundamental premise is disputed in another academic white paper (I would have to look up the reference)
- SPLC: This is a bit circular as they are just referencing the Tripodi report and it's method. I would be more comfortable giving the SPLC opinion weight if cited by other clearly RSs.
- Tebaldi: Another open access journal. Again DUE is an issue.
- Strick: This one is a book published via academic press. However, it just stays that Murray's PragerU video is a good summary of Murray's book.
- Hosseinmardi et al: This is not a published manuscript. Until it's published it can't be treated as a RS.
- While this was a long list of sources for the most part it's either sources that are already in the article or are unusable. Springee (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Open-access seems to be equated with unreliability in several of these summaries. But at least one of those is peer-reviewed through a fairly standard process, so it might be worth looking more carefully. Jlevi (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Review of suggested sources from above:
I'll respond in more detail to the specific contentions about the sources soon, but first I want to alert fellow editors about the unfortunate conclusion I have reached after weeks of arguing with Springee: Springee is not engaged in good-faith editing, but rather engages in a pattern of tendentious editing aimed at preventing the admission of any source that they perceive as unflattering to conservatives. Please read the threads I have started on Springee's talk page and let me know what you think. I may have to escalate this further[32][33] Noteduck (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- Responding to each of Springee's contentions specifically:
- Bridge Initiative is not self-published and Springee knows this. It's a Georgetown University academic project
- Franz - again, your obsession with the spurious use of the "self-published" designation. Open-access means free to access but does not mean "not peer-reviewed" - they say they are peer-reviewed[34]
- Krigel - this is a peer-reviewed journal[35]
- Bernstein - this source is here because it supports the contention that PragerU has links to the far right. There is no ban on using a source more than once in an article
- Tripodi - this is not self-published. According to their website they are an "independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) research institute"[36] Tripodi is a respected University of North Carolina academic, and this group is also linked with some other quite notable academics[37]
- SPLC - the SPLC's contention that PragerU has links to the far right is supported by every source on this list...
- Tebaldi - this appears to be a well-known academic journal[38] It is peer reviewed[39]
- Strick - did you read the source Springee? The sentence is in a footnote, which is why it may not have come up when you searched it
- Hosseinmardi et al - it indeed has not yet been peer-reviewed. Is there a Wiki policy that says research awaiting peer review has zero weight? My understanding as an academic is that it certainly means the source has less weight, but not none.
In short, not a single one of Springee's rebuttals is convincing. "Open access" does not mean low quality or not peer-reviewed. Please have a look at the links I have provided above to threads discussing Springee's tendency to baselessly block or remove material that they consider unflattering to conservative sources. Given the wealth of source material that we have, let's think about how we can incorporate it into the PragerU article Noteduck (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
- PS: Springee has deleted the post on tendentious editing that I added to their talk page. While they are entitled to remove content on their own talk page, it's a shame that they didn't engage with the substance of the material. For more evidence of my above points, here is the archived thread[40] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Blatant partisan politicking on this page
I've spoken about this indirectly on the talk page before but it now leads to be overtly said. There is a repeated pattern on this page whereby any material perceived to be unflattering to PragerU is systematically removed, tendentiously edited and questioned. Let's have a look at some of the material that has been removed:
- material related to Douglas Murray (author)'s video "The Suicide of Europe", based on four sources (both journalistic and academic) whose credibility was not questioned[41]
- material related to the removal of holocaust denier Owen Benjamin's material for PragerU, based on three journalistic sources (admittedly, there have been robust discussions about these sources but I believe at least one of them is very high quality)[42]
- material related to PragerU's recent video about Robert E. Lee. This has not been widely reported but at least one journalistic source with editorial control has reported on it[43]
- material related to PragerU's platforming of far-right figures such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Stefan Molyneux and Paul Joseph Watson. This was based on two sources and its factual basis was never disputed[44] and the only conclusion I can reach is that it was removed for being unflattering to PragerU. PragerU's extensive connections to the far right have been documented on the talk page[45] based on multiple academic and journalistic sources - as an editor I have pitched the wording of these far right links to the talk page so they can be properly discussed.
As can be seen from the above examples, the only consistent factor in the material that is tendentiously questioned and removed is that it can be perceived as unflattering to PragerU. Now, PragerU is of course a controversial topic on which there are likely to be disputes, and we all need to make ourselves familiar with Wikipedia:Controversial articles. However, we also need to acknowledge that NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content, and that material should not be removed simply because PragerU could perceive it as unflattering.
This is the last attempt I'm going to make to put a stop to these tendentious edits. The editors engaged in this process of tendentious editing know who they are and I'm not going to ping them for now. If we cannot agree on how this page should be written, I'll escalate the matter to an administrator, but in the meantime I call upon the editors in question to set aside their biases and aim to improve this page in line with Wikipedia's policies Noteduck (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)