Talk:Dennis Prager/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

This article has an error in it. The word "popularity" is misspelled, under the "Articles...." heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.209.168 (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Early life and Education

It says that Prager attended Colombia for graduate studies between 1970-1972. Did he study for his Master's at Colombia, and if so why did he not graduate when he spent two years there?

At Leeds University, which course of study was he enrolled in? Did he attempt his Master's at Leeds after dropping/failing out of Colombia or were the courses non-credit courses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.247.233.184 (talk) 05:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Biography section

The biography section leaves much to be desired. Where did he grow up? What college did he go to? What jobs did he have before he went into radio? I don't expect to discover his shoe size on Wikipedia, but some more facts of his past are in order.

---

The citation in the biography section says he majored in Anthropology and History, NOT Middle Eastern Studies! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.86.188 (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Dplistener2 6 December 2006

I am trying to fill in the biography section with some background. I have put in until about 1976. The outline of the parts that need to be fleshed out to cover the next 30 years are:

*Director of Brandeis Bardin Institute. *Marriage to Janice Adelstein. *Birth of son, David. *First talk radio host position moderating Religion on the Line on KABC Los Angeles.

• Launches of self-published newsletter, Ultimate Issues, later The Prager Perspective.
• Divorce.
• Start of Dennis Prager Show Sunday nights on KABC.
• Second marriage to Francine Stone. Stepdaughter Anya.
• Dennis Prager Show moves to weeknights on KABC.
• Dennis and Fran adopt son, Aaron Henry Prager.
• Dennis Prager Show moves to weekday afternoons on KABC.
• First talk radio show outside of Los Angeles, one-hour show weekday mornings on WABC New York.
• Sort-lived Dennis Prager TV show.
• 1999 Dennis Prager Show is nationally syndicated with Salem Communications.
• 2000 KABC goes all local. Dennis Prager Show home studio moves to KRLA.
• 2005 Prager announces divorce from second wife Fran.

---

Explanation of edits:

1. "In terms of his political affiliations, he describes himself as conservative. "

What does the phrase "In terms of" mean, exactly? To me it seems like pointless filler.

Also, the reference to "political affiliations" make it sound like he belongs to the "Conservative Party" (that's what an affiliation is). Why not just use the 3-word modifying phrase "self-described conservative" and avoid the wordy misdirection?

2. "Much of his radio material centers around religion and his Jewish faith."

The "Jewish faith" you refer to is also called "Judaism," fortunately wikipedia provides a direct link to it, thus we can abjure the use of indirect references.

By way of comparison, does "Falwell make frequent mention of his Christian faith"? Do you see what I mean here?

3. "the bulk of" is a nice turn of phrase but doesn't work well in this context.

4. "the proponents of politically-liberal ideals " - why not just say "liberals" and link to the wiki entry for "liberalism"? Unneccessarily wordy!

5. "recent trends in European politics" - how have these lead to a "a breakdown in American Society"? I don't think even Prager would argue that. Edited to just "recent trends" (thus can refer to culture and religion as well as politics, US as well as Europe).

6. No reason to capitalize the "S" in society.

7. "Many liberal Americans have expressed indignation at his broadcasts and articles for persistenly espousing a theme that they feel unfairly attacks their political views."

People express indignation AT something, e.g, "He expressed indignation at the idea that he was cheap," or "she expressed indignation at the accusation that she was a communist." You even go so far as to mention that his "articles and broadcasts.. persistently" espouse something but you don't say what it is, just a "theme" (albeit one that some people "feel unfairly attacks their political views".)

And yet, in the very next paragraph, you discuss the object of this indignation in an explicit manner - the misuse of "sweeping generalizations and straw man fallacies". This was well-written to begin with but it would be much more effective to combine these two sentences and draw all of the points you are trying to make into one idea. SO that's what I've done.

8. "His flagship online article entitled "Are You a Liberal?" (http://www.dennisprager.com/areyouliberal.html) has drawn criticism from Leftists, who accuse Prager of marginalizing leftism by means of sweeping generalizations and straw man fallacies.""

I've never heard anyone accuse Prager of "marginalizing leftism." I have heard people accuse him of marginalizing "liberalism" though.

In a very similar was Clinton was rarely accused of "marginalizing rightism," since right-wingers usually prefer to describe themselves as "conservatives" (as opposed to "rightists"). Please reply if this doesn't make sense to you.

9. "best-selling of which." Clumsy. Will edit.

10. "In addition to his job as a radio host and author, Prager serves as a spiritual mentor to Los Angeles-based porn gossip columnist Luke Ford." Restoring internal links.

---

First of all, your complaints numbered 2 and 9 are not my edits. The beginning and ending of the article were not written by me. I don't particularily care if his faith is described as "Judaism" or the "Jewish faith".

Secondly, you seem to have a thing for semantics, which is fine, except the qualifier "the bulk of" is necessary. The topic of America's moral fall from grace features in the overwhelming majority of his writing, but it does not comprise all of it.

Secondly, before you attack me on what Prager's beliefs are, perhaps you should read his literature yourself. Here's what Prager is:

1)He is a conservative. Phrase that however you like, I don't care. "Self-described conservative" is unnecesary.

2) He makes the semantic distinction in his writing between liberals and leftists (there is a difference, read him to find out more...) therefore, I make the semantic distinction here to make sure his intentions are not missed.

3) Prager believes, and this is not up for debate, that leftist European policies have damaged American society. It is not up to me, nor you, to argue whether he is right in his assertions. He believes it, so it's part of his bio. Again, refer to his writing for confirmation.

4) "Many liberal Americans have expressed indignation at his broadcasts and articles for persistenly espousing a theme that they feel unfairly attacks their political views."

has been changed to

"Many liberal Americans believe that Prager's work persistenly espouses a theme that they feel unfairly attacks their political views."

...in order to satisfy all the semantic hair-splitting. Nevertheless, the sentence is necessary as a primer for the following sentence, which you admittedly spliced quite well.

5) Read the article. Please read the articles before you write about them. "Marginalizing leftism" is exactly what Prager had done in that piece, it exemplifies his style of argument and rhetoric, it has to be left in. Your comparison to Clinton is fallacious. Remember, Prager is a 'small c' conservative without a political affiliation. For the sake of clarity, we must use the technical definitions here. Clinton is a (big D) Democrat, perhaps with some leftist policies, but he is not a 'liberal'.

---

Hi 132.216.39.97

I certainly was not attacking you. I thought your article was well-written. I just thought it could be clearer. I do think the current edit is MUCH better with the exception of:

"Many liberal Americans believe that Prager's work persistenly espouses a theme that they feel unfairly attacks their political views."

This is unclear in the following ways:

1. What is this "theme" you speak of?

2. Can a "theme" attack people, let alone their "political views"?

I'll maybe take a look at this article again in a couple of weeks when I get back from Xmas vacation etc. I just wanted to clear that up - I'm not attacking you I just thought the writing could be improved. Oh, BTW, RE:

"2) He makes the semantic distinction in his writing between liberals and leftists (there is a difference, read him to find out more...) therefore, I make the semantic distinction here to make sure his intentions are not missed.

3) Prager believes, and this is not up for debate, that leftist European policies have damaged American society."

OK, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

happy holidays

- Dragula

P.S. Just out of curiousity, WHO has accused Prager of marginalizing "leftism"? Did someone actually say to him, "Hey buddy, I don't like the way you've been marginalizing leftism lately?"

---

I added the paragraph regarding his recent debate with John Shelby Spong, and it was recently deleted. I would like the person who deleted it to explain how I misrepresented his comments, because I wrote what I actually heard on the show. The comments I referred to were made at the beginning of the third hour of his show, the hour following his debate with Spong.

Cryptico 1 July 2005

I didn't cut that part, but I agree with the cut--the comments about Spong were true, but not encyclopedic. The article should try to distill the basics of Prager's ideas and describe his public role. I'd actually argue that the bit about him turning from Democrat to Republican could go, too: unlike, say, David Horowitz, this change really isn't important to understanding Prager. I am concerned that all the info that is critical of Prager has been removed: it would be best if properly sourced and attributed, but he's a controversial figure and his critics' views should be reflected here. BTfromLA 1 July 2005 23:00 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dplistener 10 August 2005

I cut out the part about Spong. The excised part said, "...believing that Spong's refusal was evidence that liberal opinions, when challenged, have little merit or substance to stand on." Prager did not say that Spong's refusal in and of itself proved that Spong's opinions, when challenged, had little substance to stand on, let alone that refusal proved that liberal opinions in general can't stand up to challenge. It would be more accurate to say that Prager said that Spong's responses to challenges were weak, as in general he finds the responses are for many liberal opinions. Prager also added that if he were Spong, he wouldn't want those words reprinted either.

While I'm commenting... There are many more things about this article that I feel should be changed. To me, it seems that there are many representations here of Dennis Prager's views that are off.

For example, "Prager argues that monotheistic religion is essential to civil society." What does that mean? The Taliban was monotheistic but not civil. When Prager talks about the value of religion, he usually refers either to "ethical monotheism" or to "Judeo-Christian values."

"...most modern domestic and international crises stem from the absence of religious values in American life." That is off too. Nuclear weapons in North Korea is an international crisis, but how could that stem from lack of religious values in America?

"Prager often presents his political positions in moral terms." Is that true? As opposed to what? Sometimes Prager presents political positions in terms of the values that animate them. It might be tolerance vs. standards, good vs. evil, liberty vs. equality, or what works vs. what makes one feel good.

---

I thought the phrase "Prager often presents his political positions in moral terms" was the strongest piece of writing in the whole article. Whoever contributed that line managed to capture, in the most insightful and impartial way, the core of Prager's beliefs, arguments, and literary style. The myriad of values you mention are all moral values and can be succinctly and accurately condensed into the word moral.

--Warren

---

Since is there is no section for this and I'm unsure how to edit it, I just want to bring this up... the initial introduction:

"...He is noted for his fear-mongering conservative political views..."

Fear-mongering?! Are you serious? Says who? I listen to him every day and he is quite positive/up-lifting in his overall message. If you believe he is a fear-monger, fine, but that's clearly an *opinion* which thus has no place in an initial introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.166.87.66 (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

---

"...He is noted for his fear-mongering conservative political views..."

Is it possible to deny that describing Prager's views as "fear-mongering" in the introductory paragraph is a blatant attempt to negatively frame those views, and is therefore in violation of wikipedia's standards of neutrality?

Say that there are those who find his views to be "fear-mongering"; fine. But to objectively categorize his view that way is not honest. He would not describe himself as a fear-mongerer, and there are millions of listeners to his show every day who would also not agree with the characterization. This is not in itself enough evidence to show that he is NOT a fear-mongerer, but it is compelling evidence that such a description is probably not an objective one. --75.90.167.237 (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

---

For the reasons described above I removed the unnecessary modifier "fear-mongering" from the sentence:

"...He is noted for his fear-mongering conservative political views..."

I hope all can see that this is a needed edit in the spirit of maintaining neutrality in the article's introductory paragraph.--75.90.171.169 (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Style of argument section

I think the analysis of Prager's rhetorical style and of shortcomings of some of his arguments is largely accurate. But it isn't suitable for wikipedia--it is an independent analysis, clearly with a POV, not an encyclopedic report. Criticism of Prager shuld definitely be included in the article, though--can someone find credible published sources that criticise Prager? It would be appropriate to summarize or quote similar arguments to the ones included in this section if they can be cited from some credible source. BTfromLA 05:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The only reason Prager has any public presence is because he interrupts and talks over people, and such people draw audiences and thus moolah, yet there's now no mention of this at all in the article. -- 68.6.40.203 05:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not true at all. In fact, his interrupting and talking over people is not a significant part of his radio show, as he always gives his liberal guests substantial air time when they appear. If he interrupts them, it's often because commerical radio has "hard breaks," where the commercials starts at a pre-determined time regardless. He is a frequent public speaker and has written numerous books-- this has nothing to do with interrupting people. Most of his stated opinions are terrifically logical: that a child is better off with both a mother and a father, thus adoption agencies should give preference to married couples over same-sex couples and single applicants; that males and females are profoundly, innately different, an idea feminism has taken issue with for four decades now; that feminism is more anti-male than it is pro-female; that opposing the death penalty in all cases is every bit as radical as opposing abortion in all cases; that secular extremism, which lead to more murder and enslavement in the 20th century than religion has been responsible for in 5,000 years, is not singled out in the media as being "secular" the way religious extremism is often singled out as being "religious" (how often do your hear the term "Secular Left" used in media today?); that much of the gun control movement has contempt for the Second Amendment which, if abolished, would empower the government and criminals but not the people of the United States of America; that lack of racial & ethnic consciousness is far more beneficial to society than the intense focus on racial and ethnic differences provided by multiculturalism; and that academia, Hollywood, and much of the mainstream media (ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, CNN, The NY Times, The LA Times, The Boston Globe & The Chicago Tribune) are as transparently liberal on most issues as talk radio, The Fox News Channel and The Washington Times are transparently conservative on most issues (meaning Bill Moyers' claim that all American media is basically right-leaning is absurd). He is also one of the few radio talk show hosts who bothers to debate and discuss such philosopical issues as the existence of God and the historical issues as the impact of the Founding Fathers on the world to date.

Charles Krauthammer is one of the premiere thinkers in America today, hardly a simpleton. He admires Prager enough to appear with frequency on his radio show. There are numerous people of distinction, many liberal, who are anything but simpleminded and who frequently appear on his radio show, and whom he debates and/or interviews. If his views are considered, on the whole, rather puerile by his detractors (not bloggers but columnists and thinkers), then I think it would be worthwhile for someone to create a "Criticism" section and link the reader up to one or two such critiques that are available on the Internet. That's not necessarily an easy thing, as many such critiques may come in newspaper and magazine interviews/articles/columns that are not available on the Internet (or cost a fee), as well as books and radio commentary. But, it would certainly not be considered POV to state "His critics on the Left often accuse him of being shortsighted..." and end the sentence with an example or two in the form of a link. Bill Moyers has many critics on the Right and I was able to find a good half-dozen criticisms on the Net-- mostly at Townhall.com and Jewishworldreview.com-- even though most of the criticism I've heard and read is not available on line (or very hard to find if it is). -- Gerkinstock 15:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I strongly agree with BTfromLA. The "Style of Argument" section is completely POV and does not belong in this article at all. (Although, as a personal criticsm of Prager's shortcomings as a wholly illogical pundit, I have to say it is very insightful and accurate.) But this is wikipedia, this is not about your PERSONAL dissertation on Prager's work. The style of the article is supposed to be encyclopedic, which this is not, and neutral which it is certainly not. Again, BTfromLA is right, this is not the place for independent analysis.

Independent analysis seems subjective. Posters should simply listen to the show and note how many times callers are not given a chance to have the last word. It IS Prager's show and it is his right to turn the volume down on anyone for a variety or reasons including the need to move the show along and keep it interesting. But after listening to the show more than once, I think you will agree that his callers who are obviously angry with him never, ever get in a last word. Prager allows them to speak initially, has a give and take with them, but inevitably makes his last point with the caller seemingly silent, as a result of "potting down" the volume of the call. This is unusual in talk radio, so it is given as information in this article. Prager is well within his rights to do this to callers, but Wikipedia readers also are within their rights to know that he does it.

In short, this article is a mess. Here is what we have to do:

Do provide a description of his arguments on the major themes and motifs that run throughout the body of his work.

Do NOT describe the minor, idiosyncratic positions he holds (such as his defense of cigar smoking). That is not encyclopedic. We want someone unfamiliar with Prager to come away with the essential body of his beliefs, not a comprehensive and intimate knowledge of every little thing he supports or rejects, including his preffered tastes for tunafish or tobacco or anything like that.

Do present his core beliefs in a neutral manner.

Do NOT expound on his arguments or deconstruct his arguments, or decide that they are fallacious or explain why they are fallacious.

Do not be subtle or clever and try to deconstruct his arguments in a flippant or back-handed way. It comes off as vitriolic and petty. This is the main reason why the article is so poorly written. Remember, let his beliefs speak for themselves. Just present them accurately, and let the reader decide if they are valid or not.

Do not use weasel words. This means never mask your own criticsm of his work by referring to some unseen opponent of his: "Critics of Prager believe that..." or "Many believe that..." Never. It is being subtle and sneaky as I mentioned before. Wikipedians hate this.

Do make reference in brief to his peripheral political likes and dislikes.

Do NOT make an exhaustive list of every right-wing cause he supports, or every left-wing insitution he does not support. We're not writing out his entire genome here, we're just summarizing. Do it in general terms.

--Warren

• Isn't an article that complies with all of these rules enumerated above destined to fail when the topic is a biography of someone whose business is opinion? I would go as far as to say that Prager himself is guilty of most of the "Do Nots" listed above, but that is his job. How do you adequately describe this behavior, then without appearing partisan, or resorting to these techniques? I think it's probably impossible, therefore, to cover controversial individuals in a biographic format following the wikipedia rules you list.

---

Well it's obvious that whoever wrote about his ideas hated Dennis Prager. Because if they liked him, or if they were just indifferent towards him, they wouldn't have written the things they did. In other words, they just chose the little stupid stuff that makes him sound bad. Why not present his arguments that are actually very intelligent and would make him look good? Because it is COMPLETELY BIASED, in fact, just get rid of that whole stupid section. Just say he's conservative and he's a strong advocate for this, this, and this. How often does he really talk about circumcision and breastfeeding? If you actually watch the show and know something about him (hm, what a novel idea), you'd know that he never talks about this.

-Brad

---

WARNING: Discussion will be now be Godwin'ed: Not including his views on controversial things is incomplete, and it doesn't give the full picture of the man. A debate about the Third Reich could focus on the advent of the Volkswagen, but it wouldn't really do justice to the topic, although it would just focus on the positive. If Prager has "stupid little" ideas about circumcision and breastfeeding that some find objectionable (which appears to be the case), then it's part of his person, and it belongs in an encyclopedic biography (look up the root of "encyclopedic" for guidance on this). Let the readers decide how much weight to put on it. I will say what I said earlier again: this man's business is opinion. His work product is thoughts and opinions intended to generate thoughts, feelings, and actions in others. It is therefore impossible to describe him and his daily activities without at least LISTING the thoughts and opinions he has. Given the rules about NPOV on wikipedia, however, this is always going to piss someone off, because thoughts and opinions are so incredibly subjective, and probably not even rigorously documentable (i.e. how can you "prove" how he feels about breast feeding with a line of text?).

I think this all gets at the inevitable failure of wikipedia to satisfy all of its customers in the area of biography. Humans are contentious and subjective beings, and just about the only thing you could print about anyone that was truly objective would be their genome sequence. Given that, biographies will ALWAYS be "biased," and there's no way communal editing will ever get around this. The best one can hope for is a situation in which all parties involved disagree to the same extent.

Dennis Prager makes a point of always letting callers with whom he disagrees get the last word. This article states the opposite, with a "citation" to his web site, which says nothing about the issue. If you believe he turns down the volume to get the last word himself, please cite a specific primary source on this issue, not just the general web site of the person being accused. I have removed the paragraph for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.77.229 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Marriage

• Did he and his wife reconcile? -- Gerkinstock 17:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC) (No. A show that was recorded before Prager's divorce was rebroadcast after the divorce. In the show, Prager referred to his wife, which confused some listeners who did not realize that the show was a rebroadcast.)

Okay, thank you. -- Gerkinstock 23:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I recall him talking once about marriage and how one ingredient in a successful marriage is "believing in marriage". Oh, the ironing of it all! Wahkeenah 00:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a use of "weasel words" as one of the moderaters up it in terms of the Sheehan controversy. I removed the passage: (Despite .... claims that he is a defender of marriage that preceded the statement that Patrick Sheehan had a moral duty to divorce that woman.) This is a blatant POV that the writer sees as an inconsistency because he is not familiar with Mr. Pragers views. Prager does not relate the health of marriage with divorce numbers, and so whether you agree or disagree, he holds no incosistencies with advocating divorce and defending marriage. He claims that not engaging in marriage hurts the institution, not the fact that there is divorce. He has clarified it literally dozens of times on his radio show, because of just this sort of assumption. Whether someone disagrees or not, the statement shows a clear POV, and runs on the assumption that Dennis Prager views the relationship of divorce and defense of marriage in the same way the writer does. Therefore it is an inaccurate statement that reflects the beliefs of the writer, and not the beliefs of Prager.

Had to make another change with regards to the Cindy Sheehan quote, because using only the part about having a moral duty to divorce, was taken out of context to the point of making it POV. He clarified that if the reason for divorce was because of her claiming her son died for nothing, then he was supportive. It was not blanket support, and therefore the entire quote should be used to give context.

Organization

Is there some way to reorganize this article such that the themes of Prager's shows and writings can be made more clear? The current organization makes it hard to understand his philosophy beyond who he supports and who he criticizes. If I were trying to summarize Dennis Prager's philosophy, I would list his big categories with a few words to explain what each means. The list would include things like this:

• Prefer clarity over agreement
• Judge actions not motives
• Ethical Monotheism
• Happiness is an obligation
• Compassions vs. Standards
• What was once considered Liberal is now considered Conservative
• Men and women are different
• Prefer shared values over shared tribe
• etc.

Questionable Passage

Dennis prefers clarity over agreement and states that when discussing an issue, first you tell the truth and then give your opinion. However, this does not prevent him from making mistakes that any schoolboy would avoid, such as the erroneous belief that America is a "Christian" rather than secular nation.

Hey, that line might violate Wikipedia's guidelines. No, I'm sorry...I'm probably wrong here. --LeCorrector 05:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know about that, but a lot of these Christio-fascist commentators who claim to be strict constitutional constructionists conveniently forget that it is the U.S. Constitution that is the supreme law of the land, not the Christian Bible. Wahkeenah 05:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Just for the record, he's JEWISH, not a Christio-fascist (or whatever you said)! Just because you don't agree with someone, you should not leap to conclusions of fascism; I'm sure that you're not fond of the term "Islamo-Fascism".

The statement that the US was founded as a Christian nation, or built on Judeo-Christian beliefs, is either true, false, or an opinion. In order to know the difference, you have to know what Judeo-Christian philosophy and beliefs are, and how that would manifest itself in public policy, especially at the time of the founders. Cherry picking a phrase or a sentence out of a random letter or a speech given by a politician 250+ years ago does not accurately represent the mood at the time. There is no doubt that the settlers were very Christian, that colonial governments were very Christian, that the founders were overwhelmingly Christian, that terms used in the day such as providence, creator, ordained, etc... were coming from a belief in Christ and/or references from the Bible. Christ specifically, and God in general, were mentioned in numbers too many to count in writings of the day, and were used as the moral compass to govern, start institutions, and to form our ideas on freedom and liberty. Just because a "schoolboy" did not learn that in school does not mean it isn't true, or a "mistake" to share this knowledge. There is no doubt about the founding of this country as the evidence is found in abundance in the writings of the time. So, it certainly would not be a "false" point of view. It would only be true, or when discussing the reason for its decline, the degree it had on society, and the importance of its decline or effect, it would be considered his opinion. And regardless of what a person believes to be true, there is in fact, truth. That truth is independent of what somebody wishes were to be true or what they think about it. Those who say we were not founded by Christians, but rather Dieists, or that the founders left their beliefs at the door when they entered Independance Hall simply WISH that were the case and try to re-write history to make it true.

The fact that Prager is Jewish and still recognizes and espouses the importance of Christianity in society is testament to his belief that the truth is more important than what you wish to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.134.50 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted bit about Prager's opinion contradicting Article VI

I deleted the sentence that said that Prager's opinion that people who are incapable of swearing on the Bible should not serve in Congress, contradicts Article VI. That is a matter of interpretation; obviously none of the Founders who wrote the Constitution, including Washington and Madison, considered swearing on the Bible to be a "religious test." So it's not fair to say Prager's opinion is against what the Constitution says.

• "Obviously?" What's your evidence for that assertion? Wahkeenah 00:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not obvious at all, of course. The founders were perfectly familiar with the Quaker position on oath-swearing, and would have been aware of the anti-Catholic policies of the English monarchy of the near-past, when office-seekers were specifically required to swear on a "protestant" bible in order to serve. This was very much a "religious test" which required candidates to abjure their Catholic faiths.

Richardjames444 16:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i think the issue of the constitution is irrelevant to the discussion. prager's latest column[1] is a follow up and response to the criticism. there he says:

I am for no law to be passed to prevent Keith Ellison or anyone else from bringing any book he wants to his swearing-in, whether actual or ceremonial.

so he merely has an opinion and a request. there are probably countless examples of someone making a request of someone where the latter has protection under the law to follow the request or not. it seems odd to mention the law in that context...in my opinion

for example, "John doesnt want Lucy to have an abortion. however, john's request is in violation of the supreme court decision." or "Herb is opposed to pre-marital sex and wants his daughter to wait. Yet this is in direct conflict with US laws that allow consenting adults to engage in sex." it seems only to regurgitate an argument that, in my opinion, misses the point.

with regards to a religious test, he responds:

I never even hinted that there should be a religious test. It has never occurred to me that only Christians run for office in America. The idea is particularly laughable in my case since I am not now, nor ever have been, a Christian. I am a Jew (a non-denominational religious Jew, for the record), and I would vote for any Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Mormon, atheist, Jew, Zoroastrian, Hindu, Wiccan, Confucian, Taoist or combination thereof whose social values I share. Conversely, I would not vote for a fellow Jew whose social values I did not share. I want people of every faith and of no faith who affirm the values I affirm to enter political life.

Doovid 20:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Keith Ellison controversy

Just a Question: Why doesn't it say anything about the Keith Ellison controversy? It merits at least a sentence or two. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.17.167.223 (talk • contribs) 18:58, December 9, 2006 (UTC).

This section of the article was gone from Dec 7 (00:03 UTC) to Dec 10 (00:41 UTC). The current version has 7 sentences on the issue. --Spiffy sperry 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Some information right from the source -

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL COUNCIL

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION

On December 20, the Executive Committee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council adopted the following resolution.

Resolution

WHEREAS, the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, the governing body of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, is charged with implementing the mission of the Museum as a living memorial to the victims of the Holocaust devoted to teaching the lessons of the Holocaust for the benefit of all mankind; and

WHEREAS, Dennis Prager, a member of the Council, has recently publicly expressed and disseminated certain statements which have been widely interpreted as being intolerant;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Executive Committee of the United States Holocaust Memorial Council, while recognizing that Dennis Prager has the right to express his personal views freely, disassociates itself from Mr. Prager’s statements as being antithetical to the mission of the Museum as an institution promoting tolerance and respect for all peoples regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity.

Dara Goldberg Director, External Affairs United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

• Lacking a link (or even your own wikipedia signature), it's fair to assume you invented this yourself. Wahkeenah 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

While I didn't post the resolution here, it can be found at http://www.ushmm.org/museum/press/archives/detail.php?category=07-general&content=2006-12-21 . All this info is found at The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council and the Quran Oath Controversy of the 110th United States Congress where the topic is gone through in depth. The paragraphs on this Prager page seem to be sufficeint for a basic understanding and the links are availible for further reading.--Wowaconia 21:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

There is now almost no direct reference to the quite large scale controversy. The controversy needs its own small section and should not be diluted or whitewashed by being linked to other non-related items, i.e. the holocaust, both these items deserve their own separate sections. I doubt anyone will bother to create a new section and even if one was created it would quickly be deleted. I find this sort of behaviour pathetic.

I agree with the above paragraph, and it has been completely taken out of context to say that Prager supports Christian culture to the point of saying Jews should swear on the bible when taking office. That is a non-sequitir with regards to Christian culture, and has very little if nothing to do with where he differs with Jews. This has been removed until someone can give a good non-POV account of the Kieth Ellison controversy.

--- I would like to add that Dennis Prager has addressed the Keith Ellison controversy in his new book, "Still the Best Hope" (See footnote on Page 242). I'm not sure whether Wiki permits a citation of this length from his book, but I think it should at least be noted that Mr. Prager apologized to Mr. Ellison and Mr. Ellison "graciously accepted" his apology. That should be sufficient to close this issue as a "controversy." regards, -tpkatsa

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpkatsa (talk • contribs) 01:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's still a past "controversy" and warrants mention. His apology should also be mentioned. You can add the citation. If it's too long, someone will let you know. Ace-o-aces (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess this section has been edited, removed, replaced, etc, a few times. The way it is now written, the statement "falsely claiming that an oath on any book other than the Bible would be unprecedented" is unsupported, specifically the word "falsely". Apart from the case of Lyndon Johnson, which was in an emergency, no other book than a Bible has been used, therefore using any book other than a Bible was in fact unprecedented. The way the claim is written here could clearly include the idea that Prager knew that a Bible- or any book - was not necessary. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Breastfeeding

Do Prager's views on Breastfeeing merit more detail? Ace-o-aces 06:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• They definitely need more exposure. Wahkeenah 06:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think this adds very much. We should focus on the larger themes of Dennis. Delving into small issues detracts from the bigger picture of what Dennis is about. Spaffrath 04:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

His views on breastfeeding are as important as his producer's views on honey (all Prager listeners will recognize that reference!) He belives that breastfeeding has become an obsession for some of its advocates and a woman who bottle feeds her child should not be harassed or made to feel guilty. Those who feel that this is actually an issue of tantamount importance should consider that in this wide world of thorny moral issues and terrible conflicts, perhaps we can trust mothers to make this decison on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.200.195 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Antarctica

Well, at least I've solved the mystery about his "lectured on all seven continents" thing. He obviously means it as a joke (a comedian he is not) Ace-o-aces 16:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It's much improved with that, although we would probably be better off just removing the whole thing anyway. Lecturing on any amount of continents doesn't necessarily add credibility to a person's message. But at any rate, the new version is better than it was. Kafziel ^Talk 16:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we at least spell Antarctica right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt10ant (talk • contribs) 18:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pass It On, Share The W.I.S.H.?

Note the alleged release date, April Fool's Day. Wahkeenah 00:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

removal of blatant POV

I removed the text "He continues to defend traditional marriage against such innovations as same-sex and polygamous marriage." due to the blatant POV. Any objections, or suggestions for rewording? --jonasaurus 07:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me there's a way you can say that without the built-in editorializing... assuming the article doesn't say it already elsewhere, in which case the comment is merely redundant. How about "He continues to criticize non-traditional unions, such as same-sex and polygamous marriage." Or you could leave it as is, and balance it with something like "However, given his divorce, he has no comments on the subject of 'serial monogamy'." Well, no, not really. Wahkeenah 10:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision

I am a long-time listener and reader of Mr. Prager, and the Circumcision section claim is a serious defamation and a violation of Wiki Biographies of living persons policy (which actually states that this should be removed immediately) - he has never said nor implied anything to that effect. I plan to delete that section since there is no support for the claim.
Regarding the Marriage section: writing "While an outspoken defender of marriage, Prager has participated in the dissolution of his own two marriages by divorce" is a non sequitur, a logical fallacy - it's like saying someone is a defender of marriage yet wears yellow sneakers. Supporting marriage and divorcing a spouse are utterly compatible actions - supporters allow for the fact that some marriages, even between kind people, are so wrong and turn so toxic that it's best (even for the children of that marriage) to part ways. Just as one can strongly advocate the importance of attaining a college education while allowing for the fact that not every student and college are a perfect match - that some students are overwhelmed and drop out, while others have to transfer and get it right on the second attempt. So I plan to delete that sentence also, but am proposing it here first out of courtesy. Jking309 01:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You have it exactly right, Jking.

Prager has consistently and stridently said that he is not one of those "stay together for the sake of the kids" types; he believes that such an environment is highly (emotionally and psychologically) toxic to the children and that they come first. He took on the argument that people who endorse Marriage should never divorce with one simple statement (and I paraphrase it here):

"People who strongly endorse Marriage, even if they later divorce themselves, are no more hypocritical than someone who endorses driving but who gets into a car crash."

Circumcision

I am the radio talk show caller to whom the section refers. I discussed the circumcision issue with Prager on-air when he worked for KABC, and he clearly stated that he believed that fathers who do not circumcise their sons were more likely to molest them. Should it be necessary, I shall seek further evidence to this fact by attempting access to the transcripts of our debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanbo5150 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I highly suspect that this is misquoted and erroneous it is also irrelevant. The biography should focus on recurring themes that he discusses. This is certainly not one of them.

Spaffrath 04:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision

As the caller referenced in the circumcision section, I reiterate that Prager's claims regarding molestation by fathers who do not circumcise their sons was indeed made and broadcast. My contention is neither a case of misquoting nor erroneous claim. He has since discussed and debated circumcision on various occassions subsequent to my call both at KABC and KRLA - so this is a recurring theme. More importantly Prager makes part of his stock in trade quoting the inanities and absurdities of his ideological opponents; often as an attempt to show how the political Left thinks. He will often playback audio of those whom he finds most politically or theologically disagreeable, pausing the tape frequently to enage in psuedo-debate. Lastly, Prager will soon have published a book that will endeavor to explain men's sexual nature with a view to doing so to a primarily female audience. Prager's bizzare circumcision and molestation views are hardly irrelevant when he has deigned himself an authority on such a complex issue as male sexuality. Incidentally, I maintain a copy of a letter from the American Urological Association dated June 6th 1995 addressing Prager's peculiar claim that the foreskin is not considered part of the penis. My call to Prager's show was made only a week or so prior to that date should any enterprising journalist wish to gather up the transcripts from KABC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanbo5150 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Even assuming that your assertion is correct the fact that he mentions it more than once does not make it a major theme of his ideas. Your "more important" claim that Prager plays back the silliest ideas of his ideological opponents is part of an opinion show; he is not writing short biographies of them. This is a site that should contain a short factual overview of the major content of his life. It is not a place for people to try to take pot shots at him in an attempt to make him look silly. Even if, as you claim, he does that on his show.

Your attempt to justify this under the cover of "male sexuality" does not work either since even in that context circumcision is a very minor part. The fact that you picked this little part of it to focus on is clearly evidence of lack of desire for a serious interest in his opinions on that issue. And if you are going to cite a future book as evidence of his ideas I suggest you wait for the book to be written before assuming the content of it.

Spaffrath 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate that many hold Prager in high esteem, I would politely ask that you desist from repeatedly vandalizing his biography with censorship regarding his bizarre views relating to circumcision. Sycophants often have a tough time swallowing the negative aspects of their idols, but just this once try and gulp. Prager is an admired public figure but has the same human frailties towards silliness as his opponents. The totality of the man's views weird or wise need to be transparent if people are to have a biography rather than a puff piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanbo5150 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not the point. The point is that it was only put in there because it was so controversial and the writer knew that it would make Prager look bad. Way to try to be sneaky and attack Prager fans on that one. Admit, that was real sneaky. This is not important. It says nothing about Prager's life work whatsoever. There are topics that he gives literally 1000x more airtime to. 'Sycophants often have a tough time swallowing the negative aspects of their idols, but just this once try and gulp.' So you're calling the circumcision section the "negative aspects" of Prager. Show me where the positive aspects are located in this biography.... Exactly. This is just a political whack job. Do you watch the show? How often do you hear Prager talking about circumcision vs. the war in Iraq, exposing double standards on the Left. These are the things he's about. You may as well talk then about his support of Hillary Clinton when she was accused of being anti-Semite. Why not talk about that? Because it makes him look mature and wise, and by God you don't want any of that for the public to see. Read what I wrote above under "Style of Argument" section. Just answer me that one question. Is this an accurate representation of major recurring topics on Prager's radio show?

-Brad

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.175.81.47 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Shannon, I have explained to you why your content is inappropriate. Brad looks like he has been on this page much longer than either of us and agrees with this assessment. Please respect that he is a good third party evaluator in this dispute. Thank you.

Spaffrath 03:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

amusing censorship

An IP from Salem Communications, the owner of townhall.com, has been invovled in deleting criticisms of Prager: [2], [3]. I don't want to get in a flamewar, but looking at what that person deleted, it all seems sourced and valid material and should be restored. Sdedeo (tips) 18:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

As I've said about a couple other issues this is not a major theme of Prager's discourse or a particularly important event and doesn't belong in a short biography. A brief mention may be appropriate as an example in a larger discussion about his views on divorce. Spaffrath 04:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To all the Prager Proponents protrolling this page=

Stop censoring objective data you find to your dislike. If you want to censor something you have to have a reason, such as a questionable source, ect, ect. Or you must flat out disprove it with another source. Stop censoring this article. This is an objective encyclopedia. Not a pro-prager page. The good, the bad, and the ugly all have a say here. Knock it off.

P.S. I already played in the sandbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.30.180 (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad people are patrolling this article. If only there were more. Here's a test for you: pick a dozen articles about conservatives and a dozen about liberals and see how many of each contain a "criticism" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.46.199 (talk) 06:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the various issues discussed above on this Discussion Page, I have to say that I agree with the deleters. There seems to be an interest here in listing stupid, weird, and tiny details, often themselves unsourced (with all the discussion, I still haven't seen any source for the circumcision stuff nor do I have any coherent idea what he was supposed to have said) in an effort to make Prager look bad. I imagine one could do that to anyone, but it has no place in a biography.

The lefties have taken over wiki....which is why this page is in dispute. Question....why in the hell would someone who is not a lefty give money to wiki? Don't donate!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.53.212 (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The use of the term "Some Jews feel that Prager uses his own politics as a form of religiton" (paraphrasing) is blatant POV and is unsourced. What is the point of it? Some is what? You and your Jewish friends say it around a game of cribbage? Also, the paragraph following this statement just describes his religious preferences and in no way substantiates the statement that he uses his politics as a religion. The idea of his show is that he takes specific hours where politics are not allowed because they are not the only, or single-most important thing in life. Given no sourcing and no understanding of the statement as it is used, it needs to be deleted as POV and misleading.

The link to feminism being "the reason" that women are depressed is a very blatant POV and misrepresentation of the article it links to because the article is written to explain what reasons other than feminism can also contribute to the gap in depression between men and women, not just the fact that they have depression. Also he has never used the blanket statement that it is the only reason women suffer from depression and to put it as such a blunt statement is a misrepresentation. He was talking about a specific niche of why women nowadays are being reported as more likely to be depressed than men. He has gone into this topic in depth on his show and presented numerous reasons some of which fall under the rubicon of the effects of feminism, but some of which are inherent to women having the stress of working moreso now than they did before and seeing their kids, or the fact that there are less masculine men to support their wives in all their endeavors. It's not as simple as one line with no detail, left to look like a POV statement. What if I were to edit a Democratic politician or liberal talk show host to say that they supported the murder of unborn children. This would raise immediate POV flags because supporting reproductive rights in women is far from supporting the murder of unborn children. One has a blatant POV issue and the other does not. Some would argue which is more accurate, but the statement itself reflects POV. Please note I'm not trying to say abortion is murder, just trying to show an extreme example to bring to light the subtle use of POV by deliberate misleading wording of Prager's ideas.

It should also be mentioned (although I did not edit the statement) that on his "Religion on the Line" segments, he routinely featured Muslim imams, and has had a very good relation with the Muslim community prior to the Keith Ellison incident, which he has apologized for the wording, saying he should never have said that Ellison should be required to do anything, but just that it was his opinion that Ellison should respect the historical significance and observe tradition. That was his point. Not to force anyone to do anything. The article as it stands seeks to highlight the misunderstanding for the sake of smearing Prager and while those seeking this POV, have called it censoring to remove these ideas, they have no problem censoring his apologies or subsequent clarifications. Very little beyond the biography of stated facts is more than POV designed to marginalize him and try to portray him in as negative a light as possible. No mention of his charitable works, his Prager-listener cruises, very little of his books, in fact assuming he dropped out of school for the purposes of writing a book, with no citation. This is a very sloppy entry, as is usually the case with a conservative icon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert167.94.2.15 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Prager does not believe in evolutionism.

Since wikipedia likes to portray such people as "bible thumpers", the fact that he is not a fundamentalist, evangelical, or any sort, of Christian makes his non-acceptance noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.59.65 (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all the word is "evolution". Scientists stopped using the redundant term "evolutionism" over 100 years ago. Secondly, Prager is Jewish and even hosted a show for years called, "Religion on the Line." The main argument against evolution by Christians is that it differs from the account in Genesis of how God created everything, including man. The Torah happens to consist of the first 5 books of the Old Testament including Genesis so I fail to see how Prager would refute evolution from a non-religious position.

Just as an aside, Prager has all but said outright, that he believes that God created the physical Universe and all the physical processes within it, including Evolution. More to the point, he has said repeatedly that it doesn't matter to him one way or the other. I for one suspect that he is carefully tempering his remarks so as not to offend his largely Christian audience, but he has also, on many occasions over the years, said that he doesn't take each and every account in the Old Testament/Torah 100% literally.Thanos777 (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ii think you nailed it with your last sentence. Prager doesn't actually deny evolution and as far as I have seen he doesn't even formally embrace the notion of "god directed evolution." Rather, he tends to bristle with real or feigned indignation at the notion of teaching evolution as having happened "all by itself", which he polemically equates with "teaching atheism", which he regards as another religion. The implication is that if you don't mention god while teaching evolution you are advocating atheism, which is polemical nonsense. Of course, he chooses his words very carefully so that he can be interpreted as anti-evolution to conservative Christians in his audience while also allowing for some to interpret him as taking the more reasonable position that teachers ought not explicitly declare that "god had nothing to do with it." There isn't a thing he says that isn't carefully worded so as not to offend his predominantly conservative Christian audience, which he knows is likely hostile to the idea of evolution. CannotFindAName (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sabbath observance has nothing to do with "political views".

see subject

Incongruent Statement

The article states, "He has lectured in 46 states and on six continents and traveled in 98 countries and the 50 U.S. states." He cannot have lectured in 46 states and 50 states. It's one or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.108.100 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no contradiction. It just means that he went to 4 states without giving lectures. DanBishop (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Is DP a "critic of Islam" as a religion? I think not.

I have been listening to DP for years and while i have heard him criticize many actions of people who are Muslim. I have never heard him criticize Islam as a religion. He did in fact question Keith Ellison's use of the Quran for his swearing in ceremony. Please see Quran_oath_controversy_of_the_110th_United_States_Congres but his explanation was that he objected due to the US tradition. For the record i disagreed with him at the time(and still do) but that does not make his position anti-Isalam.

"Asked if it would be a problem for a Jewish legislator to take the oath on a Bible that included only the Old Testament, Mr Prager responded, 'Yes, it would,' because he said the point is to honor the 'Bible of this country." @Ace-o-aces: Moshekaye (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

POV-section and cite check tags

A recent editor posted some tags (POV and citation) on this page, but then did not explain them here. This is a violation of WP:DRIVEBY. The goal is to improve the page, not to tag it. Now, I know that the page needs lots of improvement, so I will assume that this tagging was done in good faith. But instead of tagging, let's fix the problems. We should only use the tags if we cannot agree on how to fix the problems. Let's work together to try to fix them first. DougHill (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• I explained the POV-section tag for the "Prager University" section with the comment: "too many lecturers (see WP:BALASPS) and a bit of puffery." The main (first) paragraph of this section includes too many names and appears designed to inflate the importance of Prager University. It should be cut down substantially.
• The cn tag is for the sentence "He is noted for his political and social views, his views on the origins of moral values, and for his work on happiness." Cn tags really need no explanation. All content must be supported by inline citations, WP:LEADCITE notwithstanding. I could not find any cited source for the proposition that Prager is noted for these things.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have said "cite check" rather than citation. I have no objection to cn tags; I've posted at least one here myself. Sorry for my confusion on that.

About the POV tag: the tag itself says that the discussion may be found here. Not posting here was indeed a violation of WP:DRIVEBY. And posting a POV tag before trying to work things out here was bad form. Now that you have, I have no objection to the changes you propose. I think I should let you make these changes, so go ahead.

And I know that the page needs work. But let's try to work things out here before we resort to POV tagging. And I hope we hear from some of the other editors of this page. DougHill (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• POV-section: First off, WP:DRIVEBY is an essay about which I have ambivalent feelings. Second, I didn't even violate it, as it was a constructive tag explained in the edit summary (and I explained myself here). With that said, I tagged the section for POV, rather than fixing it myself, because I thought you (as an expert on Prager U) would be in a better position to decide which Prager U speakers were the most notable.
• cite check: This is another self-explanatory tag, it is a signal that all citations should be checked. I explained in my edit summary: "spot check reveals multiple failed verifications." I believe I found two failed verifications in the first two citations I checked. One I reverted. The purpose of the cite check tag is to get others in the community involved in the cite checking rather than having to shoulder the entire burden myself.

Please remember that this is a collaborative effort. Constructive feedback should always be considered. This includes tagging. The most productive response to a (perceived) unexplained tag is to ask why the tag was placed. Do this on the article talk page and ping the tagger with the {{u}} template to increase the likelihood of a response.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wives

The info box gives his first wife's surname as Adelstein, but the running text calls her Goldstein. Which is correct? Bhami (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

External links

(Copied from my talk page --Ronz (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)): Thanks for allowing me to discuss this External Link further. I'd like to add this link (to Prager University) because I find it very helpful in the "context" of this section of his wiki page.

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link:

Is the site content accessible to the reader? YES Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? YES, Prager University is very closely related to Dennis Prager -- he created it. Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional? YES, no issues with it not functional.

Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors.

Additionally, I'd like to add his www.DennisPrager.com website to the right side bar. How do I edit / add this?

Thank you!

-P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.24.175.110 (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, and for referring to WP:EL in your response.

I fixed the side bar so the website appears there. Thanks for pointing it out.

WP:EL states, "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. " "Exceptions are rare. Links to Wiktionary and Wikisource can sometimes be useful..."

Because the prageruniversity.com is linked from his own website, there's no reason to link it directly. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Dennis Prager/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Overall, I'm quite satisfied with the Dennis Prager Biography. When reading through the talk page I was amazed at how much it seems the liberals of the world had a hand at changing the original biography, and then it swayed the other way for a while and so on. I am VERY surprised you decided to listen to one comment about how the fact that he was a Democrat and is now a Republican is not a relavant fact to include. I totally believe that this is of MAJOR RELEVANCE and that it should never have been deleted. This has to be a difficult job to write objectively and factual without showing any bias what so ever even if you have a bias. That being said, I would have to say there was really only one "slight" that I felt while reading your work. On the issue of same-sex marriage, just saying that someone opposes it makes them seem as though they hate homosexuals. I am quite sure he is not against a law allowing civil unions. If this was added to the biography it would show a little more about his complete stance on the issue. Thank you for your time and again I truly believe your biography is Very Well Done.64.131.47.236 (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 13:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of content on "Prager University" website

This article is about the person. If far better sources are found and used, then maybe a section about the website is in order. As is, the paragraph about the website is poorly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Ronz. In the meantime, regarding the Youtube censorship controversy, I have added the following paragraph (along with three footnotes), which I hope everybody will agree is pretty fair and balanced:

In 2016, Dennis Prager complained of left-wing censorship, saying that YouTube was blocking some 20 of the "PragerU videos — over 10% of our entire collection" by putting them under "restricted mode," although there is no "inappropriate and objectionable adult and sexual content" whatsoever in the "animated, age-appropriate, educational videos" aimed at "educating people of all ages about America's founding values." Most incongruous, wrote the Daily Mail, was the fact that "the latest video to fall victim to the site's new censorship rules is, ironically, one on left wing censorship."

Asteriks (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Of the three footnotes, the only one that I think could lend any weight at all is thefederalist.com, but the article is short on detail and appears to be a quick response to Prager's own press release. If independent, reliable sources care about it still or in the future, it should be reconsidered. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

controversy & criticism

this article has NOTHING about controversies or criticism of the subject, & his views, & "output".

the subject is a POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, a "pundit";

& one whose opinions are not universally "adored".

nor is the quality or value of his opinions universally agreed upon.

it makes A JOKE of wikipedia, & espescially of "BLP", that we do not have anything about these aspects of the subject in the article.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

>>>I am trying to fix this with well-sourced info about Prager's views and opinions, but we will see if my efforts survive the Prager fan club that likes to cut anything they don't like out of the page Localemediamonitor (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tenebrae_WP:HOUNDING — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs) 04:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

False quote

After being reverted for an edit that contained a false quotation attributed to the article subject, User:The Kingfisher has tried again, re-adding the non-quote. You cannot add a quote not by the subject, which is putting someone else's words in the subject's mouth. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Views and opinions

I've not been following the back and forth closely, but I agree with the comments above in Talk:Dennis_Prager#controversy_.26_criticism. Some initial comments:

I think Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress is an very poor article and should be deleted. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not participate in the churning common in poor journalism, especially political journalism.

Anything we decide to present about his views and opinions should be based upon independent sources in order to avoid NOT, NPOV, and OR violations. Other sources may be used for details and context, though we have to be especially careful of presenting information from these other sources in Wikipedia's voice.

Prager is in the business of being alarmist while conforming to the views of his conservative audience. Presenting any of his views as original or based upon "principles" will always be problematic, need to be well-sourced, and shouldn't be assumed.

In the material I removed here there are a number of such problems:

I'm unclear if we should use rationalwiki.org as a source at all, much less using it to determine due weight.

The viewpoints from the theatlantic.com sources needed more emphasis.

I'm unclear on the status of mediamatters.org blogs as sources, but again the viewpoints are under-emphasized. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

>>Ronz: Unclear what your "theatlantic.com sources needed more emphasis" means, but your recent deletions border on vandalism. You are deleting both the sources reporting of Prager's own written words and the source of Prager's written words themselves. Is there any doubt about any of it? Prager's written record of his view of a presidential candidate who is now president, and Prager's eventual change of view, are totally appropriate in a section on his views. Your mass-deletions of well-sourced text looks more like vandalism than legitimate editing. Localemediamonitor (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

So you don't understand what I wrote, but you think it's more vandalism than anything else?

Basically, I'm saying we need better sources to avoid the problems I've brought up. Perhaps we can work from the theatlantic.com references? If so, then they should be used to determine what we say about Prager, not the primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Atlantic was used exactly as you say it should be used, and the primary sources were included in supplemental citations to show what the Atlantic was referencing. What possible problem could there be with that? Are you saying it's okay if only the Atlantic sources are used, without the primary ones following it? If so, why did you just delete several paragraphs of text, instead of just removing the primary sources?Localemediamonitor (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

For some reason I thought you were an experienced editor, but, unless you've used other accounts, that's not the case. My apologies for jumping in, assuming you'd recognize the relevant policies, the content problems, and the general approaches to resolving them.

This article is a WP:BLP. As such, the WP:ONUS is strongly on keeping content out if it is not properly sourced or in other ways not in line with Wikipedia content policies.

That alone should address most of your concerns.

Then there's WP:NOT. We're not here to promote Prager's viewpoints, nor create a venue to oppose his viewpoints. To avoid such problems, we need to work from high-quality, independent sources. Primary sources should be used with care to provide details, but should not set the tone or emphasis.

Here are the two refs from The Atlantic:

• https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/what-supporting-donald-trump-did-to-dennis-pragers-principles/498905/
• https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/the-immoral-majority/516582

The tone and emphasis from those references were not reflected in the content for this article. --Ronz (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

The section is clearly marked as needing expansion, so Ronz, instead of mass deletions of paragraphs you think have a problem, why don't you just fix them instead in the fashion you think is appropriate? Localemediamonitor (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Glad we have moved on from this. --Ronz (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Dennis Prager Inaccuracy

Hi All, NPR and other sources quoted a New York Times article which made a mistake. The mistaken quotes are being used as evidence against Dennis Prager. Part or all of all the original erroneous reporting by the New York Times was retracted. By quoting an inaccurate source it labels Mr. Prager in a negative light untruthfully. I have read everything this man has written and listened to every word he speaks for the last 30 years. He has never said a bad thing about gays or any other groups, which the NPR article states. Anyone who has any evidence to the contrary can bring it forward. Unless it is edited, or taken without context, there is no factual basis for the claim made by NPR. Here is the NPR statement: "According to NPR, Prager "often targets multiculturalism, Muslims and LGBTQ people."[7] Prager's "inflammatory views and past statements about gays, liberals and others" have stirred controversy.[8]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigcows (talk • contribs) 17:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bigcows: Can you provide a source—and ideally a link—to the retraction, then? —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)A

@C.Fred: A source to refute an unfounded accusation? Sounds like shifting the burden of proof! Many positions of Dennis Prager are completely misstated! I suggest the following improvements to this article: Remove the accusation that Dennis Prager has ever made inflammatory comments about liberals. Dennis Prager always makes the distinction between (classical) liberal and the left. It is impossible he ever said anything negative about liberals. LGBT rights. Change this title. First of all the use of the word rights implies same-sex marriage is a right. This would mean the article takes a position. Second the T of LGBT is not related to this subject. I suggest a neutral title like "Gays and lesbians". Remove the false accusation of Dennis saying same-sex marriage would lead to incest. He never said that. There is no direct quote. News media. Add to this his later clarification that not just the news media, but the news media combined with the universities are a threat.

Sorry, but we cannot make changes to a BLP based upon personal opinions. If you cannot offer independent, reliable sources, then nothing can be done. --Ronz (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Prager himself has addressed this issue. https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2017/08/23/-n2372061 A relevant quote: "The New York Times lied when it wrote that I "suggested that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy and incest."". These accusations should be removed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnmyers (talk • contribs) 01:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Prager has said all kinds of things about gay marriage:

• in 2003 piece on gay marriage *Consensual, private sex between adults is not always acceptable. Even most gays judge consensual adult incest such as father-daughter or brother-sister (or brother-brother) sex wrong. Many gays even believe it should be illegal. Therefore, heterosexuals who draw their line of acceptance at homosexual sex are not necessarily any more bigoted than gays who draw their line at consensual incest.
• same piece as above: Marriage is the bedrock institution of society, and must not be redefined. If it is, there are no moral or logical grounds to prevent redefining marriage to include more than two people.
• in 1993;

Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other (interested readers can see a photograph of the former at select art museums exhibiting the works of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women's garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman's disembodied voice (e.g., "phone sex"); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies — parent-child incest and seducing another's man's wife have rarely been countenanced — but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the "un-sublimated," sex drive can lead to. ...
Judaism placed controls on sexual activity. ... The revolutionary nature of Judaism's prohibiting all forms of non-marital sex was nowhere more radical, more challenging to the prevailing assumptions of mankind, than with regard to homosexuality. Indeed, Judaism may be said to have invented the notion of homosexuality, for in the ancient world sexuality was not divided between heterosexuality and homosexuality....
The answer is that we do not derive our approach toward homosexuality from the fact that the Torah made it a capital offense. We learn it from the fact that the Bible makes a moral statement about homosexuality. ...
Yet another reason for Judaism's opposition to homosexuality is homosexuality's negative effect on women....
A final reason for opposition to homosexuality is the homosexual "lifestyle." While it is possible for male homosexuals to live lives of fidelity comparable to those of heterosexual males, it is usually not the case. While the typical lesbian has had fewer than ten "lovers," the typical male homosexual in America has had over 500. In general, neither homosexuals nor heterosexuals confront the fact that it is this male homosexual lifestyle, more than the specific homosexual act, that disturbs most people. This is probably why less attention is paid to female homosexuality. When male sexuality is not controlled, the consequences are considerably more destructive than when female sexuality is not controlled. Men rape. Women do not. Men, not women, engage in fetishes. Men are more frequently consumed by their sex drive, and wander from sex partner to sex partner. Men, not women, are sexually sadistic. The indiscriminate sex that characterizes much of male homosexual life represents the antithesis of Judaism's goal of elevating human life from the animal-like to the Godlike....
These attitudes toward not marrying should help clarify Judaism's attitude toward homosexuality. First, homosexuality contradicts the Jewish ideal. Second, it cannot be held to be equally valid. Third, those publicly committed to it may not serve as public Jewish role models. But fourth, homosexuals must be included in Jewish communal life and loved as fellow human beings and as Jews. Still, we cannot open the Jewish door to non-marital sex. For once one argues that any non-marital form of sexual behavior is the moral equal of marital sex, the door is opened to all other forms of sexual expression. If consensual homosexual activity is valid, why not consensual incest between adults? Why is sex between an adult brother and sister more objectionable than sex between two adult men? If a couple agrees, why not allow consensual adultery? Once non-marital sex is validated, how can we draw any line? Why shouldn't gay liberation be followed by incest liberation?

I think Prager's views are a) clear and b) accurately represented by NPR and the NYT. Jytdog (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I think Prager's views are a) clear and b) not accurately represented by NPR and the NYT. He was making an argument that if the laws and rules changed to allow for same-sex marriage, the same legal arguments could be used for polygamy and incest. That is very different from saying that same-sex marriage would cause polygamy and incest.Wnmyers (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Which is why we follow RS. If you want to take the New York Times and NPR to WP:RSN and challenge their reliability here, knock yourself out. All it will do is waste a bit of time; the damage to your reputation as a Wikipedia editor will probably be permanent but that is what it is. Jytdog (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't the person himself be a better indicator of a person's views than a third party? For the sake of argument, let's suppose that the NYT reported something inaccurately. Are we supposed to go with their inaccurate version instead of the true version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnmyers (talk • contribs) 08:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Individuals generally have a strong interest in being seen in a certain way. Wikipedia is fundamentally built on multiple independent secondary sources and there are many, many reasons for this. This is one of them. (and in any case, Prager's line of argument that gay marriage (or "gay liberation") leads to breaking down all kinds of societal norms, is a line of argument he has followed many, many times. I gave just a couple of examples above. Why he is walking back from that, is hard to reckon.) Jytdog (talk) 08:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources "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". Prager calls the statement made by the NYT about his views a lie. Therefore a reliable primary source is contradicting a secondary source. I also asked you another question. If the NYT reported something inaccurately, are we supposed to go with their inaccurate version instead of the true version?Wnmyers (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The asnwer to your question is a "no". But there are multiple independent reliable sources, as well as plenty of primary sources from Prager himself, supporting this. There is no "mistake" here, there is a just a guy trying to manage his image. Common as dirt. But as I already said, if you want to challenge the reliability of the NYT and NPR here take it to WP:RSN. There is no reason to continue battering the talk page where you are getting no takers. Jytdog (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You have posted multiple primary sources, none of which support the statement, "He has suggested that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and incest." They discuss the same topic, but you are doing original research by giving your interpretation of them. If you want to use those sources to support the article, then you should quote them accurately in the article or use a secondary source that does so. The NYT article does not attribute its statement, but a later statement attributed to https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2014/02/18/judges-hubris-and-samesex-marriage-n1796339 only supports the later statement, not the first. There is no reason to believe that the NYT article was based in any way on the sources you posted. There is only one independent secondary source (which is disputed by a primary source) to support the statement and two other sources based off of the first. If someone publicly said something false and inflammatory about you, wouldn't you want to manage your image by correcting false statements? Also, if you want to claim that I am "getting no takers", maybe you should give it more than a few hours and stop "battering the talk page" yourself.Wnmyers (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:RSN is thataway. Jytdog (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights

Given the quality and pov of the sources, I think it would be better to summarize than quote. I'm also concerned that because the quote is an argument from ignorance, it could be or is being used to slight Prager. --Ronz (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ronz: Our duty is to reflect the pov of the subject of an article as accurately as possible without regard to the pov of the source, unless of course, we are trying to say something about the POV of the source. BLP says "We must get the article right", and right includes the subtle but significant distinction between "would lead to" and "no plausible argument for denying". Here is what the NYT says:

¶2: ... Mr. Prager, who has suggested that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy and incest ...

¶9: ... Mr. Prager suggested that if same-sex marriage were legalized, then “there is no plausible argument for denying polygamous relationships, or brothers and sisters, or parents and adult children, the right to marry.”

The statement in ¶9, as it contains a direct quote from Prager, would seem to be a better reflection of Prager's POV. ¶2 appears to be a NYT summary/interpretation Prager's POV and so it seems could be a less accurate representation of his POV. I'm fine with summarizing, but our summary should respect the significant difference between "would lead to" and "no plausible argument for denying". YBG (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Our duty is to reflect the pov of the subject of an article as accurately as possible without regard to the pov of the source I'm afraid what you're describing sounds like WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not trying to promote, but trying to be accurate. YBG (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy rarely involves ignoring the pov of the independent source, hence SOAP.

Quoting also gives additional weight to the controversy, which we've taken out of the context of the sources in order to present Prager's view. --Ronz (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

"the quote is an argument from ignorance"? that strikes me clearly as a non-neutral interpretation and adds inaccuracy to the article. The NYT source doesn't make any such interpretation - it provides the quotation. WP should use the same quotation, or the earlier summary provided by Mathewignash. Saying "same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and incest" is changing what Prager said. MB 15:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I just made an edit citing an article by Prager saying what his position is on the topic. This is a section on Prager's views. We have actual printed words from the source on what his views are, and should use them.Mathewignash (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, both to determine notability and accuracy. Prager's own website is not a RS. The New York Times is a RS. Prager's positions (or the particular language that he couches his positions in) that are not reported in RS don't belong on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Reliable and independent sources. As I said in earlier discussions on his views, "We're not here to promote Prager's viewpoints, nor create a venue to oppose his viewpoints. To avoid such problems, we need to work from high-quality, independent sources. Primary sources should be used with care to provide details, but should not set the tone or emphasis." --Ronz (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Primary sources are prefered when posting what someone's direct quotation. Prager stated his position on the topic in an article, so that article will be sourced, rather than citing someone else posting an article about what they think he said. "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources." - Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources Mathewignash (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

We're not here to promote Prager's viewpoint. That would be WP:SOAP and POV violation to choose to ignore the independent sources.

A review of Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Labeling_people_correctly might help. --Ronz (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mathewignash: If there were a dispute about the accuracy of the direct quotation, then it might be appropriate to use a primary source IMO. But this is not the case, and resorting to a primary source is totally unnecessary since the direct quote is cited by the NYT. The issue, as I understand it, is whether to use wording that aligns with the NYT summary/interpretation of Prager's views or to use wording that aligns more closely with the direct quotation. Ronz claims that the latter constitutes promoting Prager's views and so violates WP:SOAP. I deny this and contend that the former promotes accuracy. Another issue is whether to have such a detailed multi-section listing of Prager's views and how they have provoked controversy. IMO, such a list may in fact be undue emphasis and could be construed as promotion of the views of Prager or of his oppponents - probably Prager's fans would see it as promotion of his opponent's views and the opponents would see it as promotion of Prager's views. It might be better to shorten the section significantly, with a list of several areas of controversy, perhaps with carefully accurate expansion of a just one an example. Just a thought. YBG (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The problem with going to Prager's website, is that using that for the source alone, means that somebody is doing OR by selecting X to quote from that source instead of Y. We rely on secondary sources to tell us what bits of primary sources to talk about, at all. This is fundamental to how Wikipedia works, at all. We are guided by high quality secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100% that we shouldn't go to Prager's website for this. The 1st question (which is what started this thread) is: which part of the NYT do we use to guide our article here, the part from ¶2 or the part from ¶9. The 2nd question - which may obviate the 1st - is how much of this article do we devote to these controversies? Right now, we have 6 subsections grouped under "Views". 20 sections would be too many, zero too few, but what is the right number? Another thing I just just noticed. The section title is "Views", but the only views listed are ones that have provoked controversy. If it is "views", why not say something about his views with regard to "happiness" or "the ten commandments", topics covered in his published books. Of course, RSs are easier to find with controversy, but should our editorial discretion be driven by controversy? I think not. YBG (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Prager himself has addressed this issue. https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2017/08/23/-n2372061 A relevant quote: "The New York Times lied when it wrote that I "suggested that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy and incest."". The NYT should not be treated as a reliable source for ¶2. A primary source should be used, which does not exist for the accusation as written.Wnmyers (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This is not a forum to promote Prager and his viewpoints. --Ronz (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this a place to promote accuracy? If so, inaccurate statements should be removed.Wnmyers (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Question: Suppose the same RS makes two somewhat similar statements about a living person: Statement 1 makes a claim about this living person that some say is false, and Statement 2 makes a claim about this living person that no one has disputed. Now suppose further that either statement could be used in WP's biography of this living person. Which one should WP use? Statement 1, whose truth is disputed? Or Statement 2, whose truth has not been disputed? Which statement should be used? YBG (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying that in this specific case we choose the shorter, clearer, summarizing statement to not give undue weight, to not promote or slight the subject, and to take into account the other independent sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Views

The article is semi-protected. I hope this will result in some discussion here.

As I mentioned above: We're not here to promote Prager's viewpoints, nor create a venue to oppose his viewpoints. To avoid such problems, we need to work from high-quality, independent sources. I don't see any reason to remove any of the sub-sections, let alone all of them. They would all benefit from additional sources though. --Ronz (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the comments on my talk concerning the NPR and NYTimes sources [4], maybe we should use http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-prager-santa-monica-20170808-story.html as well? --Ronz (talk) 20:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It should also be said that Dennis Prager has stated repeatedly on his radio show, that he completely disavows this Wikipedia page, as it has, in his words, been completely taken over by leftwing activists who despise him. Whether that is a fair analysis remains a matter of opinion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.194.196.116 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I am new to this, but one source can be found in Dennis Prager Show dated Dec 14, 2017. Specific mentions begin timestamp 16:26. "My own page is an attack on me." There is more said, but writing it out would not satisfy requirements so I leave it to others to source/cite if needed. 2605:6000:170F:E029:F411:94C2:6F9E:295E (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

It has been obvious that there has been recruitment; thanks for the diff. I have tagged the page above. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine to keep the left-wing arguments against his positions, as long as the article also presents the right-wing and/or centrist positions in relation to his views. Being neutral doesn't mean negation. It means not discriminating. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Views Section

All this other debate aside I find the section "Views" to be false and may I say legally defamatory. Whoever posted this needs to read Dennis Prager's columns on the Santa Monica Symphony issue. That what happened with the Santa Monica symphony, a tempest in a teapot spawned by a few musicians on the hard left, should be used as an excuse to denigrate Mr. Prager by caricaturing his views reflects extremely poorly on Wikipedia. If could edit this article I most certainly would, but you guys have it locked.

Here are the links to the articles on the Symphony issue: http://www.dennisprager.com/how-the-mainstream-media-operate/ http://www.dennisprager.com/sometimes-the-good-guys-win/ http://www.dennisprager.com/can-a-conservative-conduct-an-orchestra/ Tpkatsa (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

See the discussions above. Prager's own spin on the matter would probably be undue and soapboxing, given that I agree his guest conducting at the symphony was a trivial event. His viewpoints that have resulted in noteworthy coverage are another matter entirely. --Ronz (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is there debate here? If Prager says this doesn't reflect his views why not change the lies that are here and make his views conform with what he himself has stated. Anything else is a deliberate attempt to confuse the readers. Lkoler (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

In listening to his show the other day it's quite clear that Prager is disgusted with Wikipedia about this article.Lkoler (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be not only undue and soapboxing, but outright censorship. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the "Views" section as the accusations are false and obviously put in by the Left. Leave this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt10ant (talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not a valid rationale in Wikipedia. Please base edits on the policies and guidelines. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the last portion of the "Views" section as it is an opinion, not a fact. bt10ant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt10ant (talk • contribs) 12:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note that most of the past discussions on these matters have been archived: Talk:Dennis_Prager/Archive_1. --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

And note there's an entire article on the "Islam" matter, Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. 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. While the quality of the Quran oath article is extremely poor, we cannot be so sloppy here, where BLP is of primary importance. --Ronz (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• User:יניב הורון Please explain why you think the content should not be there. You have not used this talk page yet. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

National Public Radio

What's the reason for this biased opinion against Prager when his ideas about gays, Muslims, etc are already developed in the section below in a neutral, attributed and properly sourced manner? In any case, I don't understand this blatant POV attempt to remove a counterbalance, since a source does not need to be independent when talks about WP:ABOUTSELF. On the contrary, the only possible BLP violation here is the useless NPR commentary against Prager.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You are not the first person who has come here with a misunderstanding of NPOV, seeking to "counterbalance" with primary sources. Please see discussion above and in the archives. The NPR source, which is very reliable, provides a summary for the section. Jytdog (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Re:this biased opinion and useless NPR commentary against Prager: You've made your personal opinion clear. If you want to change consensus, you'll need to work from content policies instead. --Ronz (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Additional information on religious beliefs

According to the article:

"...Prager abandoned his Orthodoxy as an adult but continues to maintain many traditional Jewish practices."

This seems to indicate that he is a somewhat(?) actively practicing Jew. I have been reading through The Rational Bible: Exodus, and it seems to have both a strong tone, and multiple implications towards a strong Christian belief; i.e. the Birth of Christ, which I would not tend to expect a practicing Jew to acknowledge or accept as valid. My experience speaking on religious topics is extremely limited, so perhaps my understanding is flawed in some way regarding how Jews view New Testament theology. Is anyone able to provide sources confirming more precisely what Mr. Prager's beliefs are? Thanks. Sawta (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

All editors to this page should be aware that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions apply to all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people which quite definitely includes this page.

Editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:

1. adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
2. comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
3. follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
4. comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
5. refrain from gaming the system.

Please keep this in mind during current discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Balancing the Views Section

A reasonable way to balance the Views section of the Dennis Prager article would be to indicate who posted each comment and then to post Mr. Prager's response to each comment. For example: The first item in the Views section is a negative criticism of Mr. Prager's position on Keith Ellisons's having taken the oath of office with his hand on the Koran. Conspicuously missing it the identity of the person or persons who posted this comment. More importantly, it would be helpful to know Mr. Prager's responses to the charges. This approach would make the Prager article more interesting, as well as more informative. 71.84.5.132 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That is not how WP works. Wikipedia is neutral per WP:NPOV not "balanced". Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The new editor is correct. That is exactly how Wikipedia works. They just don't know the policies. I do. And here it is:

"If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it ... If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." (emph. mine) WP:WELLKNOWN

– Lionel^(talk) 05:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please note that ArbCom Enforcement applies.

If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented Seems like these qualifiers are being ignored, as are my concerns that Wikipedia is not soapbox. --Ronz (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No, we do not guarantee article subjects the last word. If someone is objectively wrong, we certainly do not close by quoting them saying how they are right really, for example - and we can ignore their statements altogether if they are obvious self-serving twaddle. Importantly, we are also at liberty to say "while $PERSON denies $THING, $RELIABLESOURCES have $EVIDENCE". Nothing in the policy mandates the subject having the final say, or requires us to offer false balance. We are not a newspaper. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Guy is quite correct above. However, when specific accusations or allegations have been published, and a response to them has also been madeby the subject and published by reliable sources, that response should generally be quoted or mentioned. It need not come last, and it need not be given undue weight. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

It was suggested above that A reasonable way to balance the Views section of the Dennis Prager article would be to indicate who posted each comment and then to post Mr. Prager's response to each comment. If the editor with an IP ending in 132 means to identify the Wikipedia contributor who added mention of any issue to an article, that is what the article history is for. If that editor means to identify people who express opinions about Prager, yes, that should generally be done. However if it is a citeable fact that Prager has done certain things, or expressed particular views, we need not specify individuals who first raised objections to those acts or statements, but notable opinions that are relevant should perhaps be mentioned, and if mentioned, should of course be properly attributed and cited. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

recent deletion of content

In this edit, Ronz removed sourced content critical of Prager with the summary same content previously rejected twice, 13 and 15 June 2017. Only the second of the two points deleted had as far as i can tell been previously removed, that is Prager's statement about a false accusation of rape. And that was removed by Ronz, without any talk page discussion that I can find in the archive of this page. The part where he is said to have claimed that the number or reported rapes and assaults on campuses was being exaggerated had not previously been removed from the article as far as i can tell, surely not on the specified dates. That doesn't prove that the content should stay, but please be accurate in summaries. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring, in a BLP to restore disputed content without consensus, twice without the use of edit summaries : 15 June , 13 June , 11 June 2018 --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Neither of the previous (2017) edits included the text:

Prager claimed during a Republican rally in Florida in 2014 that the number of reported rapes and sexual assaults on college campuses were being exaggerated by Democrats in order to gain votes. The Republican organizers of the event called the comment "inappropriate."

References

That text has never been discussed here, Ronz, it is sourced, and there was no consensus for its removal. The other text, which had previously been removed, could have been removed again without removing unrelated text in the same edit. Is there any reason why i shouldn't restore it? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

You're correct. While the topic of rape was brought up, the context was different. My mistake. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is the repeated content:

In another column, Prager wrote that a false accusation of rape can be "worse" than being physically raped, a notion that received criticism 13 June 2017

In a published column, Prager wrote that a false accusation of rape can be "worse" than being physically raped, a notion that received criticism. 11 June 2018

I think that content is close enough that edit-warring applies. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

there was no consensus for its removal. Consensus is required for inclusion, not removal. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe you're right. Re-inserting without consensus looks to me inconsistent with WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE because your edit was good faith and there are indications that the text you removed wasn't done with great care. The cited source doesn't say that the one (1) person used for the "inappropriate" quote was in fact the "organizers of the event", and a better -- or at least more complete-looking -- source would have been the Sarasota Herald Tribune where we see Prager objecting to the way assaults are defined. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

So where are we at? Can any/all of these deletions go back in? Localemediamonitor (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest editors wanting to include the material break it down into separate proposals, and please focus on content.

Please remember that Prager is in the business of creating interest in himself, so we're always going to have to be watch for WP:NOT problems, especially WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS.

Even if we fixed the verification problems that Peter Gulutzan points out, I'm not sure that two local news reports made soon after the event demonstrate any encyclopedic value. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

PragerU and credentials

This article should cover Prager's misrepresentation of his academic credentials. I would suggest:

"Prager has not offered any explanation for claiming and promoting himself as a university when he is only a video producer pushing specific political viewpoints. (His website is copyrighted to "Prager University", and both site and Facebook page sell "Prager University" t-shirts). Critics have asserted that this willful misrepresentation is indicative of fraudulent intent in claiming credibility to which he is not entitled and soliciting contributions under false preten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleweye (talk • contribs) 00:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Please tread carefully per WP:BLP.

You made the same request at Talk:PragerU. I don't know how this directly relates to Prager himself, but that would depend on what references you have. I suggest working it out first on the PragerU talk page. If the references demonstrate something deserves mention in this article, we can pick it up then. --Ronz (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

"Initital cleanup"

User:DGG in this diff you removed " Older Jewish conservatives who were active at that time included Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, and Gertrude Himmelfarb. Along with Prager a group of younger conservatives were emerging, including William Kristol, John Podhoretz, Eliot Abrams, and David Brooks. Conservative talk show host Michael Medved was another."

I wasn't aware of this group of Jewish conservatives per se, nor the older/newer generation aspect of it. It was something I learned while working on this, that provided valuable context to me about Prager. And it is directly supported by the source cited (JSTOR 23887289) Unclear to me, why you removed that....the other stuff, I don't care so much. Jytdog (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

It's background. (and background I am very much aware of -- at least 2 of the 5 are famous (it's 5 not 7, 2 of them are listed twice) -- That they were active at the time can be supported by hundreds of sources. But there seems no indication in the article that they or any of the dozen other NY conservative Jews mentioned in the article worked with him. He is just mentioned among many. DGG ( talk ) 14:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I figured that you were aware of them, and that is why you saw this as extraneous. I was not, and it was illuminating to me, to understand that context. There was nothing of that background here before, and the article was poorer for it. I tried to weave background in, as I did the extensive revisions I made a month or so ago; this page was focused on recent events and had nothing really of his history or context. (you also removed reference to the religious fervor of the 1980s that I had added, which helped elevate him). Many people have no sense of history even as far back as a few months ago, much less 15-20 years ago. I think we need to remember that as we edit about people with long careers... Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The folks you listed above, Podhoretz, Prager, Kristol, et al, are are Neo Conservatives. Let's not confuse everyone by mixing them with conservatives such as Pat Buchanan. Please correct this factual error. Let me know if you need references but you sound like you know the history of mostly leftist Athiest Jews becoming neo-conservative after the '60s. --JtThere (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Lede - religious Jew, Christian right

There's been some back and forth over "Although he is a religious Jew, his views generally align with the Christian right" in the lede.

I think the sources are clear that his being Jewish is an important part of his notability. Maybe even more so his viewpoints aligning with the Christian right.

"Religious", I'm not sure is as important, but it's certainly an important aspect. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@PrairieKid: Combining the two, contrasting "Jewish" with conservatism does seem problematic. --Ronz (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, what do you think of the version I put out? It emphasizes his Judaism and his political views, contextualizing both within the broader political context. Does it look good? PrairieKid (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Given how few in-depth sources we have about him, it's much better. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

What do we actually mean by saying that his views align with the Christian right? As it stands, all we have in the article to this effect is that he opposed same-sex marriage. But that's not enough to support the general claim. He has a moderate stance on abortion, for example, as stated in the article. Why are we wanting the lede to say he's aligned with the Christian right? Do we really just have one example?Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, we've few in-depth sources. Looking closer what we have, it might be a bit SYNish. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Minnesota Monitor Piece and WP:RSOPINION

The article currently says "Prager made the incorrect assertion that an oath on any book other than the Bible would be unprecedented." The source for this is this opinion piece in the Minnesota Monitor here. That piece quotes him as saying "all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book." However, the full quote from Prager's original piece is here:

"When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization."

The way that MM pulls from this quote seems to reflect the opinion of the author. As a result, and since the source is an opinion piece, it seems to me that in accord with WP:RSOPINION it needs and in-text attribution if it is going to stay. But that's not really appropriate or desirable in the context, it seems to me, where a factual assertion is wanted. Does anyone have a stronger source for the claim that he made an incorrect assertion about an oath of this kind being "unprecedented"? Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe this has been discussed at great length, and there's Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. Check those to start. --Ronz (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress gets there by violating WP:OR and WP:SYN. It cites Prager's own remark on a television show that the tradition of swearing on the bible is "unbroken since George Washington," and then provides other evidence that this is an error. But what we want, to accord with WP:OR and WP:SYN is a reliable secondary source that clearly states this point. I find no such source in that article or this one, nor have I found one by looking myself. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you be clearer, because I don't see your point. Which refs are you referring to, and where exactly is the SYN/OR?

I'm looking at reverting the recent changes, so don't let those changes stop anyone from commenting.

Let's look at what Prager says:

Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either.

So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.

That would settle it in my opinion. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bus stop:,@DonFB: Objections to reverting? --Ronz (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Not clear to me what you refer to, but my impression is that it's now moot. DonFB (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok, one step at a time. The Minnesota Monitor source is not a good source. I can't tell if Ronz agrees about that, but I support what Bus Stop had said before about that source. That's one reason not to revert to that version. Ronz, you suggested getting information from the article about this controversy. I suggested that article has OR and SYN problems, since it quotes directly from Prager rather than a secondary source. You're now also quoting from Prager himself rather than a secondary source to argue that he made such an incorrect assertion. What we want is a reliable secondary source, right? But I can't find one. So I tend to support the present version. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Statements of fact aren't OR, and I was trying to address the argument that the sources misrepresent Prager. I believe the quotes above show that the sources clearly don't misrepresent Prager when they say that he's wrong. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

The source that was relied upon before--the Minnesota Monitor editorial--does not provide any case in which a congressman was sworn in on something other than the bible; it provides examples only of other public officials doing this. One can make the statement of fact that Prager asserted that no congressman had ever done that before Ellison, but one can then no longer rely on the source for examples undermining his claim. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't need to. --Ronz (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

What is the statement of fact you're wanting to make then? I'm not following. I can see making the statement of fact that he said no congressman had ever done this. It is not a statement of fact that he's wrong about this. In fact, I'm not sure he is wrong about it. I can't tell based on available sources. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

...public servants...(two cases),When all elected officials... It's a fact that this isn't solely about Congress, and it's not our place to reject sources because they don't restrict themselves to Congress. --Ronz (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly a statement of fact that he said But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath. and that he also said When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. What is not a statement of fact is that he made an incorrect assertion, or that either of these quotes commits him to the view that no public servant has ever taken an oath of office on something other than the bible. That's a leap from these quotes. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, it not our place to restrict independent sources based upon editors' interpretation of primary sources. --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Not what I was suggesting. Thanks. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've gone over the talk page history and was surprised by how brief past discussion has been. I started a list of potential sources below that we might use to shore up the Minnesota Monitor ref. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead on Prager U

@Ronz: how about this language, which occurs in the body and is more directly drawn from the source: "...which creates five-minute videos on various topics from a conservative perspective." I think 'conservative' may be preferable to 'right-wing' because the source in the article uses the former, not the latter.Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

BBC News calls it right-wing.[5] Either description is fine by me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok. The bbc piece calls the organization right-wing, not the vids. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

So we have over 1/4 of the lede describing PragerU... --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with shortening that sentence, maybe something like "....PragerU, which creates topical videos with a conservative viewpoint." DonFB (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Could also cut "American nonprofit organization." DonFB (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand, PragerU is one of the more notable things Prager has done, and it does have a fairly long spinoff article. That seems to be some reason to give it a bit of space in the lead. But I'm fine with leaving it or changing it along the lines DonFB suggests.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Different quotes from The Forward

On 4 September 2018 Jytdog added the text: Prager said that his efforts failed because "Jews are ignorant." On 17 January 2020 2001:56b:dcb9:c000:40a7:686:964b:6f09 changed to: he said this was because "American Jews are ignorant regarding the anti Israel aspects of the current Democrat Party." The cited source is: Stoll, Ira (November 1, 1996). "Donkeys Jockey for Credit As Clinton Victory Looms". The Forward. Does anyone have access to this publication? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Gizmodo article

• https://gizmodo.com/a-school-in-ohio-assigned-youtube-videos-from-fake-righ-1845428756

  Seems useful. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

New sentence re being criticized by media for misrepresenting

This is the new Wikipedia article text referring to Mr Prager: "He was subsequently criticized in the media for misrepresenting the seriousness of the pandemic.[44]" Noteduck inserted it, Wesley Craig removed it, Noteduck re-inserted it, I removed it, HouseBlaster re-inserted it. The cited article is New York Times 01 April 2020. My edit summary was: The sentence's contention isn't backed up by the cited source, the only thing it says re Mr Prager is that he asked "How many people have died this year in the United States from snake bites?" Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

In the context of the full NYTimes ref, it seems ok, though we might want to work on the wording. Are there additional refs we could use to help? --Hipal (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Climate change

Noteduck, your newly added climate change material is problematic on several grounds. First, the NR source doesn't say Prager rejects the scientific consensus on climate change. The NR article is talking about political actions related to climate change. How to respond to climate change is not specifically rejecting the scientific consensus (though it may be based on a rejection of that consensus). Thus the statement that Prager rejects the consensus is WP:OR. My first critique ignores the elephant in the room, the NR article was authored by Prager. That means it's a primary, not a secondary party assessment of his position. The other source is an interview with Prager and again that makes it a primary vs secondary source. Per WP:PRIMARY any interpretation of these primary sources (which is basically the entire paragraph in question) must come from a secondary source. Springee (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Right. Such statements would need reliable secondary sources. Yes, it's obviously true that Prager rejects the scientific consensus, but as long as nobody relevant comments on it, Wikipedia should not mention his anti-science stance. Wikipedia editors cannot just browse what somebody says, pick snippets that seem relevant to them, and add them to articles. See WP:PRIMARY.

(Personal attack removed) It needs coverage to be WP:DUE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, seems to be WP:OR and comes from a WP:PRIMARY. Eruditess (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead length

Appears rather short relative to article size, not seeing an adequate summary of article content here, is there any good reason for this? Acousmana (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that, as with the PragerU page, some editors were highly averse to accepting any material that could be seen as unflattering Noteduck (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

more eyes needed then, RFC? Acousmana (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not just purpose what should be added? Springee (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

time consuming, more productive establishing whether not a consensus for lead expansion exists, if it does, wording can be discussed. Acousmana (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It is short, but not too short. Has the needed basics: conservative talk show host; began work as Refusenik explicator; runs PragerU. His career/life does not seem to include major events of overriding importance needed in the lead. I would not object to addition of some details, but the article does not need a "too short" tag on top. Compare with analogues: Michael Medved, Larry Elder, Mike Gallagher (political commentator) and Hugh Hewitt. DonFB (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal of a quote from an interview

On 17 December 2014, DougHill added a quote of Mr Prager in an interview by TheBlaze. Today this was removed by Aquillion. I see that recently Aquillion has quickly removed more than one reference to TheBlaze. I support restoration because the effect is to remove Mr Prager's opinion from his article. What do others think? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Can't we find a higher-quality source quoting him? That quote doesn't seem to have attracted much attention at all among reliable sources, so I'm not understanding the desire to highlight it in the lead. If it's just about having some quote from him, surely there are ones in better sources. --Aquillion (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It's poor and promotional source. I'm for leaving it out. --Hipal (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't in the lead. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it could be summarized and accepted as ABOUTSELF. Care to avoid self promotion should be taken but I don't see that sourcing to The Blaze should automatically exclude it in this case. To Aquillion's concern, if a better source can be found we should replace but I think saying something about Prager's motives, even if self declared is better than nothing. That doesn't mean the previous content was the best way to do this. Springee (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

If we're think Prager's motives deserve mention, we should use an independent source. There's no other way to get around ABOUTSELF#1 given what Prager does. --Hipal (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Dennis Prager appeared in a Colorado Gubernatorial candidates meeting

https://www.9news.com/article/news/local/next/prager-covid-colorado-ganahl/73-e33dd56d-9011-4b92-be8d-df7c38143bef

According to this 9news report Dennis Prager had an event with Heidi Ganahl prior to announcing that he had a COVID-19 positive test.2601:640:C681:C260:2169:A24F:74F5:3729 (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is more on the Prager meeting in Colorado prior to the COVID-19 announcement.2601:640:C681:C260:849F:B382:41CC:70E8 (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

12 Nov additions to political views

Acousmana, first, per BRD, please don't restore a challenged edit without getting consensus first. There are several problems with this recent addition. The first is DUE as The Independent isn't the best source for partisan commentary. Second, the Independent doesn't provide a link to the original interview so it's not possible to see if they are providing a full and reliable summary of the positions. Finally, select quoting doesn't really say what Prager's political position is. It may accurately reflect a single statement he made but if it removes the background of that statement it becomes misleading via omission. It also is not a good way to build an encyclopedic article. Springee (talk) 14:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Llll5032, I don't see that TDB reference has a link to the original video. Do we have a link to the original source interview? Springee (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello Springee, a two-minute portion of the video is in the tweet at the end of the TDB article and in other sources, but I have not seen a complete video or transcript. Llll5032 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This is the sort of content I think we really should never include in a BLP. The problem is these are statements that express a concern but others have decided the analogy is alarmist sounding thus needs to be highlighted. What is significant is that he feels that society is treating unvaccinated people as pariahs but since some sources find his rhetoric unacceptable they are making a big deal about that rather than the real point of his comment. Still, zooming out the issue is this doesn't tell us about his political philosophy. Ideally this section would try to describe the foundation of his political beliefs rather than a laundry list of things that political opponents found to be outrageous. Consider how framing affects our understanding of motive. Suppose we had no idea who the ACLU was and were presented with the following statement. "The ACLU supported Neo Nazi marching through a Jewish section of town." While true, such a claim doesn't tell us much about why the ACLU did that and it certainly wasn't because they agreed with the message. However, if we are told the ACLU views free speech as a core right and thus actively supported X Y and Z then it tells us more about both the core principle and the actions they take because of it. We don't get any of that here. Springee (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The larger context could enrich this article if a RS offers it. Llll5032 (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that finding a RS for the larger context is difficult. However, that doesn't mean we should substitute questionable summaries (see Peter's comment below) for a proper summary. Springee (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

it's the usual form from this editor, to be expected. Acousmana 15:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Judging from some unauthorized transcripts, Mr Prager said "[context missing] ... anywhere that you have people who are governed by fear of global warming. An idiotic, irrational, sick fear of extinction, of the biosphere." The Independent changed "people who are governed by fear of global warming" to "concern about the climate crisis". That's a distortion, people who are merely concerned aren't governed by fear, and Mr Prager wouldn't have meant climate crisis if he doesn't think there's a climate crisis. This is one of the reasons WP:RS/QUOTE exists, and Springee's concern is justified. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that his climate views may require a more complete source. Llll5032 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is this level of mischaracterization means this specific article shouldn't be treated as reliable even if the source is considered generally reliable. Springee (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

If we haven't seen the whole interview, can we be sure it's mischaracterized? Llll5032 (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

The words inside the quotation marks are the literal words that he said and the words outside the quotation marks are The Independent's description of that he said. That's called paraphrasing. It's normal, it's fine and it doesn't mean that anything is being misrepresented. "Climate crisis" is a neutral way to paraphrase "fear of global warming". –dlthewave ☎ 05:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly why we need to have the original source. The RSP entry related to The Independent does raise concerns about content published after 2016. The Daily Beast is questionable for comments about BLP subjects (that would include parsing their quotes). Finally, while Politifact is considered good it does get things wrong or injects their own biases. I can think of several examples. Also, since this section is about Prager's views rather than if his claims are correct, the opinion of Politifact isn't due here. Even if Prager's views are wrong they are still "his views". Springee (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm changing "views" in this section's heading to "commentary" for accuracy, because some of the other paragraphs in it also incorporate more than just his views. Llll5032 (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

As I pointed out in my edit summary, a short summary may be due. The quotes are inappropriate.

I'm not familiar with how Politifact is treated for BLP information. Is there any general consensus on it? --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal: Yes, WP:RSP#PolitiFact. Platonk (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

When a climate change denier talks about "people who are governed by fear of global warming", then the people he talks about are probably just concerned. It's hyperbole by someone whose worldview is far removed from reality, who wants to portray reasonable people as unreasonable, and one could say that the journalists replaced his overblown rhetoric by a more realistic wording. If you want to use primary sources instead, you will probably crash into WP:PROFRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

If the source is falsely quoting/presenting the arguments of the person, even if those arguments/logic of the quoted person are wrong, the source false RS for this information. We should never excuse a false presentation of information even if the information is wrong etc. No, the journalist didn't replace his overblown statements with more realistic wording, they changed what he said. Presenting the original source for a controversial claim is the correct thing to do for exactly this sort of reason. If that source is too "profringe" to accurately report it's claims then perhaps it shouldn't be included at all. This is a BLP and we don't misrepresent the statements of BLP subjects just because we don't like what they have to say. Springee (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Dennis Prager: “The great killer is cold, not heat. ... Global warming has actually been saving lives.”

"And how so many fewer people are dying because of climate than ever before because the great killer is cold, not heat. So global warming has actually been saving lives. But the left doesn't care about saving lives. They care about disrupting civilization 'cause of the deep boredom in their soul that comes from the religion-less lives that they were raised with. That's what it is. Give me purpose, I was raised with none."

Dennis Prager: "Did you know that there is a solution to warm climate? It's called air conditioning. It's very effective."

Dennis Prager: "You know that there's not a grant that goes out from this government unless there is a tie-in to the fraud of global warming? Do you know how many scientists lives have been ruined by that fraud, that fraudulent make-believe created myth of global warming caused by man?"

Acousmana 14:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding the sentence fragment anywhere that you have people who are governed by fear of global warming to the existing sentence fragment An idiotic, irrational, sick fear of extinction, of the biosphere does not add enough context. You are trying to connect both fragments by something like "we have". It could just as well be concern about the climate crisis as the missing context, then both sentence fragments as Prager's opinion - concern about climate crisis means you are governed by an idiotic, irrational fear.

You cannot decide that something is not an RS because your private interpretation of a fragment of the original source differs from what the RS says about the whole original source. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources that misrepresent the statements of others are not reliable sources. I assume you aren't advocating we allow such sources, especially including the specific statements in question. Springee (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the source misrepresented any statement. That is only a few Wikipedia users' interpretation of an out-of-context quote, as I just explained. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Peter Gulutzan's comments are in error? Springee (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

See my comment above, I think that Peter Gulutzan has made the error of failing to distinguish between a quote (inside the quotation marks) and a paraphrase (outside the quotation marks). Nothing is being misrepresented. WP:RSN would be the place to go if there are concerns about the reliability of the source. –dlthewave ☎ 05:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I assume Peter Gulutzan was right when he said, Judging from some unauthorized transcripts, Mr Prager said "[context missing]...", but his tracing of the Independent's phrase "concern about the climate crisis" back to "people who are governed by fear of global warming" is dubious. It could also come from "[context missing]". But even if "people who are governed by fear of global warming" is the origin, the Independent's wording is just a paraphrase of denier propaganda to a neutral formulation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If the validity of the source's paraphrasing is in question it should be removed. This is a BLP and we err on the side of exclusion rather when the validity of the claims a source makes are in dispute. Springee (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hah! Then let's question the whole article on flimsy grounds, then remove it.

"Is in question" is not defined as "there are users who question it without any good justification". This is not the first time you are trying to pull this "my position wins by default because I exist" stunt. It does not work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Please review wp:FOC. An editor has said a transcript of the original recording doesn't support the paraphrasing in question. Is agreeing with the message of the source a legitimate reason to overlook these issues? Springee (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

An editor has said a partial transcript of the original recording doesn't support the paraphrasing in question. But it does not need to support it, since we already have a reliable source supporting it, which, because it is a reliable source, we can assume to be based on the original recording and not just on a partial transcript of it. Because Wikipedia assumes that the authors of reliable sources are more competent than Wikipedia users and know better how to handle sources. Maybe you should read WP:RS and WP:OR again? There is no problem here.

Rewording the same thing again and again, so I have to reword the same response again and again, will not change the situation. There is still no problem here. Except, of course, Wikipedia users obstinately trying to do WP:OR by second-guessing reliable sources based on their own inferior sourcing skills. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

You should refresh your understanding of OR since it expressly supports this form or research. "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources,". Also, please FOC. Springee (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Does not apply to talk pages" means that you can write your own conclusions on talk pages without running afoul of OR. It does not mean that you can remove sourced text from an article because of your own OR. Writing on talk pages that you want to do that is not OR, but actually doing it is.

I am fed up with your wikilawyering now. That does not mean you win, it just means that I will stop explaining obvious things to you. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Discussions of the reliability of a source for a specific claim are inherently original research just as discussions related to what is DUE/UNDUE or out of article scope etc. All are valid talk page discussions even if you don't agree. Springee (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with it's inclusion per above. If you would like to exclude it, please provide sufficient reliable sources that dispute the current source's transcript Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I get what you're saying Springee, I may have kinda missed it before. In my perspective the quotation/statement is being used to show an opinion of his surrounding COVID-19, AIDS and climate change. These are highly politicised topics and his opinion on them is therefore essentially a political opinion/position. Therefore the context surrounding what he said is not particularly important (except where we might expect that the comments are not reflecting of his opinion, like a joke or something) because context wouldn't change the fact that the statement reflects an opinion of his. I think the source robustly support this opinion and I am yet to see any proof of disparity between the Independent's transcript and the original source in the bits that matter i.e. the bits we use (though this may be a place for some OR per my comment above). The bias of an article does not affect the notability of the subject matter or the reliability of the source, in this case it is a clear cut, 'he said this'. I found nothing on Wiki that suggested that the Independent was particularly biased, not that it matters in this case because it is not a question of slant, but reliability of the source, of which the consesus is that the Independent is reliable. If you dispute the fact that Prager said these things, please show evidence, original or otherwise. I will say that this paragraph and the one above don't really fit in the spot they're right now, but I think they are still valuable encyclopaedic entries. Pabsoluterince (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Pabsoluterince, I appreciate you reply. I think part of the problem here is this section was initially a subsection on Prager's political views. Such a section would, hopefully, say what his political foundations are (right or wrong) and how those base characteristics motivate his actions. Ideally a person could read about the person's political views and then understand how they might feel about an issue and why. What we have here is the sort of quote dumping ground that plagues many articles of unpopular people/topics. Rarely do these sections actually explain anything about the person vs just show that they have said things that other media outlets find controversial. I mean these "X said something outrageous last night" sort of articles are cheap rage bait sort of articles for many online news sites. Those sites focus on quotes that drive clicks rather than the substance of the argument being made. That doesn't mean that Prager's actual argument is valid or that using attention getting phrasing or analogies is helping his cause. Consider the climate change part. It doesn't appear that Prager is disagreeing with the consensus on climate change (ie that human activities are impacting the climate). It appears he is, poorly, making an argument somewhat like Bjorn Lomborg makes. That would be that how we react to the data should be questioned (Prager may also be questioning if politics is impacting what data is reported/emphasized). That vs denial of climate change is a significant difference and shouldn't be misrepresented if true. As for the specific source, it seems the article is really about his COVID quotes. Given the very limited coverage of climate change in the source article it seems odd to decide that small climate part should be included here as well. Anyway, I'm clearly in the minority but I appreciate your constructive counterpoint. Springee (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

this is a complete waste of time, WP:NOTFORUM, and it's the usual wikilawerying - in trying to defend the indefensible. The guy spouted some absurdest wingnut nonsense on a wingnut news channel and it was reported by an RS, end of. Acousmana 16:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• This looks like a good addition to me, supported by a top-tier source (The Independent) which can generally be trusted to interpret quotes correctly. If editors are aware of reliable sources that cast doubt on this interpretation, please either add them to the article or propose changes here. –dlthewave ☎ 18:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is it linking to climate crisis which is an article about the term "climate crisis" ("Climate crisis is a term describing global warming and climate change, and their consequences.")? Wouldn't it be better to link to climate change if the intent were to talk about the change in climate due to human activities? If the concern is how the science is being used for political reasons then why not Politics of climate change? Springee (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure, climate change looks good to me. –dlthewave ☎ 22:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding comments about my earlier post in this thread: no I did not fail to distinguish between quote and paraphrase because to paraphrase is "to express the meaning ... using different words" and The Independent instead expressed its own meaning; for the context-missing part I listened to the immediately preceding words via what is purportedly a video excerpt pointed to by a a third-party tweet and they are, referring to an American politician: "with one magic wand the man who ruined our economy, ruined the ability of the lower and middle class to pay their energy bills and in Germany by the way, this is not just unique to the United States". So the hope, that something in the context-missing part would justify The Independent's interpreting, appears vain. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The actual context is that this wingnut believes COVID-19 is a test run for something bigger: climate change as pretext for the establishment of a police state. "But here is a prediction: If the government can order society to cease functioning, from restaurants and other businesses to schools, due to a possible health disaster, it is highly likely that a Democratic president and Congress will similarly declare emergency and assert authoritarian rule in order to prevent what they consider the even greater “existential threat” to human life posed by global warming." Acousmana 21:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

"Possible health disaster"? From zero to over 47 million cases and 760,000 deaths in less than two years just in the USA! The word "possible" is so misleading that it's a propagandist lie. Platonk (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Jewish American

In the opening statement, I added that Prager is a Jewish American person.

The source I brought, from his own website, showed that he refers to himself and identifies as a Jew, and he talks about his Jewish religion and nationality. Here it is again: A reminder to American Jews - Civilization "As a Jew speaking to Jews" (Dennis Prager website).

So there is no question that he is an American Jew. He boldly speaks about the validity and morality of the US support for Israel, as part of the morality of the USA and its openness to all nationalities, religions, and ideologies, as long as they can accept the livelihood and existence of others.

My edit was reverted by user:Hipal with the remarks: not sure it should be given such prominence - ref doesn't help at all.

Hipal battles disruptive editing as he describes on his user page "Unfortunately, it's not all WikiLove". But then he also says about balance: Here on Wikipedia, we're building an encyclopedia. We don't try to "balance" what people would like to believe with what they don't understand.

Dear User:Hipal, thank you for your important work. I'm not sure I'll be able to convince you that this is NOT a disruptive edit, but maybe others will agree with me:

Here's another source from the Jewish Learning Institute: New York's Jewish Week described Dennis Prager as "one of the three most interesting minds in American Jewish Life."

Prager, as an American Jew, participates in debates and writes about what it means to be an American Jew, for example here: Dennis Prager: Are Israelis And American Jews Still One Nation?, and here: Dennis Prager: Left-Wing Jews — A Jewish And American Tragedy, and about the relations of the Jewish religion with Christianity in the US versions of these two religions, for example here: Dennis Prager & Robert P. George - A Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Religion Culture and Politics.

Please tell me if you agree that I return my edit.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The insertion was in the lead sentence. Jewish background and connections are mentioned in the article, so this just seems to be a question what should be the first (and possibly only) thing the reader sees. I believe Hipal was right to revert. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It distracts from his notability and appears to be a marketing hook for him. Apologies if anything I did suggested I found the edit disruptive. --Hipal (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential ref

• https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/01/13/hungary-paid-dennis-prager-30000-hour-appearances-far-right-education-conference

• https://theweek.com/tucker-carlson/1003304/fox-news-tucker-carlson-budapest
• https://www.npr.org/2021/12/04/1058834216/a-discomfort-with-western-liberalism-is-growing-in-eastern-europe

I ran across this SPLC article. Alone, I'm not sure how much weight to give it, but many news outlets mentioned the announcement of the speaking engagement, and a few covered it afterwards like the two above. --Hipal (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

splcenter.org/hatewatch is a blog. I don't see a mention of the fee in theweek.com or npr.org. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a RSP entry for SPLC: WP:SPLC.

Given the other sources, the fee itself doesn't seem due. That he spoke seems due, though I'm not sure what context we should give with it. --Hipal (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Sweden's Covid success/debacle

I think, it is not quiet as simple as you make out, who died there, when, why,..but all our propositions about the COVID situation are probably now wrong.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 09:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I presume this comment is in response to recent articles deciding Sweden's approach may not have worked out as badly as was feared by others. I found this example [6] from earlier this month. I think this may be an issue if/when some of the responses by governments are found to have not helped/caused harm in other ways etc. How this is handled is difficult. PragerU was presumably criticized for speaking out against experts and promoting the actions of Sweden which, presumably, were also against the advise of those experts. After time has past we find (presumably) that Sweden's response wasn't as bad in ways the experts were concerned about and had advantages in others. The question is how do we handle this in the article? We don't have any sources that say, "PragerU was right about Sweden" or even, "PragerU wasn't totally wrong to say do what Sweden is doing". Assuming such sources come out odds are they won't single out PragerU as correct in supporting the Swedish plan nor will the sources that were originally critical of PragerU say, "well the Swedish plan wasn't that bad thus PragerU wasn't all wrong". If we had a clear source that could say "Sweden was 100% right" I think we could then just remove the criticism of PragerU for supporting the Swedish model. It would be an example of an otherwise RS that was later found to be wrong. I'm not sure what we would do in a case like this assuming we get more reports like the one I attached. It appears Sweden did better than others in some areas (education of children) but perhaps worse in others (exposer of older populations to COVID). If the criticism of PragerU is narrow, say only the education aspect, then I would say, remove the criticism as no longer accurate. As is, I'm not sure. It's arguably OR to put in an article like the one I've included as a response to PragerU's critics. Also, at this point it is probably premature to assume my source is going to be representative of the long term view on the Swedish response. Perhaps the best option is to wait and see. If the specific criticisms of PragerU are addressed in later articles about Sweden then I think we should remove or add a follow up comment. As of right now I think the evidence isn't clear enough so we should wait for more information before acting. Springee (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Potential refs re oath of office

• https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-prager-santa-monica-20170808-story.html

  But his extremism doesn't lie far beneath the surface. When Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the first Muslim elected to Congress, announced in 2006 that he would take his oath of office on the Koran rather than the Bible, Prager threw a conniption, ginning up a wholly imaginary standard in which the Bible is the only suitable book upon which to take the oath

• Robin Marty (November 28, 2006). "Dennis Prager - Hateful and Wrong – Updated". Minnesota Monitor. Archived from the original on January 9, 2007. Retrieved December 4, 2006. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• https://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/swearing-on-the-koran_b_36907.html
• https://www.nationalreview.com/2006/11/oh-say-can-you-swear-koran-eugene-volokh/
• https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2006/12/ellison_prager_and_swearingin.html
• https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congressional-swearing-quran/

  editorials like the one appearing in TownHall.com erred in maintaining that Ellison would be sworn into Congress by taking an oath with his hand upon the Quran. Actually, no Bibles or other religious texts are used during the swearing-in ceremony for the House of Representatives — incoming House members simply stand in front of the speaker’s podium en masse, raise their right hands, and recite an oath in which they swear to uphold the Constitution. Bibles are generally either optionally carried by some new House members during the ceremony or make an appearance only when the newly-sworn Congressmen pose with them during a post-swearing-in photo opportunity with the Speaker of the House

• https://psmag.com/news/using-a-quran-to-swear-in-to-congress-a-brief-history-of-oaths-and-texts

  Jefferson's Quran made its first appearance in the Capitol in 2007, when Keith Ellison of Minnesota became the first-ever Muslim member of Congress and chose to use the archival Quran to take his oath. Ellison's swearing-in ceremony caused serious controversy among many on the Christian Right, who, despite the Constitution's clear language on the matter, argued that the Bible was the only text that could be used to swear the oath of office. The conservative columnist Dennis Prager wrote that Ellison's decision to use anything other than the Bible would "do more damage to the unity of America ... than the terrorists of 9/11."

• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2694106&page=1

Mr. Prager has been on C-SPAN, and this article seems inadequate, being more of a litany, rather than giving a good portrayal of him. Not clear what are his views and what they derive from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

7 Aug Edits

@Dlthewave and X-Editor:, I think this series of edits and reverts [7] raises an interesting question so I figured I would raise it here. In 2021 Prager was fact checked regarding Sweden per the source [8]. Is that fact check still valid in 2023 as it appears that Sweden's overall Covid outcome was similar to it's neighbors though different in the details [9][10]. This raises the question, should we consider the earlier assessment by Reuters to be the final word on the subject. I do not think we should add an OR rebuttal. Instead I think we should remove material that hasn't aged that well. Springee (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should simply remove the material that has not aged well. X-Editor (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Taking it out of context like that seems inappropriate. Prager was wrong at the time, and was criticized for it. --Hipal (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if Prager was wrong at the time. It could be that his arguments were correct at the time but it ultimately took longer for the evidence to come out. Wrong or not would really require someone to retrospectively look at the claims and the ultimate results. If the claims fit the ultimate result then the early fact check is wrong. If the original claims and the final outcome don't align then the original fact check stands. The problem is, absent a RS to do this follow up research for us, we can only do it via OR. Still, if our OR shows the fact check aged poorly then we shouldn't leave it in the article. Springee (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

We have fact-checking from Reuters that shows he was wrong at the time. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that the 2020 Reuters fact check has aged poorly. The central headline claim about herd immunity rings true, and the Swedish National Commission reports [11] admit "The Commission suggested that the voluntary measures that were adopted were appropriate and maintained Swedes' personal freedom during the pandemic. However, more extensive and earlier measures should have been taken, especially during the first wave." It's also worth noting that according to PreventionWeb, Swedes did follow safety protocols voluntarily which may be attributed to a culture of compliance with health reccomendations, which might not have worked in other places. I wouldn't give much weight to the Bloomberg source sicne it's labeled as an opinion piece. All in all, these later reports certainly don't support Prager's claim: ""Sweden is the proof that lockdowns are useless." –dlthewave ☎ 17:53, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you also going to claim that lockdowns had no hard and no impact on schooling? Presenting just the fact check without the better historical data we have now is misleading. Also, dlthewave, can you present the full Prager claim rather than a summary that may not be accurate to what he originally said? It would be helpful in establishing how things have aged. Remember that this is a BLP so we need to err on the side of caution. If there is reasonable evidence that the fact check isn't correct (and there is) then we shouldn't include it. Springee (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The Reuters fact check seems to hit on two topics. The first is herd immunity. The second is lockdowns. In terms of opposition to lockdowns it seems Prager was correct in being critical [12]. Hopes for true herd immunity didn't come true. So, yeah, the fact check has aged poorly even if part of it is still correct. Presenting a misleading "truth" in a BLP is a problem and goes against BLP's do no harm principles. Springee (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

As of March 2023, the death rate in Sweden from COVID-19 was higher than in the other Scandinavian countries.[13]. Do any RS say that Reuters was wrong in any way? Llll5032 (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

See my links in the original post. Per Preventionweb.net, "Although Sweden was hit hard by the first wave, its total excess deaths during the first two years of the pandemic were actually among the lowest in Europe. The decision to keep primary schools open also paid off. The incidence of severe acute COVID in children has been low, and a recent study showed that Swedish children didn’t suffer the learning loss seen in many other countries." Some of this might be a distinction between excess deaths which can include deaths vs the COVID mortality rate. Springee (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

But Prager's claims concern the early part of the pandemic, which sources generally acknowledge should have been handled more proactively. –dlthewave ☎ 19:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think his view that lockdowns were a bad idea only applied to the early part of the pandemic vs all of it? Sweden never did a lock down so that part of their strategy didn't change. It seems that was the part that Prager was concerned with. Springee (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The Bloomberg Opinion source you cited said that "In later stages of the pandemic, their excess mortality was worse than those of their Scandinavian neighbors",[14] which would not seem to contradict Reuters. The Conversation article you cited appears to compare Sweden with the rest of Europe rather than Scandinavia,[15] while noting that "It’s also difficult to compare Sweden’s results to those of countries outside of Scandinavia", which also would not seem to contradict Reuters. Llll5032 (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not compare with all of Europe? Also, why ignore the side effects of lockdowns that Sweden, per the reports, avoided? As I said above, the harms associated with lockdowns did turn out to be true and non-lockdown methods certainly appeared to work per reports on Sweden's ultimate outcomes. As I said, the Rueter's fact check didn't age well. Springee (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

A significant part of the Reuters article involved comparisons to other Scandinavian countries. As for the other questions, aren't those beyond the scope of any factual claims in this article or the Reuters report? Llll5032 (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You are highlighting one of the issues with our summary. There is a lot of detail in what ultimately happened. Reuters may have decided Finland and Norway alone were the best comparison points. Others, Sweden included, seem to feel the whole of Europe makes more sense. Some only look at COVID death rates (is that the same as excess death rates or is that only looking at deaths in people with Covid, does it include other forms of death?). Others look at other impacts (education and social impacts due to lockdowns). I suspect Prager's original statements were far more complex that what we present here. The Reuter's fact check is also more complex than our summary and fails to include the longer term results that other sources offer. So how do we summarize this all? We just say Prager said X (without any context that may have been included) and Reuters says he is wrong (again without the added hindsight we have now). This is just poor writing. It's good if our objective is to make something that looks like a hit job (I'm only speaking to this text, not the article as a whole). If our objective is to treat the views of a BLP subject with caution then we are failing. We should remove the fact check as it lacks bigger picture context in which Sweden's plan was not reckless as some thought (nor was it as hands off as some might believe). Springee (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)