Talk:The Gravel Institute

Frequent subscriber count updating

Hey BenEmerald. Mind not updating the subscriber count every day? It is cluttering up the page history, and it is not considered a very important detail for regular updating. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Working out a consensus where reliable sources are encouraged to be used but factual information from other sources are allowed as Plan B.

Extending an invitation to @C.J. Griffin in the hopes of reaching a consensus between the two of us in regards to posting material onto The Gravel Institute that is a "no consensus" source but is factually accurate about key events when other reliable sources cannot be found.

I am willing to research and look for any reliable sources that contain the information but the information should be allowed to stay if a reliable source is found since it did happen. Also, a plan B compromise could be appropriate where if factual information is put up by a partisan or no consensus source, it can remain if no reliable sources can be found and will be promptly edited once reliable sources are found. Updatewithfacts (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This is UNDUE because it has nothing to do with any criticism of the videos they release, which is why the organization exists, but simply "gotcha politics" from right-wing opposition sources over a deleted tweet, and both User:Elli and myself have noted that these sources are of extremely poor quality. This is also not notable information, and certainly does not deserve its own "controversy" section. WP:NOTGOSSIP or WP:NOTNEWS could also be applicable here. Bottom line is that this should be removed until consensus can be reached on talk for its inclusion. As per WP:BRD, the onus is on the editor seeking to introduce disputed material, not the other way around. And so far two editors have challenged this material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Tweets made by an organization that is controversial and then deleted is controversial and whatever the organization's existence is made of is irrelevant. By that token, other video organizations like PragerU should never have anything controversial linked to them based on tweets they made. Many other organizations (video, blogs, print, etc.) have controversy listed on their page that is unrelated to the foundation or core of the organization. It is completely fair to acknowledge your point that 2 editors have challenged this material. However, the fact remains that the tweet was made, it was deleted, and then doubled-down. It is newsworthy for an organization whose stated goals are to overcome any disinformation posted by PragerU. If an organization is trying to fight disinformation and they post something newsworthy that is subsequently deleted, that is something worth looking into. And the apology was never issued by C.J. Griffith. The edit made was done in contradiction to Wikipedia's own page on reliable sources. If C.J. Griffith wishes to show that the onus is on me, at the very least own up and apologize for the inappropriate comment made on terrible sourcing. It can be considered inappropriate if you wish, but terrible is a bold-faced lie. Apologize, please. Updatewithfacts (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

History Section is Bloated

A good chunk of the history section is documenting various tweets which in the grand scheme of things aren't important to the history of the organization itself. Perhaps move it to a new section titled Controversy?

TomatDividedBy0 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this. Don’t think a Controversy section is best (seems like too much for a small organization) but the history section is full of irrelevant tweets, articles, etc.

Sirclogreen (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Similar issue emerged with stuff about the Russia controversy, bringing up obvious NPOV issues especially with language like "echoed Russian propaganda efforts." Better to just refer to the article and response. Thanks to C.J. Griffin for reversing it the first time. ThaddeusStevens (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)ThaddeusStevens

Progressive?

From what I've seen I think this is inaccurate. – 2603:7080:DA3C:7A33:10B2:8D7D:7422:8A70 (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

? 173.72.158.177 (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the Institute Ending?

I'll keep an eye out if the website is taken down (the website host has a banner up saying costs aren't being paid). They aren't active on social media anymore either. Somewhat frustrating, as a former supporter, because they still have an active donation button below the banner. Col99100 (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

website is online as of today. 69.113.236.26 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for catching it and updating the article. Col99100 (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Website is not active- at least when I check. All I see is the domain available. I'm pretty sure it is defunct. Marcofo23 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

When user 69.113.236.26 responded to me the website said it was coming back up, and now it's definitely back down. I agree with you -- the Institute is certainly defunct now. I can work on changing everything back to the past tense. It seems that user AKK-700 changed everything back to the present tense for the one day the website was temporarily back up. I'll monitor the page in-case this happens again. Col99100 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Left-wing views - or common sense?

Most, if not all, European countries have universal health care, paid vacation, paid maternal leave, subsidised childcare and so on. These are NOT necessarily "left wing" countries. USAmericans tend not to have any clue whatsoever of what left is or what socialist means and wouldn't be able to tell a social democrat from a murderous Stalinist even if one showed them Jens Stoltenberg and Stalin side by side (most USAmericans probably couldn't tell them apart either by their looks or their language). It is SO depressing. Do USAmericans think that the US, together with a few fascist dictator-run Central and South American countries that the US has helped become dictator-run, most of the dirt poor African countries, and some islamist countries (with customs that Homo habilis would find brutish and backwards, are the only nations in the world that have got things correct? What would you like if Europeans started editing Wikipeda pages so that Trump was labelled mentally ill and so on? Write FACTS, do not stamp your own views on things on Wikipedia. 31.211.201.66 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

While, yes, it's reasonably true most Americans can't tell the difference, the Gravel Institute was explicitly left-wing, as was Gravel. Yes, there's a difference between having universal healthcare and being a "left-wing" country, but that's not the point of the article. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Col99100 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Azov paragraph

There are some issues with the part in the history section about the Azov Battalion controversy. The main one is that it seems to exclusively rely on a Daily Beast article from February 2022, which is definitely not a secondary source. I actually can't seem to find any secondary sources on this supposed controversy, reliable or not, which raises some questions about whether it has been given undue weight. The other more minor problem is some wording: "The Gravel Institute responded by claiming that the video was accurate and was reviewed by experts prior to publication, but the video was ultimately pulled from public view." The word "but" here suggests that the video becoming private contradicts the Institute's previous statement.

I suggest that the whole passage should be taken out of the article as it does not use any secondary sources and seems to give undue weight to the event. Qurmuziya (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)