Talk:PragerU

Factually incorrect information

[1] The long standing version is better and covers cases where facts may be disputed First, it is not "long standing", it is from two months ago: [2].

Second, it is not better because the lede is supposed to summarize the body, and the body does not use the whitewashing wording "widely considered". Instead, it quotes a reliable source that uses the word "misinformation".

I don't think you should push the WP:FALSEBALANCE climate change denialist narrative on Wikipedia like this. Alerting WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

First, Bon courage please follow BRD. You are edit warring to make a change without going to the talk page first. As an experienced editor you should know better.

The claim of incorrect should probably be expanded to more than just climate change but should also be attributed to experts. If I'm not mistaken the specific climate change videos were made by people who do have credentials in the relevant field. However, if their claims are viewed as wrong by other experts we should state it as such. So if we are staying with just climate change, "according to climate scientists the videos contain..." That meetings IMPARTIAL while making the opinion on experts clear. Springee (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Just assert they're pumping out bollocks. We don't say "The Holocaust was widely assumed to have happened" or "the earth is widely assumed to be round, not flat". Doing so is WP:PROFRINGE and is a problem. We probably need to cover some of other propaganda this unsavoury outfit is pushing wrt climate science. Bon courage (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be your opinion rather than something that complies with IMPARTIAL. If the person in the PragerU video has the appropriate credentials (per what ever video is cited as disputed) then we should present this as disagreement among experts. This is not PROGRINGE, rather it is PROIMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Climate science is settled in this respect, like the Earth's roundness. You are engaged in WP:PROFRINGE POV-pushing by trying to set up equivalence between a right-wing propaganda outfit's lies and a reliable source on the side of that established science. That is incompatible with editing Wikipedia in line with its objectives and policies. Bon courage (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, they do not, except Lindzen, see below. And his untruths are clear untruths. Maybe you should actually read the sources instead of using boilerplate lawyering? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that IMPARTIAL doesn't apply if we don't like the subject in question? Springee (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:IMPARTIAL doesn't mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

YUp, and WP:IMPARTIAL is about the tone used to present viewpoints. Science is not a viewpoint (except in the fringers' world). Bon courage (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Science certainly does contain viewpoints. Springee (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Explain. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree but consider this. Hob Gadling is making a claim, that is Lindzen, a published researcher in the field, is wrong because a reporter [3] says so. Why would we presume the reporter knows more than the published scientist in the field? This seems like the exact sort of case where IMPARTIAL would dictate we don't pick sides. Springee (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Rubbish, there is no mention of any "Lindzen" in our article. When we're dealing with WP:FRINGESUBJECTS (i.e. climate denial) policy is plain: the crankoid stuff is plainly labeled as such. There is no more to be said. Bon courage (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

When we are making broad based claims we need to be careful that the brush doesn't cover too much. Springee (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

PragerU's videos contain misleading or factually incorrect information is still true. It does not become false by the videos also containing some true or doubtful statements. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Lindzen claimed that the IPCC report did not have an index. McCarthy checked and found the index. And you want us to handle that situation in a "some say this, some say that" way because Lindzen has more tinsel on his shoulders? Seriously? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Is that the rack you want to hang your hat on? Seriously, that? Springee (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It is one of the racks that destroy your wikilawyering pseudo-logic. "The videos contain misinformation" is still true. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Please mind that CIVIL applies to this discussion. Springee (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

In this case it appears when you ask scientists they do agree with the reporter. I'm comfortable with it. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That idea does not follow WP:FRINGE: Be careful not to use in-text attribution carelessly to imply that only the named sources would agree.

If I'm not mistaken the specific climate change videos were made by people who do have credentials in the relevant field If you mean Alex Epstein (American writer), Patrick Moore (consultant) or William Happer, you are mistaken. Richard Lindzen, yes, he has the credentials, in the sense that he has published in climatology journals, but what he says for Prager is still largely provably false, as the McCarthy source notes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

If it's provably false then attribution shouldn't be an issue. Since you are going to drop names what about Bjorn Lomborg, Richard Lindzen and Patrick Moore (taken from a google search for "prageru climate change presenters"). Looking at their respective bios they don't come across as nut jobs. The problem with the opening statement is it's broad, fully inclusive and in Wikivoice. However, it doesn't appear that the sources we cite support such a claim. Springee (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

From the sources we cite: His technique — that of an apparent-but-not-really expert providing no or false sources — is one of several used in climate disinformation campaigns. And the fracking billionaire-funded online “university” called PragerU is using it to misinform millions. It's supported. MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh please. Lomborg is an economist. He has no clue about natural science, and his claims about climate change have been debunked. The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty have confirmed the debunking.

I already handled Lindzen and Moore in the very contribution you are responding to, and it is a different Patrick Moore.

The problem with the subject of climate change denial on Wikipedia is that many people, including Wikipedia users, frequent the denialist echo chambers, have been misled by the denial industry and now have the misconception that climate change denial is somehow part of science instead of the ideological bullshit it is. Those users are an obstacle to correct NPOV handling of the subject because they waste pro-science users' time with rules lawyering and false claims. Some of them are topic-banned, which is a good thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

And Lomborg is also largely arguing from the policy perspective. Arguing that we should or shouldn't implement a given policy related to climate change isn't denying climate change itself. Springee (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Here, too, "largely" does not cut it. Misinformation does not stop being misinformation just because the same source says things that are not misinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I just took a look at his video, 'Climate Change: What's So Alarming', and it was obviously making non-policy arguments about the data and what it means. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Arguing "policy" is just what denialists move onto when denying the underlying phenomenon no longer works because too much of the world is literally on fire. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Policy has no bearing on what is or isn't scientific. It's just an argument used by rubes to ignore what scientists are saying. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Springee, all of the reliable source that we cite describe it as misinformation; no amount of your personal analysis is going to change that unless you can provide reliable sources that dispute the misinformation claim. PragerU is not a reliable source. –dlthewave ☎ 16:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Currently the "Climate change denial" section cites The weather channel and The independent each of which descibes "misinformation" in its own voice. Whether intentional or not, qualifying these statments of fact with "according to ..." casts doubt and implies that this is just one opinion when in fact there is no disagreement among reliable sources. –dlthewave ☎ 16:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Quite. WP:GEVAL with WP:PARITY innit. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, climate change is one of those cases where the consensus among highest-quality sources is completely clear; if the sources describe PragerU as presenting misleading or factually incorrect information about it, then it would be WP:PROFRINGE to present that as just a matter of opinion. --Aquillion (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

In order to be factually incorrect the statement in question must an unambiguous statement of purported fact. This is a rare occurrence and so most "factually incorrect" statements are themselves incorrect. WP:ver says that what we put in has to be suitably sourced; it doesn't say that editors can't question or leave out material just because a source said it. The far more common occurrence (and from what I've seen the PragerU case) is pieces which emphasize other factors (e.g. natural causes of climate change) or emphasize other true factors and issues to create doubt about the central tenets of climate change. This is best termed misleading. Or ones which acknowledge those tenets but criticize various mitigation measures or proposals. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

But WP:NPOV requires us to include all viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. We can't exclude RS-supported content just because we think it's wrong. –dlthewave ☎ 22:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It's not what editors think, but what is established knowledge per RS. For WP:FRINGESUBJECTS the fringe view is either left out, or included if it can be put in the context of mainstream knowledge. That is core policy and not optional. Bon courage (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they generally do the "we're not technically making statements of fact" thing in order to shield the misinformation, but they don't stick to that perfectly and do just say things that are factually false too, I think it's fine to restate the sources that say that in wiki voice since there isn't any legitimate contention about it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

That's why I think "misleading" is the best description.North8000 (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO that part of NPOV is intended for handling situations in areas of debate where there are opposing/ viewpoints on a topic. Not to mandate including everything that every source ever said on every topic in every situation including patently false or clearly erroneous information. (or selective applications of that concept) . North8000 (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Subject on Robert E. Lee

I think Prageru’s statement on Robert E. Lee should be added if it’s verified Bobisland (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• There are a lot of new sources since the last discussion on this. I've compiled some below.
  • USA Today (2023)
  • Dallas Weekly (2023)
  • The Daily Beast (2023)
  • Pensacola News Journal (2023)
  • Yahoo News (2023)
  • The Daily Dot (2023)
  • The Harvard Crimson (2021)
  • Right Wing Watch (2020)
  • Hill Reporter (2020)

––FormalDude (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Almost all/all of those sources point back to the same low quality root source Right Wing Watch and fail to note the video was retracted. Several of the sources also show their bias by misrepresenting the gender wage gap video contents which suggests the intent is shock value Rather than to honestly inform readers. (edit conflict)Looking at the sources, US Today points to the Daily Beast (not the most objective of sources) which then points to Right Wing Watch. The Dallas Weekly, points to a video hosted on a site that is not PragerU's YouTube channel. The sources doesn't make that clear nor can we verify this is the actual video in question. The Pensacola News Journal article is largely a reprint of the USA Today article. The section that mentions is verbatim. The DD is a questionable source but it at least does say the video was deleted.Springee (talk) 06:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The quality of the sources used by the proximate source don't matter; disputing the "root" source is flat WP:OR (it's essentially digging into the evidence discussed in the sources and saying "well, I don't think they've presented enough for this; I'm not convinced.") Otherwise we'd never be able to cover anything ever, because people could say "ah, yes, this is a New York Times article, but they interview people on the street, who are not WP:RSes!" In fact, to a certain extent taking primary sources we couldn't cover directly and filtering them through their own fact-checking process in order to produce reputable coverage is part of the purpose of a secondary WP:RS - the judgment of a high-quality source that something is worth covering lends it their reputation and weight. Likewise, noting that they didn't cover the story the way you would personally prefer is not a policy-based argument. If you think that USA Today isn't a WP:RS, you know where to go to challenge it properly. --Aquillion (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

No, disputing the root source isn't OR. You need to review what OR is and isn't since OR doesn't apply to talk page discussions about sources. WP:RS does say we should consider reliability in context. If sources can't be honest that the video was deleted (how long it was up isn't clear but given the date of the early sources, clearly not long) then we shouldn't use those sources to represent PragerU's content. A big issue here is that none of these are really great sources and we already see two being obvious copies of one another despite different lead authors. The story about Lee is obvious included for shock value since most source fail to note the removal. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia where we summarize the best sources, not look for sources that engage in alarmist muck rakings. I think we tend to forget that when we turn to sources like Daily Dot and Right Wing Watch to establish what content is most relevant. Springee (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure the original objection to removing this was just notability, not reliability? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not OR, but it is irrelevant as its the final and not the root source which matters. Do you have a source which refers to this as alarmist muck raking? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Harvard Crimson and Daily Dot mention the video was deleted, but they don't give a reason. Do we have any sourcing to support the "retracted" claim?

Dallas Weekly, Daily Dot, Harvard Crimson and Hill Reporter all report on the Lee video entirely in their own voice. The others do link to The Daily Beast as evidence that the video generated controversy. Whether or not that controversy is merited is another discussion, but we certainly have enough reliable sources mentioning it to establish due weight. –dlthewave ☎ 14:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The video is back up and says "reuploaded". I don't know whether that means that they revised it or just decided to bring it back once the heat was off. I did a quick search and I don't see any coverage of the reupload. I think that there is something here but without coverage of the whole thing it is hard to say exactly what it is. DanielRigal (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the reuploaded YT channel actually associated with PragerU? It looks like an independent channel based on the lack of "about" information. Springee (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh... Wow! Yes. Well spotted. There is something very odd going on there and I missed it completely due to a nervous disposition that causes me to instantly hammer the "X" button whenever I see the Prager logo. ;-) I had no idea that it was even possible for another channel to sneak a new video onto the URL of an old, deleted, one. That's something YouTube should definitely clamp down on before it bites anybody in the ass too badly because bad people could use that to cause all sorts of mischief. DanielRigal (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Why, what does this tell us about them? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Who said that we are supposed to inform? I thought we are just supposed to look for obscure things that are bad optics for them and make those the contents of the article. :-) North8000 (talk) 13:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

They're an organization that makes videos, how is one of their most controversial videos "obscure"? And that it's "bad optics for them" is irrelevant, we don't include or exclude content based on whether it's negative for the subject or not. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It appears they took it down. Wouldn't that mean they don't support the content? Springee (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

They also seem to have brought it back since. It says "reuploaded". I have no idea whether the reuploaded version is modified. This clearly means something but we need Reliable Sources to tell us exactly what. DanielRigal (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

(Commenting a second time since this was mentioned twice). It isn't clear the reloaded channel is associated with PragerU. They have only 3 videos and their about page says nothing about being a channel or PragerU. Springee (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Include - We now have enough reliable sources reporting on the controversy to establish due weight. –dlthewave ☎ 15:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Include but don't overdo it. Based on what we have here, I think one sentence in the Content section is enough, not a paragraph and certainly not a section. If it blows up into a bigger issue later then we can revisit it then. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Include. Mention appears DUE, given the new refs. I agree with the multiple comments to keep it brief. --Hipal (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose None of the sources are strong and many fail to say the video was taken down. How quickly and why is not clear nor is it clear if it was external or internal pressure. However, since the video is not one of their videos (ie they aren't hosting it) it seems Undue and even misleading to present the video was an example of the content they provided. Clearly it was an outlier. If the video is included then the removal must be mentioned since it would be misleading on our part to suggest PragerU is presenting the video to the public (taking it down would mean just the opposite). Springee (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Misleading to present the video was an example of the content they provided? That's crazy. Them taking down the video does not negate the fact that they created it and published it for a significant amount of time. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  No, misleading to present it as an example of the standard video quality. For what ever reason they pulled it down so we shouldn't present it as if this is a representative work product. How long it was up is also not known. How long is significant? 2 hours, 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months? Springee (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  So we don't present it as an example of the standard video quality. Problem solved? --Hipal (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  No. I still don't see it as due as it isn't representative of their videos and we are supposed to be giving a fair summary, not the alarmist outliers. Springee (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  How does the due weight section of our NPOV policy support your statement? We cover all RS viewpoints in proportion to their prominence, not just the ones that provide a representative summary, but you know that. My assumption is that this would go in the Reception or Criticism section where we do normally cover controversies even if they're rare outliers. –dlthewave ☎ 19:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  You have made this claim about NPOV many times. It's not correct as this would fall under BALASP which says we don't have to cover things that are minor etc. This is especially true when we look at the limited coverage and quality of sources in question. N8000's assumptions seem to hit the nail on the head here. Springee (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Long enough to be picked up on and reported by numerous news outlets. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's an evasive answer. You said a "significant" amount of time. What if they realized it was a mistake or even was never meant to be uploaded and the retracted it in 2 minutes once they realized the error (not claiming that is the case, just testing the logic of the argument)? Springee (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  We can speculate about "What ifs" all day, but in the end the only thing that matters is that reliable sources considered it significant enough to cover. We're not here to "test the logic of the argument". –dlthewave ☎ 19:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Please review WP:BALASP Springee (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Include. Anyone with a reasonable understanding of WP:DUEWEIGHT can see that this is worth including given the amount of coverage in reliable sources spanning nearly three years. Doesn't need much, probably just a sentence. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Include. There's substantial new coverage in the context of the controversy over Florida's use of their school program, sufficient to make it clear that this has had a WP:SUSTAINED impact on their reputation and is therefore worth mentioning. The objection that the sources fail to note that the video was taken down simply means that the fact that PragerU eventually took it down isn't considered relevant (relative to the fact that they posted it to begin with); we have to follow their lead on that, we can't just decide "ah, this changes the whole story" ourselves. Sometimes something from lower-quality sources has an impact and becomes relevant; this is demonstrable when it is cited via higher-quality secondary sources. That's what it means for eg. USA Today to cite the Daily Beast. The idea that nothing published by the Daily Beast can ever be relevant or could ever be covered even via a secondary source is an inappropriate WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument - if it has high-quality secondary coverage, then the article has had an impact that deserves to be covered even if an editor feels that it shouldn't have had that impact. --Aquillion (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Review of sources At the top of this discussion a number of sources are provided in support of inclusion. This is a review of the sources:

• USA Today Network: The authorship of this article isn't clear as it contains paragraphs, including the one that mentions the Daily Beast, that are identical to that used by a different author in the Pensacola News Journal. At the bottom that article it says it's part of the USA Today network so that is effectively just one source, not two. Mention is brief and towards the end fo the article. The use of PragerU in FL schools is the primary topic. The Lee video is one of several mentioned.
• Dallas Weekly is a small special interest paper. It's statements regarding the video are more neutral/true to the source vs those from USA Today based on the video link they provide. However, they don't note that the link appears to be to a YT channel that appears to be presenting itself as associated with PragerU. It is an issue that they don't note that the video the link to is an archived/copy vs one hosted by PragerU. Two sentences in the middle of a ~30-40 sentence article. Again one of several videos mentioned.
• Pensacola News Journal, per above this is just USA Today, not an independent source.
• Daily Beast and Yahoo News: Same article (see top of the article). It simply cited RWW as the true source. Mentioned near the end of the article as part of a sentence. The primary topic was FL allowing PragerU to be used in schools.
• Right Wing Watch: This is effectively an advocacy organization. The article appears to be dated from a time when the video was actually up and provides a transcript. The article is about the video itself.
• Daily Dot: "Dirty Delete" section. This is very much a section dripping with the writer's opinions vs objective reporting. It does at least say the article was deleted which is a critical fact most of the other sources miss. Failing to note the video was removed is misleading and if the content is included it must also be included. Per the transcrip provided by RWW the Daily Dot summary looks cherry picked. 15 total sentences, the first 13 are general claims about/against PragerU. The last two are about the video itself.
• Harvard Crimson: OpEd in a student paper. Says the video was deleted (published about 2 months after RWW). The mention is part of a much longer OpEd about why the confederate flag bothers the author. The Lee video was mentioned in a two sentence paragraph supporting his larger view (11 paragraphs total).
• Hill Reporter: Published when the video appears to have been available (same day as RRW). This is a four person news website per previous discussions.

This isn't nine sources about the Lee video. It's three low quality sources that were written because of the video (Daily Dot, Hill Reporter and RWW) and four sources that include mentions as part of their bigger topics. It may make sense to cite the USA Today article in contest of reactions to FL allowing PragerU. The same may be true of the Dallas Weekly in context of TX. This begs North8000's what is the point of mentioning this? What is the purpose in the larger summary we are trying to provide? It's it to say PragerU released and less than 2 months later (from the article dates we know it to be no more than 2 months) retracted the video for unknown reasons. At the time of the retraction the video wasn't picked up by credible news sources. Since the limited coverage we do see came after the video was taken down we can't assume it was outrage over the video. If this is included what is the correct context etc? IMPARTIAL dictates that we can't present this as if the video was kept up nor that it was taken down after public outcry and we should have a reason why it's included beyond it looks the most damning. That reason might work for sources that are writing to persuade/create an outcry but it's not part of impartial, encyclopedic writing. Weight for inclusion should be established by the sources about the video, not those that mention is somewhere buried in the article. Springee (talk) 23:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There are hundreds of billions of things that are sourced including zillions that once could claim some connection to this article. WP:weight is meant to balancing, not a mandate to use all zillion or somebody's selection from them. Editors need to make decisions to build a quality informative article. This can also include the type of analysis such as Springee's Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Exaggerate much? This article isn't even 50,000 bytes, we have no problem here with size or length. There is no way on Earth that there's "hundreds of billions" of sourced claims about this article. And it is not for us to decide how informative the content is, that is for reliable sources, and the numerous coverage about this shows that reliable sources think it is very informative. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

You missed my point. Maybe it was too indirect. There are zillions of things that WP:RS's have said that could be related to this topic. Only about 1% of them will get in; editors are selecting that 1%. So just being one of the zillions isn't enough to mandate inclusion. North8000 (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The coverage of this is weak at best and others have mentioned the issue with the original sourcing. Until this receives some more reliably sourced independent reporting it doesn't deserve inclusion. Nemov (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If significant coverage in multiple reliable sources over the course of nearly three years isn't enough for you, could you please tell us what would be? ––FormalDude (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  It is fallacy that Wikipedia has to include everything that is published by reliable sources which was astutely mentioned by Springee and North8000. I would like to see some more independent reporting that isn't pulled from a non-reliable source. There needs to be more coverage to justify inclusion per WP:BALASP. Nemov (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's a strawman, nobody is saying that Wikipedia has to include everything that is published by reliable sources. We're saying this has enough coverage to be included.

  I already know you think there needs to be "more coverage", I'm asking specifically how much more is needed?

  And there's no consensus that Right Wing Watch or WP:DAILYBEAST are non-reliable. I'll also restate what Aquillion said: "The idea that nothing published by the Daily Beast can ever be relevant or could ever be covered even via a secondary source is an inappropriate WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS argument - if it has high-quality secondary coverage, then the article has had an impact that deserves to be covered even if an editor feels that it shouldn't have had that impact." ––FormalDude (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not a straw man, it is addressing and making arguments to refute the primary argument for inclusion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  This presumes the coverage was high quality. The majority of the sources are not high quality. The only one that normally would be considered higher quality is USA Today but it only mentions the video well below the fold and significantly fails to mention that it was removed. That is misleading given the implied claim is 'schools could show videos like these!' Of course they can't since PragerU doesn't offer the video. Springee (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Include PragerU is not often in the news (far less so back then) so that many mentions of a single action is fairly notable. And do people need a reminder that the reliability of the information has never been in question? There are archives of it. Only the noteworthiness has ever been questionable. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Include Seems DUE, as long as it is not given too much WEIGHT as to cause a POV issue. I also agree that the quality of some sources doesn't detract from it's accuracy or prevalence among others. DN (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• Include the sources are reliable according to Wikipedia WP:RSP and the merits to remove this topic doesn’t seem to be based on much besides the sources not being considered reliable Bobisland (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Springee you shouldn't re-edit old comments based on new comments for chronological organization and less confusion WP:TALK, to add to your edited comment placed out of order I don’t think it’s misleading as the controversy is based on it being published, regardless multiple sources can be used to create a Wikipedia entry as long as it’s not editorialized WP:COMBINE Bobisland (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t think consensus will be met is there any way to force consensus using a noticeboard or something, seems like adding this entry will always be opposed while others will always support it Bobisland (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  It might be helpful to propose how the material will be added. At the extreme, how many supports would change to oppose if the proposal was to add to the first sentence of the lead? Should it be added as part of the pushback against the allowance of PragerU videos in school or somewhere else? Should the inclusion say the video was taken down? Is this meant to be in the section talking about the types of videos PragerU publishes? How something is included is often just as important as if it's included. A bit more clarity of how to include would be helpful. Springee (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think the best scenario is to combine links of a source stating it was removed to state that it was later removed, if you don’t like it in the lead it can be moved Bobisland (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I feel like it should go into the "reception" section. How does this read for an addition?:

  In a video intended to give reasons why Robert E. Lee statues should remain, the PragerU included Lee's views that slavery was worse for whites than blacks, and the crushing of John Brown's slave rebellion. This video was later removed.

  Not sure if we should mention that it was poorly received before being removed, we don't have an RS that mentions that. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Why reception? It was removed very quickly and with almost no fuss. I'm also not sure we should try so pick specific points vs just summarize it. But this gets back to one of my big objections points. If we can't explain how/why it supports the overall summary of PragerU then it shouldn't be included.

  If it's included I would say it was mentioned by sources concerned about PragerU videos being used on schools and note the video was removed without explanation. Springee (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I can agree that it's presence in the article should be fairly minimal. DN (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit war over areas of notability in the lead

User:Trakking is edit-warring a crucial paragraph from the lede. Disinformation is the essential property of this fake organization pretending to be a university. If there is one aspect of it that belongs in the lede, it is that. Removing the dishonesty from the lede is whitewashing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, this removal is unacceptable. That content has been in the article for several months, and in a slightly reduced form for a long time before that. It is core information about what the subject of this article is and can not be omitted from the lede. It should not be removed without discussion but I would suggest that it is so obviously valid that starting such a discussion would be time-wasting, potentially bordering on the disruptive if carried to excess. The edit summary from the first removal was also problematic. If there is any reason for concern that this matter is not covered sufficiency in the body to support the lede, and I'm very far from convinced that there is, then that should be dealt with by expanding coverage in the body. (Of course, then we will get people kvetching about that but, if it is justified, then we should do it anyway.)

So far we don't have any edits that break the 3RR so it can all stop here without anybody getting a warning template. If it starts up again then that is a "slow" edit war and that is still prohibited even if the 3RR is not violated. Let's not do that! It would only end up on the noticeboards and cause unnecessary grief. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia’s manual of style, the lead section ought to ”establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points”. Currently it does none of this. It also says POINTS in plural. The criticism is not even one of the major points, because it is reduced to a mere subheading in the last section of the article. That is just poor encyclopedic scholarship. I will fix this problem tonight by summarizing the article concisely and fairly—without removing the criticism, although few articles include criticism in its lead section. Trakking (talk) 12:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

To pre-empt any accusations of WP:OWN, I think it would be better to post any proposed version here for discussion. We already know that this is contentious and being WP:BOLD here might be akin to stepping into a minefield that is clearly labelled as such.

As I see it, the point you are making is better interpreted as its mirror image. If you think that the lede overemphasises the criticism compared to the article body then that is actually arguing that we have been overly cautious in covering the criticism in the body (which I think may be true to a limited extent) and that we need to expand it significantly. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

few articles include criticism in its lead section Those which are about pseudosciences and their peddlers, such as this one, all do. If they did not, they would violate WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

few articles include criticism in its lead section did you read MOS you just linked because it says the exact opposite "All but the shortest articles should start with introductory text (the "lead"), which establishes significance, includes mention of significant criticism or controversies, and make readers want to learn more." it clearly says to include any significant criticism or controversies. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately Formal Guy jumped the gun and did so already AbiquiúBoy (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling

I suggest you dial down your rhetoric as you did in your edit summary here: [4]

As this is a contentious topic, obviously there will be editors with bias (which are human and natural) spouting a little rhetoric here and there but to attack in the fashion you did there is eyebrow-raising to say the least, so I just felt you could kindly focus on the subject matter of the edit, and not something so aggressive out of nowhere.

On the matter of the final paragraph, I propose we keep the article in this form:[5]

Not only does that satiate the valid concerns of @Trakking, but it also provides more context behind criticism of PragerU. AbiquiúBoy (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time seeing "valid" concerns, and please WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, although, I am pleased to see that we have seem to have scaled down the disagreement from objecting to the entire (perfectly valid) paragraph to just wanting to reword a small fragment of it, which is something that it might actually be possible to discuss constructively. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: There’s nothing to discuss about the latter topic. I and another user—see his Talk—made a fact-check and found out that there were no political scientists supporting the claims made in the article, only a group of journalists and sociologists as well as two historians. Please revert the latest edit, @Hipal. The discussion here was about something else. Trakking (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

If "there’s nothing to discuss" then we then we should stick with the status-quo version, which would mean that Hipal's reversions stand. Seriously, please dial it back a bit before this ends up on one of the noticeboards. The productive way to take this forward is for you (working with AbiquiúBoy, if you like) to make a suggestion for the lede and for it to be discussed. In the meantime, if anybody wants to improve the body a little in order to better support the lede then they can do that. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, hey, hey, let's relax here. There's no need to escalate it by mentioning noticeboards at this hour of the dialogue, especially as @Trakking hasn't even reverted it or started edit-warring.

Anyway, moving on to the dialogue, @Trakking and I came to the consensus by a thorough search of the cited sources in the criticism section that most of the critics are in fact Journos and sociologists, with two historians being mentioned (Kevin Kruse and Paul Gottfried). Therefore, it's our imperative as editors to correct that. Hence the phrase 'Journalists and sociologists, as well as some historians,....' came into mention.

Thoughts? AbiquiúBoy (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

hasn't even reverted it or started edit-warring You need to have a look at the page history to correct that misconception.

If you do not like edit summaries with stances, why did you not complain about a biased place for leftist criticism? When there is one group that supports science and knowledge and another group that spreads lies about it, Wikipedia should be on the side of science and not sweep facts under the rug. The anti-science stance has the name of an American party on it, but that does not mean that the pro-science stance is "leftist".

I have a watchlist, I do not need pinging. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You need to have a look at the page history to correct that misconception.

I think you misunderstand. What I meant was that after he got reverted back and since my edits were reverted as well, he hasn't kept reverting out content.

I have a watchlist, I do not need pinging.

Ye well i like pinging [unless it's a direct first reply] as a talk page practice 🤷🏻‍♂️

When there is one group that supports science and knowledge and another group that spreads lies about it, Wikipedia should be on the side of science and not sweep facts under the rug too bad that modern events have shown that this is nowhere near the case and all groups misuse science whenever they find it convenient. it would serve you well to go into sensitive situations such as this article with the mentality that 'maybe I could be the one that's wrong'. this will serve you well instead of making sweeping incorrect statements like The anti-science stance has the name of an American party on it. Yes the GOP has an anti-scientific strain specifically on the matters of Climate change as caused by fossil fuels, but that's far from making it 'the anti-science party' when it's the one party that wholeheartedly supports an important subject such as nuclear science/fuel. Your rhetoric served to do nothing but further alienate someone who hadn't even mentioned the GOP

Worse yet, what's worrying was that your first thought was to rather bizarrely talk about the GOP when a Swedish guy (@Trakking) mentioned Leftist criticism. His usage of that statement was almost solely as a point against what he felt was a slanted POV in the lede.

All in all, let's just all settle down and focus on the subject matter - the lack of any citations at all creating confusion on which terms should be used and which should not AbiquiúBoy (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What I meant was that after he got reverted back and since my edits were reverted as well, he hasn't kept reverting out content Ah, you meant that he did not edit-war after he stopped edit-warring. That is an idiosyncratic meaning of the word "hasn't".

I think there is nothing relevant to article improvement here, so I will refrain from further comment in spite of the fallacies in there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

He reverted you once....that's not edit warring lmao what are you on about.

It's evident you have absolutely 0 interest in positive discourse. Unfortunate. AbiquiúBoy (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@Trakking, while I agree with your goal here, I believe your comment comes off as a little bit harsh. I suggest we do in fact engage with them and explain to them what your qualms are, as I'm sure they'll see the merit of your points as well. AbiquiúBoy (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't justify you immediately resorting to being a fire-eater. you're an editor focused on making edits based on science and rationality and dialogue, so do that and explain to @Trakking why his edit was not ok with you instead of going on a tangent about your POV of the GOP.

either way, now, the issue to be resolved is the 'historians and political scientists' part of the lede. while historians are infact some of the people who've criticized PragerU, political scientists aren't; something verifiable by going through the criticism section. AbiquiúBoy (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's not focus on trying to keep any one editor happy. None of us WP:OWN the article. Consensus is what matters here.

I think you demonstrate that there is something to discuss here. You say "political scientists aren't" based on going through the Criticism section and so I think that the next question is whether this really is incorrect in the lede or whether it is just missing from the criticism section? Maybe it is content that got removed in the past? It is not like we don't get semi-regular attempts to whitewash this article and it is possible that one of the more subtle ones might have gone undetected. Of course, it is also possible that somebody really did add it to the lede without bothering to put it in the body or while misinterpreting one of the existing sources as being a political scientist by mistake. I'm going to do a bit of digging but everybody else feel free to do likewise. Lets see what we can find. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

cool👌🏻, i'm in full agreement with that AbiquiúBoy (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Most of the refs were removed from the first paragraphs in April; perhaps they should be restored so they can be a guide in disputes such as this. WP:LEADCITE says such refs can be warranted about controversial topics. Llll5032 (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

they were removed because of MOS:LEADCITE, so...tricky situation as their absence causes problems but their presence is unnecessary as per rules AbiquiúBoy (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE acknowledges that "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations"; at least two of those descriptions apply to this article. Llll5032 (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

cool, so should i go ahead and restore the old format? AbiquiúBoy (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

There's been edit-warring over this. I'm having difficulty finding where it was first added. Maybe here --Hipal (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

seems like his edits featuring allegations of vaccine skepticism were removed. AbiquiúBoy (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy about a news organization being in the lead can be found across Wikipedia with MintPress News being a good example Bobisland (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

thank you for the heads-up! AbiquiúBoy (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

 Note: There is currently a report involving this discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Strongly concur with Hob and DanielRigal. PragerU is a known misinfo outlet and should definitely be described that way. Andre🚐 22:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

known misinfo outlet? nahh, that's 🧢

most of their misinfo is solely on climate change. the rest of it is just different opinions on political proceedings over the past 200 years AbiquiúBoy (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• A big chunk of the article is reception (which this paragraph summarizes), and large parts of the rest of the article (eg. the entire Conflicts with YouTube and Facebook section) likewise deal with misinformation. Removing the paragraph entirely - effectively omitting something like half the article from the lead's summary - is obviously not appropriate; the fact is that this reflects a large amount of PragerU's notability, as can be seen from the coverage in the diverse high-quality sources for the sections being summarized here. If someone feels it's undue then they need to start with the sources in the article body, explaining why they don't think they deserve the weight we're giving them; but I think it'd be a hard sell. The simple reality is that most high-quality sources that aren't part of PragerU's ideological movement tend to treat it, when covering it, as a purveyor of ideologically-driven misinformation, which naturally means that the article is going to reflect that coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think we've moved far past that aspect @Aquillion. Nobody's advocating for removing that paragraph anymore AbiquiúBoy (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing the "political scientist" term just arose from a misuse of terminology, whoever wrote that passage probably just thought the range of experts writing on the disinformation campaign could be "summarised" as such. I support changing it, although it probably shouldn't say "some" historians since it seems that every historian that has looked at their content has found significant problems with it, even though few are quoted here. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

the reason why we propose 'some' was because the vast majority of criticism they've received is from journos and political scientists only. 2 historians is all that the sources cite. AbiquiúBoy (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah yeah, I should have mentioned that would be OR here. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Citations in the lede

AbiquiúBoy restored a bunch of citations to the lede, I reverted them because the consensus at this page has been to avoid citations in the lede since everything is sourced in the body. We should discuss if we want to add citations to the lede, and if so, what statements should have citations. WP:LEDECITE says "statements challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." There's no direct quotes, and so far it looks like the only part of the lede that has been even partially challenged is the second to last sentence. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I favor re-adding citations, which were removed in April. Some of the mid-sentence citations may have been excessive, but citing each sentence would help to resolve some disputes about WP:V and WP:PROPORTION. Llll5032 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Citing each sentence in the lede is overkill and has no basis in policy. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEADCITE says, "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations". Is this article current and controversial? Llll5032 (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but "many" does not mean "all". And it also says may, meaning it is a possibility, not a necessity. Donald Trump is way more controversial than this article and has a much longer lede section, yet there is only one cite in its lede. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

As you wrote, WP:LEADCITE says that "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation". So at least there should be citations for any claims that have been challenged in the history of the article, and any others that are "likely to be challenged". Llll5032 (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, cite in the lead, new editors keep thinking they can block-delete the whole thing because the citations are not there. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Even if it's not strictly necessary, cites in the head will cut down on a lot of headaches. –dlthewave ☎ 20:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding cites to the last paragraph. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Better off without them. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. The most common instances are usually where someone wants to put something in which really isn't that. North8000 (talk) 23:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this page is scrutinized enough for us to not worry about that. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there enough consensus now to restore the citations to the second paragraph? Llll5032 (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

CEO image

Marissa Streit, CEO, in 2018

@Hipal: In this edit, Hipal removed this image of the company CEO with the comment don't see how the image of a non-notable person adds anything encyclopedic, though it is PROMO. It's the company CEO, which is an important person to the company, so quite encyclopedic. Company articles are generally benefited by the image of their CEO. Microsoft has pictures of all three of its CEOs (they're independently notable, of course, but that doesn't matter for their inclusion in other articles, we don't have a rule "only include pictures of CEOs if they have their own article", they're in the Microsoft article because they're important to Microsoft); Babylon Bee has a picture of its CEO, though he doesn't have its own article, etc. --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion.

Yes, within PragerU, she's important, hence my PROMO concerns.

This repeats the problems identified at Talk:PragerU/Archive_7#On_the_dispute_of_the_CEO_of_PragerU_being_added. --Hipal (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I clearly missed something. She's important, so adding her photo would be promotional? I don't understand. This is an article about the company. We are supposed to cover the important information about the company. That's the whole point of the article. --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Per the past discussion, she's barely important enough to mention at all. --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

She's the CEO. She runs the company. Both the best sources, the New York Times and the LA Times, write about her running the company. Just above you, yourself, write that she's important. --GRuban (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don't make this a case of IDHT, nor misrepresent me. --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Please can you explain your objection the picture in clear terms? I don't understand the objection. It seems like quite an ordinary thing to include. I don't see it as promotional. If that is what you are claiming then please explain how it is promotional because this is not at all obvious to me. DanielRigal (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You are supposed to look for pictures that make PragerU look bad. :-) North8000 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This picture does neither that nor the opposite though. It's just a picture. I don't understand what the argument is about. Is the problem that it is shot slightly from below? That's not ideal but it's not bad enough to stop us using it. I'm sure we have a lot of other pictures like that. In fact, the picture of Prager, which absolutely nobody is complaining about, is also shot slightly from below. Would it be better if we cropped it to take her knee out? I don't get it. Why is this specific picture a problem? DanielRigal (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Image seems fine to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does an encyclopedia article about PragerU need this picture? We already agreed that anything but the briefest mention of her was a problem. The policies identified in the previous discussion are: SOAP, RECENTISM, UNDUE, and BLP. --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is any firm policy reason to exclude the image. I don't think it is needed, but it seems fine to leave it in since she is a fairly involved CEO and presents a lot of videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterTriangle12 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

And on that note, I'm going to call Wikipedia:Consensus. She has been the CEO since either 2011 (New York Times) or 2009 (LA Times), which is either most or all of how long the company has been around, so WP:RECENTISM is not an issue. I can't even figure out what Hipal must mean by the other WP:OMGWTFBBQ. Why does the article need this picture? It doesn't need it any more than it needs nearly any given bit of information, but it benefits from it as much as pretty much any other bit of the article; as the CEO she is a prominent representative, leader, and symbol of the company, that's what a CEO is, and showing a picture of all that helps in comprehension. The other concerns seem to be

• "we already discussed it" (the image was not discussed, and during the discussion, the sentence about Streit's CEO status and history did not even have a reference, much less from two of the most respected newspapers in the country);
• "she's important"/"she's not important"/"don't use my words against me"
• and finally LOTSOFCAPITALLETTERSTHATDON'TAPPLY

If there are other legitimate concerns, we will do our best to address them, but until then it looks like we have what we call Wikipedia:Consensus (or, if anyone prefers, CONSENSUS) that the image be in the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Being dismissive of policy is no way to create consensus, but it is IDHT, as I cautioned earlier.

Thanks for the refs. They change everything.

Marissa Streit, who had been a Hebrew tutor for another PragerU backer, joined as the company’s chief executive in 2011, and videos started going out. Why aren't we including some of that info from NYTimes?

I don't see anything verifying she was an "officer", so removed it. I'm assuming it was mandatory military service. --Hipal (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is fine! Feel free to include more about her, she as such isn't really my focus, which was mostly adding the image. We all have our favorite ways to improve articles, this is often mine. The linked sources were actually in the article before, 7 uses of the NYTimes and 6 uses of the LATimes article respectively, I don't know why no one brought them up during the previous discussion you reference. Thank you, Hipal, ITTITBOABF --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Removing donor names off of the article

Wikipedia is not a directory. -"Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed." Listing donors can be problematic as it violates WP:BLP protections in most cases. Even with Public Figures you need "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident" otherwise "leave it out". I think having sourced information about PragerU's income in general is perfectly acceptable. Finding donor information on Non-Profits is easily accessible, that doesn't make it notable. In fact WP:ALTOUT is a policy that helps redirect to "other places for potentially useful or valuable content which is not appropriate for Wikipedia". It lists SourceWatch as a great place to find and or add that information. Eruditess (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How are donations an "allegation or incident"? Llll5032 (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to maintain a list/directory of donors. The fact that the Alternative Outlets Policy page (In a Nutshell-There are other places for potentially useful or valuable content which is not appropriate for Wikipedia) page references SourceWatch as a place for directories, infers that would be the place to do it. Why do we need donor names on an encyclopedia? Eruditess (talk) 02:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It is relevant if enough RS say it is relevant, per WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:INDY, and WP:PROPORTION. The total donation amounts should be added if they are available. What "BLP protections" say that major donations of money, some of which are from foundations, should be excluded? Llll5032 (talk) 02:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the section listing donors is a bit much. It may be OK to say where the original funding came from but after it doesn't seem to really bring much to the article. Springee (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIRECTORY would apply if we were just scraping data from a raw donor list, but that's not what's happening here. These donors are specifically mentioned in general articles about PragerU, which means that multiple reliable sources consider them important enough to merit coverage. Per NPOV, if they do then we should too. –dlthewave ☎ 02:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, per WP:3REFS, I think any donor that has a minimum of 3 reliable sources covering their donations can absolutely be covered in related subjects article. Anything less than that though needs to be removed, especially if it were coming from a raw donor list. Eruditess (talk) 04:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:3REFS is an essay on the notability required for an entire Wikipedia article on a subject, not for inclusion of a fact within an article. Llll5032 (talk) 05:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I see no good reasons here to remove the donors. It would be one thing if we were just using primary sources, but we're not. The donors have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, making it WP:DUE for inclusion. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not something is an essay (even if on an slightly different subject) may not address if a possible solution is logically sound. I think Dlthwave and Eruditess are on the right track. Lets simply pay attention to what is most prevalent in RS, at least as far as donors are concerned. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC) DN (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I assume you're replying to Llll5032? They're not saying that it's not a logical solution because it's an essay, they're saying that essay is about something else entirely, so it doesn't support Eruditess's idea. Even if we look at that idea on its own, requiring three independent RS just for info to be included in the body of the article is an extremely high standard, especially for a topic like PragerU that doesn't see a lot of news coverage in general. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Only two of them are not companies/foundations and even for those I don't think BLP really applies here. It's always nice to have a list of the biggest contributors to an advocacy group, and all but two even have their own wikis so it's quite handy for getting background. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 10:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

What I'm seeing from the responses are:

A) If there is significant information covered in RS it should be included, and all sources right now in PragerU possess mulitiple RS to warrant inclusion.

-I agree, if multiple sources cover a donation, it could be deemed as notable.

B) More than 3 sources is too high of a standard to meet for inclusion.

-So I'm guessing the bar is being lowered to maybe minimum of two reliable sources?

Interesting and contrasting logic. However, despite that, I can concede that any donors getting multiple articles covering their donations must be notable. However, I would say that any donations made being covered by a singular source ( excluding WP:GREL articles) wouldn't really pass WP:10YT, and wouldn't be notable enough for inclusion on a list acting like a directory? Can editors agree on that? Eruditess (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I would not object to tagging WP:MREL-sourced claims for "additional sources needed" if there are questions about WP:DUEWEIGHT. But most of the sources in this section are WP:GREL. Would you like to tag MREL-sourced claims, or perhaps see if better sources are available? Llll5032 (talk) 18:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

As noted, posting a primary source private list of donors would be against policy, but that's not what is happening here. These donors are reported in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Would editors be opposed to condensing the section? Keeping all the names but combining a number of individual sentences into a few? Something like, "Donors include X, Y, and Z [sources]. The way it currently reads suggests editors put a new sentence in each time they found a new source. Perhaps some cleanup would help with the original concern. Springee (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The section has some helpful context from RS (WP:PCR), especially about the Wilks funding. Some of the sources are five years old, so updates with amounts of money could be added if RS are available. Llll5032 (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it would be good to add amounts for all of them, that seems like it would be taking up more space than we want to give it. If the distribution is quite lopsided you could just give a few amounts for the biggest donors, or if the amounts fall within a small enough range you could summarise as "A, B, C, D, donating between $xxx and $yyy". MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, especially if some donations are much larger than the rest. The section is not very long as is, so it may not need much or any condensing. Llll5032 (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there context within the sources about the donors that we should be include? --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Noting a few major donors is not maintaining a directory. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

the merits to remove donors doesn’t seem adequate and aren’t standard for Wikipedia, a good example is MintPress News which has a large section dedicated to donor information Bobisland (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Looking at the MintPress News article there is only one donor listed by name for a $10,000 grant (as well as some money from the founder, though it doesn't say how much she invested). There are noticeable many more names listed in the PragerU article. I don't think the MintPress article is a good example to use here. Gooseneck41 (talk) 13:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Trim of from "Gender-affirming care" Section

@Hipal: can you explain how this edit [6] with the summary "trim to avoid concerns previously mentioned" (which removed the text "It also discusses the cases of several people who have sued their health care providers following their detransitions. PragerU purchased a timeline "takeover” ad on X as part of a $1 million marketing campaign to promote the film.") addresses the concerns raised in this edit [7] with the summary "removed - seems grossly UNDUE - POV seems skewed toward SOAP"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It was a quick attempt. The description and the advertising campaign both fall into SOAP/PROMO, with a strong RECENTISM bend. Independent analysis and commentary of high quality seems the only thing encyclopedic worth mention. --Hipal (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? The NBC piece is about the advertising campaign. What about the description is promotional? Thats an interesting opinion, but the community has in general held that analysis and commentary is the lowest level of source and is the least worthy of mention. We prefer professional news media and academic journals. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Is there a relationship with Talk:PragerU#RfC:_should_the_article_have_a_sentence_covering_PragerU's_profit_off_their_anti-LGBT_video??

Detailed, independent analysis of high quality is the highest level. I'm not saying that anything we have meets that standard, but it's what we should be looking for, rather than descriptions.

"Why?" Besides what I already identified, NOTNEWS.

Looking over the RfC, there's a relationship. We'd need to avoid OR/SYN without a ref that ties them together, but it does lend weight to readdressing the content from the RfC. --Hipal (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a relationship with that RfC. Which of the four points of WP:NOTNEWS are you identifying as being at issue here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There's absolutely a relationship with the RfC. Both are on the topic of " anti-trans rhetoric", correct? --Hipal (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thats not a relationship, its a broad similarity. Which of the four points? You actually need to make the argument, you can't just name drop. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Please retract your last sentence. --Hipal (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I assumed NOTNEWS#2 was obvious. If there's subsequent coverage, that would help with the NOTNEWS/RECENTISM/SOAP problem. I'm looking... --Hipal (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

NOTNEWS#2 is primarily about notability, the part which is not appears to say the opposite of what you're saying... It says to treat breaking news coverage no differently. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the currently removed portion (bold) "In November 2023, PragerU released "Detrans: The Dangers of Gender-Affirming Care", a 21-minute film that follows two people who began gender-affirming care in their late teens and then later detransitioned. It also discusses the cases of several people who have sued their health care providers following their detransitions. PragerU purchased a timeline "takeover” ad on X as part of a $1 million marketing campaign to promote the film. "Detrans" was condemned by the president of the Human Rights Campaign, an American LGBTQ advocacy group, who called it "hate-filled propaganda" seems DUE in the section on Gender affirming care, so it should probably be restored. Cheers. DN (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

We disagree on NOTNEWS#2. There's some NOTNEWS#4 from the amount of attention that Musk and X receive as well.

Generally, we've refrained from highlighting individual videos, and I don't see this an an exception. Presenting it with equal weight to "Climate change denial and propaganda" seems grossly undue. --Hipal (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If we are going to base it off comparison there still needs to be something there. Mentioning their use of X doesn't seem any different than mentioning their use of Youtube or Facebook, so applying argument (#4) just to X (Twitter) doesn't bare out, especially since it doesn't even mention Musk.

• Celebrity gossip and diary.
• WP:NOTGOSSIP
• WP:NOTDIARY
• Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

We can't just remove it, but we could possibly substitute some specifics with a more general description closer to what we have in place on their climate change denialism and propaganda, IMO. DN (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the level of reliability on these sources but they may help us find a solution.

Houston Chronicle - this article mentions both climate change and gender affirming care

Daily Dot

Tech Crunch

Advocate

Deseret

Out magazine

Cheers... DN (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that Musk and X draw an inordinate amount of press that tends to have little encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Responding to the potential sources listed above, in order:

The Houston Chronicle piece is brief, but seems to demonstrate to some video topics: The video itself aims to teach students how to distinguish misinformation from facts while simultaneously making fun of the notion humans contributed to climate change.Despite being widely criticized for publishing factually inaccurate and misleading content the group has been approved as one of the education vendors for Florida schools. They are also known for creating content like "the dangers of gender-affirming care" and five to 10-minute video clips claiming slavery was "beneficial" to Black people.

The Daily Dot piece should probably not be used per WP:DAILYDOT. Some of the references they cite may be useful. I placed two in the list below.

Tech Crunch tends to being a poor source per RSN discussions, but this looks like good reporting with a great deal of context. --Hipal (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The Advocate piece is brief and focuses on a non-notable trans person whose image was used without permission in the ad campaign.

The Deseret piece was introduced and is currently used for this content. It's brief, with some context.

The Out piece has context, but not much depth. --Hipal (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Goldilocks over here appears to be forgetting that we're supposed to summarize the breadth of sources, not go on an endless quest for the golden source. If the Advocate piece focuses on a non-notable trans person whose image was used without permission in the ad campaign then we should probably be mentioning that there was a trans person whose image was used without permission in the ad campaign. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

We now have a wider breadth of sources to draw upon. Thanks, Darknipples! --Hipal (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Is that comment bereft of any focus on the content of my comment while invoking WP:FOC? What do you think about what I had to say about the Advocate piece? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that my comment about the potential of new references is "bereft of any focus on the content"?! --Hipal (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe I said "bereft of any focus on the content of my comment" and asked you for input on how the views in the Advocate piece should be summarized. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Oops, edited in a mention of the twitter ad campaign without checking the talk. I removed it for now but I really think that should go back in, it's something that seems better known than the content of the film. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

All good if I put it back in? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Potential references

• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/05/texas-fracking-billionaire-brothers-prageru-daily-wire
• https://www.thenation.com/article/society/prager-u-curriculum-public-education/
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/06/prageru-climate-change-denier-republican-donors Currently used, but could be used more.
• https://time.com/6301287/florida-prageru-education-schools/
• https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/education/article/hisd-prageru-video-18508666.php
• https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/08/prageru-coming-to-a-public-school-near-you
• https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2023/08/prageru-climate-skeptic-science-florida-education/
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/animated-frederick-douglass-calls-slavery-compromise-prageru-video-rcna99246
• https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-missing-context-cli/fact-check-video-presents-climate-change-statements-that-lack-key-context-idUSKBN2712EY
• https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/09/in-desantis-florida-schools-get-ok-for-climate-denial-videos-ee-00109466
• https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/prageru-creator-of-controversial-social-studies-videos-now-has-a-toehold-in-schools/2023/08 --Hipal (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Potential "see also"

• List of topics characterized as pseudoscience — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.1.101 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I will have to double down on what Hipal said, unless perhaps you can expand on why you want that added in a "see also" capacity. MaximusEditor (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that applies. This article is about an organization. --Hipal (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

What Hipal said. North8000 (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is not very neutral

This article does not seem very politically neutral, and í have added a tag. It is a mess that needs to be fixed. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

What mess? You need to explain what the problem actually is or we can't know what your concern is. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is í think is the wording. For example, it says PragerU has been spreading misinfo, (which is true) but talks a lot of crap for citing lots of non-neautrual sources, heres some it cites:

https://glaad.org/blog/backgrounder-pragerus-ties-white-supremacy-horrific-anti-lgbtq-record

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/12/06/why-right-wing-commentators-distort-history-slavery-emancipation/ Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Both of those are used in a limited way with attribution (the former is directly attributed to GLAAD, while the latter is written by a historian, and attributed as such.) Per WP:BIASED, it's acceptable to use biased such as GLAAD in a limited way with attribution like that in order to reflect their opinions, where noteworthy. GLAAD is high-profile enough that their opinion is likely worth a brief sentence, while Parry, an academic and a historian, is likewise an expert whose opinion is worth noting when published in WP:RSOPINION. And neither are given a ton of weight - just a sentence in the article each. (In fact, Parry is given less than a sentence, since he is merged in with a summary of a bunch of other historians as well.) I wouldn't characterize Parry as WP:BIASED the way GLAAD is - doing so causes a problem where anyone can characterize any academic whose perspective they disagree with as biased. But it doesn't matter either way because we attribute him as a historian anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I said those are Examples. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Ók, you’re right about the links. But í reccomond you check out the article for yourself. If you will not listen to me judging it, go judge it yourself. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

We have, that's why we are disagreeing with you. Remsense诉 04:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"citing lots of non-neautrual sources" ?? There is no requirement for sources to be neutral. None. Only editors, not even content, must be neutral. Editors must edit neutrally by not censoring what RS say or inserting their own opinions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• You have to be more specific if the tag is going to remain on the article; without something actionable to fix, it becomes a badge-of-shame, which isn't how such maintenance tags are meant to be used. --Aquillion (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  I provided an explanation above Blackmamba31248 (talk) 02:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view". If you want to argue that the article doesn't reflect a balance of the views of reliable sources, you have to start citing your own examples of RS that are not adequately represented. Remsense诉 04:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  And read WP:FALSEBALANCE we reflect what reliable sources say, we do not strive to be neutral. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Ók, I’m done with this article. Bye! Blackmamba31248 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that it has a severe neutrality problem. Just because a political opponent can pass as a source doesn't mean that we need to use their spun writings to write the article from. Better to find objective informative sources and include informative material rather than characterizations by political opponents. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree Blackmamba31248 (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Its a nice sentiment... Unfortunately WP:NPOV is "non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." and excluding such sources would be against that policy. We don't allow censorship of sources based on political leanings. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

We go by what RS say, if you have RS that contests what we say present them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As an overtly political group almost all the commentary will come from other political sources. You could probably find some important far-right voices praising their efforts, which could be notable enough to include as commentary like has been done with the critical commentary and I would recommend adding some. For reliable sources though, the lack of any praising the company is just a result of PragerU being nakedly propagandistic and frequently using obvious misinformation to do so, it's a difficult thing to find any way to praise honestly and without bias. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I surely wouldn't want sources that praise them, that would also be value laden characterizations / spin rather than information, the same problem that the article has now. North8000 (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you cite any that you think do a better job? Remsense诉 01:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Á more neautrual site, like Ground News. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ground News is an tertiary aggregator, not a secondary source. In general, I'm skeptical of their whole approach vis a vis Wikipedia, which again seeks to present the consensus view of existing RS on the topic, not ensure that we're being "neutral" when the consensus view is deemed to be biased one way or the other. Maybe you could use Ground News to find other sources that we could use, but in general we prefer secondary to tertiary sources for claims. Remsense诉 01:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that’s what í meant. Finding it to use other sources. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, feel free. The burden is on the editors wanting to make changes to cite sources for their cause.. Remsense诉 01:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

North8000 I have seen you talk about such things many times and I think you may be confusing "value-laden" with "dishonesty" or something like that. A source can be highly opinionated and "value-laden" and still be useful here. Every source that is providing commentary on every topic is value-laden, and so is the the decision to include it, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Even math is value-laden, it's just that the values there are rigidly defined and easy to check. If someone claims to not be expressing values then they are lying to you or are just thoughtless, also without exception. As long as the source is reputable for their honesty and accuracy on the subject they are being sourced for then it's all good. So even right-wing sources that tend to have a somewhat, uh, "loose" conception of honesty can still often be considered accurate in their personal appreciation of PragerU's work. That praise can sometimes be notable enough to include in an article since it elucidates relationships between important entities, which is important in political fields. If you read through some articles on political figures and topics you will have seen simple quotes of praise and derision from important entities and I am sure you have found some informative, even if it was from someone who was highly opinionated or who you don't even trust generally. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course it can mean many things but my context here is some third party's opinion or value-laden characterization of the topic as contrasted to information about the topic.North8000 (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Huh? So what were you trying to say? It feels like I might have misinterpreted it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Briefly, when editors are deciding which 1% of sources & source material is going to be used in the article, pick straightforward objective information rather then opinions and characterization by third parties. And so don't seek out material that praises or bashes them. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

And they have, as no one has produced one RS that contradicts us, thus we seem to have 100% of RS. Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

?? I don't see any way that that is relevant to my post which it is under. North8000 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

So you did mean what I thought, I was just confused because your answer sounds like you misinterpreted what I said. So after repeatedly restating a desire that most of us have, what do you actually want? Do you want to not quote any commentary on their activities? Maybe just trim down on what is there? What information do you think should be added? Is there a characterisation in the article that you think may be incorrect or unreasonably "value-laden"? Is there ANYTHING you can add to this discussion other than repeatedly restating a general desire? Also, PragerU is only rarely spoken about in reputable sources, and from my efforts sourcing I can say we are using far more than 1%, and I daresay it could actually be most RSs that are used here, it is certainly most of the significant ones at least. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(You've made your point clearly, no need to hound about it.) Remsense诉 07:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Aye...

Maybe if I was a better editor I would actually be able to act on a general desire like that, I just tire of the wishcasting. Sorry @North, it's not just you, but still doesn't warrant my yelling. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@MasterTriangle12: I got mixed up on who made the last post and my post to Aquillion below is also for you: I don't even strive for the high bar of unbiased articles. I do strive for the lower bar where the bias does not damage the informativeness of the article. And IMO in many areas this article fails even that lower bar, providing a badly distorted less informative coverage in many areas. Per below I'm not going to make any push or effort on this article. I would find this an interesting and useful topic to discuss with someone who is in the middle of things wants articles that are good and informative in this respect and maybe this article would be a good catalyst/example for such a discussion. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If you talk a lot of nonsense, every knowledgeable person becomes an opponent and can be spin-doctored into a political opponent. PU does talk a lot of nonsense about climate change, COVID, history, statistics, and other subjects, so the "political opponent" reasoning is weak sauce. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about a political opponent regarding which of the two main sides of US politics they operate on.North8000 (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

But, like I said down below, we actually do cite a lot of conservative and right-leaning sources in this article. The American Conservative, Reason (magazine), the Cato Institute, and the The Times of Israel aren't PragerU's "political opponents"; and plenty of other sources are mainstream news outlets or high-quality academic sources, which can't reasonably be characterized as just political axe-grinding, either. --Aquillion (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion:I don't even strive for the high bar of unbiased articles. I do strive for the lower bar where the bias does not damage the informativeness of the article. And IMO in many areas this article fails even that lower bar, providing a badly distorted less informative coverage in many areas. Per below I'm not going to make any push or effort on this article. I would find this an interesting and useful topic to discuss with someone who is in the middle of things wants articles that are good and informative in this respect and maybe this article would be a good catalyst/example for such a discussion. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's the thing. I genuinely, truly believe that this article is an accurate and balanced summary of the topic, both in the sense that what it says is, broadly, true and accurate, and in the more-important-for-Wikipedia sense that it accurately reflects the balance of what high-quality sources say. I wasn't the one who wrote or found most of the sources in this article, but to me, it looks like what someone would come up with if they did a genuine and serious search for high-quality sources covering PragerU, then wrote an article summarizing them; to me, it presents the fairly blunt but accurate conclusion that those sources inevitably reach (on a topic that I think, after all, is very straightforward) in a fair manner. It's possible that I'm wrong! Maybe my biases are leading me astray. But just gesturing at the article and going "it's obviously so biased as to damage its ability to inform people!" isn't very convincing, because, of course, everyone has biases and it's also possible that your biases are leading you astray - there are always going to be people who are unhappy with any version of an article like this in a topic area like AP2, no matter how it ends up. So if you want to convince me (and the other people who have said similar things, I assume), you have to actually present the sources you think are missing. I can understand not wanting to put in the time and energy for that, but I did actually do a brief search and my opinion is that those sources simply... aren't there. If you dug hard enough I'm sure there's some rando opinion-piece by a non-expert praising PragerU, but overall, top-quality coverage says that it has played a key role in disseminating far-right propaganda and misinformation and that PragerU at its core serves to spread misinformation and propaganda in service of the US far right, and to manipulate and radicalize viewers. That isn't me quoting some fire-breathing opinion from GLAAD or something, that's from a peer-reviewed paper, and not one that seems particularly out of line with other comparable sources (to be clear, I found it by just dropping "PragerU" into Google Scholar and picking one of the top ones - the other option was PragerU as a parasite public - so I wasn't going out of my way to look for negative coverage or anything.) You have to at least consider the possibility that that summary is accurate and that, because it is accurate, virtually all top-quality sources are in agreement on it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aquillion:Thanks for that thorough response. You have framed the possibilities in ways that are enabled by certain wiki systemic issues. I know that that is vague, but it's a big complex topic. Thanks again. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Building an article inherently excludes about 99% of all sources and picks about 1% of them. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There is also editorial choices on picking which 1% of the sources and which 1% of what is in sources gets used, which is the reality of Wikipedia articles. And to do that based on looking for information rather than value-laden characterizations. North8000 (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems something of a false dichotomy to me. Not to belabor the point, but I genuinely would be interested in what sources you think should be cited. Remsense诉 03:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Some people need to re-read WP:FALSEBALANCE and bring some RS making counterpoints we can use to write a more balanced article. Or stop. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• We do cite The American Conservative, Reason (magazine), the Cato Institute, (which I wouldn't cite myself, but we currently do so) and The Times of Israel (twice), as well as numerous academic sources. I don't think our citations are particularly politically lopsided. It's just that coverage of PragerU generally describes it as producing misleading or factually incorrect information; if that's a generally-accepted fact among sources, then we're not supposed to dig for obscure op-eds and the like that say otherwise just to "balance" it out. If 99% of the sources say that they produce misleading or factually incorrect information, then 99% of our article is going to say that, too. --Aquillion (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I was not advocating right leaning sources. The core points I was arguing for are selecting much more information and informative material and less characterizations. I've said what I had to say / advocate and folks don't agree/ don't want it and I think I'll sign off here regarding this thread. If anyone thinks I can help, please ping me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)