Talk:PragerU/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Biased

Very, very skewed article. Not at all balanced. Cites facts that supports criticism but does not cite alternative views. Garbage writing. 174.65.221.229 (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have independent reliable sources that have missing information, or have specific suggestions for changes,, please offer them. It is difficult to respond to a general complaint. I will say that article content is based on what independent reliable sources say, and as such will not necessarily be balanced. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

What you described leaves an immense latitude to make an informative article or an uninformative misleading hit piece. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for merely providing information, it is for summarizing independent reliable sources. Wikipedia has no control over what such sources say. If they all or mostly claim that this organization's claims are inaccurate, that's what we say. If there are independent reliable sources that say PragerU's videos or claims are accurate, please offer them. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The first part is as I said before. What you described leaves an immense latitude to make an informative article or an uninformative misleading hit piece. Regarding the rest of your statement, I don't agree. Sources are a requirement per wp:VER and WP:NOR and a guide per wp:NPOV. Summarizing sources is the main practice in building the encyclopedia, not the mission statement. For example, editors are free to not use bad sources, including ones with huge amounts of bias and spin and overreach characterizations in their descriptions. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

But we do still need content, and we need to reflect what the bulk of RS considers notable and note-worthy. So as 331dot said, We need to see some alternative views (supported by RS, of course) rather than a general complaint. Or if that is too hard, give some examples of what we can remove. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

(ec) You are, of course, free to disagree, but I believe I have summarized the general practice accurately. According to WP:5P: "We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is about a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia."(my emphasis)

If there is a "well recognized point of view" that can be sourced to independent reliable sources that is missing from this article, please offer it. Wikipedia does not provide equal time to all points of view, it depends on coverage in independent reliable sources. If such sources only provide a single view, that's what we do. If sources divide between differing viewpoints 50-50, that's what we do too.

If you wish to impugn the reliability of a particular source in general, that is done at the reliable sources noticeboard. It does happen- see WP:DAILYMAIL. Bias does not preclude the use of a source on Wikipedia, as all sources and people have biases. This is why sources are presented to readers, so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves in determining what they believe about a particular topic. Wikipedia does not claim anything here is the truth, only that it can be verified. It's up to readers to decide what they think for themselves. If PragerU does not like what the sources say about it, perhaps they should change their activities to generate coverage more to its liking.

The only point I was really making to the OP is that we can't respond to a general complaint, they need to offer specific grievances or proposals for changes, supported by independent reliable sources if needed. The same goes for you- please discuss any specific errors in how sources are summarized, or offer your own sources for additions to this article. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

331dat, thank you for repeating things I knew 10 years ago in a patronizing way as if it was news to me. BTW the distinction I was making is that you are redefining the "means to an end" as the "end", I was not saying that the "means to the end" does not exist or is not valid. I'm not going to dive in here unless people genuinely want to fix it. It's currently too easy to wiki-lawyer it into a hit piece. But one recommendation would be to nuke the second paragraph of the lead and build a lead which summarizes the article. Also, take a few steps back and see that half of this article is talking points / what their political opponents say about them. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

WE have a whole section summarised in one line. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess that what caught my eye is that it's half the lead. Also seeing general negative statements in the lead sourced to examples of people saying those negative things looks like synthesis rather than being a summary of sourced material in the body. Maybe the lead just needs two paragraphs added on history and what they do. North8000 (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said, feel free to suggest some additions. But I fail to see how us sourcing to people saying what we say they say is wp:synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I took a closer look in order to answer your question more thoroughly and found more issues. Namely that it says both "false" and "misleading" but in reality the most that there is any strong sourcing for is merely "misleading". But the synthesis part was to make the general statement in the voices of Wikipedia, where the sourcing was just instances of someone making that accusation. That's the synthesis part. But there is also the escalation of saying that the accusations are true in the voice of Wikipedia vs. saying it with attribution. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It would help those of us still unfamiliar with the details of the subject if you could share RS that call Prager's work "true" or "educational" or "rigorous". SPECIFICO talk 17:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You must have misplaced your post. It is not related to the one of mine that it was under. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm asking you for RS to support your view that their content is not false and misleading. Since we do have plenty of mainstream views that it is false and misleading. Do you have such sources, or are you basing your view simply on Prager's self-description or whatnot? SPECIFICO talk 20:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There are too many problems in that post to try to answer. It starts out backwards, in essence saying that syntheses is allowed unless one finds a RS that covered and addressed the syntheses in a Wikipedia article. Then you follow that with setting up a false dichotomy and ask me to pick one side of it. Plus one side of the false dichotomy also contains a false implied premise and the other side of which is flatly false wiki-attack on me. North8000 (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

""PragerU video contains misleading claims about COVID-19 deaths, falsely claims 94% of COVID-19 deaths had pre-existing conditions", " due to the lack of nationwide shutdowns. These claims are false." from 2 out of 4 sources checked, so it seems 50% support false. There is no synthesis. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I made my comments and going to work elsewhere for a while. Some folks are determined to keep this article a slanted hit piece of the type that are ruining Wikipedia's reputation on these types of articles. North8000 (talk) 17:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Where to say it isn't a university

X-Editor, the content you restored here [1] was moved by Slatersteven in a pair of edits[2]. I tend to agree with Slatersteven here but I don't have a strong preference. With your restoration the content is now repeated in the article. If you feel strongly that it should be in the lead I would say NOCON would support restoring it there. Anyway, it currently is repeated so we should probably decide where it should be and remove the other one. @Slatersteven and X-Editor: Springee (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't care much either way. X-Editor (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Lede should follow the body, so it's okay to have it mentioned once in each. I edited the sentence in the lede to be a briefer summary of the sentence from the body. ––FormalDude talk 04:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Seams like a good fix to me. Thanks! Springee (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Renewing discussion on CEO status

As it didn’t reach consensus and archived in less than 4 hours with no chance to reply

Her status as CEO shouldn’t be in the history tab because it’s current, also her background should be noted as it’s relevant to her career and the source doesn’t say she was CEO since 2011 it just says she joined by 2011 Bobisland (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion has not been archived, and is still active. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

On the dispute of the CEO of PragerU being added

I believe the CEO of PragerU and her work background should be added to the PragerU wiki page as it is relevant to PragerU, and follows the format of other key figures working in PragerU and their work background significance Bobisland (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Do third-party reliable sources (see WP:INDY) describe what she has done for PragerU? Llll5032 (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that latter part was mostly promotional which shouldn't be sourced first-party. The quote itself could possibly be used if relevant and attributed, but would probably be more relevant on a page about the person. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the unit 8200 history is a little significant for leading an advocacy group, since unit 8200 is basically an NSA-equivalent military unit, but it was probably through their mandatory service program, and yeah it's stretching NOTE a bit without an RS. Found a few minor publications that comment on it but also a bunch of "anti-zionist" and worse groups that soured my research a little. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Listing the CEO's make seems reasonable. Describing her prior work using only primary sources fails SPS limitations in my view. Springee (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Her status as CEO shouldn’t be in the history tab because it’s current, also her background should be noted as it’s relevant to her career and the source doesn’t say she was CEO since 2011 it just says she joined by 2011 Bobisland (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is her history relevant? Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Without independent sources, it would violate NOT and POV to include anything but basic facts about the organization. I think we're fine with the current version that simply includes in the article body, Marissa Streit has been the CEO since 2011. --Hipal (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

References

If your talking about this quote “ Over the next decade, she gained valuable experience as an educator, a school administrator, and the director of a philanthropic institute before joining PragerU in 2011” it says she joined but doesn’t say she became CEO in 2011 and her history in unit 8200 relates to media which she is in, similar to the founders history being noted due to it being in media as well Bobisland (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

There’s also multiple sources on her past in unit 8200 changing the source isn’t a problem ex: https://nationaldissident.com/prageru-ceo-marissa-streit-former-israeli-intelligence-agent-who-got-thank-you-phone-call-from-israeli-government/ Bobisland (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

nationaldissident.com is unreliable. Please find something that's clearly reliable. --Hipal (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Here’s more I pulled off from google https://projectnemesis.net/marissa-streit/

https://thekcompany.co/background/biography-marissa-streit/

https://english.alaraby.co.uk/opinion/jordan-petersons-message-muslims-about-israel?amp

https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/the-hamilton-review/a-conversation-with-marissa-jhS_yA-nf6N/

https://www.linkedin.com/in/marissa-streit-26037214

Bobisland (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but those won't work either for reasons already given. --Hipal (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the unit 8200 history is arguably able to be sourced as a fact, but it's probably not self-evidently notable and no RS has commented on it's significance (tbh I think it's a little sussy, but only a little). Also don't link project nemesis, as far as I can tell its invocation of "anti-zionism" is just a euphemism. The source for commencement date as CEO was on her Linkedin (didn't notice source was removed), which I think can be taken as an RS on that matter? At least while she is still with the company. Also, this could probably be moved or duplicated into the lede, but I think it's appropriate in either location. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I am re-adding the Linkedin ref. I think she is due for the history section but needs mentioning by a good independent RS to be in the top section. Llll5032 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Her CEO status isn’t history and her work background in social media is related to her work in media it doesn’t make sense to define where information is placed on wiki pages based on source quality and CEO status of companies is usually placed at the top of company wiki pages and I’ve already linked many independent sources based on her own statements of her past which is directly mentioned in the editing of biographies on Wikipedia WP:BLP Bobisland (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I’ve already linked many independent sources No, you have not. You don't appear to understand what sources are appropriate for such information. --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

There’s a direct mention of what I’m saying in Wikipedia’s editing rules of biographies right here —> wp:BLPSELFPUB <— and here —> wp:ABOUTSELF <— and yes some were independent sources that used self published sources which is allowed for such information Bobisland (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That certainly allows for the unit 8200 history to be stated as fact on Wikipedia, but you forget that notability and some other criteria need to be established too. If this was a page about her then notability would be self-evident even without an RS, but whether or not it is self evident here is debatable. I would lean toward inclusion, since history in highly partisan orgs is pretty relevant to a later presence in advocacy orgs, but it is stretching a bit so it would need some sort of consensus. The same applies to her history as a director at the IAC. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:INDY, "Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an ax to grind." The current short sentence in the fourth paragraph is proportionate for an executive who is not described by independent reliable sources. Llll5032 (talk) 05:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes the first quote is true but not a definitive rule and exclusions are given, one of which is using self published sources of themselves WP:SELFSOURCE on Wikipedia’s biography editing rules, and I think your mixing up independent sources using self published sources as self published thus not considered reliable and unit 8200 is a social media influencer job position relating to politics, similar to PragerU Bobisland (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm cool with it being added due to the previous orgs being relevant to the type of org that PU is, but again, I must repeat that although ABOUTSELF allows the fact to be taken as reliable, the required notability would be on the basis that it is self-evidently notable and leaning on the discretion of the editors rather than leaning on an RS. TBH by this reasoning the history at the IAC is probably more directly relevant since it is explicitly an advocacy group rather than implicitly/indirectly. EDIT: Could we get a comment from watching editors as to whether either past roles are relevant enough for inclusion? Could do an RfC or something too idk. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Also the source doesn’t state she was immediately promoted to CEO in 2011 it just says she joined PragerU by 2011, the quote listed above in green as

“Marissa Streit has been the CEO since 2011”

Is false the real quote is

“and the director of a philanthropic institute before joining PragerU in 2011”

And her status as CEO is current, not history Bobisland (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding current CEO to lead without unit 8200 reference to reach consensus Bobisland (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

CEO should not be added to the lede when we only have one sentence about her in the body. I added it to the infobox, that's more than enough for a WP:SPS. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The self published source is about itself which Wikipedia specifies as acceptable and regardless a source being self published doesn’t define how much representation it gets in a Wikipedia page, the lead is also not defined by the quantity of text in the body of a wiki page but it’s most important content wp:LEAD, you’ve also deleted her 2011 start date at PragerU with the reason per source which is false as the source stated she joined PragerU in 2011 Bobisland (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The text in the body said "Marissa Streit has been the CEO since 2011, and..." but the source does not say that, it just says she is the current CEO, and, as you pointed out, that she started in 2011. It does not say she started as CEO in 2011. I therefore changed it to "Marissa Streit is the CEO and...". ––FormalDude [User talk:FormalDude|(talk)]] 05:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This dispute doesn’t reference any of my points, I never said to delete her joining date and mentioned it above, the lede seems to be the most appropriate place for her status as CEO in the lead, also the wording you chose in the history tab is worded as current and isn’t categorized by date, you’ve also never disputed why you placed the school program in its content tab in your revert that re-added the incorrect CEO information Bobisland (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This content should not have been moved to the lede because the WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and that content is not covered anywhere else in the body. A brief summary of it could be added to the lede, but that would likely be undue weight as well. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A couple sentences on her and her background in the body is a good idea. If it's not flowerly wording and the veracity isn't doubted we should not nitpick sources. And I disagree with several of the arguments if they are against inclusion in the body. WP:Notability is a requirement for existence as a separate article, not a requirement for inclusion of material within an article. I'm not deep in enough on the topic to know whether it should be in the lead. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The name of the top of an organization (CEO of a company or organization) is a bit like a BLP birthday. Absent some sort of dispute it should be presented and can be sourced to the organization itself. Also, like a birthday I don't see an issue with including it in the lead as a factual statement. However, if it fits better in the body then I see no reason to prefer the lead vs body. I've been watching the debate and honestly, I don't have a strong preference either way if we are only stating X is CEO or similar. If we start going into detail then that's probably best in the body. Springee (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems very problematic to add to the lede of a corporation a non-notable person who has done nothing that's of encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Almost all CEOs have done nothing that's of encyclopaedic value in and of themselves, but when you talk about a corporation it is often important to know about the people leading it to understand the corporation. I think in the worst case adding info on a CEO could be unimportant, but I am simply not getting how it could be "very problematic". MasterTriangle12 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

SOAP, RECENTISM, UNDUE, and LEDE apply, and it is BLP info. No one has demonstrated that for this corporation it's important, so we treat it as if it isn't. --Hipal (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't even know what you arguing for or against. But if you are going to imply a policy or guideline basis for your argument, you need to get more specific to support that, not just list four of them and saying that they all support argument. North8000 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Or editors can make a case for inclusion.

SOAP - the material promotes the subject and the company

RECENTISM - we don't list any past CEOs

UNDUE - there's nothing about her accomplishments relevant to the org in the article, so a POV-compliant summary shouldn't include mention

BLP - Blatantly obvious

Again, ONUS is on those seeking inclusion. --Hipal (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

OK, so there is your presented detailing of how you feel that those policies/guidelines specifically support your preference. But you should clarify whether you are arguing against inclusion in the body vs. the lead. North8000 (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe I was clear in my comments: I think we're fine with the current version that simply includes in the article body and to add to the lede --Hipal (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was asking for clarification about your most recent comments because most of what they invoked was mostly about inclusion in the article rather than the lead. North8000 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

For hipal, The CEO of a corporation is notable of the corporation, she also presents some of its videos, the wording isn’t promotional, I don’t know what you mean by encyclopedic value as a merit to not add who’s a CEO of a company to a lead, she also isn’t a past CEO but the current one, etc

For the school program I’m creating its own tab for it as it’s not content to reach consensus, still no one commented on why the 2011 date was removed after the false information was re-added Bobisland (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Re CEO: Please address the policies. I'm concerned that you don't understand what I've written, nor the policies cited.

Please start a new section regarding the school program and provide more details so people can follow. --Hipal (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I think issue was taken with a large collection of policies being invoked with little explanation as though they had a firm position on something like this, none of them were completely irrelevant, but it's certainly hard to imagine an argument for some of them like SOAP & RECENTISM in this case. A section on the school programs could be good, PU has added to those programs a lot since most of the content was written. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you ignoring my explanations, don't understand them, or just don't agree with them? --Hipal (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess I should have just gone through all your explanations. BLP: Although the relevance is obvious only the tiniest argument could be made for this. Listing CEOs, even in the lede, is justified and well established. It could be a little different if it was a past CEO. UNDUE: Your argument here is good and I agree with it, this was the only thing you needed to say, but this argument is far more relevant to the LEAD policy than to DUE, since there is not really a POV element to it. RECENTISM: Whether or not past CEOs are listed is simply not relevant, and recentism is nowhere near this restrictive. SOAP: Simply does not promote the company in any way, only a minor argument could be made that it's promo for the CEO. Shotgunning WP policies around is very annoying, you had a good argument based on LEAD and you could have left it at that without even bringing up policies since I think there was just one person who had some interest in placing the CEO in the lede. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Listing CEOs, even in the lede, is justified and well established Howso?

is simply not relevant We disagree.

Shotgunning WP policies around is very annoying I suggest you strike out that comment, and FOC. --Hipal (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that was more suited to your talk page where I probably should have replied to. I just wanted to give some explanation rather than enter a whole debate since the original discussion was resolved, but if those two points are the most significant disagreements you have then I think I explained things well enough. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@hipal I already made the school program it’s own tab and I don’t know what your referencing unless that was meant for master triangle Bobisland (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s been a while and no one answered to the reverts that added false information and removed the history dates so I’ll be re-adding the history dates Bobisland (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Silence is not acquiescence, If Hipal objected and has not accepted your argument you do not have consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

IMO it's not clear what any open question is. If this is what it's about, I'm all for including routine information that is directly about the organization in the body of the article. North8000 (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Where's the policy-based argument for inclusion? --Hipal (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

We're here to build informative articles. Polices give guidance. It's reverse thinking (at best) to say that you need a policy based argument in order to include something. North8000 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be the right way round, the burden to get consensus lies with the one who wishes to include something not the one who wishes to remove it and the default option when there is no consensus is not to include it. Of course there needs to be a policy based argument in order to include something, not only that but the policy based argument also has to be accepted by the community. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Arguing against following policy where WP:AE applies is a waste of time at best. --Hipal (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it has been missed that the main previous dispute was over inclusion of Marissa's work background, and although there was a small dispute over mentioning that she became the CEO in 2011 as listed on her LinkedIn, her "joining" in 2011 is confirmed by PragerU and I do not see any issue with including that unless people think it's so unimportant that it would just be clutter. I don't see any policy problem with the recent edit and I don't get what all this fuss is about. Also splitting up that paragraph is good but I think the sentence about their location should stay in the previous paragraph. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Marissa? Do you have a WP:COI you need to disclose? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

You think I am on a first-name basis with Marissa Streit since I didn't say "the CEO"? This whole talk section has been about her. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 01:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah I get where you are coming from with my edit history, responded on my talk page MasterTriangle12 (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Biased Information all over the page

OP is blocked
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I bring forth to editors of this page the idea that biased information is all over the page, especially in the first paragraphs of this page. An example is when the page states "Many of PragerU's videos contain misleading or factually incorrect information promoting both climate change denial and vaccine scepticism. Many historians and political scientists have also heavily criticised PragerU's videos for containing misleading claims about topics such as slavery and racism in the USA, immigration, and the history of fascism. PragerU is also notable for its promotion of anti-LGBT politics." These claims are biased and un-true. When I tried to change them several times they got changed back. DiamondComodo (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Reliable sources have examined these issues and found what is described, therefore what is written here is true. We do not engage in whitewashing here. If PragerU wants us to write differently, then they should stop producing misleading videos. Wikipedia will remain factual. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC) I don't think that's true, PragerU only report's news, they don't fabricate it. They don't report Biased Information. DiamondComodo (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Your opinion is contrary to what reliable sources report. You need to adjust your thinking and bring it into line with the facts. PragerU is a bad source. Don't listen to them. Listen to the sources that have criticized them and other sources you likely like. You're being lied to by your favorite sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Please read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

PragerU and slavery

The lead paragraph to this page reads: "Many historians and political scientists have also heavily criticised PragerU's videos for containing misleading claims about topics such as slavery [...]." The footnote that comes after this sentence refers to an article by Kelley. But Kelley makes no reference to PragerU's portrayal of slavery. If this is insufficient referencing, then I would suggest deleting it. --Melchior2006 (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Ojvolleyball (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

An editor just added a reference to a YouTube video by "The Cynical Historian" which is critical of a PragerU video about slavery. The young man who made this critical video is casual and sarcastic throughout the video, using caricatures and that sort of thing; this is not "many historians and political scientists". --Melchior2006 (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The quote just shows PragerU discussing sexuality. There's no explanation of how it's anti-LGBT. It's just opinions, not facts. Ojvolleyball (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There does not have to be, that is not how wp:rs works, they just hav e to say it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I added a cite, Joseph Hall-Patton, history PhD and graduate assistant at the University of New Mexico, thoroughly dissecting and debunking Candace Owens's August 2021 PragerU disinformation video on his Cynical Historian YouTube channel. (Not the first time Candace Owens made "ahistoric claims about slavery and its abolition".) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I doubt it should be in the lede, as it is not even mentioned in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with this article that need to be fixed. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

But this is an easy one, just remove it. It has no place in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I added it to the body, will look for more info on the individual points mentioned. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The lede is a summery, this is an exact copy. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's the Cynical historian considered a RS? It might be a good source but appears to be self published. Springee (talk) 15:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

He has a PhD in history, is employed by a university, and shows his sources in the video, i.e., he's a historian criticizing a "PragerU[] video[] for containing misleading claims about ... slavery". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

That standard is often rejected. What you are essentially arguing is he is a subject matter expert. I'm not sure if the credentials offered are sufficient to establish that but this this isn't a case of saying experts disagree or responding to content that has otherwise been established as due for inclusion. Instead this is a claim that otherwise wouldn't be included and is a claim about a BLP subject, even if the article isn't a BLP. I think we need considered about this self published source before including it at all. I think this needs to be excluded. Springee (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

"Misinformation" DiamondComodo (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hall-Patton is fine for an attributed opinion, as we're using him for here; his channel has been recognized by the universities he's attended [3][4] and he's not making extraordinary claims about living persons. The Independent is an even better source that supports these claims. –dlthewave ☎ 17:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  As added [5] it's not being used as an atributed opinion. That might be ok. Instead it's used as a RS to establish weight to include a claim. The Independent isn't a usable source since it isn't about PragerU. Springee (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think that we need to remove the cynical historian citation, why are we using this as WP:RS? Eruditess (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with arguments for removal of Hall-Patton. It is basically self-published material. And even if he has a job at a university, that doesn't make his every utterance reliable. And the video is certainly as polemical as PragerU, if not more. Melchior2006 (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  Mmm yeah, I'm not sure it's quite up to WP's standards. It's not like you can't be reputable enough as a youtube historian but yeah, we need more info establishing their reliability. Debunking PU vids is quite popular on youtube though, so there probably are sources out there on the topic that would be up to scratch. (07:18)EDIT: Oh wow, just went through the video that source was criticising and that is a doozy of lies and propaganda, several of the claims are just completely opposed by the specific sources they attributed to them, not to mention the distortions, geeze. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• As another point of cleanup, the passage in the lead that mentions historians is almost word for word identical to the passage later in the article. That is really sloppy work. Either the body needs to be properly expanded or we should condense the content in the lead. The lead doesn't need citations so long as the content is supported in the body. Finally, the material sourced to GLAAD needs to be attributed. GLAAD is the source for the sentence following the slavery one in both sections (again copies). Springee (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

  I think rather than expand the body we should just summarize it in the lead, that's the proper etiquette per MOS:LEAD, it states the lead should be concise. Eruditess (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding semi-protection to the page?

Should we? The vandalism and unhelpful edits has been getting a bit frequent lately. It usually happens and is fixed when I'm offline so IDK if the people actually dealing with it are annoyed enough to want it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree , Definitely should make this page semi-protected. Eruditess (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

References in the lead

After reading @FormalDude's reminder that we don't need citations in the lede as per MOS:LEAD, I deleted them. I think it is better to give the references in the body of the article. But since there is no official Wikipedia guideline about citations in the lede ("The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus") we can discuss that here. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 06:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Me, I think any cites should be in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think that citations in the lead should only be there for extremely serious accusations aka citations that would supersede something like WP:REDFLAG. Eruditess (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Same here. The lead should be a summary of the body. Often when I see cites (especially multiple cites) in the lead it's an effort to put something in the lead that shouldn't be in the lead (e.g. "the sources that I selected said that") North8000 (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems good, nothing in the lead is really that contentious. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This article reads like a hit piece

I don't know what the question of the moment is but I just read the whole article and it reads like a hit piece. A majority of it seems to looking for every possible negative thing to put in (regardless of scale, degree of representativeness or degree of relevance) and using the words of their political opponent type sources to describe whatever it is. Plus items cherry-picked for negativeness from other sources. And there is little or no content on the bulk of what they do which is the content that they produce. Even that section really just has characterizations of it by their political opponent sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It would appear you are conflating independent reliable sources with political opponents. We use secondary sources to describe PragerU's content, and it is our duty to report them even if the majority of those sources are negative.

As an experienced editor you should know better than to make vague complaints like this about the overall content of the article. Point something out specifically so editors can address it. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS sources are diverse and include political opponents. The reality is that there is a wide range of wiki-editor decision/choices of picking from them what gets in both regarding which source, and which items from the source get in. My post is a comment on the result of those here, and there is nothing illegitimate about an overview opinion. Regarding specifics, a good place to start would be to expand the section on their content which is the bulk of what they do. Any type of a sourced overview of the bulk of it, possibly with subsections on the different topic areas and authors would be good. IMO for that portion, the more that it's direct info about the content vs. opinions/characterizations of it the better. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Care to give some examples? Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It's be willing to try to develop a bland / neutral expansion of a section on their content. Bare bones.....like subject and author/producer. It might need to use primary sourcing making it vulnerable to a battle to keep it out and I'm not interested in spending time on such battles. So I'd need to hear at least a vague initial "OK" here from diverse folks here before I would embark on such a thing. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure thing, and things like authors and producers are fine to take from primary sources most of the time, shouldn't be a problem here. It's mainly characterisations and the addition of minutia that gets warred over. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, if all you want to do is add production credits, fine. But I am unsure we need that, or how it addresses perceived bias. As to the subject, I would need to see what you mean (after all "Joe Biden kicks cats" would not be the same as "allegations Joe Biden kicks cats"). Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing the best secondary sources for more informative facts about the subject could improve the article, better than primary sources. Llll5032 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

When there's strong consensus that a source is reliable, it cannot be reasonably considered a political opponent unless it is an op-ed from one specifically, in which case it can still be included as an opposing viewpoint with attribution. There's no opinion pieces masquerading as neutral sources here though. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing mutually exclusive between being a WP:RS (by the basic criteria in wp:ver) and a political opponent. WP:NPOV even specifically acknowledges biased wp:RSs and biased wp:RS content. More specific/ thorough reviews occur at the RS noticeboard which tend to take into account expertise, reliability and objectivity with respect to / in the context of the text which uses it as the source/cite. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Well there's no policy saying that an RS should be excluded when it's a political opponent. If it's really a political opponent it's not going to have consensus that it's reliable.

Responding to your comment above, I'm fine with a proposal attempting to make the content more neutral, but based on your comments here thus far, I worry that it will not actually have that outcome. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

My proposal/offer was narrower than trying to make the article more neutral. It was just to expand the one section as described. North8000 (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Further expanding on that, I don't even try for the higher goal of neutrality. I just try to work that it's not SO bad that it damages the article being informative. So what I was talking about above isn't about adding "positive" material to try to "balance" Just adding routine bland informative material. Also I need to do some learning before I'm ready to do it. Sincerely.North8000 (talk) 12:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yep 2603:6011:2900:CB8C:6492:B214:98D9:A15F (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If independent RS are focusing on positive and neutral points, then they should be included proportionately. Llll5032 (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Opposition to LGBT or transgender

@Slatersteven and Goosegoose890:, is there some more specific language we could use here? [6] I agree that "transgender ideology" is a poor term. However, I also think it's improper to say "LGBT" when all the cited examples are specific to the T. This seems to be a bit of a universal problem but, in my view, we should be more specific in cases like this. Springee (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Err one of the sources is actually called "BACKGROUNDER: PragerU's Ties to White Supremacy, Horrific Anti-LGBTQ Record".". Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken that LGBT sentence is referenced solely to this GLAAD blog entry [7]. It cites a number of examples but they seem to be trans focused. I don't even see where GLAAD supports the white supremacy claim. Honestly, this is a poorly sourced claim (see earlier discussion). I see the anti-trans positions as DUE but I'm hoping we can do a better job and perhaps find better sourcing or attribute this view to GLAAD. Springee (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue with attributing the claim. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

What about narrowing it to the trans part (I'm struggling with the specific language) given that the source is almost exclusively examples that oppose something trans-related? Springee (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"promotion of anti-trans politics"? Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback @Slatersteven and @Springee. I agree that perhaps “transgender ideology” is clumsy phrasing; I wanted to make the distinction between ad hominem opposition, as implied by “anti-trans” and “anti-LGBT”, and opposition to transgenderism as a concept. From my experience with PragerU, they have tended to fall into the latter camp, although please correct me if this is an inaccurate assessment.

Best wishes. Goosegoose890 (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:or, we do not judge them nor use our opinion of them we rely on what wp:rssay about them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Right, but the previous text (and the most recent change) does not accurately describe the contents of the source either. Goosegoose890 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"Horrific Anti-LGBTQ Record" seemed to be summed up rather well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The GLAAD report focuses on the ‘T’ part of ‘LGBTQ’, to echo @Springee. One of the points made in the ‘Background Information: PragerU’s Anti-LGBTQ Record’ section is not even a reference to the LGBTQ community (the final point). Goosegoose890 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

"Context needs to be provided to the media and all Americans about PragerU and the organization’s destructive rhetoric, which includes attacking people of color and LGBTQ Americans while defending the rise of white nationalism in the United States," (emphasis mine). Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The evidence provided by GLAAD of PragerU’s ‘Anti-LGBTQ’ record (published below with the heading, “BACKGROUND INFORMATION: PragerU’s Anti-LGBTQ Record”) is specific to ‘T’. I am fine with your suggestion of ‘promotion of anti-trans politics’, but ‘promotion of anti-LGBTQ politics’ is too vague given the specific focus of the evidence published by GLAAD in support of the quote you mention. Goosegoose890 (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the first was POV and the latter/current is flat out incorrect. LGBT are people and they not opposed to people. The actual is opposition to various current initiatives by LGBT activists. North8000 (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree but it seems the examples cited are specific to trans topics, not LGB topics. Springee (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

True. But that also supports/strengthens my argument above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• We need to stick with what the sources actually say rather than trying to analyze and come up with our own terms to use. The current source uses "anti-LGBTQ", and another uses "transphobic". Are there others I'm missing that we could use to figure out which is most prevalent? –dlthewave ☎ 14:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  Actually "promotion of transphobic politics" works for me. Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think that's OK. I'm not a big fan of "-phobic" since it can conflate a literal reading, "fear of" vs the often intended meaning "opposed to". However, the opposed to meaning fits here. Springee (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  The are a zillion sources and "sources" (including political opponents of PraerU) who have said a zillion things, everything imaginable. We're having an editorial discussion. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• I have to say that it seems like the focus is the "T" in LGBT, if we have to use exactly what the source says, we need attribute it.Eruditess (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I seem to remember that whenever they mention family they tend to make a point of saying "between a man and woman", but yeah, they have treaded lightly around gay topics. It must be quite purposeful, since Dennis Prager has made very clear his intense and ideological hatred of any non-conventional sexuality, but it's one of the few things he holds back on when producing PragerU material. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

So do we have a consensus to change it to "promotion of transphobic politics"? Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm on board with that, and I don't see any strong opposition. –dlthewave ☎ 10:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK with it. At some point we should also address that the content in the lead is a direct copy of the same sentences later in the article. That might require a rewrite to the lead to make it more of a summary. The "promotion of..." text with attribution to GLAAD can be used later in the article as well. Springee (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel like "promotion of anti-trans" seems to be a better option. I think it reads better. Thinking on it, the "phobic" does seem to not relay the exact meaning of what we are aiming for here. Eruditess (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather see it actually explained (in essence opposed to various LGBT related initiatives) rather than short unclear or misleading phrases. But I'm also willing to step back from this and let y'all decide. North8000 (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks like GLAAD is the only source for these claims in the article. Perhaps it can be integrated into the previous lead sentence as part of that summary. In the body we can go into a bit more detail from GLAAD as North8000 is suggesting. Springee (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree Eruditess (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Sentence in the content section

Since this is a related question I will post it here. Are the claims by the Washington Blade here [[8]] objective facts or subjective statements that should be attributed? Springee (talk) 17:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

As its one source, attribution, I am also concerned about Undue here as well. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Both is also an option, they are objective facts but the Washington Blade is the sort of borderline source that should be attributed regardless. Preferably we would use a stronger source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Washington Blade is a major newspaper of record with a reputation for fact-checking and strong editorial oversight. Don't cast doubt on a reliable source unless you have a good reason. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the WB is a paper of record. Additionally, the claims they are making are inherently subjective. Springee (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

By "a major newspaper of record" do you mean for the country or the DC gay community? Because yes to the second and lol to the first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As a minimum they are clearly subjective and not objective facts. Going further than that, given that LGBTQ and trans refer to people, a statement that PragerU are anti-people is objectively false. They are in opposition various initiatives related to that. One can find an "RS" that says nearly anything. There's nothing wrong with editors sorting through such. Doubly so for a higher standard for making the accusation that they are anti-people. North8000 (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a strawman argument, the text does not say that PragerU is anti anything, it says they featured an anti-LGBT group and anti-trans media. That is an objective fact about PragerU, there's no disputing that Candace Owens made anti-trans comments in her PragerU videos or that Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBT hate group, was promoted in a PragerU video. Youtube even removed their videos with anti-trans content for violating their policy on hate speech. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

My same point applies but as noted applicable to characterization of the group, not PragerU. North8000 (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Well the group is well known for being anti-LBGTQ, so your point is moot. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree......being against the people is a common mislabeling by political opponents of those that are opposed to related initiatives etc.. I provided my input, I don't plan to go around and around on this and so am happy to leave this subthread at that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Probably a good idea, and in the future you should probably stay far away from LGBTQ subjects entirely if you want to avoid some nasty accusations that could easily lead to sanctions. (I speak from experience, as I made some mistakes due to my ignorance of things like deadnaming and pronoun use.) The community is justifiably sensitive to being marginalized and otherwise mistreated. Life is tough enough for them, and we should be careful to show respect. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

With me it's just that my interest on these is that I try to give useful input rather than work towards a particular outcome. And circles of repeating are related to the latter. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Nonsensical semantic ramblings aside, that sentence was a bit vague. I replaced it with just mentioning the videos being removed, but it should probably be expanded to describe the types of hate speech Candace is getting up to since it seems to be a staple of the show. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

What does "and anti-trans media" mean? Do you mean "anti-trans content"? Sorry to delete you sentence rather than just add to it but I think this needs improvement. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 21:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, essentially. I'm using the definition of media that means "videos, music, and photographs that are stored as particular types of file on a computer." [9] ––FormalDude (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, it would probably be a good idea to change that to "content" since the sentence can be easily read as them featuring other media groups that are anti-trans rather than presenting anti-trans content themselves. Also you should name the "Alliance Defending Freedom" instead of just saying "anti-LGBTQ group", especially since they have a Wikipedia page you can link to, and remove "extreme" since that's too much editorialization for a mention like this. At some point I'll add back in a mention of videos being removed by youtube and that this is about the candace owen show unless there is contention about it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

When in doubt, use attribution. More description of Candace's role would be good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I've made a compromise edit based on the feedback here. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, now I'm not sure it's even notable enough to mention a single instance of what is basically every second video they make these days, it seems too small for the article and I think it would be better to generalise. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, it doesn't look like any of their videos have been taken down since 2021. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a very good compromise edit. Instead it illustrates the issue with the source (WB). WB is really stringing together things in a way that is deceptive. PragerU didn't work with Alliance Defending Freedom, they worked with "a client of". Who is that client? Was the client relationship obvious? Why didn't WB mention the client's name instead of ADF's? How was the $25k raised? Was it the normal earnings off a YT video? Was it a donation? This reads a lot more like spinning facts that clear objective reporting. Hence a good reason why we should be careful about using WB as a source. Honestly, I think the WB is looking undue and should probably be removed. Else, we should keep it high level. I would add that the WB article isn't about PragerU, rather it's the WB making an opinionated claim about what media companies like FB and YT should do to reduced what they view as LGBTQ discrimination. Springee (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not gonna respond to this gish gallop. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Please AGF. If you aren't willing to defend your addition per ONUS then it should be removed. If you think my arguments aren't sound then please do the civil thing and explain their failings. If nothing else it will allow me to make better arguments in the future. Springee (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Springee, I know you well enough to know that no matter how many times or ways I explain something to you, you will not be persuaded. Take for example how you refuse to learn that WP:PAYWALL is not a reason to exclude a source, and that most sources with paywalls are accessible via archive.org. [10] [11] [12]

Let's allow other editors to share their perspectives. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Please retract your false claim that I've said a paywall makes a source unusable. I've never claimed that and I've used journal articles that are behind paywalls. What I said in the cases you outlined was that I wasn't able to verify a source because it was behind a paywall. I suspect I've told you this in the past but I hope, if they issue comes up again, you will understand the difference between "not allowed" and "I don't have access".

As for the rest of your reply, ONUS for inclusion is on you. I can be convinced but it takes a reasoned based argument to do so. Springee (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Fine, you're not technically saying they're unusable, you're just disregarding them, even though "don't have access" is not true when you've been informed that you can easily bypass paywalls via archive.org.

Why do I have to respond? Your objections alone are not valid enough to warrant removing the content. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't disregard them. I said I couldn't check them. If my objections aren't valid then you should have no trouble explaining why. The flaws should be obvious. Springee (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

You ignored them, that's the definition of disregarding. I don't have the desire to waist my time pointing out obvious flaws that any experienced editor can see for their self. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

An experienced editor such as yourself should be more careful when falsely summarizing the statements of other editors as you are doing here. Springee (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I think the current version is an improvement. Good changes. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

For clarity, that links to different, recently added content. It is not the material to which I was objecting. Springee (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

For clarity that's the part I meant too, the description of just a single instance of making money off hate speech part, this sentence just isn't useful for the article. It's relevant, but too tiny to be worth mentioning, the article needs to be more general than that and describe the sort of things they do rather than one specific instance (unless it was a more notable instance). MasterTriangle12 (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This is of the highest relevance as it is objective information directly about the topic of the article. It seems rather ludicrous to say that the subject of the article making money off of hate speech is somehow not relevant. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As I outlined above is not clear from the source what exactly happened or what rather the money in question (a small amount given the total budget). Springee (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

"As I outlined above"–All you did above is attempt to overwhelm the discussion by providing an excessive number of weak and irrelevant questions. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yet you haven't addressed then directly. Springee (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Who is that client?

Selina Soule [13]

2. Was the client relationship obvious?

Yes, and ADF sponsored the video.

3. Why didn't WB mention the client's name instead of ADF's?

Because it doesn't matter who it is, it's a a person affiliated with ADF.

4. How was the $25k raised?

Using the YouTube Giving program.

5. Was it the normal earnings off a YT video?

No, the average YouTube video makes $18 per 1,000 views, and the video collected 175,000 views, which comes out to $3,150. Also, these are donations, not monetization.

6. Was it a donation?

Yes.

––FormalDude (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

So why aren't you citing MM4A instead (other than it's generally an iffy source)? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Why not mention things like the client was Selina Soule, a female athlete who lost out to a trans-female athletes. That is more factual than clients of claims of "extreme anti-LGBQT". We also really should distinguish between trans-related issues like trans-athletes and someone who is also opposed to gay rights etc. You added a CJR source but it actually doesn't report on the topic. Instead it notes that MM4A is reporting on the topic. That's quite a bit different and generally poor citation practice. While the wikipedia article doesn't need to (and shouldn't) include the evidence of misgendering, it would be helpful if the source actually included the context of their example. These are often things where the specific context matters. Springee (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Would it be too much to ask for you to state all your objections at once, instead of adding new ones each time I address them? ––FormalDude (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Why, are you suggesting we can't object to new changes? Springee (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting you are moving the goalposts. Your objections to what I said are one thing, but you're also bringing up entirely new objections that should've been provided at the start. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

How can I object to a new source before you add it? That doesn't make any sense. Springee (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you really not understand what I mean? "We also really should distinguish between trans-related issues like trans-athletes and someone who is also opposed to gay rights etc." This should've been brought up way earlier, unless your intention was to keep it in your back pocket so you could continue bludgeoning this discussion. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is the passage about the $25,000 from the WB: Similarly, YouTube allowed PragerU to raise more than $25,000 off of a video featuring a client of extreme anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom, who repeatedly misgendered trans athletes and fear-mongered about their participation in sports. The YouTube Giving program says that nonprofits must follow YouTube’s Community Guidelines that supposedly protect trans people. The program says that participating organizations must “follow YouTube’s monetization policies both on and off of YouTube,” which PragerU has repeatedly run afoul of.

That passage doesn't say who the client is or why they were a client etc. That is why I was critical of the source for not providing details while using emotive language etc. With the MM4A link we had more to work with and thus I raised additional objections. It is simply illogical to assume all reasonable objections are going to both occur to participants and be at hand at the start of these discussions. Additionally, I don't think you should be accusing others of bludgeoning things. I would note that these discussions might be easier if once an objection was raised we could move to the talk page and discuss potential changes rather than continue to make edits to the article space. Springee (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You can be critical of the source all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it's completely reliable and highly relevant. The current version is the outcome of consensus building via WP:BRD, continuing making edits is part of that process, and there's no valid reason for removal at this point. If you must you can take your disputes to a noticeboard like WP:RSN, but we've exhausted this debate here. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

You are edit warring and mistaken. The current version does not have consensus and serval editors, myself included have concerns about weight as well as source quality. Please review ONUS and NOCON. Springee (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Please review WP:SQS. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

FormalDude, NOCON is a policy, SQS is an essay. You and Valjean appear to support what ever version of the text you have suggested. Slatersteven, North8000, HEB, MasterTriangle12 and myself have all raised objects based in part on weight. I came here not trying to outright remove the content but trying to come up with compromise text. However, you have refused [14][15] to allow others to change the text. I've said that while I consider the content UNDUE, if we attribute the claims and change to a more IMPARTIAL description of events we may be able to find compromise text. Are you willing to do that? Springee (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We're not supposed to attribute objective facts. What is your proposal for a more "impartial" description? ––FormalDude (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

As has already been said, these are not all "objective" facts. "exterem-" is not objective. Regardless, what about something like, "The Washington Blade reported that PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video about trans-women in female atletics produced by the Alliance Defending Freedom. In the video the female swimmer is accused of misgendering trans-female competitors by stating she was competing against, “biological boys who said they were transgender girls” and suggesting that they are not “actual girls.” " I would suggest we link to the article [Transgender people in sports] as part of this edit since this is clearly a controversial topic. Even though neither is a great source I would reference the WB and MM4A articles as sources for this content. CJR isn't a good source since all it does is point to the MM4A article. Springee (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It's interesting that you claimed this is undue and now you're proposing expanding the content. The Southern Poverty Law Center listed ADF as an extremist anti-LGBTQ hate group, as does the Media Matters source, as does the Washington Blade, so "extreme" is fully supported. And you can't attribute all of the content in your proposal to the Washington Blade because they only summarized it, and didn't cover the detail you added from Media Matters. Since Washington Blade provides a poignant overview of the situation, it's the better source, and we should base our content off of it. I'd compromise with:

PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by extreme anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom. The video repeatedly misgendered trans competitors and used fear tactics about trans involvement in sports.^[27]

I feel like a broke record here, but these are facts about PragerU, ADF, and the content of their video, so they do not require attribution. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

If we are going to include this information it should be done in an an IMPARTIAL way that conveys the relevant, objective facts. If you feel that is too long then we should leave it out per. The description of ADF as "extremist" by political opponents isn't helpful.

As for your proposed version, I think the context of the misgendering is critical. Someone saying "Eliot Page is a woman" is different than someone saying "That trans-female swimmer is biologically a male". I'm proposing that we add that information to better inform the readers as to the nature of the complaint against the teen athlete and the video. MM4A, a source you indirectly added and specifically referenced here, made the issue clear. I had proposed adding MM4A as a reference since you had already used it.

Working from your proposed text: PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom. The video featured a female high school athlete who argued against trans-female athletes participating in female sports. Media Matters for America said she misgendered trans-female competitors by stating she was competing against, “biological boys who said they were transgender girls” [cite MM4A and WB] Springee (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

MM4A never says "trans-female athletes", they just say "trans athletes". It also says the video said labeled trans females as "males" throughout the video, so I don't see why we need to say anything other than misgendered.

Three reliable sources using "extreme" are not political opponents.

My revised compromise:

PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by extreme anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom. The video featured anti-trans rhetoric and misgendered trans competitors while arguing against the participation of trans athletes in female sports.^[MM4A][WB]

––FormalDude (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to choose terms that would avoid confusion. I'm OK saying "trans athletes" so long as it's clear we are talking about female sports. We should say more than misgendering because much of the trans-athlete discussion focuses on arguments related to biological differences and if those differences persist after transition. The term "extreme" isn't acceptable as it's a subjective claim vs an objective fact. We really should just name the group and say what laws/policies they have supported... but then again we get into UNDUE territory.

So taking your proposal: PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom. The video, featuring a female high school athlete arguing against against trans-athletes participating in female sports, misgendered trans competitors by saying “biological boys who said they were transgender girls” and suggesting that they are not “actual girls.” .[MM4A][WB]

The nature of the misgendering should be included since it has a clear context. Springee (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

ec You beat me to it! A normal football/soccer field has only four goalposts, just like the number of letters in IDHT. When you keep moving the goalposts and adding to them, the already capitalized IDHT are just inadequate to describe what's really happening. It's a waste of everyone's time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here. A number of editors have objected to the WB source. My new arguments against the content were presented after FD added new justifications for it. I can't reply to their comments before FD actually makes them. Springee (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Even if the source was something super prestigious I still don't think it's notable enough. We can't just be listing everything, that's just sloppy writing. Who needs to know this detail as part of an overview? Just generalise it to describe their frequent association with anti-trans orgs and their explicit bigotry on the topic. It might be a lot more work to put that together but that's what we should all be here for. I'll see if I can come up with something for it, it's been a while since I checked through new sources. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It's a summary of multiple sources, per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. You'd have a point if we added all the content provided in the sources, but we added a mere two sentences. It's pretty rare for such little content to be undue. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Include - Washington Blade is a reliable source and the facts that it's supporting are not in question. !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlthewave (talk • contribs) 12:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude - Facts and source are not in question, but it's just clutter as it is. The person isn't notable, the money isn't notable, it is just a blip in a trend, and only that trend is notable. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  The person appears 162 times in Google news results. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  I meant in relation to PragerU, of course 90% of their guest are notable biggots, but she doesn't really stand out from that crowd so a mention of her would be more appropriate as just another name on a list (we should probably make that list). MasterTriangle12 (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, this has died down a bit. My current read is there is no consensus for this content in the article. That isn't to say some editors haven't made a good faith case for inclusion. Rather that a case for exclusion has also been made. The efforts to find a common ground version of the text haven't panned out so I would suggest removal until such time as a consensus for an included text can be established. I think this follows NOCON. Springee (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. I think elements could be incorporated into something else but on it's own I'm sorry to say I think it detracts from the article. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Really unfortunate that you two are still pushing for altogether removal, which appears as whitewashing. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I would have been all for it if it were just a bit more substantive or general, but on the other hand it's not so bad that I would have been fighting for it's removal. You did improve it recently and I'm ok with one of your revisions, so I'm glad you kept working on it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving it out. It's just a vague content-free negative characterization. Also it implies (without saying it) that PragerU included such content. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Use in Florida schools

The recent news might result in some useful reporting. For now, I'm not seeing much beyond warmed over press releases or local coverage. Maybe we could use https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/prageru-says-florida-schools-to-adopt-its-conservative-curriculum-17481537 ? Hipal (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

the problem is, this is only PragaU's claim. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

No it's not, it's been confirmed by the Florida Department of Education. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:09, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I would wait to see if we get more coverage, I don't think its due now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree with previous statement, I dont think its quite DUE. Eruditess (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Is the material being used (and if so what specific material) or is this just saying the material has passed some process that allows it to be used if a teacher chooses to? The US Today source, in my read, only says the material could be used, not that it will be used. Springee (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Additional sources:

1. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/08/01/prageru-curriculum-florida-schools/70505340007/
2. https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/florida-conservative-group-education-vendor-prageru-awful-rcna96524
3. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/prageru-florida-schools-extreme-education.html
4. https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/2023/07/31/floridas-conservative-prageru-teaching-texts-labeled-indoctrination/
5. https://www.thedailybeast.com/right-wing-prageru-says-florida-is-first-state-to-permit-its-curriculum-in-schools

––FormalDude (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Added to the article. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I replaced Slate with Tampa Bay news. The Slate article fails to be objective with comments like "The Quasi–White Nationalist Content..." and other cases where they mix alarmist opinion with facts. The Tampa Bay Times source is better in terms of bias and lack of alarmist opinion. Given this is newly added content, why would we want a questionable source? Springee (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a consensus that Slate is generally reliable, and your personal opinion that this particular article of theirs is biased cannot override that. I'm fine with keeping the Tampa source, but there's no policy based reason to remove the Slate article. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Generally isn't always reliable. When a source starts out with claims of "quasi-white nationalist..." yet doesn't specifically support such a claim we need to be cautions. Substituting a better source is typically preferred and the text you added is unchanged. Springee (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Replacing an article that mixes opinion with facts with a solid article is always a better option regardless of general consensus. Eruditess (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no mixing of opinion with facts in this source, and "quasi-white nationalist" is the WP:HEADLINE. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we have enough now to add this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Potential ref - Dickinson & Cowin (2022)

• The Kids Are Alt-Right: An Introduction to PragerU and Its Role in Radicalization in the United States

Dickinson, R., & Cowin, T. (2022). Patterns of Prejudice, 56(2–3), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2023.2219167 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4187075

It begins, With an annual budget of nearly fifty million dollars and over five billion views on social media, PragerU is a central node in the production of misinformation and radicalization in the United States today.

A brief mention of "Patterns of Prejudice" at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#British_National_Party_Fascism_sources refers to it as reliable.

I think we should use it, in most cases attributed rather than in Wikipedia's voice, with a great deal of weight. - Hipal (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a pretty deep analysis, I'd be keen to see it used as a source too although it focusses most on radicalisation which is not really covered here, maybe a new section would be needed. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless we find strong reasons to limit it's use, it calls for large pov changes to this article. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would give it very limited weight. Per Google Scholar the paper has been cited zero times. I'm not familiar with what is considered a good impact factor in this field but the publishing journal, Patterns of Prejudice, has an impact factor of just 1.4. Per the link above the authors also have 1 paper each, this one. I haven't been able to download the paper itself so I can read their claims or their evidence but so far this doesn't look like a promising source. Springee (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The second link should work: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4187075 --Hipal (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Your original link provides both a download and in browser link (example [16]). For what ever reason the download and online views aren't working. I get the spinning beachball until it times out. It very well may be on my end. Springee (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed paper is a higher quality source than any of the news articles used in this article, and we lend those a great deal of weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a general presumption but the quality of the journal, being cited by others and the reputation of the authors all matter a lot. This paper appears to score poorly in those regards so we need to be careful to not give it's claims too much weight. Springee (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It is 28 pages long with over a hundred references, so we have a lot to work from. --Hipal (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I was finally able to get it to download. I do appreciate that they offer a definition of alt-right and extreme/far-right and a difference between the two. What I'm less impressed by, and perhaps this is my STEM background bias, is the lack of any sort of hard science/analysis. It's a long form opinion article rather than a paper that sets out a hypothesis, explains how it can be tested then shows the results. This takes me back to my original concerns. The source journal has a low impact factor, the scholars have limited publications to their name and this paper has been cited zero times after two years. Here are the author's profiles [17][18]. Note that Dickinson has no other publications listed in his bio. Cowin lists 2 blog entries and this paper twice (once as a pre-print). Based on previous work we can't assume these authors are viewed as experts of any type. Given that this paper hasn't been cited by others it's also questionable that Wikipedia would be the first source to cite it. Springee (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a general lack of in-depth coverage about PragerU from peer-reviewed journals in general, I think we need to be careful not to rule them out just because of that. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Potential ref - Dickinson & Cowin (2022)

• The Kids Are Alt-Right: An Introduction to PragerU and Its Role in Radicalization in the United States

Dickinson, R., & Cowin, T. (2022). Patterns of Prejudice, 56(2–3), 95–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0031322X.2023.2219167 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4187075

It begins, With an annual budget of nearly fifty million dollars and over five billion views on social media, PragerU is a central node in the production of misinformation and radicalization in the United States today.

A brief mention of "Patterns of Prejudice" at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#British_National_Party_Fascism_sources refers to it as reliable.

I think we should use it, in most cases attributed rather than in Wikipedia's voice, with a great deal of weight. - Hipal (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a pretty deep analysis, I'd be keen to see it used as a source too although it focusses most on radicalisation which is not really covered here, maybe a new section would be needed. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless we find strong reasons to limit it's use, it calls for large pov changes to this article. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I would give it very limited weight. Per Google Scholar the paper has been cited zero times. I'm not familiar with what is considered a good impact factor in this field but the publishing journal, Patterns of Prejudice, has an impact factor of just 1.4. Per the link above the authors also have 1 paper each, this one. I haven't been able to download the paper itself so I can read their claims or their evidence but so far this doesn't look like a promising source. Springee (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The second link should work: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4187075 --Hipal (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Your original link provides both a download and in browser link (example [19]). For what ever reason the download and online views aren't working. I get the spinning beachball until it times out. It very well may be on my end. Springee (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

A peer-reviewed paper is a higher quality source than any of the news articles used in this article, and we lend those a great deal of weight. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That is a general presumption but the quality of the journal, being cited by others and the reputation of the authors all matter a lot. This paper appears to score poorly in those regards so we need to be careful to not give it's claims too much weight. Springee (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

It is 28 pages long with over a hundred references, so we have a lot to work from. --Hipal (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I was finally able to get it to download. I do appreciate that they offer a definition of alt-right and extreme/far-right and a difference between the two. What I'm less impressed by, and perhaps this is my STEM background bias, is the lack of any sort of hard science/analysis. It's a long form opinion article rather than a paper that sets out a hypothesis, explains how it can be tested then shows the results. This takes me back to my original concerns. The source journal has a low impact factor, the scholars have limited publications to their name and this paper has been cited zero times after two years. Here are the author's profiles [20][21]. Note that Dickinson has no other publications listed in his bio. Cowin lists 2 blog entries and this paper twice (once as a pre-print). Based on previous work we can't assume these authors are viewed as experts of any type. Given that this paper hasn't been cited by others it's also questionable that Wikipedia would be the first source to cite it. Springee (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a general lack of in-depth coverage about PragerU from peer-reviewed journals in general, I think we need to be careful not to rule them out just because of that. ––FormalDude (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2023

Please add racists 2600:8805:5D05:500:9470:857E:8E7B:D3CE (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Czello ^(music) 18:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)