RfC: should the article have a sentence covering PragerU's profit off their anti-LGBT video? edit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is No Consensus to add the text to the article. And even after relisting, option D did not gain consensus either. - jc37 04:10, 17 August 2023 (UTC) - Edit, adding clarification: When assessing the entire discussion, there was no consensus that having anything on the page was appropriate. And overall, option C had the most support (including all comments, not just embolded ones). While there was no consensus for any of the current text options, there is no prejudice against discussions of other possible configurations of text (several were proposed in the discussion). I apologize for not being clearer initially. - jc37 05:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the time of this RfC, the article includes a sentence covering how PragerU profited off a video of theirs that contained anti-LGBT content. There exists three sources for this content that have been discussed thus far, Media Matters, Washington Blade, Columbia Journalism Review.

After intense debate above, it was work-shopped into three proposals:

Option A:

PragerU raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by anti-LGBT 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.

Option B:

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.”

Option C: Leave it out entirely.

Option D:

According to Media Matters for America, PragerU was able to "raise more than $25,000 off of a video featuring a client of extreme anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom".

Option added when relisting; see #Relisting for details. 06:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

06:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

17:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I think that either of options A or B are basically fine. (Edit:) Option B is preferred. Maybe some people would be reticent to support option B as we are quoting explicitly bigoted claims which some readers might find upsetting but I don't think there is anything to be gained from hiding it when the video exists and has been widely watched. I'd maybe be inclined to swap the order so we lead with the content of the video and mention the revenue afterwards but that's not a big deal. If we can attribute criticism of the revenue then that might be better still. So "PragerU raised" could become "PragerU was criticised by X and Y for raising". Also I feel that "off a video" should be "from a video" as that is more formal, at least in British English. DanielRigal (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have been thinking about this for a while and I'm now moving more in favour of B. I have edited my !vote above accordingly. The reason for this is something which I initially missed. By using the phrase "said they were", Prager is not only refusing to accept the gender of the victims, who are teenage girls, but is also implying that they are intentionally lying about who they are. It is not for us to editorialise about how gross this is (and it absolutely is) but I think that we should include the slightly longer version, with the quote, so that our readers can see and fully understand what was actually said and being criticised. I also think that we should attribute the criticism to MMFA. If we do that then our readers can have a full understanding of the matter and we can still keep it pretty concise. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment about CJR: The Columbia Journalism Review does not cover the material. Instead it links to MM4A and says they are covering it. It's located in an "in other news" blurb. Springee (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "C" is best, "B" is better than "A" and "A" has a lot of problems. "A" is full of unsupported value laden characterizations without attribution and has no real content. "B" at least has more content and explanation but still looks cherry picked negative. Including leading with the money angle. IMO leaving it all out or either a more neutral version of "B" (or with attribution) would be be best. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Let's find a better treatment. CJR's mention gives it enough weight that we should be working on better ways to include the material, rather than it's complete removal. --Hipal (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A is just scraping in as ok for me. It does go into an appropriate amount of detail, aside from the amount of money which doesn't seem that relevant. I'm not liking option B though, despite going into more detail that kinda implies that was all the anti-trans rhetoric in the vid, when there was actually more than is appropriate to go into in this article. C is good too, still not seeing a need for this specific point to be covered.MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Variant on B -- the problem with both A and B is that they are WP:POV when they call this action "misgendering". It's a POV I agree with, but what proper gendering is is very much an active social debate. If we replace misgendered trans competitors by saying “biological[...] with called trans competitors "biological we are conveying the same information while avoiding POV. When we are using an advocacy group like MM4A as a source, we have to separate the facts they present (on which they are reliable) from the perspective they're offering (on which they are also generally right, but it's still POV.) Let ol' man Gertler also gripe about the RFC header saying "a sentence" when the choices offered are two sentences or zero. Also, curly quotes in the options, dang your hides. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So your suggestion is to replace "misgendered" with... an example that precisely meets the definition of misgendering... so as to avoid POV? Seems like an excuse to not call a spade a spade, though ultimately irrelevant as it doesn't change the meaning of the content. Except for that now editors below are attempting to use that argument as reason to remove it entirely. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It precisely meets your definition of misgendering. It meets other people's idea of correct gendering, What proper gendering in is not socially settled at this point.... and if we can avoid it and not change the meaning, that seems like a fine thing to do. (And I'm not even replacing it with an example, the example text is already there.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not the one who wrote the very first sentence of Transphobia#Misgendering. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    NatGertler, is proper gendering unsettle among reliable sources or among the general public? –dlthewave 16:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Misgendering is, per the Wikipedia article, the act of labelling others with a gender that does not match their gender identity. Nothing more, nothing less. There is no other definition. One may argue, as I assume you are, that misgendering as a concept isn't a real thing, and referring to someone's biological gender isn't misgendering, but that is simply untrue. Misgendering explicitly and only refers to gender identity, and not biological gender. "Correct gendering" in certain people's estimation can still fit under the umbrella of misgendering for this exact reason. Cessaune [talk] 03:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cessaune, NatGertler was not arguing that misgendering as a concept is not a real thing. In fact, NatGertler explicitly stated that they personally agreed with the point of view implied by the word choice "misgendered." However, to reiterate the point, swapping out the single word, "misgendered," for the word, "called," does not compromise the clarity, but it does promote WP:NPOV, "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Considering the three articles cited above are either not on the reliable sources list or only marginally reliable (WP:MREL), it seems to me that we cannot use their word choice as the best representation of neutral point of view.
It is not my intent to call into question the inclusion of this YouTube video, but I think NatGertler made a great point about respresenting the story with neutrality, and the argument against replacing the word "misgendered" with "called" cites a Wikipedia article (not policy or MOS) and marginally reliable sources. I believe the suggestion is worth considering. Penguino35 (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The underlying debate here is as to whether or not the term misgendered is a biased characterization. Is it? It isn't "biased until proven otherwise"; no one has actually given any evidence supporting the claim that the term misgendered is biased, while, at the very least, some evidence has been given supporting the view that the term misgendered is a reasonable description of the scenario, and an MREL agrees.
Why does the term "misgendered" fail to promote NPOV? You didn't mention any distinction between WikiVoice and in-text attribution, so I assume that you think that the term misgendered is biased in all contexts (please correct me if I'm wrong). Cessaune [talk] 00:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to agree with @Cessaune here. To my mind, by writing what proper gendering is is very much an active social debate and It precisely meets your definition of misgendering. It meets other people's idea of correct gendering, What proper gendering in is not socially settled at this point. it seems to suggest that @NatGertler is misunderstanding the concept of misgendering.
If "other people" think that Chase Strangio is a woman rather than trans man by describing himself as male, they don't generally claim that Strangio is misgendering himself, they instead suggest that misgendering is not a real concept, much like they believe sex is immutable. Saying that trans women athletes are "biological men" is misgendering them; that is not in doubt. And WikiVoice agrees that this is the case by virtue of MOS:GENDERID. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 16:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
'misgendered' could be considered loaded language "They have a "magnetic" effect, an imperative force, a tendency to influence the interlocutor's decisions." although this girl is misgendering the other athletes the term adds emotional that pulls away from the neutrality of the statement. Using the work 'called' instead removes that emotion and add a more neutral voice. Dobblesteintalk 16:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you consider the term 'misgendered' to add emotion? Cessaune [talk] 16:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A and B are both fine. Reywas92Talk 22:42, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not A or B as written, per North8000 and partly Nat Gertler. Both A & B are riddled with value-laden characterisations (misgendered … anti-LGBT group … anti-trans rhetoric) instead of neutral factual reporting, and only tangentially mention the content of the video (a female high school athlete arguing against against trans-athletes participating in female sports). I endorse a couple of points made by DanielRigal - the focus should be on the content and not the money, which is comparatively small-fry, and 'raised … off a video" is very US-colloquial ( btw MM and CJR - citing MM - both say "raised over $19,000 for PragerU" rather than "$25,000", which only 'Blade' claims, but which is in both A & B and current text in the article). Some people find this video deeply offensive, we can record that offence without endorsing or amplifying it. Pincrete (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pincrete, how do you reckon "anti-LGBT" and "anti-trans" are "value-laden characterization" and not neutral statements of fact? In my opinion, and as reported by reliable sources, these are objective facts for the reader to judge as they will. We're not saying that they're good or bad. –dlthewave 16:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Seconding dlthewave, what value laded characterizations? "evil anti-LGBT group" or "righteous anti-LGBT group" would be a value-laden characterization, "anti-LGBT group" is a neutral statement of fact. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The usual neutral description of ADF would be something like "Christian conservative advocacy group" - the "anti-LGBTQ group" descriptor implies that their primary purpose is opposing LGBTQ rights. It tells me nothing about them apart from the fact that WP editors think that I ought to think of them as bad people (which actually I do, though for other reasons, a group seeking to control the legal process in order to impose their particular morality on their fellow citizens is anathema to me - as I believe it would be for most UK-ers like myself), but my opinion is academic here, most sources would not describe them thus. I don't even know what "anti-trans rhetoric" refers to, nor whether I would agree with the characterisation. It's an even more blatant example of telling me that I should think that the video content was very, very, very nasty, but not telling me anything about that content itself. It is wholly value-laden with zero factual content. Holding the belief that trans-women probably have an unfair advantage in sport is a legitimate (and widely held) opinion is that what is characterised as "anti-trans rhetoric"? Pincrete (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I believe the intent is to say that opposition to trans athlete participation in women's sports is anti-trans rhetoric, because that's what the reliable sources say. I'm not sure how the legitimacy of that opinion or the fact that it's widely held would change that. –dlthewave 20:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two fairly partisan, and pretty obscure publications adopting a particular viewpoint does not translate into either objective fact, nor near-universally held judgement, which is what wiki-voice is for. Attributed opinion yes, if sufficient WEIGHT is assigned, which in this case may well be the case. A value judgement doesn't become an objective fact because a tiny number of marginal sources both happen to assert it to be their viewpoint. Apart from any other consideration, it's a great deal more informative to be told that the video discusses/argues against "trans participation in women's sports" than simply to be told that it's "anti-trans rhetoric", which in my experience - as a judgement - run's the gamut from relatively mild disagreement, through to the most offensive speech imaginable. Pincrete (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C is best of the offered options though some of the suggestions which could be viewed as variation of option B might also be acceptable. The workshopped versions of A and B certainly should not be considered the only options. I agree with Pincrete's concerns regarding value-laden characterizations used instead of factual reporting. B is meant to try to be more factual that A but that doesn't mean better can't be achieved. I think this illustrates an issue with citing sources with a strong opposing POV for information in this article. There is clearly debate about trans-athletes in sports. As presented it's not clear if the instances of misgendering were specific to biological capabilities etc or if they just think sex and gender are locked together. In a broader sense, it's not clear if what was said is outside the current debate regarding Transgender people in sports. If it was totally within the bounds of the trans-athletic debates then it seems unreasonable to present this using only the views of the opposing side. Hence it may just not be DUE for inclusion or should only be due for inclusion in context of saying they presented a video on the topic that opposed participation. Springee (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You were the one who suggested option B in the first place. Not saying you're not allowed to change your mind, just that it makes it all the more difficult for one to assume your arguments are made in good faith. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    At the time you were the only one weighing in. Others have since offered suggestions and I feel they are improvements over B. I'm sorry you feel that accepting improvements is a form of bad faith. I will also note that even before proposing the compromise texts in the discussion above, I suggested removal was probably best (see 12:36, 25 May edit). Springee (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C is the best option. I agree with the sentiments of NatGertler and Pincrete on the use of the term "misgendered". --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C per the arguments of NatGertler and Pincrete. Nemov (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A. (Or B as a second choice, but I feel B's phrasing is awkward.) The problem with NatGertler and Pincrete's arguments is that it's not us saying that Prager U "misgendered" people, it's our sources. As such, trying to avoid that word is not WP:NPOV, it's against WP:NPOV. We would never soften something like "Ken Ham made a provably false argument for creationism" in a source to "Ken Ham argued for creationism", so why are we trying to soften the language of these sources right now? Loki (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The sources are two fairly fringy and partisan sources, and a third reporting one of the first two . Some of their accusations against the video, the female athlete and ADF could be included if attributed, but that could easily make the text over 'clunky' IMO. WP:VOICE is reserved for very broadly - almost universally - held viewpoints, or verifiable facts. Is it really the case that it is a universally held view that trans-women can fairly compete in sports competitions traditionally reserved for natal women? Is that conclusion itself provable/proven in the way that evolution is proven? IMO we too often put negative value-judgements as facts. No one would dream of putting into an aricle that a particular actress was beautiful or a film funny as a fact, but we describe remarks as 'racist' or 'sexist' or anti-semetic etc on much less universal sourcing than that to describe the actress/film. Pincrete (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is very much us saying that the misgendering occurred. We are putting it in Wikipedia voice; we're not saying that MM4A described it as "misgendering", which would not be. If a reliable source says that Star Wars was a great film that grossed hundreds of millions of dollars, we can put the fact of the gross about the film in Wikipedia voice, but not the judgment. We could probably find a reliable conservative source that related the same facts but described that as properly gendering the individuals, and then where would we be? Not all things said in a reliable source can be stated in Wikipedia's voice. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wouldn't the analogous component to misgendering in that sentence be "film" not great? We don't call it a great misgendering or a terrible misgendering we just call it a misgendering which includes no value judgement at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why is "misgendering" a value judgement like "great"? We're perfectly capable of using terms that are technically descriptive but which our readers will very likely judge. John Wayne Gacy was a serial killer; Nazi Germany was totalitarian and committed genocide. These are all facts even though almost everyone would have a strong negative value judgement about them. Loki (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C, as we already kind of cover the fact they are anti-LGBT, I am unsure we need to actually say they made money out of one such video. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not A or B in current form, per Pincrete, Springee, Nat Gertler. The treatment uses its short word count to pack in a number of slightly charged ideas. This is the sort of abhorrence I would use myself, as a person with feelings and opinions, but it doesn't read as encyclopedic. The facts as they are are damning enough. Leading with a dollar value seems odd. Videos make money, that's not awfully notable. We're so close, we can keep working this content into something worth adding. TheSavageNorwegian 15:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C, as no paragraphs should appear in Wikipedia containing the words 'off of' adjacent to each other, and per Slatersteven. - Roxy the dog 15:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Obviously this RfC isn't about containing the words "off of". We can reword for grammar as necessary. Also, 134 Wikipedia articles say "profit off of". ––FormalDude (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What a waste of space. Roxy the dog 16:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This RfC is obviously not about 134 other articles. Choose C for this article and don't waste space finger pointing about dollars made from (never "made off of") a video. Philvoids (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you, Philvoids, for correcting the atrocious grammar. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A or B - Well-sourced content that deserves at least a brief mention. Washington Blade and Columbia Journalism Review are both reliable sources with no known bias concerns. Misgendering is an accepted concept among reliable sources, it's supported by our own MOS:GENDERID guideline and in the Transphobia article. We don't avoid a currently-accepted term just because it's the social controversy of the day. When reliable sources decide that it's inappropriate, we can follow suite. –dlthewave 16:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Blade is an LGBT newspaper, which brings with it a POV. CJR is reporting what Media Matters, a biased source, reported. MOS:GENDERID is a style guide, well-crafted for our purposes but not intended to be used in judging others, any more than we would say some outlet was using punctuation wrong for not following MOS:LQ. We do indeed avoid certain terms because, while widely used, they carry with them a POV, such as "pro-life". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In this case, where does The Blade's POV differ from the mainstream POV? –dlthewave 19:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I wouldn't include the the phrase "misgendered trans competitors" because it implicitly gives too much emphasis to the notion that "gendering" is an important element in the debate over whether or not transwomen should be allowed in female sporting competitions. Those who oppose the participation of transgender women, of course, oppose it because the think that biological sex, rather than gender, is the issue. They effectively are saying that transwomen are "missexed" when allowed to compete against biological females. Goodtablemanners (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Or more simply that those (physical) women's sports should be sorted by biological sex rather than gender identity. Which I'm guessing was the argument of the discussed video which others are characterizing.North8000 (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    North8000 and Goodtablemanners, I appreciate hearing your perspectives but some of these comments seem like an attempt to second-guess reliable sources' interpretations of what took place and replace them with our own - in other words WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We certainly shouldn't be second guessing their word choices or substituting with words that we feel are more accurate just because we think the source characterized something incorrectly. –dlthewave 22:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You made that point more sensitively than I might have. ;-) Anyway, I would remind anybody trying to points about the word misgendering itself that this page is not the complaints department of their favourite dictionary and that this is off topic for this RfC. If it is the word that the reliable sources use then we can use it. We can, and probably should, link it for the benefit of any readers who might not be familiar with the concept or who want more context. Now let's try to stay on topic and not make this RfC any more painful than it needs to be. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wikipedia sets the basic RS:Criteria and does not say whether or not they are correct or unbiased. In fact it acknowledges that they may be incorrect, biased, conflicting etc. Dealing with those realities on a talk page is a normal process, not a forbidden form of "second guessing". North8000 (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree. You are reinforcing the point of my last post. There is no categorical exclusion for that, but neither is it misbehavior to not treat them as infallible. North8000 (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article already says that PragerU raised more than $25,000 from a video connected to the anti-LBGTQ Alliance Defending Freedom. I think we should avoid implicitly taking sides in the Transgender people in sports controversy. Goodtablemanners (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Taking sides" in what way? We're simply stating PragerU's and ADF's actions and positions, I don't see any judgement or value statements in the proposed text. –dlthewave 02:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I said "implicitly taking sides" which is a fair characterization. Let's take Proposal B. for example, which says: 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.”
The problem here is that Wikipedia would be telling readers that the high school athlete is wrong; that she is "misgendering" transfemale athletes by not using the standard of gendering that Wikipedia approves of and thus, by pretty clear implication, her arguments are bad ones. If we really want to include the high school athlete featured in the ADF video, we should simply say that she called trans competitors "biological boys...", not that she "misgendered" them as such. Goodtablemanners (talk) 04:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just what the meaning of "misgendering" is, both technically and in general. Even the ideological groups that make a point of conflating sex and gender still understand what it means, especially in context. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that saying what the high school athlete actually said about "biological boys" is a great deal more informative (and at least as well sourced) than the generic term "misgender". It is actually impossible to have a discussion about the fairness of trans people (or any other group) competing in a particular sports category without referring to biological properties - whether/how one genders those properties or not is another matter of course. Pincrete (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree that it is more informative. Referring to a group of girls as "biological boys" is intentionally obfuscatory on the part of the person using that phrase. That is why they use that phrase. Sure, we know what they mean, and what they are trying to insinuate, but general readers, less attuned to such dog-whistle codephrases, might not be. Obviously, a phrase like "biological boys" can never be used in wikivoice. It is both demeaning to the people being attacked and likely to confuse some of our readers. It can be used in a quotation so long as we are careful to provide sufficient context so that readers can know who the speaker is actually referring to. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that is covered by the fact that we have given the context of them being trans athletes, making it quite clear what the quote is describing. Adding "misgendered" does not add information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That wasn't what I was getting at. I have already made it clear that I think that general discussion about the word "misgendering" is off-topic for this RfC. Nonetheless, I disagree and I might as well explain why. (This has no direct bearing on the RfC so if anybody wants to skip the next paragraph then feel free.)
It is beyond obtuse to avoid the one correct dictionary word for what is being described here, particularly if we have Reliable Sources using it. Expecting the readers to work it out by decoding obfuscatory euphemisms like "biological boys" would be a gross disservice to them. Explaining misgendering without using the word would just overcomplicate the matter for no benefit. We want to keep this reasonably concise. "Misgendering" isn't some magical cursed word. It is just a word that a few people have fringe political reasons to wish was expunged from the dictionary so that there can be no name for their action. The best thing is to use the unambiguously correct word "misgendering" and to link it for anybody who needs or wants further explanation.
My actual point just above was an entirely separate one, namely that the offensive and fundamentally inaccurate phrase "biological boys" can only be used, with appropriate caution, in direct quotations but never in wikivoice because it is a misleading term cynically contrived to cause misunderstanding. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A or B per Dlthewave. (As for the back-and-forth about whether it's misgendering: the RS call it misgendering, and Wikipedia is not in the business of original research to invent some new concept for it to be instead of what the RS call it.) -sche (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. What I am proposing isn't original research at all. Editing inevitably involves making choices about what to include from reliable sources and how to say it. The fact that a reliable source says something pertaining to the subject of a Wikipedia article doesn't oblige us to use it, much less say it exactly the way the source says it. This is particularly true when using clearly biased sources such as Media Matters and the Washington Blade which don't attempt to phrase things in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are may widely used terms (including in RS's) that are POV descriptions of things that have more neutral terms for example, Anchor babies, Political correctness, Homosexual agenda. That does not preclude wiki editors using the more neutral terms and/or using sources that use more neutral terms or providing more informative descriptions of what the term was referring to. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Out of curiosity what do you think the neutral terms for political correctness and homosexual agenda are? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possibly a tangent, but maybe not. For those two terms, not only is the term POV, but the grouping of the described items is also created by the POV. And so a general answer would require longer description, e.g. the leads of the linked articles. But for the article where the term is used my answer would be to neutrally describe the specific item that is being referred to rather substituting somebody's value laden characterization of it. This is an example of, without even reaching for the higher goal of neutrality, it eliminates violating the "lower bar" of just avoiding where the POV gets so bad that it hurts the informativeness of the article. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said that those were two separate things "more neutral terms or providing more informative descriptions of what the term was referring to" and clearly said that all three of the terms you named "have more neutral terms" not "could be referred to with more informative descriptions." Sorry if I misunderstood but there was really only one way to understand that, you were extremely clear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was just brief shorthand for what I explained more thoroughly in my subsequent post. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I understand what you meant now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't use Media Matters for America as a source, we use the Columbia Journalism Review alongside the Washington Blade. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone please provide relevant excerpts from the Columbia Journalism Review? I think this source is what matters most in this case. Media Matters requires attribution and I'm questioning the reliability of Washington Blade. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 21:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The CJR doesn't cover this topic themselves. Instead, at the bottom of an otherwise unrelated article is a section called, "Other notable stories:". All the stories are basically links and summaries of stories covered outside of CJR. It is not clear how or why these stories were placed at the end of the titled story. The last of the 8 is this 3 sentence blurb with an embedded link to MM4A:
    YouTube is helping right-wing propaganda network PragerU fundraise with a November 16 video that attacks and misgenders trans athletes, according to a report from Media Matters. The video has raised over $19,000 for PragerU using the YouTube Giving program, the report says, a program that says nonprofits must follow the company’s community guidelines, which include protecting trans people from abuse. The video, titled “The End of Women’s Sports,” features a client of the extreme anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom repeatedly misgendering trans athletes, calling them “biological boys who said they were transgender girls.”
    It is misleading to source this to CJR since they didn't cover the story and it's little more than an embedded story pointing at the MM4A source. Springee (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That literally is coverage. It is not in depth coverage and they are covering the fact that MMFA is talking about it not directly covering it themselves but it is coverage. The most you could reasonably hope to get out of your argument is to say that our coverage of this should mention that it comes from MMFA, which I'd be OK with, but not to argue that we have no RS sources at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, because CJR didn't independently research the story. When one source simply says, another source found X and then points to the other source we shouldn't attribute the information to the source doing the pointing. You can reasonably claim that the fact that CJR felt it was worth noting the MM4A story gives weight to the MM4A story itself but we shouldn't cite CJR as if it were the source. As a parallel example, I don't know if you have ever done academic publishing but a general rule is you should cite the original source for a claim, not a source that happens to also cite the claim. I was disappointed that the first time any of my work was cited was not for the orignal research contributions I made but instead to cite me for a claim I made in my intro which I sourced to someone else. So rather than citing me (and boosting my citation count from 0 to 1) they should have cited the paper I cited. Anyway, citing this information to CJR (vs arguing that CJR lends weight to MM4A) is improper as CJR has added nothing to the story. Springee (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a source is considered reliable, as the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Blade most definitely are, then it is simply not the job of Wikipedia editors to insist there be "independent research" in what they used to produce their reporting. That would lead to Turtles all the way down reasoning where Wikipedia editors interrogate the source's source's source's source's source. When multiple reliable sources says something that is neither contested nor contradicted by other reliable sources, then there is simply no valid reason to keep it out of the encyclopedia. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok... but that doesn't address what I said above. Springee (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you figure Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Blade "most certainly are" reliable sources? I was not able to find them on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. Penguino35 (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CJR is often raised at WP:RSN -- but generally not questioning its own reliability, but because it is assumed so reliable that its coverage of other journalistic sources can be used to judge their reliability. It's an outlet whose information is often used by other respected outlets. (I only quickly find Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_181#A_Reliable_Source_with_a_possibly_unreliable_assertion one article from CJR being brought before RSN, but it was originally brought by a self-described first-time editor who admitted to the general reliability of CJR but was unhappy with one of its conclusions.) If there's a slam-dunk source for WP:RS, it's probably this one.
The Washington Blade is trickier, but it does have a long history that includes some journalism awards.I'm not sure it's the clear slam-dunk that others may, but I cannot point to any significant failure to handle errors properly in its long history, so it seems a likely RS within its realm. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because Blade is a direct copy of MMfA, I think it should be discounted outright. As for CJR, I see your point and would hope that if its credibility really is all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips, it will be added to the official list. Digging through hundreds of archives to find mention of the publication is hardly reasonable, nor is it proof that editors throughout WP collectively deem it reliable. If it's a slam dunk, I believe it would be on the list. Alas, I've thought that about other publications before that were also not on the list. Penguino35 (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A or B per dlthewave — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C, Media Matters is WP:MREL, the other sources listed aren't on the WP:RSP (And apparently Columbia Journalism Review doesn't cover the topic at all according to User:Springee ), which means the overall coverage is not significant and I don't really see how adding it into the article would be improving the article. Eruditess (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is patently false to claim that the Columbia Journalism Review doesn't cover the topic at all. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Looks like CJR cites the MM article for it entire claim. So yes, it does cover the topic but its just a formality since they are two sources not independent of each other which really only still means one source is covering the topic. This makes me double down on my original stance of voting 'C'. Eruditess (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    WP:RSP is not a list of all the sources we consider significant; it's a list of sources that have repeatedly had their reliability questioned. Not being included on the list does not keep the Blade from being a reliable and significant source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@NatGertler, I understand the function and logic of the WP:RSP, I appreciate the good faith reminder. If you do read the Washington Blade article all the way through you will notice that at the very bottom in the footer the article states:
"This article was originally published by Media Matters and is republished with permission.)"

Here is the link for the original MM article that the Blade reprinted. Once again highlighting that Media Matters is WP:MREL and the sole source (since CJR & Washington Blade articles are based on MM articles making them not independent of each other). I still stand beside my original stance. Eruditess (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • D? Otherwise C. What about a single sentence as it is in the article currently? According to Media Matters for America, PragerU was able to "raise more than $25,000 off of a video featuring a client of extreme anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom". I quite like this version—it avoids the potential NPOV issues I see with A, and the excess of characterization I see with both A and B. It's relevant enough to warrant inclusion IMO, but I don't think we need more than a sentence on it. Cessaune [talk] 23:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment—Since we aren't explicitly attributing the statement in A to the source (as opposed to the current revision), isn't there an issue with stating in Wikivoice that the video "featured anti-trans rhetoric"? Or is this something that can be easily inferred from the video and, consequently, doesn't need a source? I don't think this is a WP:BLUE thing, especially considering that A is very vague on specifics, and doesn't state anything about the high-school girl or attribute any of her statements. Cessaune [talk] 23:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment MM and CJR - citing MM - both say "raised over $19,000 for PragerU" rather than "$25,000", which only 'Blade' claims If we are going to say that PragerU made "loads of money" from this video - we should actually get the sum, and the attribution right! Pincrete (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The two figures are not inconsistent, not just because $25,000 is indeed over $19,000, but because the MM source was from November 2020, the Blade from January 2021, so the video had more time to generate income. As such, $25K is likely the more up-to-date figure, and a better one to select. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Except our text says: "According to Media Matters for America, PragerU was able to "raise more than $25,000 … ". MM4A claimed something else ($19,000). I wasn't arguing which was right, merely that attribution/source and figure don't match. Pincrete (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • D is fine is fine IMO, prefer it slightly over A or B assuming the attribution of the actual figure is corrected, I don't see a case for removal so prefer those, or any other rewrite over C. Alpha3031 (tc) 14:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C Echoing the main sentiments of all the prior "C" voters. The sourcing does appear to be problematic, just keep it out.MaximusEditor (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Favor A, otherwise B - B feels like a run-on sentence. Otherwise I don't have a strong opinion on which is better. The void century 23:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    D is better than both A and B The void century 23:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    C Sourcing is thin. Amount of money is a joke. Proposed texts are heavily POV and value-laden. Just leave it out. Adoring nanny (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisting edit

  • Comment I considered closing this as "No consensus", which would default to C as the status quo as the current wording was added very recently. However, I believe a consensus may be possible to find here; many editors who supported A and B didn't do so because they considered it the best wording but because they considered inclusion appropriate and those were the only two options that permitted it. Similarly, many editors who supported C - or who opposed A and B - didn't do so because they considered inclusion of the information inappropriate, but because they considered the proposed wording of A and B to be inappropriate.
Towards the end of the RfC a fourth option emerged, D, based on the current wording in the article: According to Media Matters for America, PragerU was able to "raise more than $25,000 off of a video featuring a client of extreme anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom". Since being proposed it has been supported by several editors, including those on both sides of the discussion.
However, it has not been discussed sufficiently to establish a consensus for it, and so rather than close this RfC now I am relisting it, and pinging the editors who have already commented for further discussion of this option, in the hope that a consensus can be established and the time committed to this discussion not wasted. Editors should not feel the need to wait for the renewed RfC tag to expire before closing; the discussion should be closed when it is clear that consensus is reached, or when it becomes clear that consensus will not be reached.
@DanielRigal, Springee, North8000, Hipal, MasterTriangle12, NatGertler, FormalDude, Cessaune, Reywas92, Pincrete, Dlthewave, Horse Eye's Back, Spiffy sperry, Nemov, LokiTheLiar, Slatersteven, Thesavagenorwegian, Roxy the dog, Goodtablemanners, -sche, Iamreallygoodatcheckers, OwenBlacker, Eruditess, Alpha3031, MaximusEditor, and Adoring nanny: BilledMammal (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion has not changed. Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A or B per dlthewave; my opinion has not changed. Both options are accurate, well-sourced statements of fact. I guess I could support D over complete omission, but it's a feeble compromise, frankly. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 11:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC). (Thanks for the ping, @BilledMammal)Reply[reply]
C - This is just a bit too minor of a point to stand on its own, although it could certainly add to a more general point. This is barely a blip in their campaign against the existence of trans people, if even a fraction of the little blips were covered this page would be a mess. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C for sure. Media Matters is not a reliable source to me. Ojvolleyball (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still C Snotbottom (talk) 06:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C - A & B both have a very clear agenda, with mischaracterizations and over the top assessments. D on the other hand uses the word "extreme", which is honestly quite subjective - if not for that editorialization in D, I'd support it. Out of the first two, I guess A is better, as I'm not sure the in-depth reporting on the misgendering is necessary. Alexcs114 :) 12:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair, the word extreme is within a quotation, rather than being editorialisation from us. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 12:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd be OK with D or A although I still prefer B. Only complaint is that "off of" should be "from". --DanielRigal (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C, then D. I'm changing my vote after actuallly taking a closer look at the sources.
  • It is OR to say that the video "featured anti-trans rhetoric". Hell, we don't even have the video to back up that claim, however true it may be. It is a reasonable inference, but an OR one all the same.
  • B falls under close paraphrasing IMO, and doesn't fall under When is close paraphrasing permitted?:
    • ...misgendered trans competitors by saying “biological boys who said they were transgender girls” and suggesting that they are not “actual girls.”
    • From MMfA: ...repeatedly misgenders trans athletes, calling them “biological boys who said they were transgender girls” and suggesting that they are not “actual girls.”
  • What is the actual relevance of this specific scenario? Does this incident stand out among any of PragerU's controversies? I don't get why this specific scenario is being singled out: it isn't especially notable, and it isn't especially controversial when compared to the myriad of controversial things already presented in this article.
  • Why is money relevant? Is $25,000 a rare sum for PragerU? They net much more than that per year [1].
D is fully attributed and gets rid of the Wikivoice issues that I see in A, but, in the grand scheme of things, I'm just not understanding the relevance. Cessaune [talk] 14:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is OR to say that the video "featured anti-trans rhetoric". The Blade source says the video "repeatedly misgendered trans athletes and fear-mongered about their participation in sports" and the CJR sources says the video "attacks and misgenders trans athletes".
Questioning the relevance is odd given it's 1 or 2 sentences directly about the topic with three reliable sources. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blade's reliability is dubious at best; it's super partisan/biased, and not at RSP. At the very, very best, it's marginally reliable, and it's not neutral enough for its statements to stand without attribution. CJR seems reliable, but it's not at RSP; MM4A is an mrel source. At best, 2 of the 3 sources are at least marginally reliable; MM4A needs to be attributed per RSP consensus (which A fails to do and B does to a limited extent), while CJR should probably be attributed also. In no scenario do I find A to be consistent with our policies around source attribution and whatnot; B is a bit better; D is a bit better than B; they're all shit regardless.
I question the relevance of this specific scenario because the article is riddled with scenarios much more noteworthy, defining, and with much more lasting impact than this one. This scenario has literally no lasting impact on PragerU itself, is marginally noteworthy at best (we've got three sources here that address it), and, at the time, didn't even really affect PragerU's image any more than anything else they did as far as a Google search shows me. I also question the relevance of the money made off of the video—why is that notable? Is $25000 a large sum for PragerU? We don't actually know. Given that, apparently, Each video costs between $25,000 and $30,000 to create, I don't think so.
I change my statement to We shouldn't say that the video "featured anti-trans rhetoric" in Wikivoice. Cessaune [talk] 03:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. The reality is that they are opposed to certain trans related initiatives. Trans are people, and mis-labelling it as "anti people" is a biased pejorative. North8000 (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, to say they're anti-trans is to say they're opposed to people being trans, which is at least a reasonable description of the group's view as a whole. Its much how like folks who are anti-immigrant are against those people immigrating and thus being immigrants. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C is best. D is terrible for the same reasons I gave for saying A is terrible. B has fewer of the problems that A and D have and at least has some information in it....A and D are information-free swipes at PragerU by their political opponents/"sources" North8000 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C No change from my previous remarks. Nemov (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • D - There are three sources for this: Washington Blade, MMA, and Columbia Journalism Review. And, in my judgment, only Columbia Journalism Review and MMA can be considered since the reliability of Blade is not documented at WP:RSP and there are no signs for me of obvious credibility, like Columbia. We already have consensus regarding MMA, which I will use for this analysis. Overall, this can be boiled down to MMA covered this issue and Columbia reported that they did, with attribution I may add. Generally, I think we should be cautious with mentioning stories covered exclusively by MMA because the bias and reliability concerns create a situation where weight can't be established, but it's a different ball game when a secondary reliable source reiterates what MMA says. That is indeed enough to establish weight, and in this case it has. Now RSP says As a partisan advocacy group [in reference to MMA], their statements should be attributed. I'll add that Columbia thought the statements should be attributed as well: YouTube is helping right-wing propaganda network PragerU fundraise with a November 16 video that attacks and misgenders trans athletes, according to a report from Media Matters. So, considering the consensus at RSP and the editorial decisions at Columbia, it's a no-brainer for any statement about this to be attributed to MMA. For these reasons, A and B are absolutely unacceptable. However, D represents a brief, attributed mention that, as I explained earlier, is due. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 03:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C . For reasons given by Iamreallygoodatcheckers and me earlier, A and B are largely unacceptable though A does tell us the subject/purpose of the video (arguing against the participation of trans athletes in female sports). The money earned seems trivia. The 'labelling' of both the orgs involved and the content is clearly the opinion of a (fairly small) inherently partisan sub-set of opinion, and shouldn't be rendered unattributed IMO. It would be a pity if we could not find acceptable text as this is an additional "string to PragerU's bow" - but the text is in the section 'Content', not in 'Criticism', so the emphasis should be on what is in the video, not on what others think about it. D, possibly amended/expanded would be OK as criticism. Pincrete (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option A is clear, factual and supported by sources. (Personal attack removed) Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Simonm223, you can't just call people who don't !vote one specific way transphobes. That's a WP:5P4 violation. I strongly object to being called such based on the fact that I !voted one way or another. If you are going to say such a thing, back it up with evidence. Secondly, of course people are going to talk about the vagaries of wiki-voice. Anyone who is opposed to doing so isn't upholding WP:5P2. If you don't think the arguments about wiki-voice/source attribution hold up, then that's fine; you seem to be entirely opposed to discussion, and the basis of your opposition to such discussion seems to revolve around perceived transphobia of certain !voters, which is a) a reasonable basis for it to revolve around should it be the case and b) does not appear to be the case.
    Essentially your point here boils down to I'm not going to listen to transphobes wikilawyer; you have substantiated neither of those points. Who are the transphobes and why is discussion of WikiVoice a bad thing? Cessaune [talk] 16:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not do that thing. I made a general statement about what I don't like to do. That is all. Simonm223 (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Simonm223: - I have removed that statement of yours. You can make your point in a less offensive and more WP:AGF way. starship.paint (exalt) 13:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C to be clear this was my original vote it has not changed, nor have my reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A. Relevant content that deserves to be mentioned in a way that accurately reflects the facts that are presented in reliable sources. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. The passage should not be whitewashed or worded in any way that makes it unclear the video is anti-trans. ––FormalDude (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I said above, MM4A is supposed to be attributed per RSP consensus. Blade should probably be attributed too, I think. Cessaune [talk] 20:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Blade is a high-quality reliable source, just because it's not at RSP doesn't mean it isn't reliable. The WP:USEBYOTHERS that MM4A has in this case suggests it is reliable enough to not require attribution. ––FormalDude (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Even if Blade is a reliable source, it is a biased one that requires attribution.
    Baesd on my reading of USEBYOTHERS, a single source quoting MM4A does not mean that we can disregard the RSP consensus of attribution, especially when that source (CJR) isn't universally agreed upon to be reliable/high quality. Cessaune [talk] 05:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you please explain how Blade is biased? –dlthewave 05:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alrighty. Time for some late-night research.
    • A majority of Blade's reporting seems to be good, factual, straight reporting: pure quotations, no characterizations whatsoever. Example: In a 40-page opinion that addressed both the Harvard and UNC cases, Roberts emphasized that the Supreme Court had only allowed universities to use race-based admissions programs “within the confines of narrow restrictions.” But the Harvard and UNC programs, “however well intentioned and implemented in good faith,” Roberts explained, do not comply with those restrictions. Both programs, Roberts began, consider race as part of their admissions program for commendable goals, such as “training future leaders in the public and private sector” and “promoting the robust exchange of ideas.” But those goals are too vague for courts to measure, Roberts reasoned. This is unbiased reporting which strays away from opinions, and, consequently, most form of bias completely.
    • Some of Blade's content is pop culture/lifestyle and health content. Uncontroversial, generally more trivial and palatable stuff; basically all opinion. Example: Redesigned a few years ago, the F-Pace is Jaguar’s best-selling model. As with all Jags, there’s no shortage of sharp styling, with a Porsche-esque front and Lexus-like rear. Those sweptback seats, especially in the supercharged SVR trim level, would make a Formula 1 driver salivate. While the SVR ($90,000) is nice, my test car was one step down but still plenty fast: the R-Dynamic S ($67,000). I hit 60 mph in a mere 5.5 seconds, much quicker than the sluggish base model. All trims have minimalist but upscale interiors. Bucking the trend of a single widescreen dash, the F-Pace has two displays: One for the gauge cluster and the other for infotainment. Both are easy to read, but as with many high-end infotainment systems, you’ll need a crash course in how to use it. Luckily, there’s no learning curve when simply driving the F-Pace. This time, the Virginia mountains were calling, so Robert and I headed for the hills. It’s a testament to Jag engineering how fun and responsive this SUV was as we inched through congestion, barreled down I-66 and whipped along rural switchbacks. These aren't the type of thing that we would cite anyway, so ths stuff doesn't really matter.
    Neither of the two above subsections are why I think Blade is biased, and, after actually reading Blade a bit, I would like to walk back any previous comment I made suggesting that Blade is marginally reliable at best.
    • Blade's opinion pieces (the citation in the article is an opinion piece) are obviously biased; I genuinely question the competency of anyone who reads them and, regardless of political/social leanings, finds them to be unbiased. These opinion pieces are the opinions of a single person or a few people (who don't seem to be subject-matter experts in most cases based on Google searchs); they are clearly marked as such. These opinion pieces are laden with characterizations, equivalences, buzzwords, and the like. Example: Republicans intend to go further and introduce impeachment resolutions against a slew of Cabinet members. These, of course, will go nowhere but they create headlines the MAGA Republicans like. MAGA Republicans get their fellow Republicans to vote with them by threatening them with primaries if they don’t. They couldn’t care less about doing anything for their constituents, it’s all about creating havoc and getting a headline.
    I see a major issue with the idea of conflating the reliability of their reporting with the reliability of their opinion pieces. They are two different things entirely.
    Research done. Since the Blade article that is currently cited in the article falls under the category of opinion piece, and since I think that Blade's opinion pieces are biased, I, naturally, think that attribution is required. Cessaune [talk] 06:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A (first preference) or B (close second preference) (similar to my earlier comment/!vote); failing that, D is better than nothing. -sche (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C, the same as my original vote. Nothing in this discussion leads me to changed my opinion. Plus, the amount of money is not significant for this organization. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C, my views haven't changed since my previous reply. Springee (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • B with grammatical and WP:TONE adjustments, with A also acceptable. PragerU is anti-trans, and they misgendered a trans person. This is an encyclopedia, we should just say what happened in plain terms. Wikivoice should be used to summarize source, which is exactly what this is. Neutrality isn't served by evasive language. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I (or others) seem to be confused, is this RFC about the text about the funding or this "According to GLAAD, an LGBT media monitoring organization, PragerU also promotes anti-LGBTQ politics", because people seem to be assuming we will remove all mention of their anti-LGBTQ politics. Is this the case? Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This only pertains to the video as far as I'm aware. Regardless of the outcome of this RfC, the sentence you quote will stay in the article. Cessaune [talk] 03:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C AsMy stance hasn't changed. Thanks for repinging me. Eruditess (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • B with adjustments made for WP:NPOV and attribution. As is, B quotes the girl but doesn't quote MMfA, which it must per WP:RS/P and because it's almost a direct lift from the OS. Additionally,B is the only option that actually states anything noteworthy. If not B, then why include the video at all? Penguino35 (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A or B, my opinion has not changed. D is better than C but only better than C. Loki (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong C I find this an odd if not ridiculous request. If I am understanding things correctly the conservative media company PragerU makes commentary videos hosted on youtube where monetization has generated $25k.
First off, how exactly is this notable enough to comment on? It's an industry standard for media companies to monetize videos.
Secondly, this seems to be selective 'negative' editing. What makes this event unique? None that I can tell so should we start editing other pages to state 'progressive media company raised more than $25,000 off of a video produced by progressive group '. I say no, so why would this case be any different? Because PragerU has different politics then me? That's not the unbiased Wikipedia is supposed to be.
Thirdly, the sourcing of this isn't great. Has this been in the mainstream news? I didn't see it and the sources provided here are on the opposite political spectrum and naturally highly biased against PragerU.
Lastly, Did they actually make $25K? I ask because in searching for sources I found Each video costs between $25,000 and $30,000 to make. Thus has PragerU actually profited $25,000? These sources also did not provide details on how they arrive at the 25k number, so I have a sneaking suspicion they just went to the highly inaccurate Social Blade to calculate. Unless a source can be provided that gives answers, this reporting is purely speculative and option E is more accurate.
Option E:

PragerU raised between $0 and $-5,000 off of a video produced by anti-LGBT group Alliance Defending Freedom

In summary, this is an odd if not ridiculous request and should not be granted. EatingFudge (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely you do not seriously propose such clumsy wording as "raised between $0 and $-5,000 off of a video" do you? Philvoids (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A or B, leaning towards inclusion for the reasons stated by other users. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Shift focus I'm not thrilled with any of the listed options, and that includes the option to simply blank the subject. It is important for this article to cover Prager's position on LGBT, and the article should do a better job on that. However the fact that they raised 25k isn't in itself significant information. So either find other sourcing to cover their LGBT position better, or use this source and rewrite the text to more directly and narrowly focus on conveying their LGBT position. Alsee (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As pointed out, this RFC is not about removing all mention. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not A, Not B due to inaccuracy with regard to source’s reporting, the MMFA source said Notably, ADF has sponsored the video., but A/B claim that ADF produced the video. Attributing to MMFA is also necessary since both Blade and CJR’s content comes directly from it, see my below comment. starship.paint (exalt)
  • Also - has only Eruditess noticed that the Washington Blade article is a reprint of this MMFA article? starship.paint (exalt) 13:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My opinion has not changed, I really do not see what the fact they made money of one video tells us that "According to GLAAD, an LGBT media monitoring organization, PragerU also promotes anti-LGBTQ politics." does not. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My opinion has not changed, with the rationale described over several posts. North8000 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • D, A, or B in that order; an attributed version of B would also be good but wasn't presented as an option. The CJR coverage is sufficient to include the MMFA coverage with attribution, at least to the point where it doesn't make sense to exclude entirely. The argument that the CJR piece shouldn't be given any weight at all because it merely covers the existance MMFA piece doesn't make sense to me - that's what WP:SECONDARY coverage is; it establishes that the MMFA piece (which we notionally could, but realistically probably would not, otherwise include as an attributed WP:BIASED source on its own) is noteworthy enough to cover. However, since the CJR piece entirely attributes the MMFA piece rather than stating its conclusions in the article voice, it doesn't really make sense to use that to include it unattributed, either. It's not enough to say "this was referenced in CJR, so we ought to include it" (which is true as far as it goes); when we rely on a secondary source like that, we have to actually pay attention to the framing and coverage in that source. And in this case the CJR attributes everything, so reflecting that attribution is the way to go. --Aquillion (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strong C - Similarly, many editors who supported C - or who opposed A and B - didn't do so because they considered inclusion of the information inappropriate, but because they considered the proposed wording of A and B to be inappropriate., While the relisting was in good faith. Couldn't disagree more with this statement. My rationale was that the sourcing was problematic, other editors have shared same sentiment. With that being said, I do consider the inclusion inappropriate due to the lack of notability/coverage. MaximusEditor (talk) 22:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • C or D, but leaning more toward C The three sources provided exhibit quite clear bias, so per WP:BIASED and WP:VOICE, I think that rules out using them to make a claim in Wikivoice. As for choosing between C and D, I feel like the claim perhaps isn't significant enough for inclusion. Oktayey (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In order of preference, D first, C second, B third and A last. I think that the sources are reliable enough to list this in the article, though I do not believe that the execution for B and especially A uses neutral-enough language. Given that gender related issues are still a wedge issue across the world (especially in conservative circles within the United States), "misgendering" is a word which when used outside of its own articles can be seen as having a left-wing bias. For the purposes of retaining neutrality, I would caution against using words like "misgender" without some sort of qualification in text. For example, consider using language like "PragerU referred to transgender competitors by their gender prior to their transition, known as misgendering among advocates for trans rights...". I personally hope that this societal conflict resolves, but it's too touchy of a subject now. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential ref - Dickinson & Cowin (2022) edit

  • 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
The second link should work: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4187075 --Hipal (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Your original link provides both a download and in browser link (example [2]). 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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 [3][4]. 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2023 edit

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

  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)Reply[reply]

Layout of sections edit

I noticed the "finances" section was quite high up as far as layout goes. According to WikiProject Conservatism Style Guide's format on organizations, "finances" should be near the bottom. Here is the Style Guide's layout format:

  • Lead
  • History
  • Objectives
  • Leadership or Organizational structure
  • Membership
  • Policies and positions or Ideology
  • Programs
  • Accomplishments
  • Sources of funding -- can also be placed under Organizational structure
  • See also
  • References
  • External links

The "content" & "reception" section should absolutely be above finances for PragerU "school programs" section as well. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems like reasonable rearrangement, the finances section isn't that important to most people. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aspects of the finances have received wide attention from RS, so they may need to be incorporated into the top or the History section if the Finances section is moved down. Llll5032 (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess the Wilks brothers are a big enough part of their founding that it should also be mentioned in the history section if finances is moved down, was that the bit you were thinking of or are there others? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We seem to agree the wiki-project Conservatism section guide is an improvement. Lets move the finance section down. I'm not quite sure I understand the logic to incorporating finance material it into the History section, regardless of the coverage? If something has weight in the body it can be summarized proportionally in the lead. I also think "programs would be a good section to expand. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Activities" / what they do IMO should be a big part of coverage. "Programs" might relate to that except that it is a bit more specific. The area seems to be largely missing from the article. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Content" can already cover a lot since they are primarily a media company but "programs" would be very good to describe recurring segments of which only the 5-minute-videos are currently mentioned, "activities" might not have a whole lot to describe outside of that unless the "school program" stuff is put under it, since they are primarily focussed on proselytising through media alone and don't really do much outside of that. "Objectives" might be able to tread some uncovered ground though. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Factually incorrect information edit

[5] 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: [6].

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
WP:IMPARTIAL doesn't mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Science certainly does contain viewpoints. Springee (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Explain. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 [7] 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Is that the rack you want to hang your hat on? Seriously, that? Springee (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Please mind that CIVIL applies to this discussion. Springee (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    Quite. WP:GEVAL with WP:PARITY innit. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Indeed. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Subject on Robert E. Lee edit

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

––FormalDude (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Pretty sure the original objection to removing this was just notability, not reliability? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 10:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Why, what does this tell us about them? Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
It appears they took it down. Wouldn't that mean they don't support the content? Springee (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
(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)Reply[reply]
  • Include - We now have enough reliable sources reporting on the controversy to establish due weight. –dlthewave 15:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    So we don't present it as an example of the standard video quality. Problem solved? --Hipal (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    Long enough to be picked up on and reported by numerous news outlets. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]
    Please review WP:BALASP Springee (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]

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

Edit war over areas of notability in the lead edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately Formal Guy jumped the gun and did so already AbiquiúBoy (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hob Gadling
I suggest you dial down your rhetoric as you did in your edit summary here: [8]
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:[9]
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)Reply[reply]
I'm having a difficult time seeing "valid" concerns, and please WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
@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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
cool👌🏻, i'm in full agreement with that AbiquiúBoy (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
cool, so should i go ahead and restore the old format? AbiquiúBoy (talk) 06:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

seems like his edits featuring allegations of vaccine skepticism were removed. AbiquiúBoy (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
thank you for the heads-up! AbiquiúBoy (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

Citations in the lede edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
Citing each sentence in the lede is overkill and has no basis in policy. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with adding cites to the last paragraph. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

CEO image edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Per the past discussion, she's barely important enough to mention at all. --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Please don't make this a case of IDHT, nor misrepresent me. --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
You are supposed to look for pictures that make PragerU look bad. :-) North8000 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
My comment was tongue-in-cheek. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Image seems fine to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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 (talkcontribs) 19:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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"
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Removing donor names off of the article edit

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]