Talk:PragerU

Citations in the lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing donor names off of the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What I'm seeing from the responses are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trim of from "Gender-affirming care" Section

@Hipal: can you explain how this edit [1] with the summary "trim to avoid concerns previously mentioned" (which removed the text "It also discusses the cases of several people who have sued their health care providers following their detransitions. PragerU purchased a timeline "takeover” ad on X as part of a $1 million marketing campaign to promote the film.") addresses the concerns raised in this edit [2] with the summary "removed - seems grossly UNDUE - POV seems skewed toward SOAP"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daily Dot

Tech Crunch

Advocate

Deseret

Out magazine

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

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

Responding to the potential sources listed above, in order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please WP:FOC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential references

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

Potential "see also"

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

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

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

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

This article is not very neutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aye...

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

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

Forum, off-topic, user behaviour, nitpicking, blah, blah
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I found this article biased, that's why I am commenting here. 1.147.5.141 (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC) The point of a discussion is exchange of reasoning. You are just stating your opinion, which is worthless for the purpose of discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Hob Gadling, while you are correct that the opinion isn't actionable, it appears to have been offered in good faith. As such please be CIVIL in your reply. Sometimes people who aren't familiar with Wikipedia can have a reasonable sense that an article has an issue even if they don't know the BOLDLINKS needed to express the point. Springee (talk) 12:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC) You do not need to ping me because I have a watchlist. You also do not need to tell me things I already know. The IP did not know that a pure opinion is worthless here, so I told them. If you do not like the way I do it, try to say the same thing without shocking easily-shocked people like you so much that they feel the urge to sealion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC) Civility cost nothing. You could convey the same information as you might to a friend. I think Doug Weller's message [3] was similar. You can be correct without being dismissive. Even better would be too engage and help. Springee (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC) @Springee an ip entering into an old discussion with no earlier edits shouldn’t be taken seriously. No need to carry this on. And I can’t avoid thinking this might be a logged out account Doug Weller talk 15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC) this is not a good argument what you are saying as explained in Wikipedia arguments to avoid in discussion more specifically in the about the person section as explained here you never know how experienced the individual made be Easyrider291 (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems to me that right leaning sources get much worse treatment than left leaning sources. controversy and criticism are always within the first five paragraphs of an article in right leaning media articles while in left leaning media articles it's difficult to find criticism it's buried within the article and is heavily discouraged within guidelines of wikipedia's neutral point of view Easyrider291 (talk) 18:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is already closed. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not always the case but there do tend to be fundamental differences between how left-wing and right-wing organisations conduct themselves (most notably dishonesty), which are usually reflected in the type and validity of criticism that each of them receive. At least that seems to be the biggest effect that I have noticed. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Can we please not discuss user conduct here? Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Category: YouTube Controversies

Seems like this page should be added to the category "2010s YouTube controversies" on the basis of the section "Conflicts with YouTube and Facebook" Maeamian (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a good idea, there was a lawsuit filed and PragerU did publicise it a fair bit too, so I think the addition would not be contentious. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Climate Change Denial

A couple issues:

It has come to my attention that the first source for the sentence in the introduction regarding climate change denial is innacurate; upon closer inspection the only mention of PragerU in the article is citing a screenshot of one of its videos, which may just be showcasing Youtube's new information panels. I found the video that was shown in the article, and while it did contain points that clearly are climate skeptic, the writer of the text added an incorrect source.

Additionally, @Alpha3031 reverted my edit when I was simply trying to change the tone even though no signifcant information was altered, and then they refused to give a valid reason. I am happy to debate this matter with them an other editors in a civil manner and I hope that we can estabish frienly dialogue and come to a reasonable agreement.

Cheers,

Ztimes3 (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I refused to give a reason did I? I don't recall doing that so, I would appreciate someone reminding me when I did so. Ztimes3, I've removed the footnote I believe you are referring to, let me know if you have any other questions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You reverted my edit and then said "Nope" as a reason. Ztimes3 (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It was an edit that has been made many times before by people not even considering the fact the statement is well sourced. It gets annoying to explain repeatedly, but nonetheless you could have easily gotten an explanation. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, sure. If I were asked I would point you at WP:AWW, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PROFRINGE which overall dictate that we don't insert our editorial opinion of what is "more neutral" when there is no meaningful disagreement in RS. So, please ask me so that I can say exactly that in response. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I do apologise though, I didn't realise you were a newer editor and might not have seen the big box at the top of this page. You have a nicely formatted userpage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, that might have been messed up when sources were removed form the lead as per WP guidelines since it draws from the article, but then were added back in due to vandalization claiming lack of sources. That source shouldn't be up there in the lead since it pertains more to the conflict with youtube, I've removed it now. If you are concerned about the veracity though, the "climate change denial" section has additional relevant sources, and a brief peruse of PragerU's videos on the topic is fairly self evident too. EDIT: Just noticed that change had already been made so mine bounced, thanks Alpha3031. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

They've not explicitly done climate change denial. The more calibrated / explained statement is the better one. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

They do tend to imply the boldest lies rather than stating them directly, so I guess that's kind of clever, but it would be silly to think there is some fundamental difference. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Well the difference is whether it can accurately be called outright denial vs. the various other types of statements that are made in that area. And IMO the latter is more accurately described by the more calibrated and explanatory description. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Not up to us to decide that, sorry. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the terms climate denial are used accurately in the sources we cite. At least in the academic literature, climate denial encompasses more than simply denying climate change is happening and caused by humans. Other elements are included too, like distorting the implications of climate change, at least in academic literature (e.g. this paper). I can't find too many academic papers talking directly about PragerU's climate content, but this preprint and this book chapter both call it climate denial. According to the Guardian, they do a bit of classical climate denial too, denying the effect of global warming on extreme heat events. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Schools

Update needed on states (about 7 ) that include PragerU in their schools. 136.36.180.215 (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I am unsure what you mean, what they allow PragaU to teach classes, or as an examing body? Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at the article, there is already a section on this. Definitely needs updating with the way education is being further changed. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That is why I was unsure what they mean, we already mention their use in schools. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2024/06/13/prageru-conservative-education-videos/ might be helpful for updating content about schools and general info as well. --Hipal (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks @Hipal, I went ahead and added the info I thought was pertinent into the "Schools" section. Please feel free to modify. TomaHawk61 (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  A great addition. I merged it in a bit more with the existing content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Awesome, changes look great! Thank you. TomaHawk61 (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Missing Citations

Main page has broken links to citations 1 & 2. No citation for claim historical and scientific criticism on main page. Kem827wiki (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Both citations are archived. The links are in both footnotes. — Czello ^(music) 21:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)