Talk:PragerU/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

RFC on Various Proposed Edits

The following discussion 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.

---

Which of the following seven six additions should be made to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Each of the proposed additions is described, and is then followed by a Survey section. Answer Yes in each of the Survey sections to include the material or No to exclude the material. Be brief and concise in the Survey, and do not respond to other editors. A Threaded Discussion section is provided for discussion following each item, in which the most important rule is civility. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

1: Douglas Murray "The Suicide of Europe"

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the following paragraph be added to the article? The 2018 video "The Suicide of Europe" about immigration to Europe, presented by author Douglas Murray drew criticism in the media, with Sludge's Alex Kotch contending that the video's "rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation' evokes the common white nationalist trope of 'white genocide'". Kotch interviewed Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, who said that while he didn't consider the video fascist or white nationalist, there was "certainly prejudice inherent in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric". The Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right", while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times said the video echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right.

References

Survey on Item 1

Yes. Noteduck (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The opinion of Alex Kotch, a journalist at the website "ReadSludge," is not WP:DUE. Moreover, the proposed content does not appropriately summarize the content of the video under discussion, as it should by relying on the summary of the video in the LAT. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Mostly no. The current wording in the article (with just Pitcavage's view) is more economical. The SPLC's view could be added, as could the Los Angeles Times writer's. Sluge should be left out except in the citation. Llll5032 (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, current wording is generally fine but could be improved. So much of this has already been discussed. Anyway, I agree with ImTheIP's efforts to make much of the text more compact. This long winded passage would go against that effort. It also might suggest that the Murray content was more controversial than some of the other videos. I don't think we have any sources that say which videos were, relatively speaking, the most controversial. Springee (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please refer to what editorial policy would justify cutting this commentary from three sources to one. The item as proposed is three sentences - hardly "long winded"[sic]. The current version on the PragerU page is not "economical" but rather is so minimalist as to obfuscate meaning Noteduck (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, unless the updated content in the article is kept, although there is a little mix-and-match I would like to do. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Partly: I'm not a fan of the quotes attributed directly to journalists but I'm for keeping in the ADL quote. Loki (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, bbutmore objective and intelligent critique of the video would be good. Inflammatory characterizations by opponents does not provide information. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No - I agree with North8000. Why do we need an inflammatory prejudiced opinion to criticize a prejudiced opinion? How about some straight-up facts, otherwise it fails WP:DUE. The article is about PragerU, and it's not our job to imply or allude to whether or not their approach or ideology is right or wrong. It also fails WP:10YT, and doesn't add any encyclopedic value to the article. Atsme 💬 📧 16:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Partly The quotes of Pitcavage should be included without mention of Kotch or Kotch's comments. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes Something like that. I like my version better: [1]. One should describe what Murray's video was about and why they criticized it, otherwise it's not useful. Murray's theory is that immigration from North Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia (but apparently not from North or South America or Australia, hm...) will cause Europe to collapse because the immigrants doesn't share Europe's "Judeo-Christian values". This is apparently known to Europe's leaders, according to Murray, otherwise he wouldn't have called it a "suicide". ImTheIP (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No - Cherry picking opinions that mirror what editors think is generally bad practice. Doubly so when the resulting text is so inflammatory. Bonewah (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No although aspects of the text might be included elsewhere. This article is about PragerU and I do not think there should be a paragraph about the reception of one video. I think the "Critique of videos" section should be merged with the "Reception" section, with this text summarised and included as a commentary on Prager U. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I'm not thrilled with the wording here- but I think more of the criticisms need to be covered in the article. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The article already mentions the Murray video in a critical way. This isn't a case of inclusion or not since there is already inclusion. Springee (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually- what it says is "In 2018, the PragerU video "The Suicide of Europe" by Douglas Murray argued that Europe is "committing suicide" by allowing mass immigration. The Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right" and Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League that is was "filled with anti-immigration and anti-Muslim rhetoric".[24][38]" which is hardly an example of a good and accurate depiction of the criticism and conflict that surrounded this video- its is a sanitized and barely in passing mention. Sorry, but I have to agree that there is a contingency of editors on this page fighting to keep the contents of the article quite sanitized and minimize the conflict surrounding PragerU- and its about time that a more fair and equal article is presented. Nightenbelle (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

But at what point does that become commentary on the content/ideas in the video vs commentary on PragerU? I think this is part of the difficult balance here. This is an article about PragerU, not specifically about controversial ideas shared via PragerU. A critical aspect of PragerU is their willingness to let people express ideas that are considered controversial. Sometimes, as with say minimum wage or the electoral college people will debate the merits of the claims but probably not feel the claims are personal. However, when it comes to something that can be considered racist, nationalist etc the reaction levels can rise. Let's be honest, the issue here is simply that many people disagree with Murray and they don't like that PragerU allowed Murray to have a platform. Do we know if PragerU specifically endorses the views in the videos it publishes or, conversely, does it include a "views expressed are those of the speaker, not ..." sort of disclaimer? Either way it would probably be good to include that information. Springee (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That point is a long way from where the article is now. Right now- the lack of criticsm is a commentary in an of itself- that such commentary is trivial and unimportant when it is a huge part of what makes PragerU notable. You have made your opinion of PragerU abundantly clear- and its not unbiased. I personally- don't give a gosh darn about PragerU or about who they allow on it- what I do care about- is that we are giving fair coverage to both sides- and right now- we are not. Nightenbelle (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is no more or less bias than yours. My bias is trying to produce a good article. I think that is yours as well. Springee (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

LOL because I want to fairly represent criticisms I am biased? You have been WP:OWNing this article for ages. You and a few others have systematically tried to keep any criticism from being represented on this page. You have created one of the most ridiculous, one-sided pages on WP- and here you are trying to argue with and bully people who are calling out the crazyness. Now, if you look at my votes on this RFC- I voted based on the quality of the suggestions. I didn't just say yes to everything. So why you picked me to try to strong-arm, I don't know. But you can go find someone else to annoy now. I stated my votes. And I'm backing out of this alt-right controlled disaster of an article, reminded once again why American Political pages drive away editors in droves. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

First, FOC. Second, you are confusing rejecting bad edits with rejecting any similar content. My original reply to your comment was because your "Yes" appeared to indicate that you thought no Murray content was currently in the article. After that you launched into accusations that editors are trying to protect the subject from negative information (not a good thing) vs things like, making sure we stick to RSs rules and making sure this article doesn't just turn into a laundry list of people who were mad about something said in some PragerU video. To some extent that is a real issue here. I don't know that PragerU claims to endorse all views expressed in their videos. Regardless, these accusations of bad faith are not helpful. Springee (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Partly. The video was roundly and widely criticized (although, let's be real, it wasn't a reasoned critique of European immigration policies, but a mixture of misleading or downright fake statistics and outrage porn, and so intended to preach to the converted). Including this criticism is relevant and deserves due weight. But it should be phrased more neutrally, and if we must include a quote it should be from a more authoritative source. I like ImTheIP's edit. --Tserton (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No. Fails WP:UNDUE. As other editors have said, an article from The Sludge is not appropriate. It is also not appropriate for this article to include every little act of controversy PragerU has been involved in. I can understand why some may think this article is one-sided, but the proposed changes would make it unnecessarily inflammatory. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Item 1

I wrote what I think is a good compromise here: [2]. I fully expect it to be reverted, but it's a start. Two sentences for describing the video and two for criticizing it. So not undue. Imo, for fairness, the article should also link to the video. ImTheIP (talk) 06:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

2: "The Charlottesville Lie" video

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the following paragraph be added to the article? The August 2018 video "The Charlottesville Lie" presented by CNN presenter Steve Cortes contested the claim that in the wake of the Unite the Right rally Donald Trump had used the phrase "very fine people on both sides" to refer to neo-Nazis. Cortes said in the video, which was later retweeted by Trump himself, that the media had committed "journalistic malfeasance" in reporting it as such. The Forward's Aiden Pink and Mother Jones' Tim Murphy criticised the video, with Murphy calling it an attempt to "rewrite the History of Charlottesville", while University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato bluntly rejected the notion that Trump was not referring to the far right with his "both sides" remark, saying that "anybody who tries to pretend that [Trump] wasn't encouraging the white nationalists [at Charlottesville] is simply putting their head in the sand". Dennis Prager himself contended in The Australian that Google placed the video on YouTube's restricted list within hours of it being uploaded in an act of politically motivated censorship. Cortes ceased working for CNN in January 2020, saying that he was "forced out" of the network for making the PragerU video defending Trump.

References

Survey on Item 2

Yes. Noteduck (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The proposed content attributes the headline of the MJ piece to the author of the piece, violating WP:HEADLINES. Moreover, the MJ piece says very little about the content of the video: it only says that the video is part of a broader attempt on the part of Trump's allies to delegitimize “the media,” defend his most militant supporters, and cast the president’s opponents as violent radicals. The quote from Sabato does not refer to Cortes specifically, but says that "Anybody who tries to pretend that he wasn't encouraging the white nationalists is simply putting their head in the sand." Our previous source does not have Cortes talking about "white nationalists" but only about "neo-Nazis". Are we to assume that these are the same? Seems to violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The reference to Prager is a primary source. The Washington Examiner is generally regarded as a weak source that requires attribution. I'm not opposed to including something about the Cortes video, but this proposal is a non-starter. It's also awkwardly written.

Yes, but shortened and reworded. Keep the Trump retweet, the social media controversies, the Sabato reaction, and maybe Cortes' departure from CNN. Address some factual questions raised in the comment above. Llll5032 (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No but As written, no. Again this is too much text. Also, most of those sources aren't about PragerU rather it's about the controversy associated with a single video. There is also the issue that this became one of those case where you have the text of the speech which all sides agree on (as far as I can tell) followed by the vastly different interpretations of what the speech actually meant. While I don't think this one is needed, if it were trimmed down and impartial in its presentation I think it could be included. Springee (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is quite a deep dive into one particular video, it should probably be a mention rather than a passage. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Partly: I'm for including something like this but it definitely should be shorter. I'm also, again, not a fan of quotes attributed directly to journalists. IMO quotes should be credible: we shouldn't be putting in a quote just to be able to claim something we couldn't say in Wikivoice. Attributing quotes to journalists is therefore almost always either saying too little (because we could just say what the article claims in Wikivoice and cite it) or too much (because we couldn't). Loki (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No as written; a shorter version would be good. Report that the video made the arguable and argued assertion. This isn't the place for lengthy content arguing against the assertion. North8000 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - it belongs in the CNN article, if anywhere, but certainly not here per UNDUE. Nobody knows what Trump meant or was thinking - it's pure speculation and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and neither does the argument. Atsme 💬 📧 16:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes But I don't rule out the addition of text that contradicts these opinions as well (or indeed further criticism).Boynamedsue (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but please condense it. F.e in "The August 2018 video" is the month the video was published really relevant? If not, change it to "The 2018 video" which saves one word. And so on. ImTheIP (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• No as written. The part about Cortes leaving (being ousted, whatever) could stand a mention. Once again, the proposal seems to be a bunch of criticisms the editor likes with little regard to its value to the article. Bonewah (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes but summarised. Remove all the commentary about the video and just explain what the video is referencing and that the person who appeared in the video accuses CNN of forcing him out following making the video. The rest of the commentary is undue weight and belongs in a Reception section. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Not in its current form I do not feel that this statement is focused on PragerU and their coverage/contributions to the situation- but rather on the situation itself. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes but heavily summarized. Though perhaps some of this content could be moved to Unite_the_Right_rally#Reactions. Seems more appropriate there. Jlevi (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Something like this, yes - [noting my objections to this rfc below] - quite a lot of coverage here such that some articulation in the article is due weight. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Item 2

off-topic Atsme 💬 📧 16:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shinealittlelight, have a look at WP:ROWN when considering whether to discard this edit: it is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit If you contend there are errors (and the errors you've identified are minor) why don't you put forward an alternative proposal? Why aim for the rejection of the material wholesale? Noteduck (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC) I'm not rejecting or reverting anything. I'm voting in an RfC. If you want to withdraw this RfC and start another one with better content, that seems like a good idea to me. I'd be glad to help you get the wording right. You can start by trying to incorporate the feedback I gave above, which I also provided days ago before this RfC was proposed. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC) I see no prior discussion of this content so I'm not sure why this would be included in the massive RfC. Normally anything that hasn't been discussed first shouldn't be included in a RfC. Then again, this isn't "normally". Springee (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

Item deleted during DRN preparation of RFC Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

3: Platforming far-right activists Survey on Item 3 Fully support Well, a proposal to make no changes to a section that doesn't exist is not too controversial. Springee (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC) I also support doing nothing to nothing. Loki (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC) ? North8000 (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Support if the proposal is to leave as is? Atsme 💬 📧 16:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Discussion of Item 3

@Robert McClenon: Do you know if there supposed to be something here? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Springee, North8000, LokiTheLiar, Atsme, and ReconditeRodent: - There isn't anything here. This item was omitted during preparation of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

4: Material from Data & Society

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the following paragraph be added to the article? PragerU's videos on controversial topics are often highly visible and accessible through YouTube's search engine, with a report by the Data & Society Research Institute noting that a YouTube search for "social justice" returned the PragerU video "What is social justice?" that was highly critical of the concept as the first result.

References

Survey on Item 4

Yes. Noteduck (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The proposal mischaracterizes the source. What the source says is The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... In the video, he echoes libertarian critiques of social justice in the format of an educational video... Ok, so "highly critical" is not in the source, and what the source is actually saying is that the Goldberg video critical of social justice came up one time when the author of the report searched "Social Justice" on YouTube. I don't see that as WP:DUE; it does not give us helpful information about PragerU, or, for that matter, about YouTube or Jonah Goldberg. Is anyone surprised that a JG video with "Social Justice" in the title might come up in some search on YouTube for "Social Justice"? How does this inform our readers about PragerU? How is it of any interest at all? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably no. This information doesn't add much to the other Data & Society report that is already included in the PragerU article. Llll5032 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The fact that a search for "X" returns a video with "X" in the title is akin to "the sky is blue" is not worth mentioning in this article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No Spiffy has it right. Several editors, myself included, echoed the same point. It seems odd to call something hijacking when a video about X uses X as a keyword even if it happens to be a video about X that is critical of X. I mean how many videos that were critical of Senator X included the Senator's name in the video? Springee (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That's completely ignoring context. Did Lewis err by keeping this material in her extensively cited report, even including a graphic that referred to it? A critical, revisionist take on a concept is of course significant. To take a more extreme example, would it not be notable if a YouTube search for, for example, the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66 returned mostly niche revisionist takes? Noteduck (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a hypothetical. I'm replying to the proposed text. Springee (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably no since this adds little information, it would need to tie in to something more noteworthy. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No: YouTube searches are highly personal and therefore are dubiously WP:DUE, plus it's not terribly surprising that a YouTube video from a large channel with "social justice" in the title came up in a search for "social justice". Loki (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No In addition to "following the source" issues, spun-laded talking points of an opponent is not info about PragrU. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No This is beginning to feel like a huge time sink, not to mention the lack substance - seriously, a proposal to include the results of a Google search, or other search engine? Atsme 💬 📧 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No Per Spiffy above. A more serious proposal would elicit a more serious response. Bonewah (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No Not as written. The report is using PragerU as an example of how far-right media organisations are using the social justice movement's terminology to achieve search results. This addition doesn't reflect what the source says. Z1720 (talk) 15:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No This sentence makes it sound like that source is saying the video is highly critical, when really- its the opinion of the person who wrote the sentence while the source is just saying it was the top search result. Now- the video is highly critical... but to include that statement in the article- we need a source that says it. Otherwise WP:OR or WP:SYNTHNightenbelle (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No This is both WP:UNDUE material and unnecessary trivia. Scorpions13256 (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

No Minor. I've never seen another source make this point. Jlevi (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• Something like this seems ok, yes - [but noting my objection to this rfc below] - PragerU is one of the "political influencers" researched by Data & Society, which seems to be a better source than many we're using here. It's not particularly interesting as currently written, but it seems worth a single sentence if worded properly. Here's an alternative formulation: A report about "political influencers" by Data & Society found that PragerU and others "explicitly [use] terminology affiliated with progressive social justice movements and are therefore appearing in search results for those terms. That is, it's about the strategy, not the fact of the search results. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Item 4

This does not mischaracterize the source. This has been addressed on the talk page previously, - in fact, you were a key part of that discussion, so please pay closer attention[3]

The source is Rebecca Lewis, "Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube," Data & Society Research Institute 2018[4]

• page 31 of Lewis report. "The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In the video, he echoes libertarian critiques of social justice in the format of an educational video (Fig. 8)."
• page 32 "Fig. 8: A screenshot from a PragerU video criticizing social justice; the video appeared as the first result on YouTube for the search term “social justice”
• page 31 of Lewis report: "In fact, all of the top 10 video results for “social justice” are criticisms of social justice from reactionary channels (Fig. 9).(Google Chrome, Incognito in the US, June 19, 2018)."

No, the source does not use the term "highly critical", hence why its not in direct quotes. Would you argue that PragerU's "What is Social Justice?" video is not highly critical of the concept? I've no idea why this is not relevant given that an extensively published[5] Stanford academic chose to write about it in detail in this report (the report itself has also been cited quite often)[6] and given the immense visibility of PragerU and YouTube videos more generally. Noteduck (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It does not matter what our opinions of the content of the video are. It only matters what was said in the source. The source does not say that the video was highly critical of anything. The source says that the author searched "Social Justice" once on YouTube and got a JG video with "social justice" in the title that was critical of social justice. That's what the source says, so that's what we can verify and add to the article if it is DUE. It is not DUE, though, so we should not add it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Shine, you're essentially saying that any sourced material should be entirely comprised of direct quotes - a fairly baffling contention. Did you click on the report to read Lewis' point? It's open-access. Noteduck (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying we should accurately summarize the source, which does not use the editorial superlative that is included in this proposed content. When we do accurately and straightforwardly summarize the source (as proposed in my last comment), the material is plainly not WP:DUE. And yes, I read the source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a clear mischaracterization of what Shinealittlelight said. Springee (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - if there's an article about that video, then add it the Reception section of that article, it doesn't belong here. Atsme 💬 📧 16:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

5: Videos with Owen Benjamin

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the following material be added to the article? PragerU received criticism for producing two videos in 2018 featuring comedian Owen Benjamin, who had attracted controversy for mocking Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor David Hogg, making racist and homophobic slurs in his material, and promoting conspiracy theories. In February 2019, Benjamin attracted negative publicity for making anti-semitic remarks, and in April 2019 the Jewish Telegraph Agency's Bethany Mandel reported that he had made a "full-blown descent into Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism", while noting that his appearances on PragerU had helped him "maintain a limited degree of visibility in the conservative world. PragerU later removed their videos with Benjamin from their website and from YouTube.

References

Survey on Item 5

Yes. Noteduck (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Among the sources for this content are pieces from: Media Matters, The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (which is misspelled in the proposed content), Rightwing Watch, and Business Insider. This sourcing could hardly be weaker: these sources do not seem like WP:RS for this content, and do not demonstrate that the material is WP:DUE. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe. The article should add which PragerU videos Benjamin narrated, and shorten the part about what Benjamin was accused of elsewhere. Shine is right that the information needs less partisan and more expert sources. Llll5032 (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No None of the sources are sufficient to establish weight for inclusion. MM4America is a poor quality source and shouldn't be used to establish content is DUE. The same is true of Right Wing Watch. The JTA article is clearly "Opinion". Again not a good source with which to establish either facts or WEIGHT. BI and Forward make only brief mentions of the video and again, neither are sources that we should be putting a lot of stock in. Once you remove the poor quality sources, a concern that was previously raised, you are left with very little to suggest the article would benefit from inclusion. Springee (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but it may be best to shorten this the section to mainly commentary and just link to the criticism of Owen Benjamin's views on his own WP page for sourcing. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes: Could be a little shorter but this is a pretty major controversy regarding PragerU so even the full paragraph is probably WP:DUE. Loki (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Not as written, but this should be in there. A lengthy presentation on why the comedian is controversial is too far away in WP:Relevance / undue for a PragerU article. Trim that stuff to one sentence that he is controversial and briefly why. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• No - to begin, "Media Matters" is to be used with caution, so it's not reliable for extradordinary claims, not even for intext attribution. The Forward cites Media Matters so it fails, for the same reason. Right Wing Watch is published by a Progressive advocacy, and is not reliable for extraordinary claims for obvious reasons. The article in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency is passing mention of PragerU so nope again. And Business Insider (Australia) says alot of things about the Adam Corolla movie, including While the movie provides solid cases against the logical fallacies made by left-wing activists, it fails to address free-speech violations on the political right and takes the safest route possible by preaching to the choir. I would not oppose inclusion of the latter in the form of intext attribution if included in the article where it would be considered DUE. Atsme 💬 📧 17:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Seems quite pertinent and well-sourced. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but in a condensed form. ImTheIP (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Rework Shorten, better sourcing etc. Bonewah (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes But summarised. There is too much information about the commentary and not enough about what happened to Owen Benjamin or the result of this video. Commentary should be summarised. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes I think some re-work/shortening could be done- but I think this needs to stay in the article as it is an important criticism/example. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but in condensed form. Jlevi (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• No, not like this, but maybe ok in a list - [Noting my objections to this RfC below] - Sources here are insufficient for this amount of content, most of which is only tangentially connected to the subject. Might be ok if reformulated to have a quick descriptor in a list of controversial contributors, for example. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Item 5

Springee, you haven't referred to a single actual excerpt from Wiki editorial policy, nor any past noticeboard discussions, to establish that these are poor sources. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware that you deleted a reminder that I put on your talk page when you probably meant to archive it, cheers Noteduck (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, WEIGHT, these are low quality sources so they don't have it. This was extensively discussed prior to opening the RfC. Springee (talk) 04:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee the "prior discussion" was insubstantial, this would be noteworthy enough to add even without including commentary, linking to Owen Benjamin's views, and only referencing the fact that his videos were removed. It seems strange to attempt to argue this point. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If it was notable then why don't we have better sources covering it? Hipal really addressed the sourcing issues here. Springee (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

6: Robert E. Lee video

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the following item be added to the article?

In November 2020, PragerU attracted criticism for its video "Who was Robert E. Lee?" in which it defended the historical legacy of the Confederate leader Robert E. Lee and criticized attempts to remove monuments dedicated to him. Brandon Gage of Hill Reporter called the video an "overtly racist jumble of propaganda and historical whitewashing" and objected to the video's claim that Lee should be celebrated for his role in suppressing the slave revolt led by John Brown in 1859. As of January 2021 the video is no longer available on PragerU's website or YouTube, but remains available in an archived form at the Wayback Machine.[7]

References

Survey on Item 6

Yes. Noteduck (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The Hill Reporter and Rightwingwatch (the proposed sources for this content) do not appear to be WP:RS. The author at The Hill Reporter does not appear to have any particular expertise in this area: he holds a music degree and the site does not have a significant reputation, and is thus not able to establish WP:DUE weight.Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No as noted in the prior discussion, [[8]] the sourcing here is very poor (Right Wing Watch and Hill Reporter). As I mentioned in the prior discussion, this is meant to be an overview of PragerU, not criticism of any particular video, especially videos that PragerU decided to remove. Springee (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes but I would like to see this compacted later, perhaps into a list of content that was retracted after criticism. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes: This is also a major controversy regarding PragerU, and this paragraph is short enough that I wouldn't even recommend cutting it down. I maintain my above objection to attributing quotes to journalists, and would prefer better sourcing in general for this paragraph, but in this case I think that points towards lengthening the paragraph rather than cutting it. Loki (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes: what Loki wrote --FantinoFalco (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Probably. I agree with MasterTriangle that this should be compacted into a summary of retracted videos, if an independent source verifies that it has been retracted. Long critical quotes about this are not WP:DUE because the criticism as of now is not widespread in reliable sources. Llll5032 (talk) 07:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No, but inclusion in a more neutral way would be be good. Characterizations and cherry-picked items by an opponent is not really coverage of this. North8000 (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No - it was removed; therefore, fails DUE and 10YT. Atsme 💬 📧 17:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That it was removed would make it more due. ImTheIP (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes Though it is long and should be condensed. ImTheIP (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No So, the common theme for these RfCs seems to be "PragerU attracted criticism for its video..." So this really applies to all these requests. 1) stop using such bad sources. And relatedly 2) establish that the criticisms in question are actually relevant to something and not just POV pushing. Everyone 'attracts' or 'receives' criticism, demonstrate why the reader should care. Bonewah (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No The text does not describe why this video is notable for inclusion in the article. Why is it so important that this information is in the article? Commentary about the video may be added as more general comments in the Reception section. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes Once again- the controversies and criticisms are not currently being given their WP:DUE in this article and they need to be. It is irresponsible to wash them away like they never happened. Could this be written better? Absolutely! Should it be cut out because its not perfect- NO. It needs to be in the article to give fair coverage. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• No to a paragraph, but maybe in a list - [Noting my objection to this RfC below] no, there's not enough coverage for a paragraph like this (my own search did not turn up enough). That said, if there's a list of related issues, this might be ok to include (depends on context). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Item 6

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.

7: Including frequent criticisms in lead

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the following material be added to the header of the article? The accuracy and reliability of PragerU's videos has been extensively questioned, with several sources referring to PragerU videos as containing propaganda and misinformation. Specific criticisms levelled at PragerU videos have included the claims that they perpetuate views associated with the far-right or alt-right, contain controversial speakers, including those linked to the far right, promote racism and Islamophobia, promote misleading information related to the COVID-19 pandemic, and contain misleading information related to climate change.

References

Survey on Item 7

Yes. Noteduck (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Many sources here not WP:RS. In any case, much of this content is not in the body yet, and the lead should summarize the body per MOS:LEAD. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There's certainly enough detail in RSs to show significant coverage for the bulk of the points in the paragraph. Leaving aside the additions being discussed above, links to the far-right, criticisms of inaccuracies, climate change denial, and accusations of Islamophobia are all in the body already, and the lead is fairly minimal in comparison. In any case, MOS:LEAD explicitly states that discrepancy between the lead and the body "should not be taken as a reason to exclude information from the lead", rather setting an end goal of harmonising the two. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but if not as the header due to a close following of MOS:LEAD then it should be the first sentence of the "Reception" section until the points are fleshed out elsewhere. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a separate discussion and one we already had. Springee (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I did suggest doing that before, but you may want to review the discussion to find that it was not talked about in any responses, but even if it were then I do not see why that is relevant here?? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

No This was extensively discussed. [[9]] This ultimately comes off as editors cherry picking the material they want to see vs following MOS:LEAD. Additionally, many of the sources used for these criticisms are poor quality. Throwing up a huge list in hopes that something will stick is not how we should be making changes like this. Springee (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Needs more work. For WP:DUEWEIGHT, each of these criticisms should be backed up by several independent, nonpartisan sources, and if possible some conservative sources. The partisan liberal sources could be pared back. Proportionate defenses of PragerU should be included if they appear in WP:RS. I agree with Shinealittlelight and MasterTriangle that per MOS:LEADREL this should be firmly established in the Reception section before a summary at the top is considered. Llll5032 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes: This is all one of the major things PragerU is known for. There's tons of RSes on this. It's clearly WP:DUE since this is the aspect of PragerU that has by far received the most attention from the sources. Loki (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, what Loki said. For those invoking, MOS:LEAD, consider this excerpt:

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

I've no idea what the standards being proposed for "independent, nonpartisan" and not "partisan liberal" sources are, but you'll need to refer to editorial policy to justify such a standard. When there are TWO DOZEN sources making similar points about PragerU, none of which has been effectively challenged with regards to Wiki editorial policy by editors here, it's clear, that this material warrants inclusion Noteduck (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, I mean that we should emphasize sources marked green in the perennial sources (WP:RSP) list, paying attention to any restrictions on their use mentioned there. Snopes, for example, is a WP:RSP generally. So are the major television networks and many newspapers. Also consult WP:FRIND, WP:PARITY, and WP:INDY. Llll5032 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• No to the way it's presented above - it's noncompliant with NPOV. I have no objection to well-sourced, warranted criticism, but it's pretty obvious that either a conservative or liberal entity is going to criticize its polar opposite so we don't need the rhetorical UNDUE sentiments and inflammatory criticisms by ideological opponents - not encyclopedic. Atsme 💬 📧 17:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Atsme, Facebook - a commercial titan and not a partisan media source - has given PragerU "repeat offender" status for serially publishing misinformation.[10] It would be absolutely not encyclopedic to leave this material out of the header Noteduck (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• No As written, highly problematic even for the body much less the lead. Predictable low content "slamming" type characterizations by their opponents is not info about PragerU. Why not switch to informative analysis of such areas instead of again and again keeping trying to put in low content "slamming" type characterizations by their opponents. North8000 (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes As the lead stands, it contains no criticism of PragerU at all. That is wrong. ImTheIP (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• No Have you not read MOS:LABEL? Per above, im not opposed to well sourced, relevant criticisms, but this would make the lede more about what the subjects critics think then the subject itself. Bonewah (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

No not as written. There is some WP:CITATIONOVERKILL happening which makes the text difficult to read. Also, I don't think this summarises the "Reception" section very well. I would like to see a more substantive proposal that reflects everything included in the "Reception" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Since controversy and criticism is one of the most well known things about PragerU- it should absolutely be in the lead and more coverage of those controversies added to the body to support policy- rather than being suppressed at every opportunity as they have been thus far. Nightenbelle (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mostly. The lead is clearly missing significant criticisms. I would cut the propaganda line since the sources aren't ideal and don't discuss the label. The Media Matters analysis would be good for an attributed statement in the body and it might be worth keeping Mic and Vice for a line or two on the Gravel Institute and Linsay Ellis' comments. I suppose the HuffPost and Daily Beast pieces could be a line about lockdowns somewhere. Other than that, I'm taking out Vox and NYT as too tangential, and some of the less established sources. I propose this for the intro, preferably with a few of the climate change citations repurposed into a clearly needed section on the topic:

PragerU has promoted false and misleading information about climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been criticized for inaccuracies, anti-Muslim sentiment, promoting views associated with the alt-right, and hosting speakers with far-right ties.

• No for the most part. Criticism of PragerU in this article is warranted because it is a commonly criticized source. However, per MOS:LABEL, we shouldn't label PragerU as being "far-right" or "islamophobic" without widespread use in reliable sources. Many editors probably think that the sources provide make such labels WP:DUE, but some of these sources are dubious or unreliable. For example, Vice Media and Media Matters for America are listed as "No Consensus" on WP:RSP. Using these sources and some of the other sources are WP:UNDUE. Less importantly, the proposed leade looks like it will be a terrible case of WP:CITATIONOVERKILL. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This should probably be moved down to the discussion section. I do not support simply adding a section like this. Instead we need to look to the article body to decide how to summarize what the body says. That means, in part, we shouldn't need to put a number of sources in the lead. We should also be careful to not claim the facts presented in the videos are false in wiki voice. That would violate impartial. Instead we should simply say, in so many words, that sources have made these criticisms. Anyway, to discuss this content for the lead with new sources that aren't in the body is a MOS:LEAD problem. That doesn't mean that this has no place in the lead, only that we need to agree to what goes in the body then summarize the body as if it were the only source. Springee (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE Springee - significant controversies should be mentioned in the header, along with citations. I've mentioned this to you before. In terms of the WP:CITATIONOVERKILL contention Scorpions13256, you have to realize this is in context of the repeated contention that there are "bad sources", "not RS", etc in the material. MMfA and VICE are backed by plenty of other sources. Controversial claims are going to need quite a few citations. In any case, this is not a reason to reject the material outright - put forward your own amended version if you wish Noteduck (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Noteduck. An alternative lead is what I had in mind. I'll see what I can do. However, I will say that the majority of sources do refer to PragerU as "right-wing" and not "far-right", so that particular label would still be WP:UNDUE. Scorpions13256 (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Partly - Connections to alt-right or far-right viewpoints is a bit of a tenuous and ill-defined claim to make in the lead. It requires a contextualization of how alt right or far right differs from mainstream conservative thought, which would probably be too verbose for a good summarized lead. On the other hand, their disinformation regarding COVID-19 and climate change is objective, well sourced, notable, and can be understood in summarized format, making it ideal for inclusion in the lead.Shadybabs (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

For those who have said that the sources don't support it: Climate Feedback (which is rated an RS on climate change as per WP:RSP) has rated at least four of PragerU's claims on climate change as "false" or "misleading".[11][12][13][14] PragerU fell afoul of Facebook's fact checkers for spreading misinformation twice in a single month [15][16]

• Yes, something like this - Note my objections to this RfC below, but on the off-chance anyone decides to close this RfC with "consensus for"/"consensus against" conclusions, yes, obviously the lead should summarize the body of the article, and yes the body of the article should summarize reliable sources on the subject, a huge proportion of which are critical or descriptive of criticisms. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes a far-right-Christian-fundamentalist-disinformation spreading-climate change denying-shit show.Acousmana (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Discussion of Item 7

Shine, I absolutely believe all of this material (particularly the material related to COVID misinformation) should be integrated into the article - block reverts have been the norm on this page so it isn't surprisingly that a lot of material isn't yet present. Obviously, I can't edit the page while the RfC is ongoing. Why don't you draft a suggestion for a COVID misinformation paragraph on the talk page and we can fine-tune it? Noteduck (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

Other discussion

My initial take on all this: It seems to me that critiques of the videos have the potential to be as numerous as the videos themselves. It further appears that most or all critiques will be negative, which raises the issues of DUE and BALANCE for this article. I think arguing over sources as a way of including or excluding particular text will be mostly unproductive. Sourcing for such highly charged political commentary is likely as not to come from opinionated and biased sources, which are not disqualified on that account. NPOV states that biased sources are not disallowed, merely due to their bias. Right now, I'm thinking the solution is to make the Critique section a general summary, and spin off the gnarly contents into an independent article: "Critiques of PragerU" or "Controversy over PragerU", or the like, which will be seen as an appropriate place for such endless verbal pugilism to occur. DonFB (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to emphasize that the items as they are presented here are not necessarily perfect and may require additional pruning, but they all belong in the article in something close to their current form, ie. I don't have an "all or nothing" approach. For those rejecting the edits, I'd stress the contents of editorial policy as per Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary:

• it is usually preferable to make an edit that retains at least some elements of a prior edit
• your bias should be toward keeping the entire edit

If you care about improving this page, why not correct errors - eg the attribution error that Shinealittlelight has identified with the Mother Jones piece - instead of advocating for the removal of the material wholesale? Let's work together to continue to improve this page Noteduck (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully, Shinealittlelight, your contentions about RS problems are not strong. You haven't provided, for example, a single link to the WP:RSP page which might indicate the use of an unreliable source. In fact you haven't provided any links or substantive rebuttals at all.

That's an interesting contention DonFB and something we should keep in mind after we conclude this RfC. It's worth noting that as you can see by the extensive references in item 7, it is absolutely mainstream journalistic and academic opinion that PragerU contains propaganda, misinformation, misleading information, etc and this needs to be referenced in the header of the article. Noteduck (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting the material disappear; only that it be placed in a dedicated space, with a link from a brief summary in this article. If all of it is unloaded here, I think the article will begin to acquire the appearance of a hit piece. DonFB (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I think arguing over sources as a way of including or excluding particular text will be mostly unproductive. Sourcing for such highly charged political commentary is likely as not to come from opinionated and biased sources, which are not disqualified on that account. I mostly agree. "Arguing" without clearly applying current policy and consensus will be unproductive. However, all we have are the sources, so a thorough application of WP:RS and related consensus should at least narrow down what we should even attempt to use and how.

I'd hoped it would be easy to throw out opinion pieces unless they are exceptionally high quality.

Deciding how biased a source might be is much more difficult, unless there's already consensus at RSN. It would at least be helpful to identify what we have.

A thorough search for higher quality references (in depth reporting, or better yet, academic research) is always helpful to see if we're missing something that would be useful. --Hipal (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Certainly, we don't use Joe Blow's Blog, or things like that. Mainly, this kind of text is a slugfest of opinions, spin, and he-said/she-said, not so much a debate about facts and data. I noted that someone objected to Right Wing Watch as a source. It has a decidedly provocative name, but it's an organ of People for the American Way, a well-established organization with a staff of writers. An analogue might be the Cato Institute, which RSP shows as "reliable for its opinion." I think that phrase will serve to qualify as usable many, perhaps most or all, of the sources being discussed here. DonFB (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

PragerU is very controversial so most of the criticism should remain imo. However, a lot of it can be summarized or written more briefly. The interesting part isn't who has criticized PragerU or exactly which videos they have criticized, it is along what lines they have criticized PragerU and what their reasoning is. I must also say that I think this UNDUE thing is often used as a clutch. Yes, the article contains lots of criticism, so then add more neutral or positive information to balance it out? ImTheIP (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely - for example an article titled "Why PragerU was right about Charlottesville" would definitely merit inclusion. Unfortunately as you can see from the page's edit history, it's largely the case that a few editors repeatedly revert large chunks of material from the page without pruning the material or adding contrasting information for balance Noteduck (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

ImTheIP wrote, Yes, the article contains lots of criticism, so then add more neutral or positive information to balance it out? Noteduck wrote, Unfortunately as you can see from the page's edit history, it's largely the case that a few editors repeatedly revert large chunks of material from the page without pruning the material or adding contrasting information for balance. These present fundamentally incorrect perspectives on what neutrality means in Wikipedia. We do not as editors look to balance information that we find, that would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. To do so would violate WP:POV, and likely WP:OR as well if the editor is working from their own biases to "balance" perspectives in the article and references. --Hipal (talk) 16:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The article as is doesn't seem ideal (describing, at length, this organization as the victim of censorship without really saying why in context; a lead that doesn't attempt to summarize most of the article). I'd attempt a lead if I didn't think it would be disruptive while this RfC is ongoing. Speaking of which, I've spent the last half hour going through these various blocks of text and their sources and am concerned at what looks like !voting on overly specific, overly long text that includes some sub-par sources. Most of these topics certainly appear WP:DUE, but the language and sourcing leaves a bit to be desired. I'm not quite sure how to approach it at this point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Related discussions

On a lot of modern politics articles (and on others reflecting a current real-world contest) the dialog seems to be be a side-based contest. And the most common example is using policy and guideline-based arguments to include maximum quantity and hard-hittingness of negative material where the topic is about the "other" side. Of course, the other combinations also occur regarding "same side" and positive-sounding material. I would like to recommend a different emphasis which is both more fun and which results in better articles. And that is to focus instead on making an article which is focused on providing information about the topic of the article. For this a particular emphasis on the degree of relevance of the material to the topic is helpful. For example, let's say that PragerU (not just one errant guy within it) did a video. If there was widespread negative reaction (vs. just some predicable swipes from their political opponents) then that is informative/information about their video, and their video is only one step removed from ParagerU from a relevance standpoint. The fact that they took a video down (if such is unusual) further re-enforces this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I want to emphasize what i stated above "1) stop using such bad sources. And relatedly 2) establish that the criticisms in question are actually relevant to something and not just POV pushing. Everyone 'attracts' or 'receives' criticism, demonstrate why the reader should care." Bonewah (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't concede that any of this is "POV pushing" - Neutral editing. Isn't. Neutral. Content. Read WP:NEUTRALEDIT again if you gotta. There are quite a few editors criticizing these edits on the grounds of "bad sources", "not RS" etc. Where are your links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, to anything backing up your arguments? Noteduck (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, here are a few diffs demonstrating you've been working from the perspective that other editors are pov-pushing against your edits:[17] [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]

So now you want discussion on the sources as I requested?! Glad to see it. How about you start a list of references, or at least those that have been questioned?

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/PragerU_RFC

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#PragerU --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hipal - yes, I have had to deal with very frequent political partisanship on Wiki. In particular, this comes in the form of right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects, resulting in a kind of whitewashing by omission or status quo stonewalling Noteduck (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be focusing on behavior here, but WP:AE prep needs to start somewhere: So in the short time you've been here, you choose to assert that other editors are politically biased and use that as rationale to try justify content changes that you want? Instead of following up with a focus on sources, you choose to once again make these assertions? --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I dropped in to help a little. In general, I support inclusion of informative coverage of things closely relevant to PragerU. This includes coverage of "what they did" in any areas that they have been broadly criticized for if/when such is the case. IMO in general that doesn't include "hit phrase" characterizations by their opponents. IMO there have been a large amount of debates and RFC questions that seem like the latter. I really didn't plan to and don't want to keep weighing in on huge amounts of these. My general thought on future ones is to support informative coverage of those areas and oppose uninformative "hit phrase" characterizations by their opponents. I don't plan to watch this page closely but I can help on a specific area or question I'd be happy to come if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Avoiding facially critical language has been quite difficult and often impossible in this case since there is significant outcry about the conduct of the organisation, and it has been rather difficult to find anything that would minimise this. Efforts are being made to avoid wordings that are too loaded though, like the word "propagandistic" which although used by many prominent analysts and critics, has not been used here so far since it has connotations that go beyond the literal meaning and could come across as a "hit phrase" as you put it. Any efforts to condense critical sections while retaining information would be welcome though, I am sure you have noticed that these are a bit more verbose than they need to be. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

27 Feb edits

Shadybabs, your changes here make the text less accurate with respect to the sources. Additionally Bridge is a SPS so should not be used as a RS. The first edit is rather neutral compared to the original. The addition of "erroneous" would have to be justified by the source since there is a view that these social media sites are becoming "the new public square". Finally, the climate change edits takes the statements further from the actual source and inserts a SPS. Please explain why you restored these disputed edits [[30]]. Springee (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, this is not a BLP page and thus those special conditions for sourcing don't apply. Assuming that Bridge is indeed a SPS, where is the proviso that such material can never be used as an RS? Noteduck (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do you think RS doesn't apply here? Springee (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"Bridge is a SPS so should not be used as a RS." Springee, even if this point is conceded, what's your source for this? This is not a BLP page Noteduck (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Claiming that the Bridge Initiative at Georgetown University is a WP:SPS is not correct. It is a research project which has an entire editorial team behind it. It's exactly the sort of reliable source we would want for such discussions. jps (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

There was a recent RSN discussion on this subject. The result was no consensus hence we treat it the same as a new special interest group, self published. Springee (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

RSN archive link for reference. Jlevi (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but bullshit non-WP:LOCALCONSENSUS like that doesn't mean ideologues like yourself can just ignore scholarship out of respected academic institutions. That's not (and never has been) how Wikipedia works. jps (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please FOC. This isn't ignoring scholarship, this is following RS guidelines. This was extensively discussed with a number of editors joining in. The result was no consensus, why wouldn't that result apply here? Springee (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

As a research group under the umbrella of Georgetown University, the Bridge Initiative is a reliable source. There's no sign that they're a "special interest group" of any sort; what special interest do they represent? You don't get to stonewall an RSN discussion, declare "no consensus" as an involved editor and then use that to exclude reliably-sourced content. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Why relitigate the RSN discussion here given that discussion was well attended? This looks like an attempt to get a smaller local consensus to ignore the prior discussion. Perhaps you can reopen the RSN discussion if you think it should have resulted in a consensus outcome. It's also worth noting that this was being added only as a second source so it has minimal change to the actual article text. Springee (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It was not well-attended and since it was not closed with consensus it is clear that you are wrong in this instance. Further intransigence in this matter will be noted when we bring you to WP:AE for WP:DE. jps (talk) 23:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Climate change and COVID-19 coverage and misinformation

PragerU's coverage of climate change-related material and COVID-19 has been extensively criticized, and yet these criticisms are not prominent on this page - COVID-19 has so far not even got a single mention. PragerU has repeatedly been picked up by Facebook's fact-checkers for spreading misinformation on climate change, sometimes several times in a single month. In particular, PragerU has an extensive record of purported misinformation on climate change from reliable sources.

PragerU's mentions of COVID-19 have also been criticized for spreading false and misleading information about the pandemic. Here's the NY Times criticising one of Prager's videos for downplaying the seriousness of the pandemic.

This is just to get started, as I think this material needs to be covered in much more depth. I believe a new subheading, perhaps titled "allegations of misinformation" or maybe just "criticism" should be added to accommodate these widespread, well-substantiated claims. Alternatively, perhaps separate subheadings should be made for "climate change coverage", "COVID-19 coverage" and any other relevant ones.

Comments/thoughts/etc? Noteduck (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

How about picking the best reference out of that bunch and telling us what you believe is encyclopedic and due from it? If we don't agree on it, we can go to the next, until we have some agreed-upon references or we run out of references to consider. --Hipal (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)--

These are separate topics. I would suggest separating the proposed sources and suggesting proposed language based on the content of the sources. Do we know how many climate change videos PragerU has actually produced? I was only aware of 2 or 3.Springee (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, proposed changes would be helpful as well.

Which of these refs are already in use? --Hipal (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, I recommended looking at Climate Feedback's articles to see which PragerU claims and videos have been criticized (by scientists no less) for false and misleading claims about climate change. See WP:RSPSOURCES about established RS's - Climate Feedback is an RS, The Guardian is an RS, BuzzFeed News is an RS. NBC News is an RS. These are just the first ones I've found from a cursory Google News search. What basis would there be for excluding any of this material?

Perhaps you should be answering those questions since this is material you wish to add. Please take a moment to review ONUS. Just because a source is generally reliable doesn't mean it should always be part of an article. The most obvious example would be if the added content isn't related at all to the article in question. Most of the time there is at least a connection but they you still need to look at the specific claims in the article and the specific statements those claims will be used to support in the Wikipedia article. This is why editors are asking that you propose text first. I think you will find that editors are more likely to focus on areas of compromise vs areas of objection if when those proposing changes start with proposals vs article edits and when they show a willingness to understand the objections. Springee (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

well, I'll start with a question for you. Do you think in principle that a subheading on this page for climate change misinformation is worth adding? Or a composite one for misinformation generally? Or a different structure, or none of the above? Noteduck (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

additional sources mentioning PragerU and denial or misinformation on climate change:[31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Noteduck (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you propose something first. In general I think it would be better to call it criticism of vs misinformation. Looking just at your last list, Daily Dot and Buzzfeed are not likely to be good sources. DD is reliable only for a limited scope of topics and climate change isn't one of them. Buzzfeed News has been seen as reliable but that doesn't extend to Buzzfeed. Also, a source that takes issue with just a part of the video or mentions a concern with the video as a backdrop to a primary topic is probably not one we should use. It's best to stick with sources that are about PragerU or the videos in question and explain why the videos get it wrong. Consider if you didn't know the source who are you more likely to believe, a scientist who has published in the area of climate science or an online news reporter who is getting paid by the click? Springee (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

well, all journalists who work for for-profit news sources are working for clicks in a sense - just ask Noam Chomsky. You and Hipal are placing all of the burden on me to justify the inclusion of material to you both before it gets added - do you have a policy basis for this position? I don't see how it's consistent with WP:BOLD. Noteduck (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not putting all the burden on you. You are being asked to the bare minimum: make a proposal. I've also suggested you work in smaller steps. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Making a proposal before editing is not the "bare minimum", it's far beyond the norms and expectations for an article that doesn't have a special "consensus required" restriction. Anyone if free to WP:BOLDly expand the article, and while I applaud Noteduck for opening this discussion, I think the sources include enough material to have a productive discussion without a full-fledged proposal. –dlthewave ☎ 18:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

In general, yes, be bold but don't be reckless. Noteduck, on more than one article, has dumped huge volumes of poorly edited text and then objected (to put it mildly) when editors decided it was better to revert and discuss vs fix in place. Doing that again and again would be reckless. Noteduck is going in the right direction by discussing first. Still, a dump of sources isn't much to go on. We can review them and guess that Daily Dot and BuzzFeed aren't going to be usable but what about the other sources? Are they about PragerU in general or a specific video's claims? Well without knowing the specific claims to be supported and how the content will be integrated into the article it's impossible to tell. Also, even if every source is good that doesn't mean the added text would be impartial, DUE etc. Springee (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree w/ dlthewave that making a proposal for new edits is not generally necessary, much less "the bare minimum", and I disagree that their edits have been particularly poorly edited. Loki (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Making a proposal before editing... is not what anyone is suggesting. Being overly BOLD given the AE discussions might not be a good idea though. Regardless, we need to know what is being proposed. --Hipal (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think there is a difference between in general and this case. In this case Noteduck asked for something that can't be answered without a "bare minimum" of information. Yes, they could just make a large edit to the article. However, if that large edit is problematic then its understandably easier to revert and fix the issues here vs fix it in the live article. I don't think Hipal is claiming Noteduck is restricted from editing the article, only that they asked a question that can't be answered with the provided information. Were their previous contributions poorly edited? Repeated citations were a frequent problems. Clear prose wasn't. IMPARTIAL and DUE were certainly concerns. Springee (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think per WP:BOLD this material, being based on multiple RS's, should be added to this article and then any finer points can be ironed out on the talk page and in subsequent edits, keeping WP:ROWN in mind. How about bringing in this material under two new subheadings: Climate change coverage and COVID-19 coverage? Or a single subheading that combines both, or a new Allegations of misinformation subheading? Noteduck (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please review WP:RECKLESS. Springee (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I just read it. It's good not to make reckless edits, but claims backed my multiple RS's (and not contradicted by any RS's) seem like a robust thing to add to the article. Any thoughts on the subheadings? Noteduck (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

But poorly constructed edits with undue material or questionable sources are often reckless. But more to the point, you will often find that the editing process goes smoother when changes are proposed on the talk page and people can suggest/make changes without edit warring concerns. It's a great way to show good faith etc. I've found some of my most successful edits come after collaborating on talk pages with editors whom I often don't agree. Springee (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Still no proposal or other indication of what changes are indented? --Hipal (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It could go 4.1 Critiques of videos, 4.2 climate change coverage, 4.3 COVID-19 coverage, initially based on the wealth of source material already provided. I'm a bit distracted right now though. Especially considering how widespread and well-attested these claims are, anyone is welcome to add stuff including yourself Noteduck (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Yet to hear any objections which is a good sign Noteduck (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Since you haven't proposed anything it's hard to say. We have been shown raw ingredients and are being asked to review a finished supper. Springee (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't quite understand, I'm not asking anyone to review anything Noteduck (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that what is being asked for is input that will aid in drafting a proposition, if input from opposing viewpoints is integrated in this process then it is more likely that it will lead to a less contentious drafting. If anyone disagrees with the fundamental premise of including a section on misinformation then they should present an argument to that effect, but if not then it would be best to provide input that would lead to a proposition they would be happy with. It is perfectly acceptable to wait until a proposition has been made before giving any input, but complaining that a proposition has not yet been drafted is pointless and adds unnecessary bulk to the section. I'll hopefully have some time to dedicate to this soon, personally I would be advocating for a section in which to move all the misinformation stuff to, I think it would really tidy up some of the awkward sprawl of the page. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Some interesting classical points are highlighted in this The Independent source. PragerU was one of the contributors to a climate change denialism campaign on Facebook that used targetted advertizing. Pushed narratives are:

1. Cast doubt on the science
2. Lie about the scientific consensus
3. Promote minimalism, that there's nothing worrying about the climate or emissions for the future, claiming that those who understand it are alarmists or suffer from hysteria
4. Promote conspiracy theories like claims that it would be an agenda for world or "big government control"
5. Promote messages that the quality of the environment is improving while conveniently failing to mention concerning issues like emission forcings and observed warming
6. Pretend that it's all only a leftist narrative, an ideology rather than scientific knowledge and facts about the natural world.

—PaleoNeonate – 18:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

thanks for your interest PaleoNeonate. Yeah, there are HEAPS of sources referring to PragerU's misinformation/denial of climate change. Feel free to add to the page, I've just been too busy lately. Springee and Hipal, given your ongoing interest in this page, feel free to add this important material Noteduck (talk) 00:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

References