Jump to content

Talk:PragerU/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Coverage of PragerU

PragerU has generated almost 200 educational videos featuring many conservatives political figures of note, and a recent censorship controversy has thrust the website into the national spotlight (articles published in the Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, etc). A small subsection on Dennis Prager's page is no longer adequate space to cover PragerU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:4854:7b00:a803:648f:1c79:81bc (talk • contribs) 05:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

List of presenters, topics, episodes

While I don't pay a great deal of attention to YouTube infoboxes, I don't believe the list of presenters deserves such prominence, if any mention is due at all.[1] While this is typical public relations material, I don't think it is suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Same goes for the list of topics and episodes [2]. This article is not a forum to advertise, nor should it be treated as an extension of public relations and marketing efforts for the topic.

If editors can provide some independent and reliable sources, then we'd have something to work from. Maybe we can get some help and guidance from WP:WPMEDIA or other editors more familiar with the general consensus on articles about similar media providers. --Ronz (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Andy W. (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Prager University → PragerU – Prager University now goes by PragerU on its own website and its social media pages, including YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. Furthermore, recent media coverage of PragerU identifies the organization as PragerU, and not Prager University. See the Wall Street Journal story cited and The Federalist story in this article, along with this piece in The Washington Times. Jsichel (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise and promote your fringe conspiracy fake news

Merge this with Dennis Prager — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.59.58 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Promotion tactics

I've just reverted the removal of a sentence about "PragerForce" - students who promote the videos. I disagree that mentioning this promotes PragerU or is non-neutral in any other way. It is a detail of their way of operating (as I said in my edit summary, it helps illuminate its not being an actual university), and the source, while making no secret of its ideological bias, is reputable and so I believe I can trust the specifics it gives about the business side of the organization. (However I had to go to a heavily ideological source to reference the co-founder; perhaps his name is in the Wall Street Journal article, but I can only see the very start of that.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

PragerU's obsessive use of unchecked information and being vague

PragerU likes to include info that was unchecked. They also like to be vague. Perhaps we can put that in the Article somewhere. Ericeleven (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It would come to who says they like to include unchecked info and be vague? --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion about Buzzfeed News on the RS noticeboard

See here[3]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the content and source. Two more sources are available at RSN that can be used if there is any continued doubt of reliability and due weight. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion archived at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_239#Buzzfeed_News_as_a_source_for_text_on_PragerU. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over use of reference from Americans United for Separation of Church and State

  • Jones, Sarah E. "More Money, More Problems: Billionaires Back Sectarian Courses For Public Schools". Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Retrieved 2018-03-20.
  • Added [4], apparently to support the BuzzFeed reference in the previous section.
  • Removed at least twice now: [5] [6]
  • The author appears to be [7] [8]

I'm not seeing any problems with it, nor any discussions in the usual places (RSN, or deletion discussions). --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what there is to dispute. I see no reason why the Buzzfeed reference is not sufficient. The source that has been offered as an additional source appears to be an opinion piece in a self-published blog. Hence it should not be used for claims about living persons and you should not have reinstated a BLP violation without consensus. The blog does not even support the statement about "largest donors".
Nobody is trying to remove the content, so, to put it bluntly, I don't understand what purpose your edit-warring serves. If you are certain that a self-published blog post is a good source for this content, you should consult WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. My interest to this article specifically stemmed from a RSN discussion. Anyway, thank you for paraphrasing the content. Politrukki (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Please WP:FOC.
The Buzzfeed ref was disputed, and there are BLP concerns.
Given the info I've provided, I don't know how "self-published", "blog post", or "opinion piece" apply. As I mentioned, I've found no discussions at RSN or in deletion discussions suggesting it is an unreliable source. AU seems a reputable publisher. The author seems an experienced journalist.
I don't understand how the addition or removal of an additional, supporting source could be a BLP violation.
Other sources are available, from both the Buzzfeed and AU refs. I looked at a few of the ones from Buzzfeed at the time. I've not looked at those in the AU article.
Two sources were offered in the RSN discussion, and the arguments made in the RSN discussion about the Buzzfeed ref seem to apply rather perfectly to the AU ref. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Could you provide a quotation – from the blog post – that directly supports the content? BLP policy is very clear on this. You can't use self-published blog posts, especially when the source fails verification. You have not provided evidence that AU is a news organisation and that a piece published in the "Wall of separation blog" (obviously some kind of group blog) is under full editorial control. As the blog post is not a reliable source for content about living persons – particularly when written in Wikipedia's voice – it cannot be used to bolster claims made in reliable sources. (Hypothetically, if a journalist who has won a Pulitzer Prize or five tweets something about another living person, the tweet is still not an acceptable source about living persons. If reliable sources cite the tweet, it may be included in Wikipedia, with attribution.)
In the discussion at RSN I supported including Buzzfeed as a source because it does seems to be a valid case of WP:NEWSBLOG. Now the onus is on you to prove that the AU blog is a reliable source about living persons. Politrukki (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not clear if you have read anything I wrote, so let's get others involved. To clarify:
AU seems a reputable publisher AU is a publisher, and has been since 1952. [9]
Their "The Wall of Separation Blog" appears to simply be their name for their online publications. I don't see the slightest bit of evidence that the articles there have any independence from AU's oversight. The authors are employees of AU.
The author seems an experienced journalist. She worked for AU for three years. [10] [11] [12] [13]
The reference is itself well referenced.
the arguments made in the RSN discussion about the Buzzfeed ref seem to apply rather perfectly to the AU ref The AU ref is a NEWSBLOG. The author worked for AU, and is now a staff writer for The New Republic.
I don't understand how the addition or removal of an additional, supporting source could be a BLP violation. The second sentence of the ref says, "Dan and Farris Wilks made their fortune in fracking, and according to RH Reality Check’s Brie Shea, they’re putting their ample funds at the disposal of Dennis Prager and his “Prager University.”" Again, this supports the previously disputed content about the Wilks funding PragerU, using the Rewire.News ref brought up at RSN.
Other sources are available, from both the Buzzfeed and AU refs Two sources were offered in the RSN discussion. So we have options on better verifying and possibly expanding on the content. We are here after all, to improve this encyclopdia.
Please restore the ref and let's work from there. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think mediabiasfactcheck.com is accepted as a reliable source. Few examples of comments I found using search:
"I don't see the slightest bit of evidence that the articles there have any independence from AU's oversight." – "Editorial control" means that all published articles are fact-checked before publication and the publication runs corrections when they make mistakes. There is still no evidence of such.
"The author seems an experienced journalist. She worked for AU for three years." – That is kind of circular logic. You seem to be saying that the publication is reliable because the author works for it, and that the author is reliable because they work for the publication.
The AU ref is a NEWSBLOG – Just saying a thing does make it true. According to The New York Times, AU is "a liberal advocacy group".
"The author worked for AU, and is now a staff writer for The New Republic." – The blog post was published in 2015, Jones became staff writer at The New Republic in 2017. If Jones wrote a Facebook post in 2015, becoming a staff writer later does not mean that we can cite a (hypothetical) Facebook post in Wikipedia, in Wikipedia's voice.
"The second sentence of the ref says ..." – Your quote generally says that Wilks brothers have funded PragerU, but the source cannot be used for a specific claim about "largest donors" because the source says nothing of sort.
If you wish to add sources, I would suggest reading WP:Identifying reliable sources and using reputable news sources or academic sources. Politrukki (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on getting others involved. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I arrived here from WP:30. I agree that AU has no indicia of reliability or editorial oversight. That AU has published things since 1952 has nothing whatsoever to do with its reliability, just as the fact that Sarah Jones has written for AU for an extended period of time has nothing to do with hers. I also agree that the article does not support the sentence that it purports to - the source supports only that the Wilks brothers have provided unspecified financial support to PragerU, not that "much of PragerU's early funding" came from them. Moreover, the article does not even put its own credibility behind the claim that the Wilks brothers are financially supporting PragerU—it only says that Brie Shea has made that claim. Even a New York Times article reporting that Brie Shea had made a claim could be used to support no more than a statement that Brie Shea had made that claim, and not that the claim is accurate. Steve Smith (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Ronz, can we please use {{Infobox organization}} instead of {{Infobox television}}? The article is about an organization, not a television show. The fact that the organization is known for its YouTube channel shouldn't make a difference. A YouTube channel is not a television show, and even if it was, the article is about the nonprofit that makes it, not the YouTube videos themselves. The reason we need to change the infobox is quite practical. Among other things, using {{Infobox television}} automatically italicizes the title, which is inappropriate. We don't italicize titles for organizations (or YouTube channels). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The notability is clearly the videos and their content, so it may be better to treat this more as an article about the YouTube channel than the corporation.
Given the information that's removed and the change in emphasis by treating it as corporation, I'm not so sure it's a good thing to do.
Briefly looking over notable YouTube channels, it seems appropriate to keep.
How about we look for GA and FA articles, or similar discussions? --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't get it. The article says PragerU is a conservative digital media organization. Is a conservative digital media organization a TV show? Now, let's say for the sake of argument we re-wrote the article to be about a YouTube channel, something we don't know would be supported by the sources. Is a YouTube channel a TV show? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
How many of the YouTube channels listed in List of most-subscribed YouTube channels use {{Infobox television}}? I looked through the top 20 and only found one, The Ellen DeGeneres Show. which is actually a television show. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Of the 6 cited reliable secondary sources, only one (the Boston Globe) refers to PragerU as a YouTube channel. The other five refer to PragerU as a company/organization/etc. that has a YouTube channel. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not finding any other articles that are very similar and of high quality, so I'm giving up on that as a way to get some guidance. --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I've run across {{Infobox YouTube personality}} being used. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) I don't think this is a good solution in this case. --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't really understand what the point of this is. Do you need to have a precedent before you'll accept input from your fellow contributors? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
The notability is clearly the videos and their content... Given the information that's removed...
I don't know the solution, but am concerned about the removal of info.
Check with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Websites? --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Verifiable info that's not in the body can be moved rather than deleted, yes? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted. You don't seem very interested in any of my concerns, so I'll look elsewhere, starting with the WikiProject.

It was added here by a SPA ip. That certainly doesn't give me confidence in it being a good solution. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. I don't even know what your concerns are beyond that there's some removal of content. Which is why I suggest that we move the verifiable deleted content out of the infobox. How is that not being interested in your concerns? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I've certainly not paid much attention to how infoboxes should be used, but my impression is that they highlight important information. Removing that information from the infobox would then be a POV issue. I'll see what I can find. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Websites#Infobox_for_PragerU. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The solution is to use {{Infobox YouTube personality}} and here is the template in action YouTube_Spotlight.– Lionel(talk) 02:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't make total sense to me, but I'm fine with it since it doesn't italicize the title. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"farage and krauthammer dont merit mention"

Why? Both are at least as notable as PragerU. What am I failing to see here? TOWT7 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, and material about living persons requires high-quality sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
We shouldn't be making our own decisions about who gets listed and who doesn't. I'd support a list, but only if we used objective criteria: either all notable hosts, or all hosts mentioned in connection with PragerU by reliable independent secondary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we can make the assumption that such a list should be added without independent sources demonstrating encyclopedic value in doing so, or finding general consensus to do so in articles very similar to this one. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
It's not an assumption. It's just my opinion. I'd support it, though I understand others might not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

controversy & criticism

how about a section about criticism & controversies about what the organisation puts out instead of just about the youtube thing.

also, would be nice to hear WHY each of these videos was removed, & what the content was.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. It is a distortion of facts to claim that what PragerU dishes out has anything to do with "education" or "science". --91.67.98.120 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Find some reliable, independent sources on the topic, and there shouldn't be much problem adding such details. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This might be useful. Probably not for anything where BLP applies, but I wonder if Myers' viewpoints on education would be reliable and due. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, this would only devolve into a page bashing PragerU for wrongthink.

I disagree, anonymous editor, as PragerU has made factually incorrect statements. Although, I wouldn't call free thought blogs a credible source. StigmaOfTruth (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

YouTube fact-checking on climate change

So the Buzzfeed reporters identified PragerU as one of the publishers of a video that YouTube includes a blurb on the scientific consensus of climate change to counter the misinformation in the video. The article goes into no detail on what is in the video, and appears to highlight PragerU solely on how they responded to a request for comment. This seems to be on the line of WP:NOTNEWS, and while I think a case could be made for some mention, even the section heading seems undue. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The line could be moved to the 'content' section, with some elaboration on what PragerU's videos on climate change say. The 'content' section already mentions climate change denial, so perhaps the youtube fact-checking could be connected to that somehow. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I've looked for reliable sources analyzing PragerU's climate change videos and came up empty. I'm unfamiliar with bloggers or the like that are considered reliable for analyzing fringe climate change viewpoints, but those might be our best bet if anyone bothered to give PragerU such notice. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Shadow banning

Ronz (talk · contribs) has removed content regarding the website's content being shadow banned on Facebook. This event has been covered by multiple news sources, most of which fall within the scope of the article Alternative Media (which shouldn't be a discredit upon them), and has been mentioned by President Trump. Therefore, IMHO it has received significant coverage, and should be included here and/or the shadow banning article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Needs to be reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/08/17/shadow-ban-prageru-reveals-immediate-99-9999-drop-in-facebook-reach/ Brietbart], The Daily Caller, PJ Media, BizPac Review, The Blaze, The Western Journal, Fox News Insider. Or are we saying that Alternative Media sources are not reliable sources?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, at-least when "Alternative" means "right-wing conspiracy-theory-monger" (breitbart is not a reliable source. Seriously?) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
None of those are RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Even assuming that some of the sources are RS - the sources (the better ones among them, at-least) generally attribute the claim of shadow banning to PragerU and mention facebook's response, neither of which you've done in your addition, which states the shadow banning as a fact - why is that? Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
As Snooganssnoogans said, needs to be reliably sourced. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm having trouble finding any RS coverage of the alleged shadow ban. Additionally, the Fox Insider piece includes an apology from Facebook which states that the videos were mistakenly removed and have since been restored. This information should also be included if it can be verified, to avoid implying that a ban is currently in effect. –dlthewave ☎ 19:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
So it did happen, and it was reversed, according to the Fox News source (provided previously) and elsewhere. Thus, I am not making this up.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Clarifying my edit summary. Adding a press release that itself ignores the larger context in a manner to this article that ignores the larger context is a WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SOAP, and POV violation at least. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
NewsMax is not PragerU. Multiple sources verify the statement made by the subject of this article. I included it before Facebook made their reversal, so it was accurate to the time it was added. Now that Facebook has reversed themselves, it should be included that PragerU was censored, briefly on Facebook, and Facebook apologized. This is not soupboxing, or POV, this is a statement of fact. No where in the original context which was removed by Ronz did I push a POV or say anything positive or negative about the subject of this article or Facebook in the article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Warmed over press releases makes it almost impossible to avoid NOTNEWS, SOAP, and POV problems. Focus on recent events is a problem when trying to write encyclopedia articles. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
RightCow, the sources you provide do not show what you claim they show. On the one hand, neither the Federalist nor anything else you link to says PragerU was shadow banned; they merely say that PragerU says that PragerU was shadow banned. It's obvious from both content and tone that they are uncritically regurgitating the assertion made by the primary source. On the other hand, Facebook doesn't say they reversed their decision to shadow ban PragerU; Facebook says a few videos were hidden by mistake. This is not the same thing as a shadow ban.
An additional problem – which Dlthewave has already pointed out – is that every single source you cite is known to be on the same side of the aisle as PragerU and to be vehemently opposed to social media's ongoing crackdown on far-right conspiracy theory and junk scholarship. I made an effort to find a neutral-ish source reporting on the alleged shadow ban, but the only additional sources I can find are WND, Stormfront, and a number of forum sites. This is not a kind of media coverage that can justify adding these allegations. Damvile (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Damvile, K.e.coffman, and Ronz: While other sources sources, such as CNET, BBC, & CBN do not use the term "shadow ban", others do as I had provided above, and the terms censorship and banning are used in these three sources I have just linked. So there is censorship of PragerU content going on, and has reached international acknowledgement that the event has occurs. This clearly verifies that this has occurred to the subject of the article. Therefore, please stop denying that it didn't happen. The content should be included in some form!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The CBN article is garbage.
The CNET article is still NOTNEWS in my opinion. Typical he-said, she-said, lazy reporting.
The BBC article is altogether different, and might be enough to demonstrate some mention is due. How much though, and where? It ties this incident strongly to the YouTube/Google lawsuit, so there maybe?
The BBC article could also be used to support and perhaps expand information in other sections of this article as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: I agree; these are prima facie useful sources and they change things. The BBC in particular is everything that clickbait agenda sites like PJ Media are not. The BBC article is evidence that the shadow ban allegation is considered notable by observers who do not reside in a fringe-right fever swamp and are not just trying to kick up shit out of some kind of performative persecution complex. For the time being, I still don't see a strong case for including the allegation, on the grounds that WP:NOTNEWS, but it's a topic worth watching now. If the topic doesn't go away and becomes a noteworthy part of the PragerU controversy, it may have to be added eventually. Damvile (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
That certain sources are being wholly ignored is frustrating to say the least. These sources meet IMHO IRS, even if they are biased (heck CNN is now a biased source (and MSNBC has been a biased source), but that doesn't stop them from being RSs)), they still have editorial oversight and fact-check their content.
The temporary shadow banning, censoring, whateveryouwanna call it of PragerU content on Facebook has been covered by WTSP, Accuracy in Media, Business Insider and spoken about by John Stossel (1, 2). Thus, more than a dozen sources verify that the event occurred, and in context with its content past censorship on youtube, it verifies that its content had been suppressed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Most of the RS coverage is simply repeating both parties without analysis: "Facebook temporarily blocked PragerU's videos. Facebook later restored the videos, saying that it was a mistake. PragerU characterizes the removal as a deliberate act of censorship."
At this point we have sufficient sourcing to say that the removal did in fact take place, but we need to be extremely cautious about describing it as "censorship" or "shadow banning" (or "mistake" for that matter) in Wiki voice unless reliable sources describe it as such. It would have to be an attributed opinion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I added text on the Facebook removals, adhering to language in BBC and BI reporting.[14] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I trimmed it back. If the sources were a bit better, a tie-in to the Google lawsuit would be clearly due. The news cycle is still early, and there's a lot going on with Facebook's responses to fake news, hate speech, etc. While I'm not keeping up on it, my impression was that Facebook was following Google's lead in many areas. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD I have reverted the trimming. Removal of the context added by Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) removes context of the event. In addition content from CNET and other sources should be included as well IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ronz: Reverting a reversion stands in opposition to WP:BRD and leads to edit wars. Please revert the reversion; there is no consensus for the trimmed down version that Ronz created by trimming the content added by Snooganssnoogans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)
But what portions of that context are encyclopedic in nature? As I have pointed out, the most important context that I see is the tie-in to the Google lawsuit.
Please also note that at this date it's only a brief bit of news that may have difficulty standing any test of time. Contrast it with the Google lawsuit, something that was a long-running, widely reported event. While some mention of the Facebook situation may be due, giving it a longer treatment is grossly undue. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

The article presently utilizes Buzzfeed News and Mother Jones, both arguably fall within the biased reliable sources category. Yet above it is argued that certain sources presented by myself should not be used. So why should biased reliable sources which lean Left are OK, but those that lean right are not?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Bias, in and of itself, is not the reason a source is unreliable. It's when they are so biased that their spin affects their accuracy, and they occasionally (or often) push inaccurate or debunked stories. Then they are not considered RS. A number of the sources listed above are definitely not considered RS. Vanessa Otero's chart is pretty amazing and worth studying. Stay within the green and yellow boxes and you're pretty safe. Also take a look at my essay here: The quick and lazy guide to reliable and unreliable sources -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Really Fox News not a reliable source!?! It is easy to make Wikipedia bias if we ignore whole sections of the media landscape that meet qualifications of reliable sources. And making Wikipedia bias is definitely not in keeping with the pillar of neutrality.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
While I do think that the chart is a bit unfair in putting Fox below the Daily Mail, I would like to point out that they tried to downplay police brutality by calling pepper spray "a food product". However, within the broader scope (as per Wikipedia's guidelines, see Wikipedia:NEWSORG), the source's credibility is weighed alongside the article itself. Considering that Facebook has messed up with its algorithms in the past (remember the whole "does this contain hate speech?" thing), it's absolutely plausible that they just fumbled stuff again. On the other hand, they were being investigated for bias. A news organization should provide both of these sides equally, as the BBC article does. An article that biases one side, as Fox and other articles do, should not be used.--StigmaOfTruth (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Should not be used solely, however in conjunction with other sources it may be used or even by it by self in an attributed statement (provided RSN has not reached a stable consensus claiming that a particular source can't be used in a particular context). There is no policy I am aware of that allows for the banning of any source outright, when used properly any source can be used in conjunction with others as long as the standards of reliability are met for the statement itself in at least some of the citations. Could you please inform me as to which policies I seemed to have missed? Endercase (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Buzzfeed is probably OK, MJ not so much. The fact is, this is a nontroversy that the usual right wing bloviators are trying to make into something significant. But it isn't significant. PragerU itself is barely significant. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


I think this version that we now have is good: it just notes the facts that videos were removed, then gives both sides' responses. Seems very encyclopedic and neutral! AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

gives both sides' responses That's not what we mean by neutral here on Wikipedia. The new source is a warmed-over press release. Using it is WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Do we have a reliable source for Facebook "initially saying that they contained hate speech"? A label applied by an algorithm is different from "saying", and it appears that Facebook's initial response was a correction and apology. –dlthewave ☎ 01:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Good point. Removed. The wording would require basic verification of the reason for removal and something to justify the "initially" portion, which suggests they changed their position.
As I keep saying, this is fuel for conspiracy theories. I'll add now that it's probably fueled by conspiracy theories. It would explain the absolutely horrible references that have been proposed earlier... --Ronz (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the sources, but Conservative Tribune (and probably any site under the Liftable Media umbrella) should not be considered Reliable. They're tabloid at best, with a wild history of misrepresenting people's statements and concocting conspiracy theories attacking any person or group they dislike. For example one story linked Mideast and African immigrants with "Animal Brothels Open in Germany".[15] (Spoiler alert: The supposed "Animal Brothels" don't actually exist.[16]) Alsee (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-RS

One editor tries to add a collection of non-RS to this article[17]. They absolutely do not belong here and they do not add anything to the article. The only RS is the Verge, whereas the rest are blatant non-RS (WND, Breitbart, Fox News 'Insider'), with the exception of the 'Preston Business Review' which I have never heard of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Endercase - since you cited "wp:consensus WP:RELIABILITY" - the consensus on the non reliability of Breitbart is here and WorldNetDaily, here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
It is also unnecessary to add low quality or unreliable sources when higher quality sources already support the material (also does anyone else find it amusing when someone tells another person not to edit war in an edit summary of a revert?) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Galobtter: here has not been closed and has not yet reached a consensus thus your claim of not being RS is POV and may not be HERE. Additionally, as I have mentioned above per the founding consensus of RSN all discussions about the reliability of any particular source must be made in context, at least as far as I am aware. Additionally,these citations are not being used by themselves to support any new statement. Please cite policy to support the removal. Endercase (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I mean if you can't recognize the WP:SNOW levels of consensus that Breitbart isn't reliable at all in that RfC.... Regarding "is POV and may not be HERE" - I suggest you read and understand the policies and supplements you're referring too before referencing them.
Rather, on what policy basis are you adding the sources? Since there are better sources, this is precisely the case where we never need to use a lower quality or unreliable source Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I do not believe that there is a consensus that all the sources are not-RS. Some might be biased sources, but that does not exclude them from being reliable sources, especially given the context of them verifying a POV (as it appears that Endercase (talk · contribs) is suggesting). As I stated at the Shadow banning talk page, it's really easy to exclude one POV from the article space, if one just writes off sources which verify the POV. This does not create neutral article, and excludes relevant verified content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Maybe not all the sources - but can we at-least agree on Breitbart and WorldNetDaily being unreliable, or at-least a consensus existing for that? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@Galobtter: You still have not cited a policy explaining the removal via revert of all of the sources that I added. As such I will be reverting once more (2nd revert for me). A more appropriate action in my view would be take this to RSN or even the admin noticeboard if you so wish. I really wish you would simply engage in discussion instead, once again I have not added any additional content from the sources you are questioning. They are merely being cited to provide the reader who is interested further reading material on the issue. You do not appear to claim that the statement they are being cited in reference too is factually inaccurate or otherwise unreliable. They are being added as additional citations to support the notability if not the accuracy of the statement in question as supported by policy. Are you really just opposing the addition of additional citations? Endercase (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Breitbart and WND are notoriously unreliable sources and should be deprecated, (along with InfoWars, but that's not relevant here). The other sources are certainly unusual. I'm not prepared to say anything about them.
Endercase, I would strongly advise you NOT to restore that content until a consensus has been reached. The 3rr bright line is not a permission to get as close as possible. The intention to edit war, even with ONE more edit, can bring down the ban hammer (a block for edit warring). Keep on discussing and use dispute resolution. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: Maybe this should be taken to the admin notice board as well, just to increase the size of the consensus. If I do choose to do another revert (to speed up response time of the disagreeing user(s)) it is well within my rights per current policy unless you can show me otherwise. Thank you for your advice however. Additionally, the editor(s) in question don't even disagree with the edit in question as a whole only a portion of it as such there is some question as to whether the first revert was even appropriate whereas just removing the sources they disagreed with (instead of the entire edit) would have been more appropriate. Endercase (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
IF discussion here is unfruitful (give it some time, like several days), THEN take it elsewhere, but right now forum shopping isn't a good idea. I suspect that if you rework that content and its sourcing, you may well find an easy consensus here. Give it a try right here. Propose a new version, and consider the Bloomberg source below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Breitbart and WorldNetDaily are both on the list of perennial unreliable sources for anything except their own opinion. Neither one is appropriate to use in this context. –dlthewave ☎ 18:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Bullrangifer, there was no content to rework, if you actually read the edit in question you would see it was just adding additional citations nothing more. Additionally, responding to your threat about "bringing down the ban hammer" by saying maybe we should take this to the admin noticeboard isn't forum shopping by any stretch of the policy. Endercase (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Dlthewave, the essay you refer to isn't policy and was likely a bad idea, it also directly contradicts WP:RSCONTEXT which is policy. Endercase (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
It also received overwhelming community support. Of course the essay itself isn't a policy or guideline, but it includes links to previous discussions that should give you an idea of how these sources would fare at RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 19:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
It received "overwhelming community support" to be linked in the policy, not to become policy. The policy still supersedes it. Endercase (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
I know I'm late to the party but the idea of Breitbart and WND being used as reliable sources is, frankly, offensive. I know that Wikipedia has always had extremely low standards (we cite Buzzfeed, for crying out loud), but Breitbart and WND are simply beyond they pale. Twitchy and /r/fatpeoplestories have more ambitious fact checking than those guys. Damvile (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The Verge source cites Bloomberg, normally a RS here. Can that be used? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It would make sense to just use the Bloomberg source. –dlthewave ☎ 18:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
No other Wiki article references Preston Business Review, and the homepage includes 367 pages of stories supposedly written by a Caroline Biscotti between August 22 and September 8 of this year. –dlthewave ☎ 19:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
After the second paragraph the two articles do differ considerably, not that I consider either one a good source of information. Of course in this case they are not being used a source of information. But, are being used in conjunction with a number of other sources of a higher quality to support the inclusion of the statement that was already in place and to provide further reading to any interested users. Endercase (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Please give the two articles another look. They do not differ considerably. Preston Business Review simply deleted several short linked phrases, namely "Breitbart reported"; "a lawsuit that was thrown out by a federal judge who determined YouTube did not violate the First Amendment"; "WND reported last week" and "Last month, WND reported". The differences are highlighted by punctuation and capitalization errors left over from the removals. –dlthewave ☎ 20:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
There is zero evidence that "Preston Business Review" is a reliable source. Nothing there shows any signs of independent editorial oversight, for example. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
See also [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] –dlthewave ☎ 22:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Sometimes I run across talk page discussions where arguments are so far from policy that I wonder if editors aren't simply trolling us. This is such a discussion. Please make edit requests. If you cannot recognize unreliable sources, please find other ways to participate in improving Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
As I have already stated:"not that I consider either one a good source of information. Of course in this case they are not being used a source of information. But, are being used in conjunction with a number of other sources of a higher quality to support the inclusion of the statement that was already in place and to provide further reading to any interested users." At no point have I made the claim that the sources in question are reliable, just that they do help establish notability. "Additionally, the editor(s) in question don't even disagree with the edit in question as a whole only a portion of it as such there is some question as to whether the first revert was even appropriate whereas just removing the sources they disagreed with (instead of the entire edit) would have been more appropriate." Endercase (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
At no point have I made the claim that the sources in question are reliable, just that they do help establish notability. I hope that's a question. The answer to the question is that no, unreliable sources can not be used to establish notability or noteworthiness in an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Endercase: No, unreliable sources may not be used alongside reliable sources and they cannot be used to help establish notability. We only include the reliable ones. Additionally you seem to be ignoring the obvious problem with Preston Business Review that I pointed out to you. –dlthewave ☎ 14:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
We also don't "provide [unreliable sources for] further reading to any interested users". We would only do that using reliable sources. We really try not to mislead readers. We don't treat reliable and unreliable sources as somehow equal and both worthy of consumption. No, unreliable sources should be avoided in real life and not used here. Don't even read them. Here you'll learn which sources are unreliable. Show that you have a good learning curve by taking that knowledge to heart and changing your reading habits. Don't read them anymore. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you guys (@Snooganssnoogans, Galobtter, Ronz, Dlthewave, and BullRangifer:) sure that our policies on opinionated sources don’t come into play at any point? I see reason to believe that they do: Daily Caller and Fox both appear on our list of perennial sources, and DC is marked with a yellow caution and Fox a green check, not a red X. This means that they have not been deemed fully unreliable.

Given that their claim is something that the Verge is also saying, it would make sense to include the idea presented as something they and the right-wing broadly say, rather than the WikiVoice.


@Endercase: This would directly eliminate WorldNetDaily and Breitbart as sources, but keep more than 1 of the sources you selected.

What’s “Preston Business Review”? It sounds like it needs time to prove whether it is good or bad at fact-checking. We don’t really know who runs it and it is too new. - Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Those sources are very bad, and obviously so. WP:CIR. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
If they were saying it in isolation, maybe it would be questionable and there would be a reason to say no. Today, they have another source (the Verge) agreeing that they believe that. It would probably not be objectionable to insert content that says that they believe that, as an opinion they hold. This is why it would be okay to attribute it as their opinion.Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Fox News Insider is not the same as Fox News. 'Fox News Insider' is where they put the dumb things that Fox pundits say on air. Whenever Fox's RS status is discussed, the pro-Fox crowd is always quick to point out that 'Fox News Insider' is not part of Fox's straight-news reporting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Oh okay. Thank you for informing me. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Is Category:Education-related YouTube channels an appropriate Category for this article? Bus stop (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The format of much of the organization's videos as well as its self-described purpose is educational in nature. It only seems natural that the category would fit. Ergo Sum 22:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Academic Credentials

Prager has not offered any explanation for claiming and promoting himself as a university when he is only a video producer pushing specific political viewpoints. (His website is copyrighted to "Prager University", and both site and Facebook page sell "Prager University" t-shirts). Critics have asserted that this willful misrepresentation is indicative of fraudulent intent in claiming credibility to which he is not entitled and soliciting contributions under false pretenses."---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleweye (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to provide references. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Viewer Numbers

Currently (30 Nov 2018), the Wikipedia article about PragerU mentions that "PragerU reached a billion views in 2018." However, there is no indication to how many individual viewers this total view count converts. According to a statement made by PragerU CEO Marissa Streit in December 2017 to the conservative news and opinion website 'The Daily Wire', founded in 2015 by Ben Shapiro (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Daily_Wire), a PragerU presenter featured in multiple videos (https://www.prageru.com/presenters/ben-shapiro), PragerU has "more than 60 million viewers" (https://www.dailywire.com/news/24752/prageru-videos-surpass-1-billion-views-james-barrett). Could someone who is allowed to edit the page please add Ms Streit's stated number to the article? 128.12.246.4 (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The Daily Wire is generally unreliable, and the specific article looks like a warmed-over press release. I've removed it.
Without sources that are reliable and independent, adding such information seems undue and promotional. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"fake news"

An editor keeps adding text calling PragerU a "fake news" website.[25] Fake news is a specific thing, and while PragerU publishes a lot of falsehoods and bullshit, it's not a fake news website. I mean, the channel doesn't even cover contemporary topics or events like a news website would. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If other editors don't want to use the term "fake news" then that's fine with me. The point is, whatever term you want to use, PragerU is known to purvey outright false information and it's silly not to have that clearly communicated in the article. There are plenty of reliable third party sources for this.
Relevant quotes from Francesca Tripodi's study:
"PragerU’s messaging calls on conspiracy theories regularly espoused by the “alt-right" [...] creating and promoting similarly misleading content [...] PragerU becomes just one node in a growing network of content creators that advertise themselves as mainstream (PragerU, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro) but regularly dabble in alt-right content [...]PragerU does not just condemn white supremacy, but rather uses its platform to try and bring down organizations like Black Lives Matter, and also furthers the reach of conspiracy theories notoriously articulated by the “alt-right.” A prevalent example of this would be the narrative that “whiteness” and “conservatism” is under attack, a talking point linked to “alt-right” campaigns like “it’s okay to be white.” [...] PragerU does not just condemn white supremacy, but rather uses its platform to try and bring down organizations like Black Lives Matter, and also furthers the reach of conspiracy theories notoriously articulated by the “alt-right.”
The way the article is currently written it presents PragerU as a conservative-slanted news source that has some critics. However, PragerU is not a "conservative news source" in the sense that, say, Tucker Carlson is a source of news for conservatives. It's a website that promotes conspiracy theories and spreads lies. For this reason I think the way the article is currently written is very misleading. Feel free to re-write what I wrote. Apparently I phrased it poorly.
Thanks. 4idaho (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Editorials and opinion articles can't be used to state facts and definitely not to violate NPOV policy. Praguer is not even a news website nor pretends to be one. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:EXCEPTIONAL.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
PragerU is propaganda, though I don't think there are sources strong enough to support that description in the article.
I skimmed the Tripodi ref, and am unsure how we could use it. I'd expect that there are some definitions and descriptions in there somewhere, or they are assumed from citations, but I didn't spot them with a quick skim. If they aren't there, then it puts the entire source in question. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

PragerU "algorithmically connected" to extremist content

I am no defender of PragerU generally, but the YouTube algorithm "connects" a LOT of political content (right, left, and center) with extremist stuff--And there are reliable sources noting this exact phenomenon, including articles in The Atlantic, The New York Times, Fortune. In other words, it doesn't seem to be a problem with PragerU (at least not with only PragerU). Anything political will eventually get you a few crackpots, sometimes including people associated with the alt-right. SPLC's takedown of PragerU (the source for the claim in the article) is correct about the frequent misinformation, but this is already mentioned (regarding the Southern Strategy and immigration). The fact that there are often only a few leaps between so-called centrists on Prager and far right-wingers (PragerU ep hosted by Jordan Peterson; Peterson retweets Milo; Milo interviews Richard Spencer, etc.) is maybe something that can be added from the SPLC article. However, the claim about PragerU's channel somehow uniquely funneling people that direction is a stretch and pretty contentious because of all the other sources about the YouTube tendency to do this. In sum, holding Prager responsible for its own garbage info makes sense, but not holding it responsible for the "related content" suggested by YT.--MattMauler (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Given all the problems we have with this article, please identify specific changes you'd like to see and what sources support those changes. --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I am suggesting that the section about Francesca Tripodi's study be removed ... but I am looking for feedback on that idea first and foremost. I put this on the talk page because of the edit back-and-forth in which an IP repeatedly removed that section. I am offering evidence for removal of the section (above), not because the Tripodi source is unreliable, but because other RS suggest that promoting extremism is a YouTube algorithm issue, not only a PragerU one. I understand that its removal has been reverted before, but I am wondering if the new sources I've brought here change the situation at all. I am not strongly advocating that it be removed--I am posting here to see if there's consensus for its removal. If editors who are on this page more frequently disagree with me, no action is needed.--MattMauler (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
You're not saying any of the references are unreliable, so this is a pov issue? --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess it could be called a POV issue, giving undue weight to the "algorithmic connection" between PragerU and more extreme voices. Basically, it seems to me that articles I linked above render the following sentence of the article almost meaningless, or at least insignificant: "Tripodi observed that many of PragerU's videos are algorithmically connected to extremist content via YouTube's 'suggested' feature." True, but so what? Algorithmic connections can also, for instance, link a measured and well-researched video about Antifa to another video with Paul Joseph Watson ranting about supposedly totalitarian SJWs. If the title contains political buzzwords like "The Left," "Right-Wing," "Nazi" (obvs) or similar words, it can easily lead to fringe stuff in the "suggested" section, and this tendency is well-documented.--MattMauler (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how we could justify removing the material outright without violating WP:OR and POV.
If you want to argue about what we should report from the sources, then I think we could make some progress. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that this criticism be reworded to use the active rather than passive voice as follows: "Tripodi observed that Youtube algorithmically connects many of PragerU's videos to extremist content via their "suggested" feature." The passive construction currently in the article obscures the agent of the "algorithmic connecting", thereby giving the false impression that PragerU does this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
The same paragraph caught my eye when reading through the article. Indeed, it seems disingenuous to criticize PragerU for something that Google (via Youtube) is doing. This is a question of neutrality, but also of relevance.TheBlueCanoe 22:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


  • Kelley, Brendan Joel (June 7, 2018). "PragerU's Influence". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved December 31, 2018.

Again, I am concerned that these proposals may be using OR to counter the POV of a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me understand: you think that changing a passive construction to an equivalent active construction would violate POV? Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that the current content could be improved by more closely communicating the information in the reference. The entire line of discussion here appears to rely upon OR to undermine the POV of a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
All I'm suggesting is moving from a passive to an equivalent active voice. There's no OR here. The content is literally exactly the same. The passive wording is just both less pleasing to read and also introduces some unclarity. But there's literally no difference in content between the active and passive constructions, so it's impossible that it introduces either POV or OR problems.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
And I'm saying that it changes the emphasis for the worse in content that needs improvement to better communicate what is said in the reference. Tripodi seems to be saying that PragerU is counting on the algorithm to do this work for them. It's not a problem with PragerU, it's a feature. --Ronz (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
That's what she "seems to be saying" according to whom? I do not think she "seems to be saying" that. Can you tell me where she says it? Because it seems like a POV violation to put what you think she "seems" to be saying, as opposed to what she's saying, in the article. What she says is that there's an algorithmic connection. She does not say anything that I see anywhere about it being something PragerU intended or somehow had control over.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The last half of the article, especially the second-to-last paragraph. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
You're referring to her statement that "Content creators like PragerU are ... relying on search engine optimization and suggested content to elevate their messaging". This does not say that they intend an algorithmic connection to extremist content. You're reading that into her words, which creates a worry about POV violation.Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

In context, I think it does. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is POV, and also not a very plausible reading of what she says, even in context. When she says that they depend on suggested content to elevate their message, you're reading this to mean that they depend on suggested content to elevate, not their message, but the messages of more extreme content providers. You're reading it to say something different than it explicitly says. Furthermore, in her cited report, she explicitly says that these algorithmic connections are unintentional.Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
You appear to be intentionally misrepresenting me to further the OR and POV that started this discussion. Please stop. Please review WP:TALK, especially WP:TALKNO. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
What was my misrepresentation specifically? That is: what did I say was your position that was incorrect? You said that according to Tripodi, "PragerU is counting on the algorithm to do this work for them. It's not a problem with PragerU, it's a feature." I assumed that you meant by this that PragerU is intentionally counting on the algorithm to elevate the messages of more extreme content providors. Is that not what you meant? If not, it was an honest misunderstanding and I am asking you to clarify.Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks.
I've been focusing on the Kelley ref. I don't think I've read Tripodi's since it was first added.
Who does "Third, bad actors looking to exploit an audience disillusioned with mainstream media can take advantage of such intellectual exploration" refer to? --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
That's helpful. I think she's including PragerU in 'bad actors' for sure (I assume that was your point). Here's a suggestion:
"Tripodi argues that "PragerU’s choice of guests connects their audience to “far-right” and “alt-right” personalities" as a result of the fact that such personalities sometimes appear on the programs of PragerU's guests, and so they are picked up by Youtube's "suggested" feature."
My thought is that this rewrite manages to make her point more clearly and directly, and also gives some details of the mechanism by which she thinks this association occurs between PragerU and extremism, while avoiding the mistaken idea that PragerU sets up the algorithms themselves. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad we've moved on. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'll make the change since you agree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sludge criticism

In the criticisms section, the article has a criticism from a website called "Sludge" which attempts to rely on the content of a government report from the UK office of national statistics. "Sludge" is not reliable, and their report is false. First and foremost, this is a partisan source that few people have ever heard of. It appears to be something like a cooperative of bloggers. Second, their "report" bungles basic facts: it cites a government report on the frequency of names in England and Wales as if it were a report on the frequency of those names within the whole UK. (The UK is not just England and Wales.) Third, even if we set aside the first two points, Mohammad was indeed the most popular name in England and Wales according to the cited government report. "Sludge" reports that this was an error only because it fails to include the several variant spellings of the name (Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohammad).

If "Sludge" were a reliable source, it would make sense to include an in-text citation. Or, if their report didn't bungle the facts, we could just refer to the government report. But, given that the report is junk from an unreliable source, and given that the underlying government report shows exactly the opposite of the criticism, I don't see that there's anything to include here.Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The ref is: Kotch, Alex (December 27, 2018). "Who Funds PragerU's Anti-Muslim Content?". Sludge. Retrieved December 28, 2018.
It's used three times in the article. Are the two other uses problematic? --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Good point. The other two references to the Sludge article are in the "funding" section. This section is very poorly sourced in general. Aside from the fact that Sludge is the main source on most of the info in that section, the section itself misreports what Sludge says: Sludge says that the Bradley Family is the second biggest doner *that sludge could identify*, but then in the wiki article it says that they're the second largest donor period. That's not what the source even says. Also, the section is written in a time-sensitive way that is not good. E.g., what year did PragerU spend 40% of a $10 million budget on marketing? I can't tell from the Buzzfeed report. I don't think Sludge is a reliable source here either, and the other sources--Buzzfeed and Mother Jones--are highly partisan sources in this case, and probably also unreliabale. I'd be ok with dropping the info from Sludge and saying that Buzzfeed and Mother Jones have reported that the Wilks and Bradley families are among their biggest donors. Not sure that amounts to a whole section worth of info, though. I'm open to suggestions.Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
probably also unreliabale Mother Jones is reliable. Buzzfeed may not be as high quality, but still reliable.
The Sludge ref is at attempt at good investigative journalism, the type that we should strive to have, but the publisher is relatively new and the article seems to stray from its own sources. If we had better sources, I'd certainly not want to rely upon this. A discussion at WP:RSN may be of help.
The article should qualify much of this per your concerns. Removal would seem to be a POV violation based upon OR. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Ronz, I didn't agree to remove the information I just included in the article. I thought you had agreed to qualify the content with the info I included. What qualifications are you agreeing to then? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm having a difficult time understanding why you restored it as you did, given this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
You haven't been very explicit about what you think is warranted. You said that the material needed to be qualified, and I guessed that the qualifications I introduced were appropriate. If that isn't what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding. Can you state more explicitly what qualifications you had in mind? Or even make an attempt to fix the passages yourself? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I think that the Sludge ref should be qualified, as you did, for information that does not come directly from the citations that they use.
I think the next step it to determine how else the Sludge ref could be used, given the problems you've identified with the bit about birth names. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm being slow, Ronz, really. But when you write that the Sludge ref "should be qualified, as you did", I don't know what you mean. What's wrong with the last attempt I made? There I tried to say clearly what the criticism was in a way that made it clear that Sludge was focusing on a particular spelling of the name. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
My mistake. I thought I had retained your addition of by the website "Sludge". I've changed it to follow the format of the preceding paragraph. I'm very sorry. --Ronz (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
This in-text citation is good, I think. Why can't we also say specifically what statistic he was critical of? Also, no need to be sorry; I'm really not very touchy, and I recognize that editing together is a challenge.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we should throw it out, and focus on the categorization of the rhetoric, which Kotch and Pitcavage both discuss. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Given the low quality of the source, that would be WP:UNDUE.Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
So you don't believe Pitcavage's pov is due? Why? --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Because (i) the source of the quote is low quality, and (ii) Pitcavage is not an expert in this area. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Says who? --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Says his cv: he works for ADL and has done research on Militia groups. I see no relevant background in Islamic studies. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That's... not correct, and is also WP:OR. A senior research fellow for the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism clearly has relevant expertise on extremist rhetoric. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Yep. Mark Pitcavage. --Ronz (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. What we have here is a group blog reporting that a man who has published on militia groups works at an organization that fights discrimination against Jews has something to say about PragerU being anti-Muslim. Whether something is due is a matter of judgment, and we just disagree here. I don't see persuading you, so I guess the conversation is over. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. Consensus is a product of applying policy, not personal opinion. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree. The question whether some information is due is not just a matter of uncontroversial application of policy, as if it doesn't call for a controversial judgment (i.e., an opinion) about the quality and qualifications of the source and the relevance and interest of the information. It is your opinion that this information is due, and I'm not going to argue about it anymore, but let's not pretend that this isn't an opinion. Anyway, are you now going to change the current inaccurate wording in the article? I myself cannot change it because I do not agree with you that the change you've suggested is due. So it falls to you to either change it or leave it in its current inaccurate state. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Pitcavage is an expert, right?
We have an open RSN discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sludge, right? --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, he's an expert on some things, and yes we have an open RSN discussion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Then let's wait for the RSN to close, and perhaps work on content based upon what Pitcavage has stated. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. Feel free to follow your own opinion, as expressed in our discussion above, and change the current inaccurate wording by including content from Pitcavage that I regard as undue. It will be up to you to do this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

As for the exact wording, I'm wondering if we have enough sources to make a paragraph specifically on their rhetoric and propaganda. --Ronz (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any source that elaborates the charge. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I made that change, Ronz, because the version you've reverted to leaves it ambiguous whether it is part of his criticism that the rhetoric is anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, or whether that's a fact being reported by wikipedia. Since it's supposed to be part of his criticism, that's why I preferred the version I wrote. I don't understand why you reverted it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the problem, and am concerned that it takes focus away from PragerU's responsibility for their own content. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
elaborates the charge Charge? That comes across as WP:BATTLE.
At least three other refs refer to their rhetoric and propaganda: Tripodi, Bernstein, and Kelly. PragerU’s “5 Minute Ideas” videos have become an indispensable propaganda device for the right. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm concerned that it is ambiguous as it stands. The reader cannot tell whether we mean to say that Picavage is saying that the content is anti-immigrant (etc.), or whether Wikipedia is saying that. If wikipedia is saying that, then it should be clearer in that direction, perhaps by saying something along the lines of "the content is bigoted, and Picavage has pointed out that this will appeal to white supremicists". Do you not see the ambiguity? And 'charge' is appropriate here--Picavage has charged PragerU with having bigoted content. That's part of his criticism.Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
This risks coddling the reader for very little added clarity, and I do not see this as particularly ambiguous. "Charge" would be unnecessarily loaded for the article itself, per WP:SAID, but on a talk page... Sure, whatever. I dislike that this is a WP:CSECTION at all, but that's probably a much larger discussion. Pitcavage's commentary was not provided entirely as a criticism, it was solicited by a journalist as context. Pitcavage's commentary is not significant because it's a "charge", but rather, because it is descriptive. In the article we should use a neutral term when possible. We can mention what Pitcavage says without needing to resort to editorializing. An expert has offered his perspective and we have attributed that perspective to the expert. Any reader willing to read the "Criticism" section of the article should be trusted to understand this. Grayfell (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Obviously I didn't propose putting 'charge' in the body of the article. I was just casually responding to Ronz. As for the Pitcavage passage in the article, the proposed rewrite that Ronz reverted did attribute clearly to Pitcavage. That was my point. The current version leaves a subtle ambiguity. Just a subtle one. I agree that it is not "particularly" ambiguous, as you say, and that most readers will understand that this content is from Pitcavage. The bias here is subtle, and easily repaired. The revision I proposed, which was hardly a change at all, was only a small improvement, and adds only a little clarity. That's exactly why it's weird that it was reverted. Every single change apperntly has to be debated ad nauseum even if it is a small improvement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I still don't see the ambiguity, so the bias is too subtle for me to pick-up on. My thinking is this: The source, and this article, are about PragerU, and the relevant parts of the source are specifically about Murray. The paragraph should focus on Murray, not Pitcavage, per the source. We are naming Pitcavage for context on Murray and PragerU, not because the paragraph itself is about Pitcavage. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Grayfell, I was worried about the subjunctive construction too, so I double checked before I wrote that. Here's the direct quote from Pitcavage: "White supremacists are certainly almost all anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, so they would certainly agree with a lot of the things that [Murray] says."Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
So what? At this point it's starting to seem like you're trying to whitewash the article. There is no neutral gain to double-and-triple attributing a straightforward comment. This is a form of editorializing. We don't need to remind readers for every sentence that this is just one person's opinion. This is using editorializing tricks to cast doubt on the opinion, or to emphasize its subjectivity far beyond the degree supported by the source. Please self revert and gain consensus to avoid edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
You wanted the word 'certainly' so I included it. You wanted the paragraph to start with mention of the video (unlike the other criticisms in the section) and I worked with that despite it being somewhat more awkward. I put this out there in a way that was responsive to your concerns, and if you don't like it because you want to retain a subtle ambiguity, then you can revert it. I'm trying to work with you, not against you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

SFGate source on Google/Youtube Lawsuit

This source adds a lot of additional information, and generally seems superior to the currently cited sources. Maybe instead of just undoing what I did, Ronz, you could recommend a way to use this new source I found? The current content is just flatly inaccurate. It is nowhere stated in any source that the Judge dismissed the case because Google is a private company, for example. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Also let me add that if the basic claim of the lawsuit and the reasons for dismissal are undue, then all mention of the lawsuit is undue, which is of course not the case. We should correctly characterize the basic reason for the lawsuit and the reason for dismissal. That information is in the SFGate source. So please suggest some way of correcting the errors in the current version. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the SFGate source could be used to improve the article. Maybe there are errors or problems with the current content. I think it's worth pursuing. Something formatted like an edit request is always helpful. I don't know how the content came to its current state, but I'd guess that avoiding legal terminology might be one driving factor. --Ronz (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Maybe? The SFGate source has information about the basic claim of the lawsuit and the reasons for dismissal that are not in the other sources. So of course it can improve the article. And I've explicitly identified a major error in the current content. Your reason for reverting my edit is that you said ti is undue. It's now clear that this was not true, unless you have something else to say. I'm going to reinstate my content if you can't explain what the problem was with it (other than the fact that I wrote it, of course).Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to steer you to productive directions that don't end with administrative action against you.
One of my biggest concerns with the edit is that it turned the focus toward attacking YouTube. I hope this is enough explanation. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm all for keeping it productive; I could do without the constant threats from you, as I've mentioned before. If you want to pursue admin action against me, go ahead. I stand by everything I've done and written. I have no idea what you mean when you say I "turned the focus toward attacking YouTube." The edit, based on the SFGate source, had two main goals. First, to correctly state the basis of the lawsuit, which was two complaints that PragerU raised about G/Y. The first complaint was that G/Y had infringed on PragerU's first amendment rights, the second was that they had engaged in false advertising. The second goal of the edit was to include the Judge's actual basis for dismissing the lawsuit (as stated in the SFGate source). Namely, the Judge dismissed it because she thought PragerU failed to make the case that G/Y was a state actor in this case, and because she thought that G/Y's alleged false advertising was "mere puffery". This last charge is not my attack on YouTube, but rather the Judge's attack on YouTube. This is all stated in the sources, and corrects the mistakes in the current version. If you prefer to write it, you're welcome to do so. But this information is plainly due if the lawsuit is due, and so we need to include it since it is reported in a reliable source. Let me recommend, by the way, that you review the WP policies on reverts, including WP:BABY and WP:ROWN. The general idea is to help improve rather than always go straight for a revert, and, if you feel a revert is really necessary, you should include an explanation in the talk page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. You're taking this much too personally and defensively. Whatever else you're trying to do is completely overshadowed by your clear personal biases, backed by hostility and assumptions that others are working from a similar approach. This is WP:BATTLE and needs to end. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not taking anything personally. I found a new and better source for this material about the lawsuit, and I made an accurate edit to incorporate the info in the source. You reverted (in my view contrary to the revert policies I mentioned), and now you will not discuss the reasons for the revert or offer an alternative edit to improve the article. If you won't incorporate the superior source I found, or explain why it shouldn't be incorporated, I will restore the material I wrote. Nothing personal on my side; I'm just trying to incorporate the information I found and improve the article.Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Ronz, for that last edit; I hope you see this as an improvement. It looks like you're particularly worried about the last sentence in which I state the Judge's reason for dismissing the false advertising claim. Is it your view that we simply should not state the Judge's reason for dismissing the false ad claim? Or is there another way to state it? "Mere Puffery" are her words, as I said before, which are reported in the SFGate source. I thought that was worth mentioning, insofar as its the only time I'm aware of that a judge has weighed in on the continuing public debate on whether Google (etc) are really providing a neutral forum. But I'm open to suggestion on this.Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad that we're making progress.
From what I see of the sources, the false advertising aspect is minor and was easily dismissed. Please note, the Reuters ref, which is probably the best of the three, says The San Jose, California-based judge also dismissed a claim that YouTube engaged in false advertising by implying that Prager’s videos were “inappropriate.” --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/380455-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-alleging-google-censorship-of-conservative-youtube that verifies the previous wording, which I pointed out avoids the legal jargon. --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Hill does not report on the Judge's reason for dismissing the false advertising claim. SFGate and Rueters conflict on what the reason was. SFGate is corroborated in these two sources:

https://www.thewrap.com/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-that-accused-google-of-bias-against-conservatives/ https://www.jurist.org/news/2018/03/federal-court-dismisses-censorship-suit-against-google/ So there are really two questions here. First, did she dismiss based on the claim about "mere puffery" as SFgate suggests, or on some basis related to the content as in Reuters? Here I'm inclined to take the corroboration of the SFGate report to show that the Reuters report is in error. Second, assuming the SFGate is correct, is this information due? I've argued above that it is, because (i) it forms part of the basic information about the lawsuit, and (ii) it's a major statement from a federal judge that's relevant to an ongoing public discussion of the neutrality of fora like YouTube. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb: When you find yourself dismissing a reliable source like Reuters, there's probably something very wrong. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Can't we say the same thing about dismissing SFGate? We have a conflict of reliable sources here. I proposed to resolve it by looking for corroboration. Does that seem reasonable to you? How else might we resolve the conflict? It seems weird to cite both, and as you point out, something is going wrong if we just dismiss either one. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Can't we say No. And very little here seems reasonable. That's why I keep bringing up BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The changes removed a reference without comment, so I've reverted.

It is nowhere stated in any source that the Judge dismissed the case because Google is a private company. The sources say "private entities". If someone wants to make a case that it is OR to say "private company", we could simply use The Hill or BizJournals instead.

As for expanding the section to include the false advertising bit, the sources seem to demonstrate it's undue. It's given little or no mention in most sources, and never given priority.

Also note the SFGate article is simply a copy of the TheWrap article. TheWrap is no Reuters. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, I repeat that it is nowhere stated in any source that the Judge dismissed the case because Google is a private company. And I'm not being picky about 'company' vs. 'entity' or anything like that. The Reuters source quotes Koh describing G/Y as a private entity. But describing them that way is not the same as saying that their status as private entities was the (whole) basis for dismissing the case. Perhaps you think it was implied? But it wasn't implied, as the quote goes on to say that PragerU failed to show that defendents were engaged in a state function. So the implication of the whole quote is the accurate version that I wrote before. Can we please not throw out the baby with the bathwater? Similarly, please restore any reference that were unintentionally deleted--I don't see that any were, but maybe I'm missing something. You needn't revert the whole contribution because of such a minor error. Please help me make this article better. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added thehill.com as a ref, which says In her decision, Koh dismissed the PragerU’s free speech claims, arguing that Google is not subject to the First Amendment because it’s a private company and not a public institution. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
If you think that this version of the article is superior to the version I wrote, which correctly stated Koh's basis of dismissal in terms of failure to make the case that G/Y was functioning as a state actor, then I guess we're at an impasse. I concede that you did find a source to support the inaccurate version of the article that you favor. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Again with the BATTLE attitude. This isn't about my personal opinions, but on the coverage from reliable sources.
I've explained why the language is probably preferred and found many sources that support the exact wording. I'll add that it appears that few or no sources use "state actor" without also "private entities", "private companies" or variations. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Why do you keep telling me that I'm battling? If I'm battling, I'm in violation of policy and you can pursue admin action against me. So no need to continue repeating yourself: act or drop it. Meanwhile, I'll continue to try to dialogue politely with you and improve the page. The reliable sources conflict in this case. The Judge obviously didn't issue an opinion to the effect that the first amendment does not apply to any private companies. That would be silly. So the current content makes the Judge look like an idiot, and we have a reliable source that corrects this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is on my Watchlist, though I can't find any edits I've made to article- or talk-space. If I may offer a third-party opinion... I've read through this discussion thread and the four reference (2 in article-space and 2 in talk-space) and it seems to me that according to all sources Judge Koh did in fact dismiss the free speech portion of the case because G/Y is a private entity and not a public forum (thus the Free Speech claim doesn't apply). She even cites a case where a private shopping mall was allowed to restrict Vietnam War protestor speech given that the mall was a private entity and not a public forum. SueDonem (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for a fresh perspective. Koh does recognize--what is clearly a legal possibility lest the whole lawsuit be completely dumb--that private entities are sometimes classified as state actors. However, she provides an intepretation of precedent on which the criteria for classifying a private entity as a state actor are not met by PragerU. Here's the key quote: "In sum, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants have engaged in one of the 'very few' public functions that were traditionally 'exclusively reserved to the State.' Flagg Bros., 436 U.S.at 158. Defendants do not appear to be at all like, for example, a private corporation that governs and operates all municipal functions for an entire town, see Marsh, 326 U.S. at 507–09, or one that has been given control over a previously public sidewalk or park, see Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296 (1966), or one that has effectively been delegated the task of holding and administering public elections, see Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 664 (1944)... The Court likewise declines to find that Defendants in the instant case are state actors that must regulate the content on their privately created website in accordance with the strictures of the First Amendment. As a result, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Defendants under the First Amendment." I recognize that we can't directly rely on the opinion in constructing the Wiki article--that would be OR. But look, it's just silly to think that there was a big lawsuit to determine that G/Y is a private company. Obviously they are, and the difficult legal question was whether they're akin to a private company that owns a town square--a state actor--and accordingly subject to the first amendment. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Your comment is an editor's interpretation of a judges' interpretation of prior precedent... That's far too many layers, and a good example of why we do not interpret WP:PRIMARY sources. This is especially important for legal documents. Without reliable sources, this has degraded into WP:NOTFORUM. I do not know your motives, but you are now misrepresenting what other editors are saying, and then dismissing it as "obvious" and "silly". I don't think anyone is saying that the lawsuit determined that Google is a private company, nor that the first amendment doesn't apply to private companies or anything like that, and that's not how I read the wording at all. If that is your interpretation of the wording, you have failed to gain consensus on how to fix that problem, or that it even is a problem. Going into even more detail on this seems WP:UNDUE unless there was some documented, lasting significance to this case. We are attempting to neutrally summarize secondary sources, because that's really all we are collectively qualified to do, and the current wording seems sufficient. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I was replying to an editor's interpretation of what the Judge said. Forgive me if I should not have replied; I agree that WP:NOTFORUM is relevant and my view is that we do not need to pursue that matter any further. I did not mean to misrepresent anyone, sorry if I did. The article says that the Judge dismissed the case because Google is a private company. That is in my view a silly summary of the opinion. If the consensus is that it is not a silly summary, then so be it. I think the reliable sources conflict in this case; if the consensus is that I'm wrong about that, then so be it. My motive is to improve the article, though discussing my motives seems to draw attention away from the article, where I think we're supposed to be focused. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2019

The Morgan Family Foundation listed on this page is not related to JP Morgan, which the page links to

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/PragerU

it is a much smaller unrelated foundation based in Washington

http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/911/911815410/911815410_201712_990PF.pdf 99.139.140.177 (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've delinked the Morgan family. We do not have an article on any organisation called the Morgan Family Foundation (of which there appear to be several), and there's no indication that the foundation listed in cite 16 [26] has anything to do with the Morgan family. NiciVampireHeart 01:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Swain

The only reason I see Swain's viewpoints being noteworthy is because of the "takedown" by the expert Kruse. This article is not a battleground nor soapbox to take up PragerU's viewpoints, and in this case seems a FRINGE vio to do so. Adding any mention of Swain's further opinions on the matter, especially from an opinion piece by her, is inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

If Kruse's twitter feed is due, then so is her reply. Ideally we'd have a RS reporting on the controversy between then. But we don't have that. We have a highly partisan source (SPLC) "reporting" his twitter feed, and we have a reply to that twitter feed published in the tennessee paper. My editorial judgment is that (i) all this material probably doesn't belong in the article, but (ii) if the SPLC report of his twitter feed belongs, then so does her reply in the Tennessee star. I would also add, as I said before, that anyone who is interested in Kruse's critique is clearly going to be interested in her response. The only reason I can see for excluding her response is to give the reader the impression that the matter ended with his "takedown" and to make it look more like a "takedown" than the substantive exchange that it is. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't demonstrate any understanding of the relevant content policies at all, but more of the NOTHERE and BATTLE problems. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd be happy to work with you on improving the article. You'll have to engage with the arguments I've made, or make an argument of your own that adding the Swain reply is out of step with policy.Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The Tennessee Star is not a RS. It's right-wing trash. A local 'Breitbart' clone that has the appearance of a normal newspaper. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
What's the evidence for this claim about the Tennessee star? I don't see that it has been discussed on the RS noticeboard. It sure does look like a normal local paper. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
[27][28]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, that's a reasonable point. I think that you're right that this source is not likely to be regarded as a reliable source by the population of wikipedia editors. I myself think it's probably about as reliable as SPLC, but I recognize that I'm in the minority on that. So I withdraw my proposed edit. I did mistake that site for an ordinary local newspaper. Thanks for setting that straight. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it is unfortunate, as the Swain piece does add something. And not including it really gives a false impression that she had nothing interesting to say in response. Too bad. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

"Anti-Immigration"

PragerU isn't against immigration as a whole, it's against illegal immigration and thinks we should mostly except skilled immigrants. Somebody fix this.2601:245:C101:6BCC:419F:4A69:82B4:E34B (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Where does it say, as a fact, that PragerU is against immigration as a whole? Regarding Malkin's video, it is described as anti-immigration broadly speaking. Other commentators are attributed in the article as saying that the video is "prejudiced" and "...comes to an anti-legal immigration conclusion that is unsupported by the evidence presented in the rest of the video." This is clearly presented with attribution, so it seems fine to me. Grayfell (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2019

please change PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization that creates videos on various political, economic and philosophical topics from a conservative or right-wing[1] perspective. to PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization that creates videos on various political, economic and philosophical topics from a conservative perspective. 66.115.169.223 (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish a consensus for such a potentially controversial change on the talk page before making an edit request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

reception should be deleted

Why is this left wing propganda under 'reception' allowed here while it does not appear for liberal websites like huffington post???? This should be deleted. This should not be an opinion piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:C9D0:E8F0:8D2C:BE24:CCEF:68E5 (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, reception sections are used when the reception / response to the article's topic is a major part of its notability, or a major feature in the overall weight of sources covering it. --Aquillion (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Moved section. Please read the styleguide at the top of the page: Put new text under old text. NonaSuomi (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagreement about reception of PragerU at American Conservative

In a mind-boggling episode, one editor is arguing that an American Conservative op-ed by a Paul Gottfried, a historian and philosopher who has written extensively on fascism, should be deleted unless another op-ed in the Am Conservative by a college student who is rambling about fascism and endorsing PragerU's idiotic videos is also included in the Wikipedia article. I can't think of a more egregious example of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

That reporter's piece is just as due as the pieces from Buzzfeed and Vanity Fair. If AC reception is due, then so is her piece. I'd consider removing all the pieces by lesser known authors from the section if you want. But so far, it looks like that section is being reserved for only critical reception, and I can't think of a more egregious violation of WP:NPOV. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Buzzfeed and Vanity Fair are RS. The Am Con is not a RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Buzzfeed and VF are reliable based on context. Springee (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the RS noticeboard about Gottfried.[29] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, this is ridiculous. There's no grounds to exclude a notable scholar critiquing this PragerU anti-historical idiocy from a staid Conservative publication from being mentioned under reception. Furthermore it helps to demonstrate how PragerU, by hiring cranks like D'Sousa doesn't even have a uniformly positive reception among conservatives which is an important piece of context for understanding the position of this disinformation project within online spaces. Simonm223 (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

This material is simply UNDUE for the article. This is an expert in the field disputing what D'Sousa's claims. The association with PragerU seems only to be they carried D'Sousa's opinion. Also, the connection with PragerU vs the views of Prager and D'Sousa themselves is problematic as the article [[30]] hardly mentions PragerU. Rather it is about a class of right wing editorial opinions. Sorry, this looks like material that is being forced fit into an article where it doesn't belong. It looks like good material for somewhere else in Wikipedia (likely Prager's and D'Sousa's biography articles) but UNDUE here. Springee (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Separate section in article about PragerU's lawsuits

PragerU has had 2 or 3 lawsuits by this point, they've been covered by several notable sources by this point (1) (2) (3)(4) (5) and there's several legal documents which I've come across that we could use as well (6) (7) (8). I think there's enough coverage and enough material to justify creating a new section for this stuff. If a whole new section isn't worth making, we could at least better incorporate this into the article's History section. --Apathetizer (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The Fox ref is poor, I don't think it should be used, and don't see what it adds.
We're using the refs from The Hill and Reuters.
Primary sources and heavily biased sources don't lend any weight.
I'm not seeing anything covering their lawsuits in general. Am I missing something?
What we have currently about the lawsuits could use some cleanup to emphasize the noteworthy aspects while avoiding SOAP issues. --Ronz (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The Google lawsuit is already covered (and it seems to be the only important one? Or these are all steps in that protracted legal process?) I'm not sure we need to say more than is already in the article, and I don't think it would be worth its own section just now - it wasn't a historically-important lawsuit, that I can tell, so its relevance is limited to one point in the subject's history, which we already have a paragraph on. I mean, how would you expand beyond the paragraph already in the article? What else would you want to say? --Aquillion (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Non-profit organisation

Is there a source confirming PragerU is a registered non-profit organisation? If not, we should describe it as a "website" or "YouTube channel" instead. BeŻet (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In addition to having the tax ID on their website, [[31]] Springee (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Mention of non-notable person, Will Witt

Since 2017, PragerU has additionally posted man on the street videos that interview pedestrians, typically on a college campus. The interviews are done by Will Witt, a former student at UC Boulder who dropped out after two years to work for PragerU full time. Witt, who is also involved with Turning Point USA, states that he used to identify as a liberal and an atheist.[1][2]

The references look like public relations pieces rather than the high-quality sources required for BLP information. I don't see how they demonstrate any encyclopedic value. --Ronz (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Redjai, Isabella (2019-04-11). "Will Witt talks about making friends and influencing enemies". The Hillsdale Collegian. Retrieved 2019-10-07.
  2. ^ Garcia, Justin (2019-04-11). "PragerU speaker to visit UNM". The Daily Lobo. Retrieved 2019-10-07.
The references are from college newspapers and do not look terribly promotional to me. One of them mentions some racist nonsense that Turning Point USA tried to pull. These sources would not be sufficient for providing commentary on a scholarly dispute but I'm only using them to say that PragerU hired a 20-something to work on a certain type of content. The article already mentions that they have 20 employees... now with the above passage, we are able to name one of them. The one correct thing you've said is that this might be undue. These "BLP, SOAP, POV" accusations that I'm trying to turn the article into a propaganda piece are entirely uncalled for. Connor Behan (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
College newspapers in general are poor references.
The specific references in this case are an interview and a speaking announcement. Those are poor, promotional sources by their nature.
No one said you're trying to turn the article into a propaganda piece except for you.
Saying the policy concerns are accusations is the very opposite of the mindset required for working on Wikipedia articles, where cooperation is necessary. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
College newspapers are in the business of promoting events, whatever they are. Beyond that, they didn't try judge PragerU's content positively or negatively. Even if they did, the neutrality requirement for Wikipedia articles only requires us to use sources that are reliable, not sources that are neutral themselves. Nevertheless, you are right that what I added has weaker sourcing than most other parts of the article. I will not add it back but please try to use more accurate edit summaries like "RS, N, WEIGHT" in the future. It is pointless to have a semantic debate about the difference between "soapbox" and "propaganda" or the difference between "raising concerns" that I violated policy and "making accusations" that I violated policy. Connor Behan (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
See the thing is that you've hit the nail on the head why the college newspapers don't provide evidence of WP:DUE relevance. If they're in the business of promoting events, whatever they are then they aren't being very selective in content. Some random dropout's amateur man-on-the-street videos getting promotion within those papers is thus not an indication that this is something of any significant relevance to the topic, PragerU. Essentially it's WP:CRUFT - pointless, and irrelevant information that communicates nothing of value to a general audience. Simonm223 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Mark Oppenheimer Mother Jones article

After Optional Syntax's recent edits I noted that some of the descriptions of PragerU videos, sourced to the Oppenheimer MJ article are not correct or misleading. Optional Syntax said that the video argues about how data is interpreted, not that man made CC is false. I haven't verified that claim but it would be consistent with other incorrect MJ summaries. Here are several examples cited to the MJ article. "There is no police discrimination". That is not what the video says. Such a statement could be disproven by showing just one example of contemporary police racial bias. Instead the video argues that the idea that police use of lethal force is systemically racist is wrong and does so with data. That doesn't mean PragerU's ultimate arguments are correct but it the summary falsely presents the claims of the video. The same is true of the claim "the gender wage gap doesn't exist". The video acknowledges that the raw data supports the claim. It disputes this is because employers choose to pay women less pay for the same work. By falsely summarizing the arguments of the videos Oppenheimer creates a series of straw arguments. Part of the foundation for the whole MJ article is based on false claims. That makes the MJ article unreliable and should be treated as such. If we are going to judge the content of the videos we should probably compare the claims to those made by other sources rather than just a single, very progressive source, especially one that is falsely summarizing content. Springee (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223 and Optional Syntax:, this material[[32]] has been added and removed twice but I don't see a talk page discussion about it. Optional Syntax, would you explain your POV here? Is there an alternative way to address your concerns. Simonm223, same question. I'm not sure I agree the removals but I would have to verify the video contents in question and there is probably a better way to address concerns vs just linking to the videos. However, I've already noted that the MJ article that is the supports much of that paragraph falsely states the content/arguments of several of the videos. I don't agree that these are FRINGE views in general. For example the view that the wage gap is not based on gender discrimination for like work is hardly a fringe theory. More to the point, if MJ is going to misrepresent the claims then either we should probably just remove the material. Edit: Just checked, the source MJ article does link to the videos. Springee (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:PROFRINGE regarding softening language surrounding climate change denialism. And are you following me to articles now Springee? Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Since I haven't watched the video I will have to assume you have and that the video is denialism vs other related concerns. Your removal also included the gender wage gap video. Are you also concerned about that one? Springee (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
My reverts were specific for the changes to presentation of PragerU's climate change denialism which were in violation of WP:PROFRINGE if other material was affected by my revert unrelated to that subject it can be addressed separately. However I would consider that WP:PROFRINGE likely applies to PragerU's opinion pieces on the gender wage gap as well, so if this includes any PragerU sourced content I would recommend leaving it off pending that discussion. Especially as WP:FRINGE/N has been notified of this situation already. Simonm223 (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Since I haven't reviewed either video I will assume your concerns are legitimate and leave it to Optional Syntax to make the opposing case. I would note that since the MJ article links to the videos I would consider that sufficient for inclusion specifically because a RS (I dispute the reliability of this specific article) that suggests weight for inclusion here. I don't think your opinion piece argument is very good. If the video's arguments align with other non-fringe sources then we can't call them fringe even if they are considered minority POV. Springee (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Climate change denialism is WP:FRINGE - full stop. And with my fancy sociology degree, and a decent knowledge of the research, I'd suggest a video claiming that there's no gender wage gap is also WP:PROFRINGE. Regardless, PragerU is not a reliable source, and shouldn't be used as a reference, especially when a stronger reference, such as Mother Jones exists. See also WP:PRIMARY in this case. The Mother Jones article that links to PragerU's videos is WP:SECONDARY and thus preferable. Please remember that secondary sources commenting on a fringe topic may ascribe that the fringe topic is notable but never that it isn't fringe. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
What does the video actually say? As for the other video, again, what does it say. I think I saw the video a while back but I don't recall. However, a number of articles/sources are critical of the "gender wage gap" noting that the gap all but vanishes when normalized for same job, same experience. The problem becomes semantics. If the "gender wage gap" refers to discrimination in pay for same experience, same job then credible sources say the gap does not exist. If the "gender wage gap" refers only to the aggregate differences then yes it does exist. This is why it isn't correct to just say "they claim it doesn't exist" without actually saying what their argument really is. Not a reliable source isn't a question here. PragerU is a reliable source for the content of their videos. Again, MJ felt it was worth linking to the videos. Also, while you claim the arguments are fringe, you haven't demonstrated as much. Springee (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The title of PragerU's video on the gender wage gap is literally "There Is No Gender Wage Gap!" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Which is a WP:FRINGE opinion. As such, we should avoid using WP:PRIMARY sources to describe it per WP:PROFRINGE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The title of the video vs the content matters. Do they mean in aggregate women get paid the same then they are wrong. However, if the are referring to women getting paid less based on an apples to apples comparison, well that isn't fringe. Here is a Forbes article on the subject [[33]]. We should not have the Wikipedia article suggest the video is claiming something other than it actually claims. Springee (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
PragerU's videos are unreliable and propaganda. We should be very careful to avoid OR by interpreting video content ourselves. --Ronz (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
An opinion piece by a lobbyist in Forbes? I think I'll take the overwhelming volume of sources already in use at wage gap over such fluff. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::: I agree we need to be careful but that doesn't mean we should include false summaries of their arguments. In the case of the police discrimination video I mentioned above the MJ article clearly is falsely summarizing the video. That isn't ok. We don't have to endorse the conclusions but we should not falsify the claims or use sources that do so. Springee (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not how it works when WP:FRINGE is in play Springee. Frankly nobody cares if you think the MJ source is "false." PragerU is considered a WP:FRINGE source, with good reason. Mother Jones is a WP:RS. So, by WP:V that's what we go with. We don't use fringe primaries to contradict reliable secondaries ever. Full stop. Simonm223 (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
It is never ok to use false summaries. If MJb falsely summarizes what the video says we have to be honest about how we use the MJ source even if we don't like PU. Also the videos are considered reliable sources for the information they contain even if the information is considered to be wrong. Springee (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Unless you have a reliable secondary source that says MJ was falsely summarizing the video, that would constitute WP:OR which is never acceptable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree, this is OR to undermine one of the most detailed sources we have. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
OR says we can’t put “MJ falsely summarized...” in the article. It does not mean we can’t investigate the claim and show it to be false. That MJ is making false claims is a problem. Springee (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
If you believe there's an issue with MJ as a source in this context please take it up with WP:RS/N. But again, we don't give preference to a fringe primary source over a reliable secondary source. And that's the locus of the issue here. The sources that were removed from the article were fringe secondary sources. And returning to the issue of the language change, the specific edit I reverted attempted to soften the language surrounding PragerU's habit of climate change denialism. Please also see WP:WEASEL for details why this was a valid revert. Also remember there are active arbcom sanctions on pseudoscience. I'll send you the alert momentarily. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Simon, the most reliable source for what is in a PragerU video is the video. That's an ABOUTSELF thing. It isn't saying the video's information is correct, only that the video is evidence as to it's content. Since I haven't watched the climate change video I can't say if the summary is accurate. I can say that MJ's police discrimination video summary is misleading/false. Springee (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
ABOUTSELF has multiple caveats that eliminate it from applying here. Besides, some sources are not reliable for viewpoints about themselves. I'd say this is one. --Ronz (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I keep seeing discussion of whether or not PragerU is a reliable source but that is completely missing the point. The article is making use of secondary sources in order to represent the claims being made. The issue is not whether climate change is actually wrong or not, it is a matter of what PragerU is claiming. I don't see how using the PragerU video itself as a source for what PragerU's stances are as unreliable sourcing. How is this even a debate? Consider this: someone says all dogs have 3 legs. I link a source citing this claim on this persons Wiki article. You remove this source on the basis that the person saying this is not reliable and it is a fringe theory that all dogs have 3 legs. The citation isn't being used to support all dogs having 3 legs but to support that this is the persons stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a legitimate concern that the videos are unduly promotional and that, even if the summaries are wrong, it's odd to just dump the videos as citations. It begs why include them? Are they there to support what MJ is saying or refute it. Alternatives are to attribute all summaries to Mother Jones, remove the summary while retaining the MJ reference, thus we could say,
Still other videos discuss scientific consensus on climate change, police discrimination toward African-Americans, and the gender pay gap.
instead of,
Still other videos argue that the scientific consensus on climate change is wrong, there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans, and the gender pay gap does not exist.
In text attribution to MJ is another option. At least that way any question about the validity of the claim would fall on MJ rather than on Wikipedia or if we find other sources that offer the same summary. In my opinion it isn't good to use a partisan left source to summarize the arguments of a partisan right source. Especially when the whole thrust of the MJ article seems to be concern that young people might actually be swayed by conservative arguments. It seems clear that MJ thinks that's a bad thing. Springee (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it would be an improvement to at the very least attribute the summaries to MJ. Better would be to find other summaries, that we can also attribute. Here's one from THe Hill: The inconvenient truth behind the “pay gap” numbers is that, to the extent any real pay gap might exist between men and women, the factors that account for it seem to relate more to the choices that liberated, self-directed women are free to make in our country than they do to any sort of institutional discrimination. PragerU has produced a well-researched and concise video that makes this point extremely well. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
That's an op-ed by Charlie Kirk. Under absolutely no circumstance whatsoever should Wikipedia cite that foolishness. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The video arguments parallel those made by a number of reliable sources and researchers. [[34]], [[35]], [[36]] Even left leaning sources agree [[37]], [[38]]. None of this means the arguments made by the video are correct but they aren't fringe and MJ's biased, misleading summary is just that. What next, Mother Jones claims Ford wrote a memo they never actually wrote... Springee (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Back to OR to promote a POV? Please stop wasting our time. --Ronz (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
There is a consistent problem here with you misrepresenting sources. You link to what you claim are "left-leaning sources", yet the sources are op-eds by Christina Hoff Sommers, a rightwing clown whose shtick is to shit on feminism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's a BLP vio if I ever saw one. Strike it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Snoogan's that's a rather serious accusation. Can you back it? If not please strike it. At no point have I misrepresented sources. The DailyBeast [[39]] and HuffPo[[40]] are both left leaning. Ronz' please remember that OR only applies to article content. From WP:OR, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." Springee (talk) 22:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
None of the OR that you're doing will have any bearing on content, so please don't waste our time. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Ronz, you are not required to participate or even read this. However, OR is allowed here per WP:OR. Springee (talk) 23:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on why using PragerU as a source on PragerU's own stance is not preferred over politicized essayists interpretations from a website that is as reliable as anyone who has access to a search engine. Promotional or not, the content speaks for itself. A cited MJ article featuring ads is equally promotional. A wiki editor with a user page that makes no effort to deny left leaning opinions cannot be considered as a reliable authority on articles that contradict their emotional convictions. Also, reverting changes with single word comments like "No." is profoundly unproductive and childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax (talk • contribs) 08:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

See WP:RS. Self-sourcing is acceptable on a limited basis for uncontroversial facts, but PragerU's beliefs are not uncontroversial so need reliable independent sources to establish significance and context. It's rather like David Irving: he describes himself as an historian, we describe him, in line with independent sources, as a writer, because his "history" is ideologically motivated bunk. Guy (help!) 12:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I find myself repeating the same point, Guy. I have not been advocating for the citations as a means to back the politics or opinions as fact, only as a means to show the reader what the PragerU claims are as they present themselves. Controversial or not, the section of the article is being used to show what the PragerU opinion is, not to advocate whether it is true or not. Your comparison to David Irving is precisely my point and in favor of what these edits are trying to accomplish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Optional Syntax (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Climate change

(Edit conflict with the first comment in the section above --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC))

I am not sure why balance isn't the primary goal here

Not advertising for your user-page pseudo-blog
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear all, I invite you to read my personal page. It illustrates my philosophy regarding editing on Wikipedia. I am driven my truth and balance. Hence, I find it difficult to understand why on certain pages, truth and balanced aren't the primary goals, as on this article. Happy to consider arguments. Best regards. Alain

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:PragerU/Archive_1&oldid=1143744342"