![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which of the following seven six additions should be made to the article?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Each of the proposed additions is described, and is then followed by a Survey section. Answer Yes in each of the Survey sections to include the material or No to exclude the material. Be brief and concise in the Survey, and do not respond to other editors. A Threaded Discussion section is provided for discussion following each item, in which the most important rule is civility. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following paragraph be added to the article? The 2018 video "The Suicide of Europe" about immigration to Europe, presented by author Douglas Murray drew criticism in the media, with Sludge's Alex Kotch contending that the video's "rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation' evokes the common white nationalist trope of 'white genocide'". [1] Kotch interviewed Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, who said that while he didn't consider the video fascist or white nationalist, there was "certainly prejudice inherent in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric". [2] The Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a " dog whistle to the extreme right", [3] while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times said the video echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right. [4]
References
Prager says he disavows the alt-right ideology that has gained ground in the Trump era, but the online lessons often echo some of the movement's talking points. A video of Dinesh D'Souza, the right-wing author, opining on why Western cultures are superior to others has been viewed 4.7 million times, for example. Another, featuring Douglas Murray, the British author of several books about Europe and immigration, laments that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate. It has 6.7 million views
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The opinion of Alex Kotch, a journalist at the website "ReadSludge," is not WP:DUE. Moreover, the proposed content does not appropriately summarize the content of the video under discussion, as it should by relying on the summary of the video in the LAT. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 23:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Mostly no. The current wording in the article (with just Pitcavage's view) is more economical. The SPLC's view could be added, as could the Los Angeles Times writer's. Sluge should be left out except in the citation. Llll5032 ( talk) 01:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No, current wording is generally fine but could be improved. So much of this has already been discussed. Anyway, I agree with ImTheIP's efforts to make much of the text more compact. This long winded passage would go against that effort. It also might suggest that the Murray content was more controversial than some of the other videos. I don't think we have any sources that say which videos were, relatively speaking, the most controversial. Springee ( talk) 03:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, unless the updated content in the article is kept, although there is a little mix-and-match I would like to do. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 06:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Partly: I'm not a fan of the quotes attributed directly to journalists but I'm for keeping in the ADL quote. Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No, bbutmore objective and intelligent critique of the video would be good. Inflammatory characterizations by opponents does not provide information. North8000 ( talk) 15:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No - I agree with North8000. Why do we need an inflammatory prejudiced opinion to criticize a prejudiced opinion? How about some straight-up facts, otherwise it fails WP:DUE. The article is about PragerU, and it's not our job to imply or allude to whether or not their approach or ideology is right or wrong. It also fails WP:10YT, and doesn't add any encyclopedic value to the article. Atsme 💬 📧 16:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Partly The quotes of Pitcavage should be included without mention of Kotch or Kotch's comments. Boynamedsue ( talk) 17:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes Something like that. I like my version better: [1]. One should describe what Murray's video was about and why they criticized it, otherwise it's not useful. Murray's theory is that immigration from North Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia (but apparently not from North or South America or Australia, hm...) will cause Europe to collapse because the immigrants doesn't share Europe's "Judeo-Christian values". This is apparently known to Europe's leaders, according to Murray, otherwise he wouldn't have called it a "suicide". ImTheIP ( talk) 03:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No - Cherry picking opinions that mirror what editors think is generally bad practice. Doubly so when the resulting text is so inflammatory. Bonewah ( talk) 14:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No although aspects of the text might be included elsewhere. This article is about PragerU and I do not think there should be a paragraph about the reception of one video. I think the "Critique of videos" section should be merged with the "Reception" section, with this text summarised and included as a commentary on Prager U. Z1720 ( talk) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes I'm not thrilled with the wording here- but I think more of the criticisms need to be covered in the article. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Partly. The video was roundly and widely criticized (although, let's be real, it wasn't a reasoned critique of European immigration policies, but a mixture of misleading or downright fake statistics and outrage porn, and so intended to preach to the converted). Including this criticism is relevant and deserves due weight. But it should be phrased more neutrally, and if we must include a quote it should be from a more authoritative source. I like ImTheIP's edit. -- Tserton ( talk) 10:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
No. Fails WP:UNDUE. As other editors have said, an article from The Sludge is not appropriate. It is also not appropriate for this article to include every little act of controversy PragerU has been involved in. I can understand why some may think this article is one-sided, but the proposed changes would make it unnecessarily inflammatory. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 13:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I wrote what I think is a good compromise here: [2]. I fully expect it to be reverted, but it's a start. Two sentences for describing the video and two for criticizing it. So not undue. Imo, for fairness, the article should also link to the video. ImTheIP ( talk) 06:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following paragraph be added to the article? The August 2018 video "The Charlottesville Lie" presented by CNN presenter Steve Cortes contested the claim that in the wake of the Unite the Right rally Donald Trump had used the phrase "very fine people on both sides" to refer to neo-Nazis. Cortes said in the video, which was later retweeted by Trump himself, that the media had committed "journalistic malfeasance" in reporting it as such. [1] The Forward's Aiden Pink and Mother Jones' Tim Murphy criticised the video, with Murphy calling it an attempt to "rewrite the History of Charlottesville", [2] [3] while University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato bluntly rejected the notion that Trump was not referring to the far right with his "both sides" remark, saying that "anybody who tries to pretend that [Trump] wasn't encouraging the white nationalists [at Charlottesville] is simply putting their head in the sand". [4] Dennis Prager himself contended in The Australian that Google placed the video on YouTube's restricted list within hours of it being uploaded in an act of politically motivated censorship. [5] Cortes ceased working for CNN in January 2020, saying that he was "forced out" of the network for making the PragerU video defending Trump. [6]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Text "VPM" ignored (
help)
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The proposed content attributes the headline of the MJ piece to the author of the piece, violating
WP:HEADLINES. Moreover, the MJ piece says very little about the content of the video: it only says that the video is part of a broader attempt on the part of Trump's allies to delegitimize “the media,” defend his most militant supporters, and cast the president’s opponents as violent radicals.
The quote from Sabato does not refer to Cortes specifically, but says that "Anybody who tries to pretend that he wasn't encouraging the white nationalists is simply putting their head in the sand." Our previous source does not have Cortes talking about "white nationalists" but only about "neo-Nazis". Are we to assume that these are the same? Seems to violate
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH. The reference to Prager is a primary source. The Washington Examiner is generally regarded as a weak source that requires attribution. I'm not opposed to including something about the Cortes video, but this proposal is a non-starter. It's also awkwardly written.
Yes, but shortened and reworded. Keep the Trump retweet, the social media controversies, the Sabato reaction, and maybe Cortes' departure from CNN. Address some factual questions raised in the comment above. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No but As written, no. Again this is too much text. Also, most of those sources aren't about PragerU rather it's about the controversy associated with a single video. There is also the issue that this became one of those case where you have the text of the speech which all sides agree on (as far as I can tell) followed by the vastly different interpretations of what the speech actually meant. While I don't think this one is needed, if it were trimmed down and impartial in its presentation I think it could be included. Springee ( talk) 04:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, but this is quite a deep dive into one particular video, it should probably be a mention rather than a passage. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 06:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Partly: I'm for including something like this but it definitely should be shorter. I'm also, again, not a fan of quotes attributed directly to journalists. IMO quotes should be credible: we shouldn't be putting in a quote just to be able to claim something we couldn't say in Wikivoice. Attributing quotes to journalists is therefore almost always either saying too little (because we could just say what the article claims in Wikivoice and cite it) or too much (because we couldn't). Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No as written; a shorter version would be good. Report that the video made the arguable and argued assertion. This isn't the place for lengthy content arguing against the assertion. North8000 ( talk) 15:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes But I don't rule out the addition of text that contradicts these opinions as well (or indeed further criticism). Boynamedsue ( talk) 18:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but please condense it. F.e in "The August 2018 video" is the month the video was published really relevant? If not, change it to "The 2018 video" which saves one word. And so on. ImTheIP ( talk) 04:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes but summarised. Remove all the commentary about the video and just explain what the video is referencing and that the person who appeared in the video accuses CNN of forcing him out following making the video. The rest of the commentary is undue weight and belongs in a Reception section. Z1720 ( talk) 15:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Not in its current form I do not feel that this statement is focused on PragerU and their coverage/contributions to the situation- but rather on the situation itself. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes but heavily summarized. Though perhaps some of this content could be moved to Unite_the_Right_rally#Reactions. Seems more appropriate there. Jlevi ( talk) 01:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
off-topic Atsme 💬 📧 16:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Shinealittlelight, have a look at WP:ROWN when considering whether to discard this edit:
If you contend there are errors (and the errors you've identified are minor) why don't you put forward an alternative proposal? Why aim for the rejection of the material wholesale? Noteduck ( talk) 00:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
|
3: Platforming far-right activistsSurvey on Item 3Fully support Well, a proposal to make no changes to a section that doesn't exist is not too controversial. Springee ( talk) 04:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC) I also support doing nothing to nothing. Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC) ? North8000 ( talk) 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of Item 3 |
@ Robert McClenon: Do you know if there supposed to be something here? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Springee, North8000, LokiTheLiar, Atsme, and ReconditeRodent: - There isn't anything here. This item was omitted during preparation of the RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following paragraph be added to the article? PragerU's videos on controversial topics are often highly visible and accessible through YouTube's search engine, with a report by the Data & Society Research Institute noting that a YouTube search for " social justice" returned the PragerU video "What is social justice?" that was highly critical of the concept as the first result. [1]
References
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The proposal mischaracterizes the source. What the source says is The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... In the video, he echoes libertarian critiques of social justice in the format of an educational video...
Ok, so "highly critical" is not in the source, and what the source is actually saying is that the Goldberg video critical of social justice came up one time when the author of the report searched "Social Justice" on YouTube. I don't see that as
WP:DUE; it does not give us helpful information about PragerU, or, for that matter, about YouTube or Jonah Goldberg. Is anyone surprised that a JG video with "Social Justice" in the title might come up in some search on YouTube for "Social Justice"? How does this inform our readers about PragerU? How is it of any interest at all?
Shinealittlelight (
talk)
00:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably no. This information doesn't add much to the other Data & Society report that is already included in the PragerU article. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The fact that a search for "X" returns a video with "X" in the title is akin to "the sky is blue" is not worth mentioning in this article. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 03:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No Spiffy has it right. Several editors, myself included, echoed the same point. It seems odd to call something hijacking when a video about X uses X as a keyword even if it happens to be a video about X that is critical of X. I mean how many videos that were critical of Senator X included the Senator's name in the video? Springee ( talk) 04:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably no since this adds little information, it would need to tie in to something more noteworthy. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 06:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No: YouTube searches are highly personal and therefore are dubiously WP:DUE, plus it's not terribly surprising that a YouTube video from a large channel with "social justice" in the title came up in a search for "social justice". Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No In addition to "following the source" issues, spun-laded talking points of an opponent is not info about PragrU. North8000 ( talk) 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No This is beginning to feel like a huge time sink, not to mention the lack substance - seriously, a proposal to include the results of a Google search, or other search engine? Atsme 💬 📧 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No Per Spiffy above. A more serious proposal would elicit a more serious response. Bonewah ( talk) 14:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No Not as written. The report is using PragerU as an example of how far-right media organisations are using the social justice movement's terminology to achieve search results. This addition doesn't reflect what the source says. Z1720 ( talk) 15:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No This sentence makes it sound like that source is saying the video is highly critical, when really- its the opinion of the person who wrote the sentence while the source is just saying it was the top search result. Now- the video is highly critical... but to include that statement in the article- we need a source that says it. Otherwise WP:OR or WP:SYNTH Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No This is both WP:UNDUE material and unnecessary trivia. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 13:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
No Minor. I've never seen another source make this point. Jlevi ( talk) 01:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
A report about "political influencers" by Data & Society found that PragerU and others "explicitly [use] terminology affiliated with progressive social justice movements and are therefore appearing in search results for those terms.That is, it's about the strategy, not the fact of the search results. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This does not mischaracterize the source. This has been addressed on the talk page previously, - in fact, you were a key part of that discussion, so please pay closer attention [3]
The source is Rebecca Lewis, "Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube," Data & Society Research Institute 2018 [4]
No, the source does not use the term "highly critical", hence why its not in direct quotes. Would you argue that PragerU's "What is Social Justice?" video is not highly critical of the concept? I've no idea why this is not relevant given that an extensively published [5] Stanford academic chose to write about it in detail in this report (the report itself has also been cited quite often) [6] and given the immense visibility of PragerU and YouTube videos more generally. Noteduck ( talk) 00:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following material be added to the article? PragerU received criticism for producing two videos in 2018 featuring comedian Owen Benjamin, who had attracted controversy for mocking Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor David Hogg, making racist and homophobic slurs in his material, and promoting conspiracy theories. [1] [2] In February 2019, Benjamin attracted negative publicity for making anti-semitic remarks, [3] and in April 2019 the Jewish Telegraph Agency's Bethany Mandel reported that he had made a "full-blown descent into Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism", while noting that his appearances on PragerU had helped him "maintain a limited degree of visibility in the conservative world. [4] PragerU later removed their videos with Benjamin from their website and from YouTube. [5]
References
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. Among the sources for this content are pieces from: Media Matters, The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (which is misspelled in the proposed content), Rightwing Watch, and Business Insider. This sourcing could hardly be weaker: these sources do not seem like WP:RS for this content, and do not demonstrate that the material is WP:DUE. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe. The article should add which PragerU videos Benjamin narrated, and shorten the part about what Benjamin was accused of elsewhere. Shine is right that the information needs less partisan and more expert sources. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No None of the sources are sufficient to establish weight for inclusion. MM4America is a poor quality source and shouldn't be used to establish content is DUE. The same is true of Right Wing Watch. The JTA article is clearly "Opinion". Again not a good source with which to establish either facts or WEIGHT. BI and Forward make only brief mentions of the video and again, neither are sources that we should be putting a lot of stock in. Once you remove the poor quality sources, a concern that was previously raised, you are left with very little to suggest the article would benefit from inclusion. Springee ( talk) 04:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but it may be best to shorten this the section to mainly commentary and just link to the criticism of Owen Benjamin's views on his own WP page for sourcing. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 05:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes: Could be a little shorter but this is a pretty major controversy regarding PragerU so even the full paragraph is probably WP:DUE. Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Not as written, but this should be in there. A lengthy presentation on why the comedian is controversial is too far away in WP:Relevance / undue for a PragerU article. Trim that stuff to one sentence that he is controversial and briefly why. North8000 ( talk) 15:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but in a condensed form. ImTheIP ( talk) 04:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Rework Shorten, better sourcing etc. Bonewah ( talk) 14:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes But summarised. There is too much information about the commentary and not enough about what happened to Owen Benjamin or the result of this video. Commentary should be summarised. Z1720 ( talk) 15:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes I think some re-work/shortening could be done- but I think this needs to stay in the article as it is an important criticism/example. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but in condensed form. Jlevi ( talk) 01:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Springee, you haven't referred to a single actual excerpt from Wiki editorial policy, nor any past noticeboard discussions, to establish that these are poor sources. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware that you deleted a reminder that I put on your talk page when you probably meant to archive it, cheers Noteduck ( talk) 04:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following item be added to the article?
In November 2020, PragerU attracted criticism for its video "Who was Robert E. Lee?" in which it defended the historical legacy of the Confederate leader Robert E. Lee and criticized attempts to remove monuments dedicated to him. [1] Brandon Gage of Hill Reporter called the video an "overtly racist jumble of propaganda and historical whitewashing" and objected to the video's claim that Lee should be celebrated for his role in suppressing the slave revolt led by John Brown in 1859. [2] As of January 2021 the video is no longer available on PragerU's website or YouTube, but remains available in an archived form at the Wayback Machine. [7]
References
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The Hill Reporter and Rightwingwatch (the proposed sources for this content) do not appear to be WP:RS. The author at The Hill Reporter does not appear to have any particular expertise in this area: he holds a music degree and the site does not have a significant reputation, and is thus not able to establish WP:DUE weight. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No as noted in the prior discussion, [ [8]] the sourcing here is very poor (Right Wing Watch and Hill Reporter). As I mentioned in the prior discussion, this is meant to be an overview of PragerU, not criticism of any particular video, especially videos that PragerU decided to remove. Springee ( talk) 04:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes but I would like to see this compacted later, perhaps into a list of content that was retracted after criticism. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 05:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes: This is also a major controversy regarding PragerU, and this paragraph is short enough that I wouldn't even recommend cutting it down. I maintain my above objection to attributing quotes to journalists, and would prefer better sourcing in general for this paragraph, but in this case I think that points towards lengthening the paragraph rather than cutting it. Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes: what Loki wrote -- FantinoFalco ( talk) 10:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably. I agree with MasterTriangle that this should be compacted into a summary of retracted videos, if an independent source verifies that it has been retracted. Long critical quotes about this are not WP:DUE because the criticism as of now is not widespread in reliable sources. Llll5032 ( talk) 07:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No, but inclusion in a more neutral way would be be good. Characterizations and cherry-picked items by an opponent is not really coverage of this. North8000 ( talk) 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No - it was removed; therefore, fails DUE and 10YT. Atsme 💬 📧 17:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes Though it is long and should be condensed. ImTheIP ( talk) 04:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No So, the common theme for these RfCs seems to be "PragerU attracted criticism for its video..." So this really applies to all these requests. 1) stop using such bad sources. And relatedly 2) establish that the criticisms in question are actually relevant to something and not just POV pushing. Everyone 'attracts' or 'receives' criticism, demonstrate why the reader should care. Bonewah ( talk) 14:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No The text does not describe why this video is notable for inclusion in the article. Why is it so important that this information is in the article? Commentary about the video may be added as more general comments in the Reception section. Z1720 ( talk) 15:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes Once again- the controversies and criticisms are not currently being given their WP:DUE in this article and they need to be. It is irresponsible to wash them away like they never happened. Could this be written better? Absolutely! Should it be cut out because its not perfect- NO. It needs to be in the article to give fair coverage. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following material be added to the header of the article? The accuracy and reliability of PragerU's videos has been extensively questioned, with several sources referring to PragerU videos as containing propaganda [1] [2] [3] [4] and misinformation. [5] [6] Specific criticisms levelled at PragerU videos have included the claims that they perpetuate views associated with the far-right or alt-right, [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] contain controversial speakers, [12] including those linked to the far right, [13] [14] [15] [16] promote racism [17] and Islamophobia, [18] promote misleading information related to the COVID-19 pandemic, [19] [20] [21] [22] and contain misleading information related to climate change. [23] [24] [25] [26]
References
But Prager University is noteworthy in two respects: the program seeks to insert right-wing religious and political propaganda into schools by providing content directly to teachers and students; and it has the generous backing of two of the richest men in the United States.
"We saw it as an existential threat, because it's a way of taking young people, and preventing them from being on the left," says Williams. "If you're just looking for an answer to a seemingly innocuous question, like what is the electoral college, or what is American history? If you Google those questions, chances are you're going to find a PragerU video, and they're going to masquerade to you as a university." But "they're not a university," Williams says. "What they are is very clever and very effective propagandists."
The Gravel Institute is taking aim at PragerU, a YouTube channel that spreads disinformation and right wing propaganda. The YouTubers who have already tried wish them good luck—they'll need it.
In another case in late May, a Facebook employee filed a misinformation escalation for PragerU, after a series of fact-checking labels were applied to several similar posts suggesting polar bear populations had not been decimated by climate change and that a photo of a starving animal was used as a "deliberate lie to advance the climate change agenda." This claim was fact-checked by one of Facebook's independent fact-checking partners, Climate Feedback, as false and meant that the PragerU page had "repeat offender" status and would potentially be banned from advertising.
Prager says he disavows the alt-right ideology that has gained ground in the Trump era, but the online lessons often echo some of the movement's talking points. A video of Dinesh D'Souza, the right-wing author, opining on why Western cultures are superior to others has been viewed 4.7 million times, for example. Another, featuring Douglas Murray, the British author of several books about Europe and immigration, laments that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate. It has 6.7 million views
PragerU offers a platform to extremists. PragerU has offered a platform to extremist figures, including anti-Semitic bigot and conspiracy theorist Owen Benjamin and anti-LGBTQ bigot Steven Crowder. In his five-minute rant for PragerU, Crowder took issue with Columbus Day conversations centered on America's original inhabitants in a video featuring racist cartoon depictions of indigenous people. PragerU is also home to a podcast hosted by former TPUSA Communications Director Candace Owens, who raised her profile through YouTube and Infowars punditry that included dismissing white supremacy and likening Black Lives Matter protesters to animals. She has also defended Adolf Hitler's actions by saying, "If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. ... I have no problems with nationalism."
{{
cite web}}
: |author1=
has generic name (
help)
In another case in late May, a Facebook employee filed a misinformation escalation for PragerU, after a series of fact-checking labels were applied to several similar posts suggesting polar bear populations had not been decimated by climate change and that a photo of a starving animal was used as a "deliberate lie to advance the climate change agenda." This claim was fact-checked by one of Facebook's independent fact-checking partners, Climate Feedback, as false and meant that the PragerU page had "repeat offender" status and would potentially be banned from advertising.
Analysis of the ads run by these groups found 51 examples of disinformation, including an ad paid for by the conservative group PragerU that ran to 1 October. Its headline was: "Make no doubt about it: the hysteria over climate change is to sell you Big Government control." The accompanying video said: "Fossil fuels are not an existential threat … The Green New Deal is an existential threat."
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. Many sources here not WP:RS. In any case, much of this content is not in the body yet, and the lead should summarize the body per MOS:LEAD. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but if not as the header due to a close following of MOS:LEAD then it should be the first sentence of the "Reception" section until the points are fleshed out elsewhere. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 04:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No This was extensively discussed. [ [9]] This ultimately comes off as editors cherry picking the material they want to see vs following MOS:LEAD. Additionally, many of the sources used for these criticisms are poor quality. Throwing up a huge list in hopes that something will stick is not how we should be making changes like this. Springee ( talk) 04:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Needs more work. For WP:DUEWEIGHT, each of these criticisms should be backed up by several independent, nonpartisan sources, and if possible some conservative sources. The partisan liberal sources could be pared back. Proportionate defenses of PragerU should be included if they appear in WP:RS. I agree with Shinealittlelight and MasterTriangle that per MOS:LEADREL this should be firmly established in the Reception section before a summary at the top is considered. Llll5032 ( talk) 06:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes: This is all one of the major things PragerU is known for. There's tons of RSes on this. It's clearly WP:DUE since this is the aspect of PragerU that has by far received the most attention from the sources. Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, what Loki said. For those invoking, MOS:LEAD, consider this excerpt:
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
I've no idea what the standards being proposed for "independent, nonpartisan" and not "partisan liberal" sources are, but you'll need to refer to editorial policy to justify such a standard. When there are TWO DOZEN sources making similar points about PragerU, none of which has been effectively challenged with regards to Wiki editorial policy by editors here, it's clear, that this material warrants inclusion Noteduck ( talk) 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Atsme, Facebook - a commercial titan and not a partisan media source - has given PragerU "repeat offender" status for serially publishing misinformation. [10] It would be absolutely not encyclopedic to leave this material out of the header Noteduck ( talk) 22:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No not as written. There is some WP:CITATIONOVERKILL happening which makes the text difficult to read. Also, I don't think this summarises the "Reception" section very well. I would like to see a more substantive proposal that reflects everything included in the "Reception" section. Z1720 ( talk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
PragerU has promoted false and misleading information about climate change [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and the COVID-19 pandemic. [8] [4] It has been criticized for inaccuracies, [9] anti-Muslim sentiment, [10] [11] promoting views associated with the alt-right, [12] [13] [14] [15] and hosting speakers with far-right ties. [16] [17] [18]
For those who have said that the sources don't support it: Climate Feedback (which is rated an RS on climate change as per WP:RSP) has rated at least four of PragerU's claims on climate change as "false" or "misleading". [11] [12] [13] [14] PragerU fell afoul of Facebook's fact checkers for spreading misinformation twice in a single month [15] [16]
References
Shine, I absolutely believe all of this material (particularly the material related to COVID misinformation) should be integrated into the article - block reverts have been the norm on this page so it isn't surprisingly that a lot of material isn't yet present. Obviously, I can't edit the page while the RfC is ongoing. Why don't you draft a suggestion for a COVID misinformation paragraph on the talk page and we can fine-tune it? Noteduck ( talk) 00:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
My initial take on all this: It seems to me that critiques of the videos have the potential to be as numerous as the videos themselves. It further appears that most or all critiques will be negative, which raises the issues of DUE and BALANCE for this article. I think arguing over sources as a way of including or excluding particular text will be mostly unproductive. Sourcing for such highly charged political commentary is likely as not to come from opinionated and biased sources, which are not disqualified on that account. NPOV states that biased sources are not disallowed, merely due to their bias. Right now, I'm thinking the solution is to make the Critique section a general summary, and spin off the gnarly contents into an independent article: "Critiques of PragerU" or "Controversy over PragerU", or the like, which will be seen as an appropriate place for such endless verbal pugilism to occur. DonFB ( talk) 00:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think arguing over sources as a way of including or excluding particular text will be mostly unproductive. Sourcing for such highly charged political commentary is likely as not to come from opinionated and biased sources, which are not disqualified on that account.I mostly agree. "Arguing" without clearly applying current policy and consensus will be unproductive. However, all we have are the sources, so a thorough application of WP:RS and related consensus should at least narrow down what we should even attempt to use and how.
ImTheIP wrote, Yes, the article contains lots of criticism, so then add more neutral or positive information to balance it out?
Noteduck wrote, Unfortunately as you can see from the page's edit history, it's largely the case that a few editors repeatedly revert large chunks of material from the page without pruning the material or adding contrasting information for balance
. These present fundamentally incorrect perspectives on what neutrality means in Wikipedia. We do not as editors look to balance information that we find, that would be
WP:FALSEBALANCE. To do so would violate
WP:POV, and likely
WP:OR as well if the editor is working from their own biases to "balance" perspectives in the article and references. --
Hipal (
talk)
16:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The article as is doesn't seem ideal (describing, at length, this organization as the victim of censorship without really saying why in context; a lead that doesn't attempt to summarize most of the article). I'd attempt a lead if I didn't think it would be disruptive while this RfC is ongoing. Speaking of which, I've spent the last half hour going through these various blocks of text and their sources and am concerned at what looks like !voting on overly specific, overly long text that includes some sub-par sources. Most of these topics certainly appear WP:DUE, but the language and sourcing leaves a bit to be desired. I'm not quite sure how to approach it at this point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
On a lot of modern politics articles (and on others reflecting a current real-world contest) the dialog seems to be be a side-based contest. And the most common example is using policy and guideline-based arguments to include maximum quantity and hard-hittingness of negative material where the topic is about the "other" side. Of course, the other combinations also occur regarding "same side" and positive-sounding material. I would like to recommend a different emphasis which is both more fun and which results in better articles. And that is to focus instead on making an article which is focused on providing information about the topic of the article. For this a particular emphasis on the degree of relevance of the material to the topic is helpful. For example, let's say that PragerU (not just one errant guy within it) did a video. If there was widespread negative reaction (vs. just some predicable swipes from their political opponents) then that is informative/information about their video, and their video is only one step removed from ParagerU from a relevance standpoint. The fact that they took a video down (if such is unusual) further re-enforces this. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't concede that any of this is "POV pushing" - Neutral editing. Isn't. Neutral. Content. Read WP:NEUTRALEDIT again if you gotta. There are quite a few editors criticizing these edits on the grounds of "bad sources", "not RS" etc. Where are your links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, to anything backing up your arguments? Noteduck ( talk) 03:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I dropped in to help a little. In general, I support inclusion of informative coverage of things closely relevant to PragerU. This includes coverage of "what they did" in any areas that they have been broadly criticized for if/when such is the case. IMO in general that doesn't include "hit phrase" characterizations by their opponents. IMO there have been a large amount of debates and RFC questions that seem like the latter. I really didn't plan to and don't want to keep weighing in on huge amounts of these. My general thought on future ones is to support informative coverage of those areas and oppose uninformative "hit phrase" characterizations by their opponents. I don't plan to watch this page closely but I can help on a specific area or question I'd be happy to come if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Shadybabs, your changes here make the text less accurate with respect to the sources. Additionally Bridge is a SPS so should not be used as a RS. The first edit is rather neutral compared to the original. The addition of "erroneous" would have to be justified by the source since there is a view that these social media sites are becoming "the new public square". Finally, the climate change edits takes the statements further from the actual source and inserts a SPS. Please explain why you restored these disputed edits [ [30]]. Springee ( talk) 15:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It was not well-attended and since it was not closed with consensus it is clear that you are wrong in this instance. Further intransigence in this matter will be noted when we bring you to WP:AE for WP:DE. jps ( talk) 23:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
PragerU's coverage of climate change-related material and COVID-19 has been extensively criticized, and yet these criticisms are not prominent on this page - COVID-19 has so far not even got a single mention. PragerU has repeatedly been picked up by Facebook's fact-checkers for spreading misinformation on climate change, sometimes several times in a single month. [1] [2] In particular, PragerU has an extensive record of purported misinformation on climate change from reliable sources. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
PragerU's mentions of COVID-19 have also been criticized for spreading false and misleading information about the pandemic. [9] [10] [11] [12] Here's the NY Times criticising one of Prager's videos for downplaying the seriousness of the pandemic. [13]
This is just to get started, as I think this material needs to be covered in much more depth. I believe a new subheading, perhaps titled "allegations of misinformation" or maybe just "criticism" should be added to accommodate these widespread, well-substantiated claims. Alternatively, perhaps separate subheadings should be made for "climate change coverage", "COVID-19 coverage" and any other relevant ones.
Comments/thoughts/etc? Noteduck ( talk) 00:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Making a proposal before editing...is not what anyone is suggesting. Being overly BOLD given the AE discussions might not be a good idea though. Regardless, we need to know what is being proposed. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Still no proposal or other indication of what changes are indented? -- Hipal ( talk) 17:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Some interesting classical points are highlighted in this The Independent source.
[14] PragerU was one of the contributors to a climate change denialism campaign on Facebook that used targetted advertizing. Pushed narratives are:
— Paleo Neonate – 18:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |author1=
has generic name (
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which of the following seven six additions should be made to the article?
Robert McClenon (
talk)
21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Each of the proposed additions is described, and is then followed by a Survey section. Answer Yes in each of the Survey sections to include the material or No to exclude the material. Be brief and concise in the Survey, and do not respond to other editors. A Threaded Discussion section is provided for discussion following each item, in which the most important rule is civility. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following paragraph be added to the article? The 2018 video "The Suicide of Europe" about immigration to Europe, presented by author Douglas Murray drew criticism in the media, with Sludge's Alex Kotch contending that the video's "rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation' evokes the common white nationalist trope of 'white genocide'". [1] Kotch interviewed Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, who said that while he didn't consider the video fascist or white nationalist, there was "certainly prejudice inherent in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric". [2] The Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a " dog whistle to the extreme right", [3] while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times said the video echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right. [4]
References
Prager says he disavows the alt-right ideology that has gained ground in the Trump era, but the online lessons often echo some of the movement's talking points. A video of Dinesh D'Souza, the right-wing author, opining on why Western cultures are superior to others has been viewed 4.7 million times, for example. Another, featuring Douglas Murray, the British author of several books about Europe and immigration, laments that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate. It has 6.7 million views
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The opinion of Alex Kotch, a journalist at the website "ReadSludge," is not WP:DUE. Moreover, the proposed content does not appropriately summarize the content of the video under discussion, as it should by relying on the summary of the video in the LAT. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 23:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Mostly no. The current wording in the article (with just Pitcavage's view) is more economical. The SPLC's view could be added, as could the Los Angeles Times writer's. Sluge should be left out except in the citation. Llll5032 ( talk) 01:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No, current wording is generally fine but could be improved. So much of this has already been discussed. Anyway, I agree with ImTheIP's efforts to make much of the text more compact. This long winded passage would go against that effort. It also might suggest that the Murray content was more controversial than some of the other videos. I don't think we have any sources that say which videos were, relatively speaking, the most controversial. Springee ( talk) 03:42, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, unless the updated content in the article is kept, although there is a little mix-and-match I would like to do. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 06:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Partly: I'm not a fan of the quotes attributed directly to journalists but I'm for keeping in the ADL quote. Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No, bbutmore objective and intelligent critique of the video would be good. Inflammatory characterizations by opponents does not provide information. North8000 ( talk) 15:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No - I agree with North8000. Why do we need an inflammatory prejudiced opinion to criticize a prejudiced opinion? How about some straight-up facts, otherwise it fails WP:DUE. The article is about PragerU, and it's not our job to imply or allude to whether or not their approach or ideology is right or wrong. It also fails WP:10YT, and doesn't add any encyclopedic value to the article. Atsme 💬 📧 16:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Partly The quotes of Pitcavage should be included without mention of Kotch or Kotch's comments. Boynamedsue ( talk) 17:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes Something like that. I like my version better: [1]. One should describe what Murray's video was about and why they criticized it, otherwise it's not useful. Murray's theory is that immigration from North Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia (but apparently not from North or South America or Australia, hm...) will cause Europe to collapse because the immigrants doesn't share Europe's "Judeo-Christian values". This is apparently known to Europe's leaders, according to Murray, otherwise he wouldn't have called it a "suicide". ImTheIP ( talk) 03:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No - Cherry picking opinions that mirror what editors think is generally bad practice. Doubly so when the resulting text is so inflammatory. Bonewah ( talk) 14:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No although aspects of the text might be included elsewhere. This article is about PragerU and I do not think there should be a paragraph about the reception of one video. I think the "Critique of videos" section should be merged with the "Reception" section, with this text summarised and included as a commentary on Prager U. Z1720 ( talk) 15:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes I'm not thrilled with the wording here- but I think more of the criticisms need to be covered in the article. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Partly. The video was roundly and widely criticized (although, let's be real, it wasn't a reasoned critique of European immigration policies, but a mixture of misleading or downright fake statistics and outrage porn, and so intended to preach to the converted). Including this criticism is relevant and deserves due weight. But it should be phrased more neutrally, and if we must include a quote it should be from a more authoritative source. I like ImTheIP's edit. -- Tserton ( talk) 10:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
No. Fails WP:UNDUE. As other editors have said, an article from The Sludge is not appropriate. It is also not appropriate for this article to include every little act of controversy PragerU has been involved in. I can understand why some may think this article is one-sided, but the proposed changes would make it unnecessarily inflammatory. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 13:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I wrote what I think is a good compromise here: [2]. I fully expect it to be reverted, but it's a start. Two sentences for describing the video and two for criticizing it. So not undue. Imo, for fairness, the article should also link to the video. ImTheIP ( talk) 06:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following paragraph be added to the article? The August 2018 video "The Charlottesville Lie" presented by CNN presenter Steve Cortes contested the claim that in the wake of the Unite the Right rally Donald Trump had used the phrase "very fine people on both sides" to refer to neo-Nazis. Cortes said in the video, which was later retweeted by Trump himself, that the media had committed "journalistic malfeasance" in reporting it as such. [1] The Forward's Aiden Pink and Mother Jones' Tim Murphy criticised the video, with Murphy calling it an attempt to "rewrite the History of Charlottesville", [2] [3] while University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato bluntly rejected the notion that Trump was not referring to the far right with his "both sides" remark, saying that "anybody who tries to pretend that [Trump] wasn't encouraging the white nationalists [at Charlottesville] is simply putting their head in the sand". [4] Dennis Prager himself contended in The Australian that Google placed the video on YouTube's restricted list within hours of it being uploaded in an act of politically motivated censorship. [5] Cortes ceased working for CNN in January 2020, saying that he was "forced out" of the network for making the PragerU video defending Trump. [6]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Text "VPM" ignored (
help)
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The proposed content attributes the headline of the MJ piece to the author of the piece, violating
WP:HEADLINES. Moreover, the MJ piece says very little about the content of the video: it only says that the video is part of a broader attempt on the part of Trump's allies to delegitimize “the media,” defend his most militant supporters, and cast the president’s opponents as violent radicals.
The quote from Sabato does not refer to Cortes specifically, but says that "Anybody who tries to pretend that he wasn't encouraging the white nationalists is simply putting their head in the sand." Our previous source does not have Cortes talking about "white nationalists" but only about "neo-Nazis". Are we to assume that these are the same? Seems to violate
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH. The reference to Prager is a primary source. The Washington Examiner is generally regarded as a weak source that requires attribution. I'm not opposed to including something about the Cortes video, but this proposal is a non-starter. It's also awkwardly written.
Yes, but shortened and reworded. Keep the Trump retweet, the social media controversies, the Sabato reaction, and maybe Cortes' departure from CNN. Address some factual questions raised in the comment above. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No but As written, no. Again this is too much text. Also, most of those sources aren't about PragerU rather it's about the controversy associated with a single video. There is also the issue that this became one of those case where you have the text of the speech which all sides agree on (as far as I can tell) followed by the vastly different interpretations of what the speech actually meant. While I don't think this one is needed, if it were trimmed down and impartial in its presentation I think it could be included. Springee ( talk) 04:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, but this is quite a deep dive into one particular video, it should probably be a mention rather than a passage. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 06:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Partly: I'm for including something like this but it definitely should be shorter. I'm also, again, not a fan of quotes attributed directly to journalists. IMO quotes should be credible: we shouldn't be putting in a quote just to be able to claim something we couldn't say in Wikivoice. Attributing quotes to journalists is therefore almost always either saying too little (because we could just say what the article claims in Wikivoice and cite it) or too much (because we couldn't). Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No as written; a shorter version would be good. Report that the video made the arguable and argued assertion. This isn't the place for lengthy content arguing against the assertion. North8000 ( talk) 15:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes But I don't rule out the addition of text that contradicts these opinions as well (or indeed further criticism). Boynamedsue ( talk) 18:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but please condense it. F.e in "The August 2018 video" is the month the video was published really relevant? If not, change it to "The 2018 video" which saves one word. And so on. ImTheIP ( talk) 04:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes but summarised. Remove all the commentary about the video and just explain what the video is referencing and that the person who appeared in the video accuses CNN of forcing him out following making the video. The rest of the commentary is undue weight and belongs in a Reception section. Z1720 ( talk) 15:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Not in its current form I do not feel that this statement is focused on PragerU and their coverage/contributions to the situation- but rather on the situation itself. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes but heavily summarized. Though perhaps some of this content could be moved to Unite_the_Right_rally#Reactions. Seems more appropriate there. Jlevi ( talk) 01:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
off-topic Atsme 💬 📧 16:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Shinealittlelight, have a look at WP:ROWN when considering whether to discard this edit:
If you contend there are errors (and the errors you've identified are minor) why don't you put forward an alternative proposal? Why aim for the rejection of the material wholesale? Noteduck ( talk) 00:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
|
3: Platforming far-right activistsSurvey on Item 3Fully support Well, a proposal to make no changes to a section that doesn't exist is not too controversial. Springee ( talk) 04:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC) I also support doing nothing to nothing. Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC) ? North8000 ( talk) 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of Item 3 |
@ Robert McClenon: Do you know if there supposed to be something here? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 15:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Springee, North8000, LokiTheLiar, Atsme, and ReconditeRodent: - There isn't anything here. This item was omitted during preparation of the RFC. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following paragraph be added to the article? PragerU's videos on controversial topics are often highly visible and accessible through YouTube's search engine, with a report by the Data & Society Research Institute noting that a YouTube search for " social justice" returned the PragerU video "What is social justice?" that was highly critical of the concept as the first result. [1]
References
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The proposal mischaracterizes the source. What the source says is The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... In the video, he echoes libertarian critiques of social justice in the format of an educational video...
Ok, so "highly critical" is not in the source, and what the source is actually saying is that the Goldberg video critical of social justice came up one time when the author of the report searched "Social Justice" on YouTube. I don't see that as
WP:DUE; it does not give us helpful information about PragerU, or, for that matter, about YouTube or Jonah Goldberg. Is anyone surprised that a JG video with "Social Justice" in the title might come up in some search on YouTube for "Social Justice"? How does this inform our readers about PragerU? How is it of any interest at all?
Shinealittlelight (
talk)
00:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably no. This information doesn't add much to the other Data & Society report that is already included in the PragerU article. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The fact that a search for "X" returns a video with "X" in the title is akin to "the sky is blue" is not worth mentioning in this article. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 03:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No Spiffy has it right. Several editors, myself included, echoed the same point. It seems odd to call something hijacking when a video about X uses X as a keyword even if it happens to be a video about X that is critical of X. I mean how many videos that were critical of Senator X included the Senator's name in the video? Springee ( talk) 04:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably no since this adds little information, it would need to tie in to something more noteworthy. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 06:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No: YouTube searches are highly personal and therefore are dubiously WP:DUE, plus it's not terribly surprising that a YouTube video from a large channel with "social justice" in the title came up in a search for "social justice". Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No In addition to "following the source" issues, spun-laded talking points of an opponent is not info about PragrU. North8000 ( talk) 15:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No This is beginning to feel like a huge time sink, not to mention the lack substance - seriously, a proposal to include the results of a Google search, or other search engine? Atsme 💬 📧 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No Per Spiffy above. A more serious proposal would elicit a more serious response. Bonewah ( talk) 14:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No Not as written. The report is using PragerU as an example of how far-right media organisations are using the social justice movement's terminology to achieve search results. This addition doesn't reflect what the source says. Z1720 ( talk) 15:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No This sentence makes it sound like that source is saying the video is highly critical, when really- its the opinion of the person who wrote the sentence while the source is just saying it was the top search result. Now- the video is highly critical... but to include that statement in the article- we need a source that says it. Otherwise WP:OR or WP:SYNTH Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No This is both WP:UNDUE material and unnecessary trivia. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 13:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
No Minor. I've never seen another source make this point. Jlevi ( talk) 01:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
A report about "political influencers" by Data & Society found that PragerU and others "explicitly [use] terminology affiliated with progressive social justice movements and are therefore appearing in search results for those terms.That is, it's about the strategy, not the fact of the search results. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This does not mischaracterize the source. This has been addressed on the talk page previously, - in fact, you were a key part of that discussion, so please pay closer attention [3]
The source is Rebecca Lewis, "Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube," Data & Society Research Institute 2018 [4]
No, the source does not use the term "highly critical", hence why its not in direct quotes. Would you argue that PragerU's "What is Social Justice?" video is not highly critical of the concept? I've no idea why this is not relevant given that an extensively published [5] Stanford academic chose to write about it in detail in this report (the report itself has also been cited quite often) [6] and given the immense visibility of PragerU and YouTube videos more generally. Noteduck ( talk) 00:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following material be added to the article? PragerU received criticism for producing two videos in 2018 featuring comedian Owen Benjamin, who had attracted controversy for mocking Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor David Hogg, making racist and homophobic slurs in his material, and promoting conspiracy theories. [1] [2] In February 2019, Benjamin attracted negative publicity for making anti-semitic remarks, [3] and in April 2019 the Jewish Telegraph Agency's Bethany Mandel reported that he had made a "full-blown descent into Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism", while noting that his appearances on PragerU had helped him "maintain a limited degree of visibility in the conservative world. [4] PragerU later removed their videos with Benjamin from their website and from YouTube. [5]
References
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. Among the sources for this content are pieces from: Media Matters, The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (which is misspelled in the proposed content), Rightwing Watch, and Business Insider. This sourcing could hardly be weaker: these sources do not seem like WP:RS for this content, and do not demonstrate that the material is WP:DUE. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe. The article should add which PragerU videos Benjamin narrated, and shorten the part about what Benjamin was accused of elsewhere. Shine is right that the information needs less partisan and more expert sources. Llll5032 ( talk) 02:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No None of the sources are sufficient to establish weight for inclusion. MM4America is a poor quality source and shouldn't be used to establish content is DUE. The same is true of Right Wing Watch. The JTA article is clearly "Opinion". Again not a good source with which to establish either facts or WEIGHT. BI and Forward make only brief mentions of the video and again, neither are sources that we should be putting a lot of stock in. Once you remove the poor quality sources, a concern that was previously raised, you are left with very little to suggest the article would benefit from inclusion. Springee ( talk) 04:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but it may be best to shorten this the section to mainly commentary and just link to the criticism of Owen Benjamin's views on his own WP page for sourcing. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 05:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes: Could be a little shorter but this is a pretty major controversy regarding PragerU so even the full paragraph is probably WP:DUE. Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Not as written, but this should be in there. A lengthy presentation on why the comedian is controversial is too far away in WP:Relevance / undue for a PragerU article. Trim that stuff to one sentence that he is controversial and briefly why. North8000 ( talk) 15:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but in a condensed form. ImTheIP ( talk) 04:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Rework Shorten, better sourcing etc. Bonewah ( talk) 14:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes But summarised. There is too much information about the commentary and not enough about what happened to Owen Benjamin or the result of this video. Commentary should be summarised. Z1720 ( talk) 15:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes I think some re-work/shortening could be done- but I think this needs to stay in the article as it is an important criticism/example. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but in condensed form. Jlevi ( talk) 01:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Springee, you haven't referred to a single actual excerpt from Wiki editorial policy, nor any past noticeboard discussions, to establish that these are poor sources. Also, I'm not sure if you're aware that you deleted a reminder that I put on your talk page when you probably meant to archive it, cheers Noteduck ( talk) 04:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following item be added to the article?
In November 2020, PragerU attracted criticism for its video "Who was Robert E. Lee?" in which it defended the historical legacy of the Confederate leader Robert E. Lee and criticized attempts to remove monuments dedicated to him. [1] Brandon Gage of Hill Reporter called the video an "overtly racist jumble of propaganda and historical whitewashing" and objected to the video's claim that Lee should be celebrated for his role in suppressing the slave revolt led by John Brown in 1859. [2] As of January 2021 the video is no longer available on PragerU's website or YouTube, but remains available in an archived form at the Wayback Machine. [7]
References
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. The Hill Reporter and Rightwingwatch (the proposed sources for this content) do not appear to be WP:RS. The author at The Hill Reporter does not appear to have any particular expertise in this area: he holds a music degree and the site does not have a significant reputation, and is thus not able to establish WP:DUE weight. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No as noted in the prior discussion, [ [8]] the sourcing here is very poor (Right Wing Watch and Hill Reporter). As I mentioned in the prior discussion, this is meant to be an overview of PragerU, not criticism of any particular video, especially videos that PragerU decided to remove. Springee ( talk) 04:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes but I would like to see this compacted later, perhaps into a list of content that was retracted after criticism. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 05:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes: This is also a major controversy regarding PragerU, and this paragraph is short enough that I wouldn't even recommend cutting it down. I maintain my above objection to attributing quotes to journalists, and would prefer better sourcing in general for this paragraph, but in this case I think that points towards lengthening the paragraph rather than cutting it. Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes: what Loki wrote -- FantinoFalco ( talk) 10:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably. I agree with MasterTriangle that this should be compacted into a summary of retracted videos, if an independent source verifies that it has been retracted. Long critical quotes about this are not WP:DUE because the criticism as of now is not widespread in reliable sources. Llll5032 ( talk) 07:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No, but inclusion in a more neutral way would be be good. Characterizations and cherry-picked items by an opponent is not really coverage of this. North8000 ( talk) 15:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No - it was removed; therefore, fails DUE and 10YT. Atsme 💬 📧 17:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes Though it is long and should be condensed. ImTheIP ( talk) 04:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No So, the common theme for these RfCs seems to be "PragerU attracted criticism for its video..." So this really applies to all these requests. 1) stop using such bad sources. And relatedly 2) establish that the criticisms in question are actually relevant to something and not just POV pushing. Everyone 'attracts' or 'receives' criticism, demonstrate why the reader should care. Bonewah ( talk) 14:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
No The text does not describe why this video is notable for inclusion in the article. Why is it so important that this information is in the article? Commentary about the video may be added as more general comments in the Reception section. Z1720 ( talk) 15:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes Once again- the controversies and criticisms are not currently being given their WP:DUE in this article and they need to be. It is irresponsible to wash them away like they never happened. Could this be written better? Absolutely! Should it be cut out because its not perfect- NO. It needs to be in the article to give fair coverage. Nightenbelle ( talk) 16:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following material be added to the header of the article? The accuracy and reliability of PragerU's videos has been extensively questioned, with several sources referring to PragerU videos as containing propaganda [1] [2] [3] [4] and misinformation. [5] [6] Specific criticisms levelled at PragerU videos have included the claims that they perpetuate views associated with the far-right or alt-right, [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] contain controversial speakers, [12] including those linked to the far right, [13] [14] [15] [16] promote racism [17] and Islamophobia, [18] promote misleading information related to the COVID-19 pandemic, [19] [20] [21] [22] and contain misleading information related to climate change. [23] [24] [25] [26]
References
But Prager University is noteworthy in two respects: the program seeks to insert right-wing religious and political propaganda into schools by providing content directly to teachers and students; and it has the generous backing of two of the richest men in the United States.
"We saw it as an existential threat, because it's a way of taking young people, and preventing them from being on the left," says Williams. "If you're just looking for an answer to a seemingly innocuous question, like what is the electoral college, or what is American history? If you Google those questions, chances are you're going to find a PragerU video, and they're going to masquerade to you as a university." But "they're not a university," Williams says. "What they are is very clever and very effective propagandists."
The Gravel Institute is taking aim at PragerU, a YouTube channel that spreads disinformation and right wing propaganda. The YouTubers who have already tried wish them good luck—they'll need it.
In another case in late May, a Facebook employee filed a misinformation escalation for PragerU, after a series of fact-checking labels were applied to several similar posts suggesting polar bear populations had not been decimated by climate change and that a photo of a starving animal was used as a "deliberate lie to advance the climate change agenda." This claim was fact-checked by one of Facebook's independent fact-checking partners, Climate Feedback, as false and meant that the PragerU page had "repeat offender" status and would potentially be banned from advertising.
Prager says he disavows the alt-right ideology that has gained ground in the Trump era, but the online lessons often echo some of the movement's talking points. A video of Dinesh D'Souza, the right-wing author, opining on why Western cultures are superior to others has been viewed 4.7 million times, for example. Another, featuring Douglas Murray, the British author of several books about Europe and immigration, laments that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate. It has 6.7 million views
PragerU offers a platform to extremists. PragerU has offered a platform to extremist figures, including anti-Semitic bigot and conspiracy theorist Owen Benjamin and anti-LGBTQ bigot Steven Crowder. In his five-minute rant for PragerU, Crowder took issue with Columbus Day conversations centered on America's original inhabitants in a video featuring racist cartoon depictions of indigenous people. PragerU is also home to a podcast hosted by former TPUSA Communications Director Candace Owens, who raised her profile through YouTube and Infowars punditry that included dismissing white supremacy and likening Black Lives Matter protesters to animals. She has also defended Adolf Hitler's actions by saying, "If Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. ... I have no problems with nationalism."
{{
cite web}}
: |author1=
has generic name (
help)
In another case in late May, a Facebook employee filed a misinformation escalation for PragerU, after a series of fact-checking labels were applied to several similar posts suggesting polar bear populations had not been decimated by climate change and that a photo of a starving animal was used as a "deliberate lie to advance the climate change agenda." This claim was fact-checked by one of Facebook's independent fact-checking partners, Climate Feedback, as false and meant that the PragerU page had "repeat offender" status and would potentially be banned from advertising.
Analysis of the ads run by these groups found 51 examples of disinformation, including an ad paid for by the conservative group PragerU that ran to 1 October. Its headline was: "Make no doubt about it: the hysteria over climate change is to sell you Big Government control." The accompanying video said: "Fossil fuels are not an existential threat … The Green New Deal is an existential threat."
Yes. Noteduck ( talk) 22:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
No. Many sources here not WP:RS. In any case, much of this content is not in the body yet, and the lead should summarize the body per MOS:LEAD. Shinealittlelight ( talk) 00:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but if not as the header due to a close following of MOS:LEAD then it should be the first sentence of the "Reception" section until the points are fleshed out elsewhere. MasterTriangle12 ( talk) 04:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No This was extensively discussed. [ [9]] This ultimately comes off as editors cherry picking the material they want to see vs following MOS:LEAD. Additionally, many of the sources used for these criticisms are poor quality. Throwing up a huge list in hopes that something will stick is not how we should be making changes like this. Springee ( talk) 04:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Needs more work. For WP:DUEWEIGHT, each of these criticisms should be backed up by several independent, nonpartisan sources, and if possible some conservative sources. The partisan liberal sources could be pared back. Proportionate defenses of PragerU should be included if they appear in WP:RS. I agree with Shinealittlelight and MasterTriangle that per MOS:LEADREL this should be firmly established in the Reception section before a summary at the top is considered. Llll5032 ( talk) 06:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes: This is all one of the major things PragerU is known for. There's tons of RSes on this. It's clearly WP:DUE since this is the aspect of PragerU that has by far received the most attention from the sources. Loki ( talk) 06:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, what Loki said. For those invoking, MOS:LEAD, consider this excerpt:
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.
I've no idea what the standards being proposed for "independent, nonpartisan" and not "partisan liberal" sources are, but you'll need to refer to editorial policy to justify such a standard. When there are TWO DOZEN sources making similar points about PragerU, none of which has been effectively challenged with regards to Wiki editorial policy by editors here, it's clear, that this material warrants inclusion Noteduck ( talk) 09:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Atsme, Facebook - a commercial titan and not a partisan media source - has given PragerU "repeat offender" status for serially publishing misinformation. [10] It would be absolutely not encyclopedic to leave this material out of the header Noteduck ( talk) 22:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
No not as written. There is some WP:CITATIONOVERKILL happening which makes the text difficult to read. Also, I don't think this summarises the "Reception" section very well. I would like to see a more substantive proposal that reflects everything included in the "Reception" section. Z1720 ( talk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
PragerU has promoted false and misleading information about climate change [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and the COVID-19 pandemic. [8] [4] It has been criticized for inaccuracies, [9] anti-Muslim sentiment, [10] [11] promoting views associated with the alt-right, [12] [13] [14] [15] and hosting speakers with far-right ties. [16] [17] [18]
For those who have said that the sources don't support it: Climate Feedback (which is rated an RS on climate change as per WP:RSP) has rated at least four of PragerU's claims on climate change as "false" or "misleading". [11] [12] [13] [14] PragerU fell afoul of Facebook's fact checkers for spreading misinformation twice in a single month [15] [16]
References
Shine, I absolutely believe all of this material (particularly the material related to COVID misinformation) should be integrated into the article - block reverts have been the norm on this page so it isn't surprisingly that a lot of material isn't yet present. Obviously, I can't edit the page while the RfC is ongoing. Why don't you draft a suggestion for a COVID misinformation paragraph on the talk page and we can fine-tune it? Noteduck ( talk) 00:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
My initial take on all this: It seems to me that critiques of the videos have the potential to be as numerous as the videos themselves. It further appears that most or all critiques will be negative, which raises the issues of DUE and BALANCE for this article. I think arguing over sources as a way of including or excluding particular text will be mostly unproductive. Sourcing for such highly charged political commentary is likely as not to come from opinionated and biased sources, which are not disqualified on that account. NPOV states that biased sources are not disallowed, merely due to their bias. Right now, I'm thinking the solution is to make the Critique section a general summary, and spin off the gnarly contents into an independent article: "Critiques of PragerU" or "Controversy over PragerU", or the like, which will be seen as an appropriate place for such endless verbal pugilism to occur. DonFB ( talk) 00:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I think arguing over sources as a way of including or excluding particular text will be mostly unproductive. Sourcing for such highly charged political commentary is likely as not to come from opinionated and biased sources, which are not disqualified on that account.I mostly agree. "Arguing" without clearly applying current policy and consensus will be unproductive. However, all we have are the sources, so a thorough application of WP:RS and related consensus should at least narrow down what we should even attempt to use and how.
ImTheIP wrote, Yes, the article contains lots of criticism, so then add more neutral or positive information to balance it out?
Noteduck wrote, Unfortunately as you can see from the page's edit history, it's largely the case that a few editors repeatedly revert large chunks of material from the page without pruning the material or adding contrasting information for balance
. These present fundamentally incorrect perspectives on what neutrality means in Wikipedia. We do not as editors look to balance information that we find, that would be
WP:FALSEBALANCE. To do so would violate
WP:POV, and likely
WP:OR as well if the editor is working from their own biases to "balance" perspectives in the article and references. --
Hipal (
talk)
16:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The article as is doesn't seem ideal (describing, at length, this organization as the victim of censorship without really saying why in context; a lead that doesn't attempt to summarize most of the article). I'd attempt a lead if I didn't think it would be disruptive while this RfC is ongoing. Speaking of which, I've spent the last half hour going through these various blocks of text and their sources and am concerned at what looks like !voting on overly specific, overly long text that includes some sub-par sources. Most of these topics certainly appear WP:DUE, but the language and sourcing leaves a bit to be desired. I'm not quite sure how to approach it at this point. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
On a lot of modern politics articles (and on others reflecting a current real-world contest) the dialog seems to be be a side-based contest. And the most common example is using policy and guideline-based arguments to include maximum quantity and hard-hittingness of negative material where the topic is about the "other" side. Of course, the other combinations also occur regarding "same side" and positive-sounding material. I would like to recommend a different emphasis which is both more fun and which results in better articles. And that is to focus instead on making an article which is focused on providing information about the topic of the article. For this a particular emphasis on the degree of relevance of the material to the topic is helpful. For example, let's say that PragerU (not just one errant guy within it) did a video. If there was widespread negative reaction (vs. just some predicable swipes from their political opponents) then that is informative/information about their video, and their video is only one step removed from ParagerU from a relevance standpoint. The fact that they took a video down (if such is unusual) further re-enforces this. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't concede that any of this is "POV pushing" - Neutral editing. Isn't. Neutral. Content. Read WP:NEUTRALEDIT again if you gotta. There are quite a few editors criticizing these edits on the grounds of "bad sources", "not RS" etc. Where are your links to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, to anything backing up your arguments? Noteduck ( talk) 03:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I dropped in to help a little. In general, I support inclusion of informative coverage of things closely relevant to PragerU. This includes coverage of "what they did" in any areas that they have been broadly criticized for if/when such is the case. IMO in general that doesn't include "hit phrase" characterizations by their opponents. IMO there have been a large amount of debates and RFC questions that seem like the latter. I really didn't plan to and don't want to keep weighing in on huge amounts of these. My general thought on future ones is to support informative coverage of those areas and oppose uninformative "hit phrase" characterizations by their opponents. I don't plan to watch this page closely but I can help on a specific area or question I'd be happy to come if pinged. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 18:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Shadybabs, your changes here make the text less accurate with respect to the sources. Additionally Bridge is a SPS so should not be used as a RS. The first edit is rather neutral compared to the original. The addition of "erroneous" would have to be justified by the source since there is a view that these social media sites are becoming "the new public square". Finally, the climate change edits takes the statements further from the actual source and inserts a SPS. Please explain why you restored these disputed edits [ [30]]. Springee ( talk) 15:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It was not well-attended and since it was not closed with consensus it is clear that you are wrong in this instance. Further intransigence in this matter will be noted when we bring you to WP:AE for WP:DE. jps ( talk) 23:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
PragerU's coverage of climate change-related material and COVID-19 has been extensively criticized, and yet these criticisms are not prominent on this page - COVID-19 has so far not even got a single mention. PragerU has repeatedly been picked up by Facebook's fact-checkers for spreading misinformation on climate change, sometimes several times in a single month. [1] [2] In particular, PragerU has an extensive record of purported misinformation on climate change from reliable sources. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
PragerU's mentions of COVID-19 have also been criticized for spreading false and misleading information about the pandemic. [9] [10] [11] [12] Here's the NY Times criticising one of Prager's videos for downplaying the seriousness of the pandemic. [13]
This is just to get started, as I think this material needs to be covered in much more depth. I believe a new subheading, perhaps titled "allegations of misinformation" or maybe just "criticism" should be added to accommodate these widespread, well-substantiated claims. Alternatively, perhaps separate subheadings should be made for "climate change coverage", "COVID-19 coverage" and any other relevant ones.
Comments/thoughts/etc? Noteduck ( talk) 00:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Making a proposal before editing...is not what anyone is suggesting. Being overly BOLD given the AE discussions might not be a good idea though. Regardless, we need to know what is being proposed. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Still no proposal or other indication of what changes are indented? -- Hipal ( talk) 17:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Some interesting classical points are highlighted in this The Independent source.
[14] PragerU was one of the contributors to a climate change denialism campaign on Facebook that used targetted advertizing. Pushed narratives are:
— Paleo Neonate – 18:16, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |author1=
has generic name (
help)