Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

The critique section decribes the Southern strategy as "a historical narrative alleging that the Republican Party purposely exploited racial tensions to appeal to racist white Southerners." The Southern strategy is well documented. It's something that Republicans actually implemented. It's not just a "narrative" that's "alleging" something. That's the consensus among mainstream historians. We shouldn't imply otherwise (See WP:fringe). 23.242.198.189 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely is, but if you want to change it you'll need to come armed with sources because it WILL be challenged. If you stick around this page, you'll see that unfortunately anything unflattering to a conservative viewpoint gets scrubbed pretty quickly - I've noticed NPOV problems for a while Noteduck (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the wording should be tweaked, but the current sentence that the qualifiers are hung on (in essence that it was a strategy of the Republican party overall) would be an overreach without those. Or possibly was it only the "overreach version" that the video was criticizing? North8000 (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly the video dismissed the entire concept of the southern strategy and claims that the two parties never even swapped positions on civil rights issues. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, I think we need to come up with better language here. The problem is we should be impartial. Carol Swain is an academic in the field so her views cannot be dismissed out of hand. As such we need to make sure we describe the southern strategy and note that the video was criticized without taking sides in the debate. Your edit took sides which is why I previously rejected a similar edit. North8000 do you have suggestions for better phrasing? Springee (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched what I think is the video ('Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?') It says that the "southern Strategy" is a myth (at least with regard to explaining why the south shifted) and does a pretty thorough job of dissecting and refuting it in that regard. In essence looks at the time line including elections. In essence saying that it is a myth promulgated to avoid acknowledging the reality that the South shifted from voting based on race to voting based on their other values which the Republicans are more aligned with. North8000 (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The historical evidence for the Southern Strategy is overwhelming. I'd again recommend you look at our page on it. We have direct quotes from the people behind it saying very explicitly what they were doing. Loki (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of historical evidence for it but there are also at least two scholars who question the larger narrative. That is also part of the issue as there are many things that have been called "southern strategy". One view is it should only apply to the strategy Nixon reportedly used to win the south in the late 1960s because the Southern Strategy was a specific combination of using coded racism in the immediate post civil rights legislation era. Thus by the 1970s the time had past. Any later Republicans who used coded words to appeal to racists were doing just that, they weren't using the "Southern Strategy". That is one view. Another view seems to be that any time a Republican is accused of using dog whistles they are using the Southern Strategy. Yet another view is the realignment was a bottom up affair with voters switching for other reasons regardless of any message delivered by the GOP - coded racism or not. Even if we say Swain's view is fringe, she is an academic in the field and we can't dismiss her views as wrong while maintaining IMPARTIAL. We don't treat them as right but we also don't treat them as wrong. We simply say that according to the SPLC Swain said X which was disputed by Y. Gerard Alexander, Richard Johnston, and Byron Shafer might all take exception to the idea that it was a top down appeal to racist voters that caused the change. I think they would also all agree there were examples of racist messages but that doesn't mean the regional strategy was such. Again, we shouldn't pick sides. Even saying Swain is wrong, which is what the recent edit effectively does, is not our place as that violates IMPARTIAL. I think it's important to say what the Southern Strategy describes but we shouldn't present it as fact if Swain says it isn't. Springee (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This simply isn't how Wikipedia works. You're describing exactly the thing that WP:FALSEBALANCE says not to do. If there's a real dispute among historians, we need to cover all relevant positions, as we do in the part of the article about the Southern Strategy about how much of an effect it had. But whether it existed or not, there's no real dispute about that. We have direct and clear quotes from Lee Atwater at the time and a later chairman of the RNC saying it happened. It's completely historically unambiguous that it happened. Loki (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this case this is what we should do. This isn't an article on the Southern Strategy. In this case we have only one source, the one being referenced. As such we report what they say but we don't take sides. Even in the Southern Strategy article there is clearly debate on the subject. IMPARTIAL is policy, not an essay. Springee (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) We have no obligation to not "take sides in the debate", as if there even was a "debate". That's not what WP:NPOV is. NPOV does not mean we have to write from a single "view from nowhere", it means we need to represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. PragerU itself is not a reliable source and the overwhelming balance of scholarship, as made clear by the article on the Southern Strategy itself, says that it's definitely a thing that happened. NPOV in a situation where all the sources agree except one obviously biased source is that we say what all the sources agree on is true. To do anything else would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. Loki (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have an obligation to not take sides. Thus we don't assume the SPLC and Swain is wrong. We simply state they don't agree. Again, to what extent the Southern Strategy happened is debated. First, to the extent that any top down message was the cause of the southern realignment and second to what extent the GOP, at the national level, was using coded appeals to racism.[[1]] I don't think any historian says that level was zero which muddies the water. Springee (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have an obligation to say whatever is verifiable. This is not the same thing as an obligation not to take sides. We don't assume anyone is wrong, but rather we go with what the sources say, and the overwhelming majority of the sources say in this situation that the Southern Strategy was a thing that happened. Loki (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a point that I under-emphasized in my previous post. In addition to the multiple meanings of the term, even in this discussion (and in the video) there are multiple aspects of it and assertions about it being discussed. I think that the top 4 are:

1. That the southern strategy is what flipped the south.
2. The Republicans were the more racist / less progressive regarding race issues at that time.
3. That the Southern strategy existed, I.E at least some Republicans had it.
4. That the "southern strategy" existed so widely in the republican party that one could say that it was a strategy of the party as a whole.

The PragerU video basically said that #1 and #2 are myths and dissected them. It didn't tackle #3 and only indirectly #4. IMO #3 is probably true (that at least some Republicans had that idea) and solidly sourcable and #4 is probably not. I don't see any relevance of #3 to the discussion or the article; the video made no such assertion. The source given basically was a short vague piece that never got into the contents of the video. The Feb 26th edit has a load of problems and should get undone. It makes false claims about what the video asserted, ones that are not even in the short vague reference given. It adds a statement of #4 in the voice of Wikipedia with no sourcing or basis given, much less strong enough to put it in the voice of Wikipedia. It (and some of the discussion above) implies that if #3 is true then #1,2 & 4 must also be true and also can be put in without sourcing. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with LokiTheLiar. "X number of academics disagree" is a poor argument in general, and when X=2 it's highly questionable. We don't give undue weight or other special exceptions to minority viewpoints, nor do we take minority viewpoints out of context. --Hipal (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You indented this under my post but it doesn't seem to relate to my post.North8000 (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the context the number is far more than 2. We have Swain, Alexander, Johnston, and Shafer from this page plus Lassiter, Kalk and Tindall, Kotlowski. In fact much of the scholarly debate section here is mixed on the subject [[2]]. A big issue is just what North8000 outlined, what are we specifically claiming? Is the debate why the voters switched parties, that at least some Republicans used dog whistle messages, that the overall party deliberately selected this policy? The story is widely repeated because it political gold for those on the other side. However, much like Ford deciding it was cheaper to pay off burn victims vs fix a car, the narrative seems to be more important than the actual evidence. For this reason I think we should avoid suggesting one side is right in wiki voice. Springee (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counting academics to support the viewpoint that you personally support isn't a way forward, which seems what you are doing.

We need to be careful not to impose our own OR to change POV balance.--Hipal (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is fair but we also shouldn't state the SS was a given fact in wikivoice. The SPLC article basically pits Swain vs Prof Kruse. We can say that Kruse refuted Swain's claims or similar. That keeps the debate in attributed voice and keeps things true to the source. Springee (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True to "the source"? We don't have just one source saying the Southern Strategy was a thing. We're not limited to sources that are currently on this page. We have access to every source that is used on the page about the Southern Strategy, and likely many more. Loki (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LokiTheLiar, we appear to be in a noconsensus state. As such North8000 was right, the text should be reverted to the last stable state. This restores a version that doesn't have consensus[[3]]. Springee (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we're in a no-consensus state. The relevant consensus is the consensus over at Southern Strategy. We shouldn't contradict what that page says without good reason. Loki (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As described above and in my edit summary and above the Feb 26th addition had many problems including unsourced assertions of #1, #2 and #4 above. The revert of my revert has additional more serious policy problems. Re-insertion of the challenged unsourced Feb 26th material and also quoting the wp:burden policy backwards, saying that you need a consensus to remove newly inserted, unsourced, challenged no-consensus material, and giving that as a justification for the revert of my revert and re-insertion of that material. LokiTheLiar, would you care to self-revert? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree that we're in a no-consensus state. The relevant consensus is the one over at Southern Strategy. We shouldn't contradict what that page says to defend an unsourced video by an unreliable source. Loki (talk) 00:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, you cannot cite a wikipedia article. Or claims need to be based on the sources here. Second said article has a whole section on the scholarly debate on the subject. It's not a settled matter. Springee (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing to cite a Wikipedia article.

It doesn't have to be a settled matter, it only has to meet policy, especially POV.--Hipal (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that we're getting sidetracked by a general discussion of the Southern Strategy and claims that aren't actually made in the article. Looking over the text in question, "In a video entitled "Why Did the Democratic South Become Republican?", host Carol M. Swain, a professor at Vanderbilt University, argued that the Southern strategy, the political strategy which saw the Republican Party exploit racial tensions to appeal to white Southerners, was false revisionism. History professor Kevin M. Kruse said that the video presented a "distortion" of history, "cherry-picked" its evidence, and was an "exercise in attacking a straw man",^[1] the whole thing is fully supported by the SPLC source. We have a few paraphrases such as "false revisionism" instead of "myth invented after the fact" and "exploit racial tensions" instead of "appealing to racism" but there is zero evidence of "unsourced assertions". #3 is the only assertion that's made in the article, and it's mentioned by the source. I'm unsure why #1, #2 and #4 are sticking points or were even brought up; we don't assert anything about the strategy's extent or success in the article, only that it was used by Republicans. We go by what the sources say (obviously the SPLC source in this case, not the video itself) and what we have is a passage that does exactly that. The only thing that's unsourced is the "historical narrative" phrase restored by North8000. –dlthewave ☎ 22:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new Feb 26th material clearly contains addition of an unsourced assertion of #4.North8000 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read it that way at all, but I can see how another reader might. Would it be better to paraphrase the specific example given in the source, “Southern Strategy” employed by Richard Nixon in the late ‘60s — Republicans angling for votes from conservative whites in the South by appealing to racism? –dlthewave ☎ 23:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be an improvement, but I don't have the expertise to say if it is truly established about Nixon. Also "Republicans" still can be read as an assertion of #4; "some Republicans" would remove that claim. Your actual most recent text in the article is even better in that regard. North8000 (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting the text to just Nixon instead of the republicans at whole entirely misses the point of the PragerU video and the criticism surrounding it. ADDING Nixon as a concrete example to exemplify Republicans using the southern strategy to success is fine, but the removing mention of the GOP as a whole using the southern strategy is a misrepresentation of the source cited and biased in favor of the PragerU viewpoint. I have reverted accordingly, please don't remove mention of the republican party/GOP until there's actual consensus.Shadybabs (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since SPLC + Kruse is the source we really need to attribute the description of the SS to what ever they claim it is then say what Swain's objections are. Currently by stating Nixon or the GOP definitively did this in wikivoice we are violating IMPARTIAL since we are choosing sides in the debate. Kruse and the SLPC may disagree with Swain but she is an academic in the field so we have to treat her views as expert opinion. Springee (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shadybabs, before reverting edits, please remember that the burden is on you to justify changes to long term text (part of what you changed here [[4]]) and the material you restored regarding the SS is not consensus text and is disputed. Springee (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Modified disputed wording and added more sources for climate change. The section on the southern strategy uses the wording that has been longstanding in the article for months.Shadybabs (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This material was recently added.[[34]] The new source is MSN. The article appears to be basically a puff piece stating what the Alethea Group claims in a report. I don't see any evidence that the Alethea Group is notable. They don't have a Wikipedia article and I've found limited news about them. The group was founded in 2019 and simply doesn't seem to have a reputation one way or the other. Thus I don't see why we would give their opinion any weight. As such I think this material should be removed. Springee (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion at User_talk:Springee#Deletion_of_material_from_PragerU_page

Agree. I was hoping it was something we could use, but this looks like a warmed-over press release. As such it's SOAP and UNDUE.

From what I can find, the author specializes in such churnalism.

If there's any evidence that this reference is something else, please identify it. --Hipal (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up "Alethea Group" on Google News, and they've been cited multiple times by highly respectable sources.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Springee and Hipal, you should have looked up the source and kept WP:ROWN in mind before carrying out a block revert. Their team looks distinguished and includes diplomats, business figures and academics[43] and their CEO seems quite renowned.[44][45] The claim that this source makes - that PragerU spreads misleading information about COIVID-19 - has been supported by multiple other sources.^[1][2][3][4] I believe the material should be restored in its entirety, and think this is probably a good source to use more in the future Noteduck (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, FOC.

Do you understand what churnalism is? Do you agree with my assessment that the author in question specializes in such pieces? --Hipal (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the characterization as a "puff piece". Although the first few paragraphs focus on the Alethea report, most of the article consists of the author's own analysis along with responses from the media outlets in question. It most certainly is not a "press release". There's no reason that the Alethea Group would need to be notable in their own right; WP:DUE is supported by coverage in a reliable source (MSN). Additionally, we currently have three editors supporting inclusion and two against. –dlthewave ☎ 14:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread my response to this concern of yours [46] rather than repeating your concern as if it had not already been addressed. --Hipal (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The group in question isn't highly notable. Some of their content has been covered by others but absent notable coverage of their reports the reports aren't due. Now look at the specific article/source we are using to justify inclusion. It's Yahoo news churnalism. If this specific report is DUE then I would expect a more reputable source to cover it. If the objective is to discuss PragerU videos that criticize COVID responses I suspect their are other, better sources for that coverage. Springee (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, their content has been treatable as reliable for reportage about disinformation by a bevy of RS's. Arguing that you know better than the RS's is WP:OR. I'm not surprised only Yahoo News has reported on this, since it's a Yahoo News exclusive. Unless this source is depreciated I don't see this shouldn't be included. The reporter, Caitlin Jackson, is very much experienced and qualified as has written for The Atlantic and The Daily Beast.[47] I think this material should be restored in its entirety. Noteduck (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim of OR is wrong. Per 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) 05:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any further rebuttals against the material being restored? Noteduck (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the comments that you appear to be simply ignoring? --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, that's not helpful. It seems I have rebutted most of Springee's claims Noteduck (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree and I think Hipal is correct. Springee (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't get involved on this talk page very often but I think Noteduck is correct. I think this whole thread is irrelevant, actually: if News Organization X cites Outside Source Y, Wikipedia policy is that we are primarily concerned with the credibility of News Organization X, and if they're generally reliable we accept their word that Outside Source Y is also reliable unless it's clearly and unambiguously unreliable. We're not in the business of second guessing our sources here, that's WP:OR. Loki (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That ignores NOT entirely. --Hipal (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is a very long page, you're gonna have to be more specific. Loki (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SOAP, already brought up. I'll add NOTNEWS. --Hipal (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three stories from the Grey Lady treating Yahoo News as a reputable source for political material.[48][49][50] Here's a bit more about Yahoo News' editorial structure and reach,[51] though it may be a bit out of date. The journalist in question in this article is respected, and the claim it makes - that PragerU promotes change misinformation - is widely attested. I don't see why this should be excluded Noteduck (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But none treating this story as newsworthy. Springee (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Yahoo News exclusive...We know that the NY Times - surely the most storied mainstream news source in America - has treated Yahoo News' political stories as reliable. Absent other extenuating factors (a journalist known for dishonesty, an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence) I can't see what's wrong with this Noteduck (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if Yahoo is the only one who covered this then it isn't DUE. Springee (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's not like there's that much coverage of PragerU to begin with. A short mention of information sourced to a single reliable source can easily be due. You're moving the goalposts relative to overall Wikipedia policy. Loki (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a side bar (and the main reason for recommendation below)....it's not really information, it's just a vague jab by yahoo giving their characterization of something that two other third parties did or said. North8000 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see any fault in the content or references. It is a news piece from an RS covering research that seems well regarded and reliable. The content pertains to one of the most significant aspects of PU and so is quite relevant to the article. If any claim is to be made that this is not due then it needs to be significantly more substantial than just vague assertations sprinkled with unspecific [WP:] links. I will take some initiative and re-add this content in a few days unless any argument of note is made against it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the current consensus I would suggest starting a RfC. Declaring consensus when others clearly disagree isn't a great way to solve this and your edit is likely to be reverted. If the argument of those opposed is poor a RfC will clear things up and make it much harder for people to dispute the outcome. Springee (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those who disagree with this material being added to the page will need to articulate their grievances more specifically. What Wiki policy are you relying on to justify exclusion? Can you produce the relevant quote from said policy? Noteduck (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Springee (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposed content is this then WP:V is probably the first hurdle. That source, even if reliable, does not directly support found that PragerU was one of the five most common sources on the Internet that spread COVID-19 misinformation. The source doesn't say the mentioned media sites were the five most anything at all. - Ryk72 ^talk 12:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this phrasing doesn't reflect the contents of the article, so this particular wording wouldn't work. Jlevi (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. We could replace "one of the five most common sources" with "a top source of COVID-19 misinformation" as stated in the source. –dlthewave ☎ 14:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that Ryk72, that got by me too easily, the corrected passage is below for reference. I also added the info on PPP loans since that was a significant thread of the article but I am not very familiar with the significance of receiving these loans, so unless people who know about this think it is significant enough I think it should be omitted. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content has been restored, but discussion and reconsideration is still welcome. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show where consensus to restore was reached? If not you restored disputed content without consensus. Springee (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think consensus will be reached in this venue based on conversation so far. I have opened a discussion on RSN about a much smaller part of this conversation: Is the source article an RS? As far as I can tell from this talk page, there is still NOCON (assuming that one sees Springee and Hipal disagreeing as disrupting consensus), much less on the DUE question. Jlevi (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should have material that is informative about the topic. What is "disinformation" about Covid is highly subjective and political (most of what is flowing around as "science" isn't science, it's interpretation of science combined with other items made and stated by by politicians) and "largest amount of material" is more a measure of the size and prevalence of the entity rather than what it implies. Suggest leaving it out. Plus the source given is not the Alethea Group, it is Yahoo characterizing what two groups have said, so the heading of this thread is incorrect. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What one writer said about them isn't directly about the topic, it's about what one writer said about them. Info about criticism 'can' be informative about the topic. It's it's intelligent stuff from objective people it could be informative about the weaknesses of the topic. Or, if it is widespread amongst objective people (vs the obligatory response from the people who view them / it as a political opponent) then the general view out there about them is also information. This particular piece is neither. It is a short vague piece, giving short vague characterizations about what other people / organizations have said. None really has any analysis of the video, the main content of which was saying the #1 and #2 are false. The writer did not deal with that in the slightest. North8000 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a pretty good article from Yahoo!News. It is using the Alethea report as its central subject. At the same time, it 1) references other news reports in links throughout the article to provide context and 2) describes multiple communications or attempts to communicate with subjects of the article. In this way, this article goes far beyond just repeating statements in the report. In fact, this is clearly stated in the article: "Yahoo News independently identified examples of false, misleading or conspiratorial content about COVID-19 published by five of the companies identified by Alethea and GDI, all of which were asked to comment."

As long as we are careful to not go beyond what is stated in the article (as always), the Yahoo!News article seems perfectly fine. Citing the news article for its statements and statements regarding the report is very different from citing the report directly, which would be a different conversation. In the original edit (which does require some rephrasing), it was the news article which was referenced (diff), so this is fine. Jlevi (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the addition. That's grossly undue and promotional. --Hipal (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​How is it promotional? Jlevi (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm having a very hard time taking you seriously. Maybe we should head over to AE before the Noteduck case is closed?

Ignoring all the discussion here, the redlinks alone are a blatant indicator that it's promotional. --Hipal (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

​ Yes, seriously :)

In your edit summary, you say "grossly UNDUE and SOAP". In the first comment in this thread, Springee says, "...this looks like a warmed-over press release. As such it's SOAP and UNDUE". However, several editors here dispute this characterization of the article, and it seems like some at the RSN discussion dispute it as well. Is there another angle by which this edit is SOAP? For clarity, I would also appreciate if you would specify which of the five SOAP subsections you are suggestion (of 4, really. The 3rd doesn't apply because this is not a BLP). If your only contention is based on the original "press release -> SOAP/UNDUE" argument, then I don't think this revert holds water. Also: how do redlinks relate to PROMO? Finally: if it is promotional, what is it promoting? Do you mean it is promoting the Alethea group or something like that?

Thank you for your thoughts. Jlevi (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also I don't really know what you mean by "Maybe we should head over to AE". Are you suggesting I make a statement or something? Jlevi (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do redlinks relate to PROMO?! You've answered your own question, hence my concerns about taking you seriously. I rarely link WP:CIR, but I think this is a good time to do so. You do understand why they are redlinks, I'll assume. You have read the above discussions on how these research organizations? How can such weight be possibly justified?

As for AE, I'm concerned that editors are following in the path of assuming bad faith of others as their main justification for their editing here.

Look at Masem's comments at RSN. --Hipal (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, you haven't answered the questions about why you believe this content is WP:SOAP or how redlinks relate to WP:PROMO (I had never heard of a redlink-promo/due connection before this discussion either). Vague hand-waving at WP:CIR and prior discussions (in which the redlink issue seems to have been refuted) doesn't cut it. If you think there's a competence issue here, why don't you take the time to educate us? Why not cooperate with other editors and give a direct response Jlevi's questions that you surely know the answers to? –dlthewave ☎ 02:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. --Hipal (talk) 02:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what? I don't know what that means in this context and you still haven't answered the questions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I don't think that RS is the issue, so I don't know why this was taken to RSN. Clearly enough, the story is reliable for the claim that Alethea says that PragerU spread misinformation. Rather, the question about including this information is, in the first place, whether the fact that Aletha said this is WP:DUE in an encyclopedia article about PragerU. I think it isn't DUE because neither Yahoo News nor Athelea is "prominent" and we don't have evidence that the viewpoint in question is held by either a majority or a significant minority. But, in addition to the question about WP:DUE, we also need to be able to present the information with appropriate context, or with notes about what the issues are on which there are prominent alternative points of view. To do so, we really need the Athelea report that is being referenced here, since the reporter does not give almost any details about what the report says or why. Since we don't have that report (do we?), I don't see how we can present this in a WP:NPOV and specifically a WP:IMPARTIAL fashion. So on two grounds: WP:DUE and WP:IMPARTIAL, I think that this does not merit inclusion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It condenses down a lot of things into a single sentence, I don't see how that couldn't be beneficial to limiting the volume of negative information on the page, and Yahoo News is "prominent" by most metrics, prominence is not solely restricted to primetime news. And yeah I'm also pretty annoyed that the report is still exclusive, maybe they didn't want to upset certain large media companies that may have appeared near the top of the list. Also WTF Hipal, please explain yourself. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "metrics" you're referring to. Can you please provide those? Also, you didn't answer my concern about WP:IMPARTIAL. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:36, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe take this repeated discussion of the quality of Y!N to the RSN discussion? If there are new points to make about the source's prominence, might be worth discussing in the more general venue so others can benefit. Jlevi (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, RSN is not the place to discuss NPOV issues related to WP:DUE and WP:IMPARTIAL. I don't dispute that the YN source is RS for the proposed content. That has, as far as I can tell, never been in dispute. We could take the discussion of my concerns to NPOV noticeboard if you want. But why not just respond to my argument instead? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y!N is somewhere around 6th to 10th in online news readership from the briefest search, the metrics could be delved into but idk why you would want to. The meat of your dispute seemed to be that there could be some doubt about the report and their finding that PragerU was a prominent source of misinformation since the list of all the pieces of misinformation was not published, and so it would not be WP:IMPARTIAL to use the source. Am I getting it right that this is your main objection here? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question about related revert

Hi Hipal. You recently did a partial revert here of the much-discussed source. The edit summary is "demonstrates how poor this first ref actually is". Mind explaining this? Is it just that there is a discrepancy between the current ProPublica number updated in November vs. the older range published in the January article? Or is there something else that you feel demonstrates that this source is lower-quality?

Regardless, thanks for switching to the updated value. Jlevi (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that this pair is an improvement in anything but the precision of the loan figure. The ProPublica link verifies the loan, but it's just a database. It carries no weight on its own. What gives it weight is when it's covered by other sources, and that coverage isn't about PragerU receiving a loan [full stop]; it's about organizations pushing COVID misinformation receiving assistance during the pandemic. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that, I believe most of the weight of the PPP information was lent by the fact that PU was pushing COVID misinformation at the same time, as was presented in the article, with the rest of the weight coming from the fact that they did not need to take it as Springee said. I think the PPP info could still be DUE without mentioning their COVID misinformation, but the financial health of the company would need to be mentioned to give relevance in that case. I think we should try to get consensus on mentioning the COVID misinformation, and the PPP info could be added to that. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure why we are mentioning the PPP. Is the reason that PragerU made videos that (I presume) downplayed COVID risk (we should not just say "misinformation" but should say what was claimed and why it was wrong)? This is my opinion but the PPP loans reflect not the risk of COVID, rather the economic hardship that organizations faced due to the forced shutdown of many aspects of the economy. The owner of a local gym might think COVID is bunk but they still have to comply with occupancy and other safety laws and thus the loss of customers and revenue. They still had to pay employees who had nothing to do. Springee (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The PPP loans and COVID misinformation have received enough coverage to meet WP:DUE either as separate topics or together. At this point it's a matter of how, not whether, to include the content. It would fit under Finance or Reception, or we could split the COVID and PPP aspects between those sections. In any case we're currently doing a disservice to the reader by not covering PragerU's COVID-related controversies at all. –dlthewave ☎ 17:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the PPP loans or the misinformation? The COVID misinformation likely did get enough coverage (even if I don't agree that the specific Yahoo news article is due). Did the PPP loans get much attention? Also, if we are going to include the misinformation claim we need to include sources that actually provide details as to what was claimed and why it was wrong. Misinformation comes in many forms. Saying COVID is just the flue is wrong. Saying we should have a debate about lockdowns or the effectiveness of masks (how/where they are effective vs where they have limited to no effect) may not be misinformation or is the sort of thing that is easy to dismiss as misinformation if you don't like the message. Even if both are "wrong" there is a big difference between the two. I'm concerned about this in part because the Mother Jones source falsely summarized at least one of the videos they referenced thus creating their own false narrative. Springee (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was a meta-analysis so they publish a methodology for their analysis rather than creating a colossal list of every data point from every source since that would be mostly useless for people wanting to check their work. Also what was being mischaracterised by the Mother Jones piece? We might have to re-evaluate the source quality if it was significant. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In that case we shouldn't include it. It really seems like this is a lot of effort to jam this in. Getting sources that say PragerU videos contain bad COVID info should be easy to do. Do any other sources link taking the PPP loans to misinformation? If not, let's move on. As for the MJ question, that was discussed here [[52]] and here [[53]]. Ultimately that is why we attribute the claims to MJ. Springee (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I disagree with this summary of those discussions. Perhaps this is a summary of only Springee's comments, where they argued that MJ summarized PU videos inaccurately. However, many editors disagreed. Not sure it's worth discussing at length right no since it's not related to any immediate edits, but if contention over it occurs again, it may be worth discussing via RfC and getting a formal close. Jlevi (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me exactly how Mother Jones ties into this discussion. I gather that since MJ may have mischaracterized a video, we should be wary of other sources doing the same. Regardless of the MJ situation, consensus at RSN is leaning heavily towards Yahoo being a reliable source (there seems to be no real disagreement on this point) and we can rely on its characterization of misinformation. We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of these claims. Reuters is another good source that focuses on a specific piece of misinformation. –dlthewave ☎ 21:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than enough available references covering PragerU's PPP loans, so it should be included minimally just as financial information. Given what other financials we have, the loan amounts are substantial and will probably be of historical significance. --Hipal (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave is correct about why I mentioned the MJ discussion. We need to be fair to our subject and make sure our sources don't mischaracterize/represent the PragerU arguments. Even if not all editors disagree that a particular summary was incorrect I hope we do agree that we want them to be correct and it's best if a reader can reasonably verify for themselves. Thus a RS that just says, "PragerU spread misinformation" isn't as good as one that says, "PragerU spread misinformation, here is an example video and what it gets wrong". Springee (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be preferable to have a source that provides greater detail, but the Yahoo source is perfectly fine and meets WP:Verifiability which requires that readers are able to check that the information in our article came from a reliable source. There is no further requirement that readers must be able to go back and verify the source's entire rationale to support the claim; the fact that it's reported by a reliable source is sufficient. As a reliable source we can trust that Yahoo did not mischaracterize PragerU's arguments. Springee, if potential mischaracterization is a sticking point for you, I would suggest bringing it up at WP:RSN. As it stands this is not a valid reason to exclude content from the article. –dlthewave ☎ 22:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source actually did provide a few examples of misinformation, do you think they need to be included alongside their general analysis Springee? The sheer volume of misinformation that is produced by PU means that meta-analysis like this should be welcomed since it condenses down what would otherwise be a relatively long section into a few lines without OR. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, a meta-analysis from a largely unknown, politically motivated group shouldn't be used. A section about COVID videos makes sense but we should use better sources and we should allow readers to evaluate the quality of the claims. Perhaps that is a discussion best left for a proposed COVID section rather than in a sentence that says they used a PPP program. Springee (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, could you explain why you again removed the source which most directly talks about this topic? The edit summary just speculates about another editor's motivations rather than explain why we should only include a database and an article that doesn't mention Prager. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To give a more detailed, explicit explanation for what each source does in my opinion to support this statement:

• washingtonpost is the strongest source that discusses PragerU taking a PPP loan, but PragerU is a minor topic in that article--there are much bigger fish that are the main subject. Slate could also work in a similar way, but meh OVERLINK
• Yahoo! News discusses PragerU in particular at greatest length, PPP loans being half the point of this article. Though this is not quite the same calibre as washingtonpost, it seems that the non-local consensus at RSN is most strongly pointing to this source as a regular NEWSORG
• 828437102 ProPublica gives the most specific number.

In this way, the three sources support this statement in different ways. Jlevi (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jlevi: Are you sure the Washington Post source mentions PragerU? I couldn't find where it did but perhaps I missed something. –dlthewave ☎ 19:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it. I may have mangled my references. Slate discusses PragerU to the same extent that I thought the Washington Post did. I continue to suggest that Y!N is sufficient by itself, too, as a standard NEWSORG. Jlevi (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm unable to access the Washington Post ref, and I assumed it addressed PragerU directly. It's all we need. --Hipal (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you think the sourcing is strong now. On a typical article I would agree that this would be sufficient. However, on a page that has involved edit warring in the past and for a detail that Springee notes above may invoke outrage in some readers, I think it worth shoring up sourcing a little more.

One honest disagreement I think we have is over whether the Y!N piece actually accomplishes this. I do. You don't. And that's okay.

I'm going to let another editor add back this citation if they think the emerging consensus at RSN implies that Y!N is strong and if they think the strengths of the wapo source and the Y!N source can complement each other. I'm not sure further discussion on this source is going to change anyone's opinions, so it's probably better to evaluate the strength of the arguments at this point. Jlevi (talk) 12:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having a third citation is overciting in almost any case. Given there's the open (poorly formed) RSN discussion on this citation started by you (which is mostly being ignored here), I'm finding it difficult to see this as an honest disagreement over improving this encyclopedia. --Hipal (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have editors rejecting this material read the points made early in this discussion? Y!N has been treated as reliable by plenty of RS's, the claim the article makes - that PragerU is a frequent promoter of misinformation on climate change - is backed by many other sources and the journalist writing the article is distinguished. I'm not sure why this was reverted in the first place Noteduck (talk) 05:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Integration of PPP sentence

I was wondering about the PPP edit. My concern with edits like this is we don't tell the reader why they should care. That isn't to say they shouldn't but this isn't like a BLP about an actor where we include height or even obscure movies where they had insignificant bit parts. So why is it important to tell a reader PragerU used the PPP program? I know there has been some controversy with well financed organizations getting loans while companies who really could use it didn't. Is that why we are mentioning this? Many of the lists I've seen are parts of articles that are clearly aimed at shaming well funded companies who took the cash. Is that our intent here? Anyway, as a general rule it's bad form to include a fact that could imply something (Mr X was charged with a serious crime) without saying anything more (Mr X was exonerated vs Mr X was found not guilty because a critical whiteness disappeared at the last minute). So as a stand alone fact I would say UNDUE, if it's shown that PragerU argued against the fund then took them or used political connections to get them, that's different. Springee (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DUE comes from coverage in reliable sources. Slate and wapo, both major RS, mention PragerU briefly in the context of PPP loans, and there is the longer piece on PragerU in particular from YahooNews. A National Review opinion piece has complaints similar to yours regarding this coverage. All these support inclusion--PPP loans in general and PPP loans taken by PragerU in particular are discussed widely, so a brief one-sentence mention is warranted. Jlevi (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, according to WP:DUE Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. We don't need to have a specific purpose or intent for including a particular viewpoint; we include it because it's received RS coverage. I can understand how the "COVID misinformation source received PPP loan" could be seen as implying something but covering the COVID and PPP viewpoints separately should alleviate this concern. The PPP loan is a simple fact, it doesn't imply anything positive or negative in and of itself. –dlthewave ☎ 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still at a loss as to why this needs to be in the article at all. I'm not sure I agree with Dlthewave that we can just insert stand alone facts into articles. I mean, I guess we can per CONSENSUS but why? I see the ideal article having some sort of hierarchical structure. At the top you have the high level themes, what is it, why do we care, etc. Each of those is broken into subtopics. Each sub topic has a subject paragraph and a series of supporting paragraphs. Each supporting paragraph has a topic sentence and a series of supporting sentences. For each sentence it should be clear why that sentence supports the topic sentence of the paragraph. The same is true of each paragraph and the subject paragraph. This fact seems to just be a floater. As a financial matter it was a one time thing. It's not going to tell us how PragerU was typically funded or how much PragerU typically spends. That the company took the loan is a nice factoid but many companies did so why is this case special? The only reason to think this should be specifically called out is the Yahoo news article since it quotes a primary source saying it's, I guess hypocritical, that an organization that spread COVID misinformation is taking COVID related relief money. However, as the WP article makes clear, many media orgs were hit hard and PragerU was one of them and, as I noted above, even if you don't believe the hazards are real, the economic harm of things like shutdowns reality. The Yahoo article doesn't even argue the loans were improper or misused, instead it seems to be an appeal to outrage. So if this particular association was such a big deal why aren't more sources covering it? I mean we don't have any other sources tying taking loans to COVID related videos? This is why I say the material isn't DUE. On the surface it's little more than a factoid. One source of dubious WEIGHT has said we should be outranged that PragerU used the program but it doesn't claim PragerU didn't rightly quality and seems to be little more than an appeal to outrange. Anyway, while I think the inclusion is UNDUE I am OK with using the WP and Propublica sources to support the basic facts in the article. Yahoo should stay out as it becomes a bit of an Easteregg and is not needed to support the article content. Springee (talk) 03:19, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To expand upon what I've already written [54], just the financial information alone is due, and will probably be in a historical context given how large the amount is. I continue to encourage that we just treat it as important financial information, and ignore anything on the shaming/hypocrisy aspects. --Hipal (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is just the financial information due? I can see arguments for neither being due or both being due but not for just one... Can you elaborate on this argument? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the financial information is a minimum that I hope we can agree on. I don't see how the other aspects are encyclopedic to start. RECENTISM too. Could you quote from references that demonstrate otherwise? --Hipal (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not how it works, we don’t do horse trading. The recentism etc argument either applies to both pieces of information or neither. I’m asking you to provide a policy based explanation for why you think the financial information is due but the context for why that information was covered in the press is not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not horse trading - that's a misrepresenation. Please strike.

We've met V, or have we beyond database entries? I don't have direct access to the Washington Post ref. I thought I saw a cached version, but now I can't find it. Let's get this nailed down. --Hipal (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"a minimum that I hope we can agree on” would appear to be horse trading/bargaining, if I misinterpreted you I apologize. What did you mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, lets hear a policy based explanation. I don’t think verifiability is in question here, am I missing something? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We build upon our policies. There's no horse-trading. RS and V first; then on to NOT, OR, POV... I'd thought we had RS/V covered, but it doesn't appear to be the case now.

I'm afraid that V is not met as was indicated in discussions above, beyond database entries. The Washington Post reference doesn't appear to verify the information. The YahooNews ref is so poor that they only estimated the amount. There's an open RSN discussion on the YahooNews ref that doesn't mention what article content is being considered. I'm for removing it completely at this point. --Hipal (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, "V is not met"? WP: V says the reader must be able to verify that the information in our article came from a reliable source, and they can do exactly that with the sources provided. Springee said something about being able to verify the underlying data that the reliable source used (I assume this is what you're referring to) but that's not supported by any Wikipedia policy and in fact it would be a NPOV violation to exlude otherwise-due content on that premise. –dlthewave ☎ 22:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal As mentioned more generally in my initial reply (diff) the article was written in January using ProPublic data. At that time, ProPublica gave ranges provided by the Small Business Administration (SBA). In February, the SBA released additional data and provided exact values in the second release. This explains the discrepancy. Jlevi (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right now we have Yahoo News, Slate and National Review (NR source would have to be an attributed opinion). As a datbase Pro Publica doesn't contribute to weight, but it's perfectly fine to use for the precise amount $704,057. –dlthewave ☎ 22:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the corrections and explanations both of you. Much appreciated.

That National Review piece is a low-quality piece from a low-quality source. I'd already read and rejected it.

The Slate piece is superior in every way. Not much there though.

I think this gets us past V/RS concerns. --Hipal (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would either the NR or Slate pieces be included? They both only reference that a PPP loan existed, which is pointless if we have sources that include figures and additional detail. Also the Slate piece has a link on the text mentioning PragerU, but it seems that it is mis-linked to the reference for the Daily Caller instead. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The PPP content has been removed from the Financials section. Hipal, Springee, could you explain your policy-based objections that are preventing us from reaching consensus? –dlthewave ☎ 14:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave, it was removed because you added it without consensus. This is just going around and around. That they took a PPP loan isn't that significant. Several sources mention it so I guess it could be included. The Yahoo news source however has issues of WEIGHT. That was a concern raised here and at RSN. Including it as a sort of easteregg to get the desired "PragerU is hypocritical" content linked to the article is a problem. Springee (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Isn't that significant" is your personal opinion and is contradicted by the fact that the PPP loans have been covered by two reliable sources (Slate and Yahoo News). To the contrary, WP:DUE requires that we cover this. There's no good reason to avoid linking the Yahoo News article, which doesn't mention anything about hypocrisy or whether the misinformation-PPP connection is positive or negative. Excluding this reliable source comes across as whitewashing and isn't a good look. –dlthewave ☎ 19:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Slate nor Yahoo have much weight and Slate. Slate only mentioned it as a throwaway at the end of the article. The weight of Yahoo news articles has been questioned. The claim that it's got wide readership seems suspect since so many of their stories are the sort that show up when MS Edge takes me to a default home screen. The fact that we have so few sources covering this again means it just isn't significant with respect to this article. Springee (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Yahoo and Slate generally carry less weight than other publishers? If so, why, and what policy is this based on?

There's no reason to doubt Yahoo's readership. Any exclusion of content based on that assertion would need to be based on solid evidence. –dlthewave ☎ 23:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Path forward

OK, perhaps we can work on a path forward. I don't see a reason why the PPP loan information needs to be included but if enough others feel it should be then let's find a consensus way to do it. I'm opposed to including it in a context that suggests it was cynically or hypocritically taken. The N!Y source has been contentious. Slate and WP both mention it and note it seems hypocritical for PragerU to take it. National Review refutes that view [[55]]. I would suggest we use this version of the text [[56]] but with either Slate or WP and NR as the sources as well as Propublica for the basic data. That will give some balance to the POV of the source. The material about COVID misinformation should be covered separately with a range of sources. [[57]][[58]][[59]]<-that one may be about Prager himself, not PragerU, [[60]]. Springee (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggested version as originally written [61] is a bare minimum that we can agree on for now. I oppose the proposal to "give balance" by replacing a neutral reliable source (Y!N) with a partisan source that should be attributed (NR). –dlthewave ☎ 19:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't agree on Y!N as a good source. We don't know that the AG is unbiased nor even that Y!N can be considered unbiased given how limited our RSN discussions on Y!N are at this point. That a source responded directly to the accusations against PragerU makes inclusion of the other source easier to justify. Springee (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the PPP passage as written, the text is appropriately short and neutral for covering this small point. I think ProPublica is the only source required for this, although I've turned around on the Slate reference since it does give some context on why it was considered significant for companies like PU to take the loans. All other sources brought up so far seem either unnecessary or of low quality for this PPP information. I also think the PPP info does not need to be connected to the COVID misinformation, so since the 'Finances' section exists it should go there. And tangentially I don't think much has been presented for us to give weight to these doubts that Y!N is a reliable source, please read the RSN discussion. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Cheers for the restore Acousmana, idk how that happened but I might report it as a bug. EDIT: oh whoops I see what happened, I didn't see the deletion and thought that it was me messing up the edit conflict submission somehow.[reply]

sources are good, as discussed, the assumption of bias re:Y!N reflects a particular bias. Acousmana (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For neutrality sakes I would accept propublica as the only source. Springee (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that, I think that with the current sources we have the PPP info can just be presented as a purely financial thing.

I'll remove the Y!N source now since there does not seem to be strong arguments for it's necessity here, and looking at the other current discussions I am hoping that the PPP content might have reached final consensus if nothing else arises. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it is, if there is one source, even it is reliable, making an extreme accusation (such as disinformation) you have to take WP:REDFLAG into account. Which states even if a WP:RS makes a claim, to verify that claim there should be multiple reliable sources covering the story (that also establishes notability). If we are in a situation where there is question to the reliability of a source, or if there isnt more than one source reporting a claim, that claim should be left out until more notability is established. Eruditess (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current version has four sources covering COVID-19 misinformation, and the reliability of any of them doesn't appear to be in question. –dlthewave ☎ 23:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Yes, proposed changes would be helpful as well.

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

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

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

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

additional sources mentioning PragerU and denial or misinformation on climate change:[62][63][64][65][66][67][68] Noteduck (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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 [[69]]. Springee (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

Rhododendrites, your edit here [[70]] moves away from the source on the topic. This was discussed in January [[71]]. The specific text from BFN is:

PragerU, a nonprofit online "university" that made some of the other affected videos, says YouTube’s policy shows its political bias. <pb> "Despite claiming to be a public forum and a platform open to all, YouTube is clearly a left-wing organization," Craig Strazzeri, PragerU’s chief marketing officer, said by email. "This is just another mistake in a long line of giant missteps that erodes America’s trust in Big Tech, much like what has already happened with the mainstream news media."

[jumping later in the article]...It’s not just misleading climate videos. The same climate blurb was appended to dozens of videos explaining the evidence and impacts of climate change.

The sources says PragerU criticized YT for adding tags to videos. The sources does not say those videos are specifically spreading misinformation. They might be but that isn't why PragerU is complaining. We should not conflate other sources claiming issues with PragerU's climate change videos and the specific complaint PragerU is lodging against Youtube. Even YT isn't saying PragerU's videos are specifically misinformation. Since I don't believe we have any source where YT says the material is specifically misinformation (vs just warning it could be) we can not claim otherwise. This is a case where we need to be true to what the source is actually saying. Note that there is certainly enough information for a section criticizing PragerU's climate change information. I think such a section would be best if we can find sources that list specific issues with the videos vs broadly describing them as misinformation without telling the reader why. Springee (talk) 23:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for missing the previous discussion (this talk page is pretty unwieldy). The source starts with

YouTube is now adding fact checks to videos that question climate change, BuzzFeed News has confirmed, as a part of its ongoing effort to combat the rampant misinformation and conspiratorial fodder on its platform.

Then the quote above comes as Buzzfeed gives examples of videos affected. That doesn't conflate claims in different sources (though it is consistent with what other sources say, of course); it provides context. Are we to presume that, in an article about YouTube's "effort to combat the rampant misinformation and conspiratorial fodder on its platform", PragerU is offered as an example of something else?

I suppose an alternative would be something like "PragerU criticized YouTube after the video platform began adding fact-checks to videos containing misinformation about climate change, including PragerU's videos" but that seems a bit overworked. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the constructive reply. I think the problem is the BFN article says YT isn't claiming all tagged videos contain misinformation. It appears YT is erring on the side of tagging more videos and using a mild notice vs a specific claim that "this video contains false information". Thus a video that discusses climate say the effectiveness of various climate change laws or a video that discusses the range of possible impacts related to climate change might both be tagged. Again, since YT isn't claiming these videos all contain misinformation (per the BFN article) we should also avoid that specific claim. Springee (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Digging through the 13 refs in the "Climate change and COVID-19 coverage and misinformation" discussion above may give us more to say, better referenced as well. --Hipal (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a discussion regarding this topic at NPOVN. Feel free to join here. –dlthewave ☎ 03:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like some summary of the widespread commentary on the content from PragerU is due in the lede. --Hipal (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tend to agree, we should "....summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" per WP:LEAD, right now it clearly fails this requirement. Acousmana (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure it used to be longer.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree the lead could be longer but it's been this length or shorter for the better part of two years. I do feel that Acousmana's tag placement was rather pointy since they didn't propose a change or discuss the issue as far as I can tell. Springee (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I thought the Adfonts PragerU entry was interesting [[72]]. They rated a number of individual videos. Two of the climate change videos were some of the best ranked with scores that put them well into Adfonts "good" category. Other videos like the "Are the Police Racist" (mentioned in the article) and one on COVID were rated much lower. I'm not sure how their rating matrix works since a simply average would put their scores much higher than overall score. I'm not doubting the metric, just saying what I'm seeing. I also understand that Adfonts is not a RS per Wikipedia so this is just an observation. Springee (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2 years? [[73]], only one line but it was still longer. The issue seems to be not allowing any mention of controversies in the lede, despite taking up so much of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just picked random dates over the last two years. 25 Jan 2021 [[74]], 21 Aug 2020 [[75]], 26 Feb 2020 [[76]], 28 Dec 2019 [[77]], 16 July 2019 [[78]] (shorter than current), 18 Dec 2018 [[79]] (missing the last paragraph/sentence of the current lead. I'm not saying the lead can't expand but please don't suggest that the lead used to be longer if you are just picking a version that didn't gain consensus. Springee (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that attempts have been made to make it longer, and have been rejected, its not in fact been unchanged for 2 years.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adfonts is not a reliable source.
Consensus can change.
To not change it at this point would likely be a POV violation, given the widespread coverage. --Hipal (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, what we have now is too short... We need to at least mention that PragerU peddles horseshit not scholastics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a source that can provide sort of a summary of the criticisms? Mediate did provide that but it's not a good RS. Much of what we have in the article body seems to be invidiual items but nothing that really bundles them together into common themes/common types of failings. I was going to propose we start with the sentence from Slatersteven's link but it includes generalized claims that don't seem to be specifically supported in the article body. Springee (talk) 17:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary: the lead is the exception where synthesis can be used to summarize the article's body (WP:LEAD). Citations are also unnecessary there but can be added to support parts that may be contested. —PaleoNeonate – 21:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but for the fact that we don't have a common theme among the video criticisms. Most focus on some specific fact/detail of the video where they disagree. I mean we can say the contents of a number of videos on topics including [Covid, climate change, etc] have been criticized. What we can't do is draw our own conclusion as to say is "a common theme of the criticized videos is they [use straw arguments, discount counter arguments etc]. We can summarize (and we can/should add topic paragraphs to the sections that summarize) but we can't synthesize. Springee (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

section 'Critiques of videos' exists, we say the organization's videos have been criticized for... [summarize section content]. It's not rocket science, it's a section content summary per WP:LEAD. Acousmana (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than saying the videos have been criticized, how do you summarize the critcisms? If there isn't a common theme to the criticisms then you are left either picking specific criticisms to highlight, something that creates issues of DUE for the lead, or you just say they have been criticized. Perhaps a balance is say that "videos over a range of topics including, climate change, racial issues, and [another topic] have been criticized and misleading or factually incorrect." I think that (or similar) is a summary we can use that doesn't synthesize patterns in what the videos get wrong. Springee (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps a balance is say that 'videos over a range of topics including, climate change, racial issues, and [another topic] have been criticized as misleading or factually incorrect.'" well done, now that wasn't too hard, was it? Acousmana (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good with that. It is easer to reach a consensus when we propose things on the talk page vs make iffy edits to the article first. The previous edit that Slatersteven noted was rightly removed because it failed RS and it needed that source to support some of it's claims. Also, at the time the article didn't have the body text to support the generalized criticism statement. Sometimes opposition to things like this isn't based on generalized opposition but rather specific problems that those proposing the edit haven't addressed. Springee (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good work.--Hippeus (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although opposition to PU content is sometimes specific to individual topics, it seems there is a very clear and general theme to much of the criticism, most of the criticisms arise when the content is promoting extreme conservative or far-right views using tendentiously misinformative or propagandistic methods. One way this could be stated in the lead is "PU is frequently criticised for their promotion of extreme conservative & far-right views and use of ideologically slanted misinformation". Summarising this for the lede does require a bit of creative writing, especially since I think we should avoid using the word 'propaganda', since that can have slanderous connotations in a setting that is not exclusively academic. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can claim that the specific cases are promoting extreme conservative or far-right views. That would require sourcing to claim as much. It may be true but classifying the views of any specific video as such or bunding the criticisms is OR on our part. I think a sentence based on Acousmana's proposal would work. Springee (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can very easily claim this and that we would be remiss to omit it since a large range of sources do explicitly state this, many of the critical sources already on the page make note of the highly ideological nature that ranges from very conservative to far-right. Of the sources that do not make explicit ideological connections, the points being criticised are typically either talking points that are clearly and unambiguously part of these ideologies (like climate change denial, immigration fearmongering, misinterpreted racial statistics, etc...), or misinformation used to support them. If there was more info on the page about how consistently ideological the content is it would probably be a little redundant to mention the pushing of ideology in this passage, but currently the only info about it is a euphemistic mention in the first sentence and some bits that can be gleaned from the criticisms. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm willing to be convinced but remember this needs to be based not on what sources say but on what our article says. If it's not in the body it shouldn't be added to the lead. That's not to say it can't be added to the body as well. Anyway, I would suggest proposing the edit then saying which parts of the body support it. Springee (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the criticisms in the body do refer to ideology, but your critique still holds since I think the wording of the passage I put forward puts too much emphasis on ideology when most criticism currently on the page is primarily about the misinformation. I think most readers can probably glean the ideology being pushed from context too, so I now think Acousmana's suggestion is better. I will add "politics" though since several criticisms on the page are directed towards that. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the top has been lengthened, is there consensus to remove the "lead section may be too short" tag? Llll5032 (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still missing a couple of things, but it is certainly better, more additions are debatable and the page isn't stagnant so I think it could be removed. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acousmana, Dlthewave's removal of the Jordan Peterson content (restored here[[80]]) was correct. The PragerU video is a primary source. Even if we don't say anything about the video the choice to highlight it given the large number of PragerU videos needs to be based on coverage in secondary sources. Springee (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no views on inclusion, but I do think it reads way too much like Puffery "noted public intellectual" for example. It reads like an advert for the video.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re:"notable public intellectual" - remove it then, it's fluff. Acousmana (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I looked for RS on this, and grounds for inclusion is pretty weak. Any mention I could find in RS that discuss both JP and PU just includes JP in a long list of names: [81][82][83]. Doesn't cross the bar from my perspective. Jlevi (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah, it totally reads like an advert for Peterson's absurdist conspiratorial video. Inclusion is warranted per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, "...a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation....person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is true. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article." Acousmana (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But why do we need this, what does it add? That they made this video, and?Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

add, advert - secondary source provided. Acousmana (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So? you have failed to say why we need this what makes this more worthy of inclusion than every other video they have released? Also it still reads like puffery, just adding another source is not rewording it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

puffery? ffs bruv, it's cultural Marxist BS pushed by Peterson and endorsed by PragerU, it's notable: a) because of Jordan's profile and his association with "PoMo bashing"; b) because of PragerU engagement with conspiratorial nonsense and disinformation that has already been highlighted in multiple sources. Acousmana (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A) Then if anything it should be on his page, not this one. What does it show us, that he made one video for them? So what? he is one professor. B) Which we already cover at length in this article, this adds nothing to what we ready say other than Jordan says it as well. This does not add anything new. And (again) why "noted public intellectual", why not just "professor of psychology Jordan Peterson" or just "Jordan Peterson" and let readers decide if he is notable? It reads like "expert says..."Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are getting distracted by three words, it's fluff, "notable public intellectual," whatever, it was better than "batshit crazy public intellectual." Acousmana (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No I am arguing it is leading the reader, to draw a conclusion as to the validity of his argument (and yes "batshit crazy public intellectual" would be just as unacceptable (in fact more so (see wp:blp)). If it's fluff it's not needed and so can be removed, thus removing one objection to inclusion. So why not suggest (here) a new text that addresses this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• see proposed text and refs below

Why do we need this list of his "accomplishments, why do we need to know he is Canadian, why not just

"In a 2018 video for PragerU titled 'Who is teaching your children?' professor Jordan Peterson, claimed that 'dangerous' postmodern-Neo-Marxists have come to dominate colleges and universities in a bid to "undermine Western civilization" with their "resentment ridden ideology".

See how concise that is?Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

either or, all the same to me, it's purely a matter of style, you don't like padding the prose out to provide context for our readers, the descriptors are there because we are writing an encyclopedia, no other reason. Acousmana (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we would link to his article, so they can read about who is he.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sure, like I said, prose style, that's all, you good? Acousmana (talk) 15:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still unsure why we need this, but no great objection either..Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full-text version here: [84] Jlevi (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To give a different angle on this matter: I'd support inclusion on the Jordan Peterson page, but not here. Jlevi (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even with all the discussion above I still see Jlevi's question as relevant. Why is this video significant to the telling of the PragerU story? Most of the videos we have mentioned seems to be ones that RSs have called out as, "Here is why PragerU is a problem. Look at the bad information PragerU is spreading". While Peterson clearly has his critics, where are the people saying criticism (or praise) of this video is something that reflects on PragerU as a whole? Springee (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's PragerU doing it's bit for "PoMo bashing" and Peterson stepping up to the plate to deliver. Given the context surrounding all of this - conservative America - and that we are including mention of videos presented by Rubin, and Knowles, one by Jordan, given his profile, is equally notable. Acousmana (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the difference with Rubin and Knowles is how the RS in question, "How PragerU Is Winning The Right-Wing Culture War Without Donald Trump" [85], is framing this. That article is entirely about PragerU, and it includes several paragraphs about Rubin and two short ones on Knowles. In contrast in this article, Peterson is just one name among many in a list. And in the articles about Peterson, PragerU is just mentioned in passing as a venue. I think the framing by RS is quite different between these cases. Jlevi (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "cultural marxism" conspiracy theory is a prominent and recurring topic from PU, but a singular mention is a bit out of place. I don't think we should bring up singular conspiracy theories that crop up in a video unless they are very notable conspiracies, although this one may meet that notability since PU wears the trappings of an educational institution themselves, but it would be more appropriate to be brought up as a list of videos pushing the conspiracy. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peterson has built an international profile as a public intellectual, he is arguably a bigger brand than PragerU at this point - and this video was essentially a cross promotion where both parties extended their reach - so this is notable, it wouldn't be if Peterson was the lesser known party. Acousmana (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is? Can you provide some evidence for the claim he is a bigger "brand" than PragerU?Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is a good indicator, international reach comparison, hands down Peterson wins, US domestic reach, on subscriber count, again Peterson. PragerU generates more revenue via Youtube than Peterson, but they have 4 times as much content. But, in terms of influence, based on subscriber count, Peterson is the bigger brand. Higher Twitter reach also goes to Peterson. Acousmana (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then we go back to, what does this tell us about PragerU?Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I initially removed the Peterson sentence because it was only primary-sourced. Inclusion in some form (without "noted intellectual") would be appropriate A) if sources discussed the relationship between Peterson and PragerU or B) as part of a list of PragerU contributors. I'm just not seeing this with the current sources. –dlthewave ☎ 15:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As highlighted by others, there's a lot of 'content' on PragerU, so how do we choose what's worth mentioning in said section? As evidenced, Peterson is a high-profile conservative commentator hosting a video on cultural Marxism for a notable right-wing free market think tank. What does this tell us about PragerU? It tells us they endorse the views set forth in the video, which, taken together with Peterson's role as "presenter", is why it warrants mention in the article. Acousmana (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some language used by some of the editors is worrisome due to the main point of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE & WP:COMMONSENSE, always remember the content should improve the article, not show a WP:COATRACK of incidents to try to persuade the readers into a certain viewpoint, keep the NPOV and make sure the article reads like an actual encyclopedic article. Personally I love the ideology behind WP:10YT for seeing if something is notable. Keep any legit reliable secondary sources, get rid of anything primary or original research. It is pretty straight forward.Eruditess (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*WP:POV - the proposed content does not contravene this guideline. WP:COAT - spurious, proposal is directly related to the subject of the article ('content' hosted by PragerU). WP:DUE - see WP:BALASP, one or two lines, relative to the current section size, is acceptable. WP:COMMONSENSE - rules are not being broken or ignored here. WP:10YT - it's fashionable at the moment to cite this as a reason to reject content, but get real, what percentage of the political affairs/pop culture/sport etc. fails this yet it keeps getting added by the truck load? When 10YT is applied equally, to all content, across the board - and to extant content that fails this - maybe then there's some point citing it.

• back to the matter at hand: we have three two WP:RS secondary sources that have noted Peterson's ideas being platformed by PragerU, and we have the primary PU sources, which under WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD are usable here. In summary, we have a PU article because it's a notable conservative/right wing think tank. We have a Peterson article, in its current form, largely because he's a notable conservative/right wing public intellectual. We have a section in our PU article called 'content,' where notable video content hosted on the PU platform is detailed. Why do we detail examples? to give our readers an overview of the ideological stance set forth in the video materials hosted by PU. Why would we include note of the Peterson example? For the reasons already highlighted: 1) secondary sources; 2) primary sources; 3) evidence of Peterson's notability; 4) evidence of PUs notability; 5)evidence of an ideological alignment. Acousmana (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but those references got lost in all the discussion. Am I assuming correctly they are #1, 4, and 5 above? --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 1 through 5 in proposed text:

In a 2018 video for PragerU titled 'Who is teaching your children?' conservative Canadian psychologist and author Jordan Peterson, known for his outspoken views on postmodernism and identity politics,^[1] suggested that 'dangerous' postmodern-Neo-Marxists have come to dominate colleges and universities in a bid to "undermine Western civilization" with their "resentment ridden ideology".^[2][3][4][5]

• or if preferred Slatersteven's version:

In a 2018 video for PragerU titled 'Who is teaching your children?' professor Jordan Peterson, claimed that 'dangerous' postmodern-Neo-Marxists have come to dominate colleges and universities in a bid to "undermine Western civilization" with their "resentment ridden ideology. Acousmana (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Vox ref doesn't mention PragerU, and the Spectator article is an opinion piece. Is it safe to assume the third reference is equally as poor? The author is Daniel B. Klein? The article is listed as "Commentary". Is the single mention of PragerU in the second sentence the only mention of PragerU? --Hipal (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there just the two secondary sources not three, per correction above, and the primary mention on PU, note also the following mention by SPLC in their assessment of PragerU's influence:

• "PragerU’s 5 Minute Ideas” videos have become an indispensable propaganda device for the right. The videos are hosted by conservative personalities; some, like Steve Forbes, Charles Krauthammer, and George Will, are mainstream establishment conservatives, while many others are culled from the more recent and more extreme and combative internet incarnation of conservatism: Ben Shapiro (of The Daily Wire, former Breitbart editor), Candace Owens (Kanye West influencer and vlogger behind “Red Pill Black”), Charlie Kirk (founder and head of Turning Point USA), Jordan Peterson (Canadian professor who recently called for “enforced monogamy”), James Damore (the former Google employee fired for crafting the infamous memo critical of the company’s diversity goals), Dave Rubin (host of the online Rubin Report, who has often featured guests from the racist “alt-right”), and others of their ilk."
• And in case there is any doubt about the Prager/Peterson intersection we also have this nutty congratulatory exchange.
• Per rationalization above, even using the primary sources alone, inclusion is justifiable. Acousmana (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • No, that isn't sufficient. Those are just not strong sources to mention Peterson here. But, perhaps I and others are missing something. What text would you add (and where) based on those sources? For example, the SPLC source is sufficient to say Peterson has done a PragerU video but I don't think it's sufficient for a paragraph or Jordan subtopic. Springee (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What text? see Slatersteven text above. Where? In the section called "Content."

There is no proposal for a Peterson "subtopic" above, it's a single sentence. Acousmana (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I assume you mean this sentence: In a 2018 video for PragerU titled 'Who is teaching your children?' professor Jordan Peterson, claimed that 'dangerous' postmodern-Neo-Marxists have come to dominate colleges and universities in a bid to "undermine Western civilization" with their "resentment ridden ideology. I will again ask, why would we mention this one? What does this tell us about PragerU vs just Peterson's POV? Springee (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's one and the same. PragerU refer to Peterson as a "presenter", the PragerU video "Who is Teaching Your Kids?" states "presented by," so PragerU is asking the question, Peterson is answering it, this is self-evident. Acousmana (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the reach and notability of Peterson I don't think there is any reason to exclude this small passage even if were entirely based on PU as a primary source, and the fact it is pushing a well known conspiracy theory which has received significant commentary from secondary sources only add additional weight to this clearly due content, although the secondary sources could probably be culled a little in order to be concise. Also Springee what do you mean "What does this tell us about PragerU"? PU videos are not an open forum for anyone to present content in, it is no mystery that they select speakers to present content that advances their ideology. The views expressed in the video are repeated many times in other PU content, and the cultural marxism conspiracy is a central part of their messaging, to the extent that it should probably be mentioned in the lede. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that using your OR to say why this should be mentioned vs other topics? We seem to have used 2 legitimate methods to justify inclusion of specific video mentions. The first is a source talking about PragerU as a topic says, "these videos tell you something about PragerU". That seems to be the case with for instance, the material discussed by Mother Jones. An alternative option is if a specific video causes such a controversy that articles are written about it. Note, I didn't say about the topic the video covers, rather the video itself. We have a few of those. I don't see anything that says Peterson's video caused a controversy nor sources saying Peterson's video represents X about PragerU. If this were a source listing guest speakers (PragerU presenters include X, Y and Z) I would say we have sufficient sourcing to mention that Peterson was one of the speakers. Perhaps another way to put it, if we do not cite PragerU at all, what can we say about Peterson's video? Could source the topics from Peterson's video without citing PragerU directly? Springee (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"If this were a source listing guest speakers (PragerU presenters" = SPLC for starters. Acousmana (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very concerned at this point that there's hand-waving and goal-post-moving going on here to push content regardless of the quality of the references. --Hipal (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

don't be so dramatic, guidelines are not being contravened here, it's a reasonable proposal to include a single sentence, the primary sources alone are sufficient, all the rest is hoop jumping to suit objectors. Acousmana (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this will be going to WP:AE if it continues as it has. Please consider your next steps carefully. --Hipal (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acousmana, please don't reduce down an editor discussion to "hoop jumping". Hipal, the arguments for this have only been moving in response to the arguments against it, and the fact I came in pushing different reasonings than Acousmana is not "goal-post-moving" either so you need to be clearer with what you mean. So from where I see it we have a summary of a PU video, which stars someone who is arguably far more influential than PragerU themselves, and is exemplary of PU's frequent and very explicit (to the extent that identifying this probably can't be called OR) pushing of the "cultural marxism" conspiracy theory. I'm really not seeing this as being insufficient for inclusion. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main objection is there is no analysis of the video from third party sources, there is no real evidence this has had any impact (irrespective of who hoisted it). A section about their promotion of the "cultural marxism" conspiracy theory would be fine. But just A "they made this video about it".09:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

whatever, i get it, the project is in failsafe mode, but hey, you know, appeasement, get back to us in 10 years and let us know how that worked out. Acousmana (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeasement, what? Really, seriously what the hell are you talking about?Slatersteven (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not seeing this as being insufficient for inclusion. It's insufficient without an independent source that demonstrates mention of Peterson belongs in an article about PragerU. None have been provided. Let's move on. --Hipal (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh were you thinking that WP:NOTE applies to article content? Really not sure where you are coming from trying to deny it just on lack of independent sources discussing it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like to me personally , none of the presented material really passes WP:10YT to justify Jordan Peterson inclusion. Dont want to speak on behalf of the others but in tandem with being a primary source. I dont see it being so notable. Wikipedia's guidelines usually take care of themselves, as in. If a "event" is notable enough it will garner sufficient secondary sources discussing it. Seems we don't have that. It also sets precedence for the article to become a WP:YELLOWPAGES or WP:DIRECTORY for everybody that has appeared on a PU video. Eruditess (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're not here to list every presenter in PragerU's video's, nor are we here to selectively list presenters based upon personal biases and agendas. If there's no independent reference it won't pass NOT, OR, POV, or BLP. --Hipal (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well my interests in this were of adding some mention of the cultural marxism thing to the article, so I probably should probably hop off this bandwaggon and find a better way to do that if this particular item is causing so much contention. The only argument here that makes any sense to me is that selecting this information for inclusion could be considered unacceptable editorialising, but as such unless someone else would like to continue to argue for this item then I'm stepping out since as a debatable editorial decision it would need a better consensus than what seems to currently exist. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a valid point that if they oppose this we should mention it, it, the opposition. I suggest something like.

"They have also produced videos that claim that support the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that nihilistic postmodern Neo-Marxist professors indoctrinate students with nihilistic postmodern Neo-Marxist values"

With (of course) sources covering this criticism.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem all along is that what editors want to add to this article is not coming from proper sources. Find the sources first. --Hipal (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but this wording might make it easier as it is focused on PragerU and not one person. But of course we need sources for it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PU seemed to go on a spree of this content recently: What Are Your Kids Learning in School?, There Is No Apolitical Classroom, What Is Identity Socialism?. There are probably several more over the years in addition to the older Jordan Peterson one Who is Teaching Your Kids?. They thankfully don't get into the anti-semetic angle that some others do, but they go all-in on most of the other aspects. Identifying the ideology in the article just from the videos would be a debatable editorial decision, but sources directly making the connection would make that debate moot. Unfortunately most good sources I found only describe the content as fulfilling the various aspects of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy, rather than referring to the conspiracy theory itself by name, so it might make more sense to just refer to the pushing of anti-education stuff and PU's claims of "leftist conspiracy" since that is much better sourced. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do people think that the assertation by PragerU of a "leftist conspiracy" "corrupting" education can be sourced directly from the videos that clearly state this? Quotes could be drawn from the videos but I think it would be best to simply reference them and provide a summarisation of the conspiracy being asserted. I think the expression of the conspiracy theory is stated explicitly enough in several videos that it would not be OR to repeat it in the article, and it is a common theme of a significant portion of their content so I think it meets WP:BALASP. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we need (I think) RS showing this has been picked up and noticed by third parties. Without analysis, you just get "this is what they have said", without any discussion or information. We are not here to promote their content, and this would come very close to that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content would clearly have to be presented in accordance with WP:FRINGE, but I do not think it would be promotional since it is a noteworthy conspiracy that is in a significant portion of their content, with several dedicated videos, so as long as it isn't written promotionally I don't think it's inclusion alone could be considered as such. I am surprised to find that despite the prevalence in PU's content, I couldn't find a solid RS that gives enough commentary on the conspiracy theory to be worth including, and since some people could consider this a point of interpretation then it's probably dead in the water unless someone else finds a good source, since I really don't have the time or patience to keep trawling through this type of content. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "According to Mother Jones, some PragerU videos argue there is no police discrimination toward African-Americans and that the gender pay gap does not exist.".

Why is the "according to Mother Jones" part even necessary? Did the videos say it or not? It doesn't matter what Mother Jones stated, but if their videos contained it. Why do we need to reference them when there is plenty of possible ways to prove it.

Either they did say it, and you can provide a link to the video in which they said it, or they didn't, and this isn't neccesary. EytanMelech (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reframed the attributed criticism to be of the content of the video rather than an interpretation of the content, since even the title and description on PU's site directly states the concept that was being criticised so it does not need to be framed as an interpretation. I think the attribution of criticism should remain though, unless this passage is modified to fit into the content section. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is there to avoid "but who said it" tags.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the previous wording. I previously raised objections about MJ's summary of the videos as inaccurate. MJ reframes the video arguments in a way that isn't true to the source. This is why we make it clear that it's MJ interpretation in question.[[86]] Springee (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a statement of fact, not opinion, about the video and there is existing consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable for statements of fact. Since the discussion you linked didn't reach consensus that MJ is unreliable for this statement, we go with the existing community consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the consensus of the RSN discussion and the general MJ assessment does not automatically apply to all MJ articles. The MJ assessments of the videos are their options. The consensus was that absent treating the MJ article as unreliable we attribute and that is what we are doing here. Springee (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That summary (essentially that it PragerU or some of their videos said that there is ZERO of those things) is very far reaching (probably reaching far into falsehood) and sounds like a straw-man version of what they actually said and certainly needs attribution if it is even retained.North8000 (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the gender pay gap does not exist" is indisputably the central message that is explicitly stated in the "There Is No Gender Wage Gap!" video, the fact that they present information contradictory to the messaging is irrelevant. The "are the police racist?" video almost goes so far as to imply that police are less likely to shoot black people and cherry picks singular statistics from specific cities that have extreme poverty/crime problems to construct it's narrative, the video contains so many generalisations that the "no police discrimination" summary is pretty reasonable even though it is somewhat editorial hyperbolae, but since it is a little interpretational it might still be best to attribute it anyway. I don't know why these were even sourced as a commentary from MJ though, since it's just summaries which can be sourced from the primary with sources like MJ just providing weight, although WP:FRINGE would dictate how they are presented. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think North8000 hit on the key point. MJ has created a hyperbolic strawman version of what the videos actually argue then shoots the obviously fragile strawmen down. Springee (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is investigative reporting by Mother Jones, not an opinion piece, and we can rely on them to accurately describe the videos in question. After watching the videos myself I would summarize them the same way, particularly the one entitled "There Is No Gender Wage Gap!" –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the MJ article. It's a combination of real reporting (it actually has a lot of content that is missing from this Wikipedia article) but with a pretty heavy "hit piece" and op ed bias. (Those two are no longer mutually exclusive or distinct.) I took a look at the two videos/articles in question. The basically said that the claims of police bias being made are factually wrong, but did not make the straw-man broad statement that it doesn't exist. Similarly they acknowledged that the "pay gap" by the definitions of those using that term does exist, but said that those claims are misleading.17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)