Talk:PragerU/Archive 2

MJ summaries of PU videos
I was trying to draw the wording in my edit directly from the MJ source. I'm not clear on what you're thinking; you say some rewording may be in order, so what did you have in mind? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * See below. I see there's some wider context as well that might indicate POV and BATTLE problems with the topic:User_talk:Shinealittlelight --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not the topic here. Please propose an edit that fixes the currently inaccurate version of the article, which wrongly characterizes what MJ says. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ronz, if you wish to discuss those comments please do so on the user talk page. We still have a problem that MJ's summary is not accurate to the actual arguments made in the various videos.  Your edits restore a version of the text that is less true to the actual MJ text, regardless of the problems with MJ's summaries of the actual video content. The supporting sentence from the MJ article is "At PragerU, police are not biased against black men, and man-made climate change is debatable.".  The newly proposed text is clearly closer to the MJ source.  Springee (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. A page where no one person is NOT allowed to make final decisions on all matters would lead to a more balanced, informative page. Please read my point point of view on positively contributing to the success and legitimacy of Wikipedia over personal biases on my Home Page. I am a new editor on Wikipedia and I am surprised by so much bias towards one end of the political spectrum. Anyhow, I remain committed to truth and positive contribution respecting both the literal meaning and intent of these Wikipedia rules. Alainlambert (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The very first thing I wrote was, "See below". I was referring to the section that I created at the same time this was created, titled "Climate change". --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, please propose an edit that fixes the currently inaccurate version of the article--the version you reinstated--which wrongly characterizes what MJ says. Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ronz, I'm not sure your edits are improvements. The weather.com info looks good to me in that it addresses a specific video (but not the one MJ linked to).  If we are going to summarize based on weather.com we should make sure the summary is accurate.  Unrelated to that, I think the number of views as reported by the LA Times is very notable and should be included.  I don't know if "popularity" is the right way to do it but it shouldn't be just cut from the article.  Springee (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Springee, I think you may have missed that Ronz did include reference to 2 billion views as reported by LAT. He just moved it down, and cut out the supporting study. I agree with that edit. If you want to suggest a further edit, I encourage you to be BOLD. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I missed that it was still included. I've struck that comment.  Springee (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Question on copyright
Dear Slatersteven, could you please explain your copyright concerns? I got this list from Media Matters which is a public source. Thank you fro the input. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Being public does not make it public domain. You cannot just cut and paste text (see wp:copy).Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I have spoken with a lawyer friend of mine who does copyright work and your arguments do not stand to legal analysis. I will repost the information later and amend it to be consistent with Wikipedia policies. Thank you, Alain Alainlambert (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as it complies with OUR polices fine.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

21 Nov edits
, I appreciate your enthusiastic editing as well as what looks like an attempt to provide a bit of counter balance to an article that often reads as if the intent was to disparage the subject rather than describe it. However, we have to watch sourcing. I would suggest reviewing WP:RS. Keep in mind that while we can cite papers I see some issues with how it was done here. The Penn State paper appears to be unpublished based on the link I found.[], but I also found RS articles talking about it [] as well as sources like The Daily Wire. This puts me in a bit of a conundrum. The Daily Wire was declared "deprecated" here. Right or wrong that means we aren't supposed to cite it outside of WP:ABOUTSELF cases. I think Wired is still RS. So the study is starting to make waves in part because it notes issues with the previous Youtube influencer paper. Anyway, as an unpublished paper I'm not really happy with citing it. As "research" cited by Wired I guess it can be. Anyway, this is one where I would suggest asking other editors how to handle this content. It could turn into some back and forth article changes if we don't get some consensus first. Springee (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I should note that the Data and Society report that started much of this discussion was self published yet has been widely cited via news coverage and thus is in many Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure if the "Auditing Radicalization Pathways on YouTube" was ever published. It's a bit problematic that we have what appear to be 3 self published papers being used so widely in many articles on Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note, it is much appreciated. I guess it is learning process to become a good and reliable editor, with so many rules to read, understand and discuss with more experienced editors. Do I get it right that if I change the source to Wired, that change would be acceptable? Thanks again Alain Alainlambert (talk) 15:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Using Wired would help fix some of the sourcing. I would see what others think as well.  This has been a contentious topic so some group discussion can be helpful. Springee (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I will edit the source for now and let's see what others think. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding the edits in general, they are blatant POV violations as a whole. I believe ArbEnf applies here due to the political nature of the material. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

What;s ArbEnf? Regards Alain Alainlambert (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Arbitration enforcement for AP2 (post 1932 American politics) restrictions (which would almost certainly touch PragerU.) Simonm223 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You received notification of these enforcement restrictions on November 17. Please check your user talk page for details. Simonm223 (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I just read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_and_OR_from_editors,_sources,_and_fields. Not only it clarifies that my edits are in line with Wikipedia rules, but I thought I'd get a thank you for adding content to the article that removed it's previous POV nature. Anyhow, it is substantially more balanced and informative now. I'm glad they add the Internet on my flight from Paris to Montreal. It allowed me to do a lot of constructive research which leads to meeting Wikipedia's objectives on this article. Best regards, Alain Alainlambert (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is an essay, it is not policy.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Slatersteven, thank you for pointing out. I now read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I assume this is a policy. If it is, I believe it supports my edits of today on this article. More specifically, I believe by following certain particular rules, I did make the article more neutral, informative and balanced:

"As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased or you think it constitutes as "fake news". Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news."

"A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view."

"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased and so another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."

Again, it is a learning process, no doubt. I am happy to read all rules and learn from more experienced editors. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.", who published the claim he had not cites any examples? We also have wp:OR and wp:v, a source has to say it, we cannot interpret it.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Removing edits of incorrectly cited sources
Dear Ronz, why did you revert to the two descriptions which did not accurately describe the actual source material? I read the source material in great detail and my edits were meant to remove bias. Did you read the source material in detail as well? I'm just not understanding where you're coming from. Why would removing bias and accurately summarizing sources not be a good thing? Best regards Alainlambert (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I made a number of small edits with descriptive edit summaries. Which are you referring to? A timestamp or a WP:DIFF would help. --Ronz (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Sludge ref in Reception section
See Talk:PragerU and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_258 for background.

I'm concerned about the recent attempts to change what we have in the Reception section sourced to the Sludge ref. Adding original research is a non-starter. Expanding it further, all based upon only a single paragraph from the reference seems grossly undue.

Looking back at the discussions, would it be worthwhile to try including something from the previous paragraph, where the author accuses the video of evoking the White genocide conspiracy theory? --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "Sludge" is reliable. "Sludge" does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and does not appear to have editorial oversight at all. It appears to be self-published, along the lines of a group blog (see WP:RSSELF). I and two other editors at RSN had concerns about it, and did not think it should be used unattributed; I thought that it shouldn't be used at all. I decided to let the matter drop, but I continue to believe that the source is not reliable and should not be used at all, certainly not unattributed. I'd be interested to hear what others think. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A look the rsn thread [] does not seem to have come down against it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's see. Four editors weighed in: Me, Ronz, and two others, and Ronz alone was for relying on the source unattributed for basic facts. The other three of us expressed reservations to one degree or another. So I do not see how you can say that the thread did not come down against it. But in fact there just weren't many uninvolved editors who weighed in, and I would agree that it would be great to get more input from uninvolved editors. I will note, most importantly, that nobody has explained on what basis we're to assume that "Sludge" is not self-published. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Errr "reservations to one degree or another" does not mean "do not use" it means "use with care".Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, let me spell that out a bit more: one of us (me) thought we should not use it at all. One of us said At the very least any information sourced from Sludge should be attributed to Sludge in text, and not stated in Wikipedia's voice. Even then, given the other issues, I'm not so sure it's a great source for facts. I would be inclined to agree with you that it should probably be treated more like a blog. The other editor who expressed reservations said it certainly isn't an impartial organization, despite the pretence to neutrality and agreed with me that there was reason to be concerned about the quality of reporting. So I think that these three (of four) editors who spoke at RSN thought that the source was biased, that it should be at the very least attributed, but that it is more likely better to source the facts somewhere else. Furthermore, to repeat, nobody has explained how we know that this source isn't self-published (as it appears to be). Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Some additional information. Sludge apparently implies that they are self-published here and here. Also, this tweet suggests that they may now be defunct. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)


 * FYI, it looks like Slatersteven opened another RSN discussion here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Guardian report inaccurate?
This Guardian source citing Tripodi says that she found that there were non-ideological reasons for YouTube to remove several of PragerU's videos. But my understanding, based on other sources, is that YouTube did not remove any videos, but only placed them in a "restricted" category. The report is apparently therefore inaccurate. Am I missing something? Did YouTube actually remove PragerU videos? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything inaccurate in what you describe. Perhaps you can quote exactly what you find concerning? --Ronz (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, it says: Tripodi reviewed several of the videos and found that there were plausible, non-ideologically motivated explanations for why they were removed. But as far as I know, PragerU videos were not removed from YouTube. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would guess that's an oversite rather than something significant enough to call the whole thing inacurrate. Either the reporter or Tripodi made a error.  Unless it were shown this error was repeated I wouldn't exclude this source based on it.  However, if no videos were removed we might want to rephrase so avoid stating "remove" in wiki voice.  Perhaps "flagged" or similar would be OK? Springee (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can rephrase the Guardian piece to say something it doesn't say. We can either attribute it to the Guardian and note that other sources have said that no videos were removed, or we can (my preference) drop the shoddy Guardian report. Unelss, as I say, I am mistaken and in fact YouTube did remove some PragerU videos. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Insistence that's it's "shoddy" looks a lot like personal bias.
 * The article doesn't go into the removal of the videos from general viewing, and from that perspective there's absolutely nothing wrong. Comparing the source to details it doesn't address is a waste of time. --Ronz (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Two questions for you, Ronz. First, does the article, in the provided quote, say that the videos were removed? Second, were the videos removed? Thank you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, lets see an RS that says that she was wrong and that YouTube have never taken down a PragaU video?Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Because here is PragaU saying they did https://www.prageru.com/press-release/breaking-worse-than-shadow-banning-facebook-completely-censors-prageru/ .Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That PragerU release says that Facebook removed some of their videos, not YouTube. It's possible I'm wrong and YouTube has removed videos. It would be surprising, though, since RS that describe their dispute with YouTube (such as the piece we use in our article about that) say that they were restricted, not removed. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's a quote from Judge Lucy Koh's decision: Plaintiff does not allege, however, that any of Plaintiff’s videos have been completely removed from YouTube. As discussed above, Plaintiff alleges only that some of Plaintiff’s videos have been demonetized or censored (in the form of an age restriction or exclusion from the Restricted Mode setting) based on Defendants’ intolerance towards Plaintiff’s political views. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Then this would just be Tripodi's opinion, and thus would need attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It is currently attributed to Tripodi. But don't you think that the current version will give the reader the mistaken impression that videos were removed? This is not a pro-PragerU point, by the way: it is to PragerU's benefit for people to get the impression that their videos have not just been restricted but completely removed. Also, the current version may be mistaken in attributing this view to Tripodi; it may have been the Guardian's mistake. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it gives them the correct impression this is Tripodi's opinion on what happened. However there is a case for a re-write of that whole paragraph to include the Facebook removals.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In have now moved it to what they seem to be talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking it's inappropriate to use a WP:PRIMARY source to cast doubt on a WP:SECONDARY one. If you think these sources are in contradiction, and that this contradiction is meaningful and relevant, then you'd have to produce another secondary source either highlighting it or, at the very least, clearly contradicting the Guardian.  Otherwise, my reading would just be that the Guardian is using "removed" in a colloquial sense, whereas Tripodi is talking in specific narrow legal terms, and that there's therefore no contradiction. --Aquillion (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * However it does seem (the clue is in the title of the article) that Tripodi was talking about facebook, not YouTube.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Slatersteven. The charitable and most plausible reading is that she meant to be talking about the Facebook removals. I had been thrown off--my fault--by the fact that it was placed in the article where we were talking about YouTube. But I agree with the current version. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

What about getting the facts right by reading the case and then citing the sources' opinion on the actual facts of the case? How informative is it that two sources get the facts wrong? Weight should be given to facts first. Regards Alain Alainlambert (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Question
How is it that this editor can revert edits but he doesn't even have a User Page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gachet_Ziman&action=edit&redlink=1

thank you. alain Alainlambert (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

looking at his edits today, he seems to be importing religion onto articles. alain Alainlambert (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ad hominem, but you won't get consensus nor credibility for your controversial content like that.--Gachet Ziman (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Alain, from what I've seen, even anonymous users can revert edits. The ability or privilege to revert an edit does not rely on whether or not one has a user page or recognition as a frequent user on Wikipedia, but rather it relies on if the person has editing capabilities in the first place. Should I be honest, it might have been better to take this to Gachet's user talk page, because this is largely unrelated to the article itself, but eh. If there's something I'm missing here though, let me know. --Apathetizer (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Apathetizer, many thanks for the info and recommendation. I’m still learning Wiki world. Best Alain Alainlambert (talk) 23:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

"Scriptural Inference"
Can anyone explain what this is? It seems to be Tripodi's coinage, and it seems to me that it isn't going to be clear what it means to the casual reader, so I'd like to summarize what it means. But, after reading her work, I am unable to summarize what she means by it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * [].Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, I have already read that, and it isn't particularly helpful in my opinion. It seems to me that by 'scriptural inference' she just means something like: reading primary texts for yourself, then reading a variety of secondary sources, comparing and contrasting those secondary sources both with each other and with your own take on the primary source. But, so understood, I don't see why that's a bad thing, or why we should think that this is a practice distinctive of religious conservatives. I wish more people would read the news like that! So I feel like I must be missing something. Her main worry about "scriptural inference" seems to be that, when people try to do it, they think they're getting outside their "filter bubbles" but in fact google is sending them to sources that reinforce their preexisting views. Interesting point, but I don't see what it has to do with scripture or with the (seemingly good) impulse to try to read primary texts for yourself and read news reports and commentary critically. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No I think what is being said is that they news like religious scripture, and apply the same critical reasoning to it. That they read the words, and then accept what the read as "gospel truth", rather then seeking out alternatives or applying real critical reasoning.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That can't be right, ; have a look at this passage:


 * That looks more like what I said: comparing different sources, evaluating their quality, and trying to get at the truth. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the paper in question has weight for inclusion. Reading through the citations it's nit clear if reliable, third party sources are citing it.  The SPLC isn't a reliable, third party source and BuzzFeed news doesn't mention it. Springee (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, Springee. She's an assistant prof with a very short publication record (one refereed publication in print). But in any case, if we're going to include it, we should explain what her view is accurately and clearly. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think her other big work for D&S made a big splash but we now have a prerelease Penn State paper that suggests hey conclusions were wrong. Springee (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a link? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It was discussed here [] and above in the 21 Nov edits []. However, I was mistaken, it was another Data & Society paper but the author was Lewis (2018).  Either way, there is a problem when giving this much weight to a non-peer reviewed paper.  Looking for the paper and the author's name I've found very little coverage of the paper.  The WashPost had an article about the paper but it doesn't mention PragerU. Springee (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you mean Lewis's D&S report called "Alternative Influence" here? I don't see criticism of Tripodi in that piece; are you suggesting that she criticized Tripodi in there? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't clear. It was the Lewis paper that the Penn State paper tended to contradict, not Tripodi as I first recalled. Tripodi was not mentioned by the PS team.  However, since Tripodi's paper is not peer reviewed and not discussed in context of PragerU by RS's I'm not sure why it should be given so much weight.  The PS paper is in the RSN link I gave as well as several discussions above.  Springee (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that her work isn't due, and her views are given too much weight in the current version. In the meantime, I'm pulling out the half-sentence about "scriptural inference" per MOS:JARGON until someone can explain what it is. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you say that SPLC isn't RS as used here? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

The real question is SPLC an RS at all? PragerU has a very informative video on that topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNFNH0lmYdM&t=153s Regards, Alain Alainlambert (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that consensus is that SPLC is RS with attribution. Not sure how that applies to these uses of it. We don't currently have attribution in our article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * When it comes to what PragerU says about SPLC, I think it's worth considering the conflict of interest there, as the SPLC put out an article which was critical of PragerU and within US politics, the SPLC is generally aligned democrat (or at least criticized frequently by republicans) while PragerU is generally aligned republican. This conflict of interest applies to the SPLC towards PragerU as well, so yeah, at the very least apply attribution to the SPLC for anything said by them in the wiki page. --Apathetizer (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, consensus, as far as I can tell, is that SPLC is RS for use with in-text attribution. I disagree with that consensus, but I think it's reasonably well-established at this point, so there's no point in arguing about it. In this case, we use SLPC as a source for what Kruse said in his twitter feed, and then we are using SLPC as a source for some comments from Tripodi's report for Data and Society. Were we to add attribution in the case of the Kruse quotes, we'd in effect have to say that "SPLC says that Kruse said that ...". Pretty awkward. If I'm not mistaken, the Tripodi quotes can be pulled directly from her report for Data and Society, however, so it seems that the SPLC source is not needed at that point, at least assuming that her report is RS and due (which I doubt). Thoughts? Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't see a problem with attributing the Kruse stuff as long as it's worded in a non-awkward manner, which I think we could pull off. As for Tripodi, yes, I think we can attribute that stuff to the original study by Tripodi, and the SPLC isn't needed for attribution there. --Apathetizer (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is my read on the sourcing. The Tripodi paper should only be cited if a reliable, 3rd party source (preferably several) have discussed it in context of PragerU.  Because it's self published we can't treat it as if it were an academic paper on the subject.  The SPLC does mention Tripodi's work but the SPLC needs to be treated as an opinion source and we mention the views of the SLPC if a RS discusses what the SPLC has to say on Tripodi's work on PragerU.  This is where I see the disconnect in how things were and still are sourced.  We don't have any reliable, independent sources that say this aspect of Tripodi's research is significant or due for inclusion.  Absent that, or publication in a peer reviewed source I think we fail DUE and the content should probably be removed.  Springee (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I did a bit of digging to see if the study by Tripodi has any significance or is mentioned by any other RS, and the only notable thing I came across that I haven't seen discussed on here before was some info about a senate judiciary committee hearing which featured Tripodi, in which she talked about her study and briefly brought up PragerU. link I don't disagree with Springee's evaluation of the study, but I think the senate judiciary committee hearing could grant this study extra notability or worthiness of being in the wiki article. --Apathetizer (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that might allow her testimony (but I'm not sure) but I don't think that is enough for the paper since she would be self citing in that case. Springee (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

SPLC is an RS as long as we attribute, RSN has said this more then once. Thus as long as we say "SPLC has said" no problem. If we do not do so at this time, change the text to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Masem covers it nicely in this RSN discussion []. If the SPLC is talking about a general subject then they can be considered to be both RS-opinion and DUE.  In cases where they label a specific group due needs to be established by a third party RS. Springee (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Grammar
Ok - I changed "that" to "who" and reverted so it's back to the original "PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization co-founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager that creates videos on various political, economic and philosophical topics from a conservative or right-wing perspective." In formal English grammar, ( WP is an encyclopedia; therefore, formal), the relative clause, "who creates videos on various political...", is not required to identify Dennis Prager. He is already identified by his name and as co-founder, and "that" cannot be used. Horse Eye Jack argues that it is not Dennis Prager who creates videos and that Prager University creates them. I've never known a "structure" that could be creative, much less shoot, edit, direct, or write scripts, all of which is typically done by people. A publisher does not create the work - they issue, offer, produce, or sell it - so if Dennis Prager is not doing the creating, the sentence needs to be reworded. What I noticed at the website is that PragerU promotes a playlist of videos by various producers, and they also produce videos of their own. They distribute those videos via a YouTube Channel (they aren't big enough to be Amazon Prime, etc.) and other means of online distribution. One suggestion: "PragerU, short for Prager University, is an American non-profit organization that offers an online playlist of videos, some of which they produce, about various political, economic and philosophical topics from both a conservative and right-wing perspective. The organization was co-founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager." Conservativism can also be from a left-wing perspective. I'm not going to edit war over a grammar issue so whoever is of the mind to, please fix it for accuracy. Atsme Talk 📧 17:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Personally I side with on the grammar dispute, and I disagree with your characterization of PragerU as a "structure" rather than as an "organization", as PragerU is legally a non-profit organization and those sorts of organizations are made up of people. However, I don't have an issue with rewording the sentence how you're proposing here ("right-wing perspective. The organization was co-founded by talk show host and writer Dennis Prager."), so as to avoid confusion about who/what is producing the videos. As for the concern about left-wing conservatism, I don't have a problem with clearing up confusion there by changing the wording from "conservative" to "American conservative", for example. --Apathetizer (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This grammar dispute is the silliest thing I’ve ever been taken to task on a talk page for. As for the assertion that there is such a thing as a “left-wing conservative” I note that the page to which you piped, Liberal conservatism, doesn't contain even one mention of a “left-wing conservative” or “left-wing conservatism.” While colloquially in America and Canada Left-wing/Leftist and Liberal may be used interchangeably in academic and encyclopedic settings they are never used interchangeably. Per Apathetizer’s suggestion I wouldn’t be opposed to piping conservative to Conservatism in the United States if we want to get more specific. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Horse Eye Jack - I'm not taking you "to task". I simply stated the facts and made a suggestion. I also don't consider grammar "silly" as it relates to encyclopedic content. I'm a member of WP:LEADTEAM just doing a bit of copy editing. Atsme  Talk 📧 23:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing "reception" section to "criticism"
This section is already all criticism of prageru, only the first line would need to be reviewed, and would be a more useful and accurate description of the section. Also, as prageru is an oft-criticized organization, I think there should be an addition to the header to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasianpower (talk • contribs) 00:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Criticism sections tend to be problematic, especially in articles this small. WP:POV and related essays have a great deal of guidance on this. --Ronz (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ronz. A better approach would be to include some of the notable positive reception of PragerU in the section, so that it really isn't just criticism. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be worse, cherry-picking content to create a false balance. --Ronz (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Including notable positive reception is cherry-picking? Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as you're specifically looking for what you consider "positive", it's a problem. --Ronz (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't use the verb 'look'. I said we should include notable positive reception, which is the whole reason that we should keep the title as 'reception'--to make it clear that such reception is welcome in the section, and that the section is not reserved for negative pieces. Let's work together, not against each other, ok? Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the history of this article, I want to hold off false balance problems.
 * If there's encyclopedic, noteworthy commentary on PragerU, we should include it in that section. If the section or article becomes substantially larger than it is now, we might need more sections/subsections to organize the information. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's encyclopedic, noteworthy commentary on PragerU, we should include it in that section. Yep, that's what I said. Obviously including any such commentary that's positive or negative. Glad we agree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I read through the above discussion and while I agree with Wasianpower insofar that there should be specific emphasis on the criticism PragerU receives (as it gets a lot), I also agree with Ronz and Shinealittlelight about how we shouldn't take away a place for positive reception. Maybe we could compromise and put the appropriate emphasis in by giving a "Criticism" subsection within the Reception section? The section is already pretty long anyway (compared to the rest of the article), so some organization of the section could be beneficial in more than one way. Apathetizer (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see any need, and none has been offered beyond personal opinion. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * A reception section should cover the broad reception that the subject has in accordance with the coverage in high-profile, high-quality reliable sources. If that coverage is largely negative, then we should report that the coverage is largely negative; intentionally trying to weigh it 'evenly' is WP:FALSEBALANCE.  And generally speaking, dedicated criticism sections are bad per WP:CSECTION.  If you think that this reception section is unrepresentative, feel free to suggest sources it doesn't currently cover, but they have to be high-quality; we can't give WP:UNDUE weight to lower-quality sources just to balance things out. --Aquillion (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Reorganizing stuff with "Content" section
I looked over the article while adding the NYT article to the page, and noticed that the content section as it currently stands is very disorganized in the second and third paragraphs. I'm worried that it focuses in on specific claims made by PragerU while excluding or minimizing other beliefs, so as to paint a skewed view of the general set of beliefs which PragerU pushes. For example, a view which PragerU frequently promotes, capitalism: Videos on PragerU have defended capitalism, gets less coverage than a view PragerU rarely promotes, anti-legal immigration: In 2018, PragerU published an anti-legal immigration video by Michelle Malkin, a conservative known for defending the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Maybe I'm just nitpicking, but I think we should consider finding a way to get around this problem. --Apathetizer (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

View point is only one way
The information presented in the article is only coming from a negative anti-prageru side. could we include the other side of the picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.219.85 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Its coming from an RS point of view, if you have RS giving a more positive picture please provide some examples.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

well these reliable sources are all coming from one side of the picture173.14.219.85 (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well find some RS that come from the other side of the picture.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2020
The number of views claimed by PragerU does not correspond the reality. Their counter is a fake: With Wi-Fi at the location disabled completely, all the sites on the computer screen immediately become unresponsive - as well as all the links on the PragerU page. The counter, however, remains running with absolutely unchanged speed. 173.76.83.50 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of specific criticism of PragerU's video on electoral college
The content under discussion:

, we just had a back and forth edit. Currently we are, by the numbers 2:2 on this change []. My opinion is we have a NOCON state based on the reverts so the next set should be move to the talk page. I don't think BR's restoration follows BRD but I'd rather we has it out before making additional article level changes.

I oppose the addition of the Mark Oppenheimer due. It's better with the material later in the article but it begs the question, is Oppenheimer qualified to make the critique in question? Is this a consensus view or just his specific view? Do scholars/experts in the field agree with Mark? If not, why give his opinion weight? For that reason I think it's best left out. Springee (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Springee and Apathetizer. Let's follow BRD please; I'm reverting pending further discussion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BRD is just a supplement, not even a guideline. But seriously u|Springee, do you really mean that any comments in this article that don't have more support can't be used? Not only that, but what Mark Oppenheimer said isn't even controversial, he points out pertinent facts that were left out. That's not even opinion. And let's look at the editing. I add something and am reverted telling me my post was in the wrong place.(" this section is about prageru's content and views, not reception of such (see the reception section for that)" and something about impartial tone, which frankly doesn't make any sense since as I said the quote was a statement of fact:""doesn’t mention how the Electoral College was born of a compromise with slave states or note the degree to which it skews the will of the majority—for example, by effectively giving a Wyoming resident’s vote almost quadruple the power of a Californian’s". Seems a pretty impartial statement to me. I'm also told Mother Jones should get the attribution, not Oppenheimer, but that didn't suggest not including it in the reception section. Springee then reverts, saying "I agree with Apathetizer's concerns regarding why we would include a single critic's discussion." See my question above. BR reverts Springee, then   reverts BR saying less follow BRD?! Seriously, your revert was the 5th one, a bit late for BRD.
 * Finally I have one more problem. I was adding something to the statement "Other PragerU videos defend the Electoral College, arguing that "pure democracies do not work" and that the Electoral College thwarts voter fraud." That used the same source used, but is just used to publicise a video even though from the point of view of someone like me who has a political science background the first bit is almost meaningless (no one claims the US has a pure democracy, that's a red herring) and the second bit is obvious nonsense as voter fraud can affect the makeup of the Electoral college. But you want that to stay in and Oppenheimer's view left out? Doug Weller  talk 19:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Doug, a partial mea-culpa on my part, I missed that your restoration was in a different section. I'm less opposed to the material there.  As for the original location, the section was offering only very high level summaries of what the video's argued thus I don't think rebuttals make sense there.  We have primary topics on most/all of those topics I would think we would just link to the those articles where the details are almost certainly better discussed. I don't believe it's reasonable to include the opinion of a single, non-expert as valid criticism of the topic even with attribution.  It's somewhat more valid in the criticism section but again, why do we care about the opinion of a non-expert.  This is largely whi I htink it's valid to say, in aggregate, that the videos have been criticized but criticism of any specific video can be problematic.  Part of that is because of how we do sourcing.  Oppenheimer specifically criticizes the PragerU video for what he sees as a critical omission.  Now let's assume a respected scholar says the same thing as the PragerU video.  We as editors can't say "Expert A" says the same thing since we need a RS to tied A and PU together.  So then we only have non-expert saying PU omitted facts while experts who might agree (or disagree) aren't discussed.  That creates a false balance regarding the correctness (for lack of a better term) of the claims from the video.  Springee (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I want to throw in my 2 cents here. To start off, when I mentioned WP:IMPARTIAL, I specifically had in mind the part where it says "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article." Yes, as far as I'm aware everything Mark said is true, but having it placed right beside PragerU's views in the section where it's meant to present PragerU's views in a neutral light, that works towards inadvertantly discrediting PragerU's views in a non-neutral way, even though there is some credibility to PragerU's argument that the EC can do stuff like work against voter fraud.
 * Second off, I'm personally OK with including something about it in the reception section, though certainly not the content section. By that point, we're dealing with concerns about if non-expert opinions are notable, etc, etc. and I think we've had those discussions about the other video critiques before. Apathetizer (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm more or less offline now as I'm watching tv with my wife. I hope some of it can be included in the interest of balance. Doug Weller  talk 20:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine, perhaps even due mention. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The best location for the content can always be discussed, but complete deletion isn't the answer. It's better to move it to a better location. We must avoid anything that can appear to be censorship or whitewashing. We see far too much of that around here. Per NPOV, "neutrality" refers primarily to "editorial" neutrality, not source or content neutrality. It's an egregious violation (one of the worst) of NPOV to leave out criticisms.

Also, the writer of the content does not have to be notable. The fact that what they write is published in a RS gives what they write enough weight for consideration. The source does that. That's not the only thing to consider, but we shouldn't be seeking excuses for leaving out criticisms. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Nor does the author need to be an "expert".
 * Further, it seems to be an example of some of the criticisms suggested by Nowrasteh. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * While I understand the concern about whitewashing, what about "blackwashing"? Consider this book intro on the subject written by two scholars [].  It does mention the slavery aspect but doesn't dwell on it and doesn't consider it as the only reason for such a system.  Note that in the later section on the modern complaints against the system it does not mention slavery. Thus these two scholars in the field who have authored a book on the subject don't highlight the criticism that a writer for a rather partisan magazine decided was most critical.  Even in historical terms, to claim it was, in effect, only there to make slave states happy, is, at least per the source I offered, incorrect.  So how is it making the article more balanced vs simply repeating a questionable critique by a partisan source?  Springee (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We could possibly go for a vaguer "Oppenheimer of Mother Jones criticized this specific PragerU video for excluding critical critiques of the EC" so as to get around the slavery issue, but chances are that's gonna end up twisting the message of the MJ article more than is acceptable. Maybe instead it'd be better to include Oppenheimer's critique, and then add a bit of info afterwards about how certain scholars don't find the EC's historical founding's ties to slavery to be a big critique of the EC in the current day. --Apathetizer (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to be an attempt at whitewashing. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How and in what form? We need to be careful when claiming that other editors might be whitewashing.  Why wouldn't MJ be blackwashing given the ideological divide between MJ and PU?  Springee (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The proper and required inclusion of existing criticism is not "blackwashing". It is following policy, and editors should not object to following policy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How is this "proper or required"? MJ is not an expert on the subject and the MJ writer likely knows far less than the PU presenter.  I don't see anywhere that we aren't following policy.  In the original section this was a series of "PragerU video A said this, B said this, C said this."  So it's contextually questionable to include a specific, not expert critique in that section.  Later it makes sense to include general criticisms of PragerU or criticism of specific videos if they follow a pattern.  For example, if a critic said, "PragerU videos often ignore contradictory data." and then several videos were cited with evidence that would make sense.  Remember, the subject of this article is PragerU the entity, not "the facts a MJ writer felt were left out of an argument in favor of the Electoral College".  That dives too deep into a question of "is that particular video accurate" and then we are doing a BIG disservice if we don't cover a full range of opinions.  Springee (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a deja vu feeling here. Are we going to experience months-long arguing about a few words, like we did at the National Rifle Association, AR-15 style rifle, and Mass shootings in the United States articles? We don't need wikilawyering. We need to focus on our job here, which is extremely inclusionist. We are supposed to document the sum total of human knowledge (as found in RS), and that includes opinions. We aren't supposed to create articles based on some pre-conceived idea of the ideal article format and desired content, we are supposed to look at what all available RS say about a subject, then arrange that in some semblance of order (we have a MoS to help us), and make an article with that. IOW, it is the sum totality of existing RS which dictate the content and weight that ends up in our articles. Leaving out criticisms is an egregious violation of NPOV, so find a way to include it. Stop fighting it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What we shouldn't do is use a non-expert to dispute the claims of the person in the video. That gives UNDUE weight to the POV of someone who's opinion on the subject isn't significant. Again, what is the objective? If the objective is to show that PU videos get criticized that's fine. However, if we go into the specific criticism of specific facts/claims etc in a specific video then we aren't doing our jobs if we just offer one side and not a more balanced assessment. The superficial nature of the criticism is too trivial to include as "valid criticism". Again, linking to the actual Electoral College article would make more sense. Springee (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this back and fourth is useful. Neither side looks like they're gonna relent. Such an impasse necessitates the drafting of an RfC, which granted, is a pain and takes a long time, but at least you come out at the end of it with consensus (or lack thereof) codified. So, unless someone has a better idea, I suggest skipping to that dispute resolution request stage. El_C 16:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)


 * El_C, I think that's a great solution and thank you for taking the initiative. Springee (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The information is supported by and provides an example of other criticisms, so it should be included.
 * The objections amount to whitewashing.
 * ArbEnf applies. Draft an RfC for review, so we don't waste time on a poor one. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, Ronz, please be careful with claims of whitewashing. ArbEnf applies here which means we need to AGF. Springee (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC. ArbEnf applies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

How detailed should description of conflicts with Facebook be?
Hi. My revision 958388562 was reverted by Slatersteven. I would suggest that this revision is included.

Slatersteven's reasons for reversion: (1) "We do not need every dispute" (relevance) (2) "nor am I sure some of this is even RS" (reliability)

If we do not need every dispute, then perhaps we should remove mentions of earlier disputes? If in May 2020 the last dispute mentioned is from August 2018, this may result in the article creating a false impression that no more disputes are happening. This is not so.

On reliability. Slatersteven doesn't point out what exactly is unreliable. That specific video about polar bears is presently (May 23, 2020) displaying on Facebook with a warning is a verifiable fact (is there a standard for confirming this? Screencasts?). That the video that this PragerU video criticizes was misleading was acknowledged by NatGeo themselves.

The two websites arguing over assessment of polar bears population dynamic (one positive, one negative) may not be RS by themselves, but both provide research publications to back up their points of view. By doubting these articles we will be challenging the underlying research publications. Is it acceptable for Wikipedia articles to take sides in a research debate?

Vshabat (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * PragerU is not an RS, RT is at this time under dispute (but its not going well for it), and there is one other source I doubt is RS. Nor am I sure this has exactly recived a lot of attention (given the quality of sourcing).Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree; the story isn't appearing in reliable sources, or at least not as of yet. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * RT is not reliable in this content per WP:RSP, RT is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lacortenews.com appears unreliable as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thats the one I doubted was RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I accept your judgement in this case, it appears that I am overruled. As a personal aside, I have undertaken this edit as a bet against my conservative friend (I myself am liberal) who tried a similar revision earlier, but with a biased text full of POVs. My bet was that with a (more) balanced and better sourced text the edit will stand a chance. Apparently I lost. Vshabat (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Status of Prager U as a university, etc.
Thanks for adding the cbc source on "doesn't hold classes". I still don't see a source for "not a university"; am I missing it? "Despite its name" is what Newsweek says, not "contrary to its name". The difference is that "despite" suggests to my ear that the name is possibly misleading, whereas "contrary to" sounds as if the name is outright dishonest or something like that. It seems to me that we're better to stick to the word the source uses for this reason. What do you think? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They say it themselves. As to what sources say "Prager University is not an accredited academic institution" "No, PragerU is not an accredited university, nor do we claim to be." (from PragaU's own about page), "Despite its name, PragerU is not an accredited university and does not hold classes or grant diplomas". Those are from the last 4 sources in the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Not an accredited university" does not imply "not a university" though, so I still don't see a source for "not a university". And what do you say about "despite" vs "contrary"? Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposal: "Despite its name, PragerU is not an accredited university or academic institution, it does not hold classes, and does not grant certifications or diplomas". Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What context to the other references use? Let's not forget that they are dishonest, a producer of propaganda, as identified by multiple references. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking. What do you think of the proposal I just made? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the New York Times article "Right-Wing Views for Generation Z, Five Minutes at a Time," PragerU is described as "not an actual academic institution," so we have a source to back the claim that it is not a university. Should we take the word accredited out? I believe that if we leave it in, we may imply that PragerU may be some sort of university, but not an accredited one. In reality, Prager University is simply not a university by any measure. Rankedo (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The exact wording is important. Sources say "not an accredited university" and "not an academic institution" so that's what we have in the article. Sources don't directly say "not a university". It sounds like you have a problem with the sources. Do you have an alternative source that says, verbatim, that it is "not a university"? If so, let's see it and we should include it. If not, what's the problem? Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no problem, officer. Carry on. Rankedo (talk) 1:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Currently it says "Contrary to its name, PragerU is not a university or academic institution, and does not hold classes, grant certifications or diplomas, and is not accredited."

I'd lean to the proposed changes. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"Prager University, styled as PragerU, is not a university." https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/10/05/youtube-allows-horrifically-transphobic-advertising-on-its-videos/, "The website, though billed at a university, does state “PragerU is not a university" https://www.mediaite.com/news/samantha-bee-takes-aim-at-prageru-bullshit-conservative-propaganda-akin-to-monsters-university/. Even they used to say it. No they are not a university.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Does PragerU states on their home page they are not [see edit comment below] a university. The article should make it clear that PragerU is not claiming to be a college/university. Phrases like "contrary to it's name..." imply an effort to mislead. On their homepage they say they are not a academic institution and they don't offer classes. This can easily be included as an about self, especially since it's supported by RSs which can also be cited. Springee (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The current text reflects exactly what's in the sources as far as I can tell. Here it is:


 * "Despite its name, PragerU is not an accredited university or an academic institution,[5][4][6] it does not hold classes,[7] and does not grant certifications or diplomas.[6]"


 * If you disagree, please provide a quote from the sources and some new proposed language. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * PS: And no, pinknews and mediaite are not RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have an sources that say they are a university?Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, composing on my phone and ended up with an unintentional "not" that changed the intent of my post. We all agree they are not a university.  At the bottom of the PragerU homepage they clearly state they are not an accredited university etc.  My only concern is the current text makes it sound like they are trying to hide this fact when PragerU is up front about it and in agreement with RSs on the matter. As such we should make it clear that PU states this. Springee (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

How about https://www.dailydot.com/debug/what-is-prager-university/ " “Prager University is not a university" https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/16/21066906/youtube-climate-change-denial-avaaz-samsung-uber-nintendo "PragerU (which is not a university".Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

How about " It isn’t truly a university" https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-08-22/dennis-prager-university-conservative-internet-sensation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * PragerU's website does not say "not a university". The current text reflects exactly what they and the other sources currently in use say. I regard the daily dot and verge as very weak sources, perhaps the rest of you think those are good? I would not be inclined to use them. The LA times is of course a central RS, but the formulation "isn't truly a university" is super weird, and I don't see repeating that in wikivoice. I still favor the current text, which seems to me perfectly clear since it says that they are not an academic institution and don't grant degrees etc. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven has now changed the text to read as follows:
 * Maybe we can agree on the text here before making more changes to avoid edit warring? I think this version reads really poorly. It isn't clear to me what 'truly' means here, and the word 'denies' strikes my ear funny, as if they are making a bold stand or something. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "isn’t truly a university" is almost word for word what an RS says. Other sources say its not a university. Not one says it is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that 'truly' is the wording of LA Times, and they are RS. Still, for all that, I think it's bad writing and it isn't clear what it means. Here is a different idea. Consider buzzfeed: ...a nonprofit media company called Prager University...While it is not an accredited institution of higher learning, Prager University is most definitely an education...“I regard Prager University as a university every bit as much as a traditional university,” Dennis Prager told BuzzFeed News. What about:
 * Maybe emphasizing "media company" is clarifying? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Still leaves out they say they are not an accredited academic institution. And again no RS says it is a university. So there is no need for us to not say what sources say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe emphasizing "media company" is clarifying? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Still leaves out they say they are not an accredited academic institution. And again no RS says it is a university. So there is no need for us to not say what sources say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

More https://coloradotimesrecorder.com/2020/01/some-colo-gop-say-poverty-programs-deliver-votes-to-dems-and-keep-black-people-down/20439/ "Prager U, a non-profit entity (not a university)",

Definition of university 1: an institution of higher learning providing facilities for teaching and research and authorized to grant academic degrees.

PragaU does not meet that definition. So (again) we have sources that say it is not university, none that say it is. So we say it is not one.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You say Still leaves out that they are not an accredited academic institution. But the version I proposed says "not an accredited university or academic institution". So, I have to say, I have no idea what you mean here. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * They have said they are not is what is left out as I said "Still leaves out they say they are not an accredited academic institution" (added emphasis to show what you ignored).Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore anything, I just misread what you wrote. I apologize for that. Now that I have correctly read it, my reply is that I don't see any reason to qualify "not an academic institution" with "they say they are not". I think we can say they are not an academic institution in wikivoice, without attributing it to PU; we have other sources for the claim anyway. So I don't see the issue there. As for the other points you've raised, I just want to follow our best sources. That doesn't include "colorado times recorder", which appears to be a crowd-sourced local paper that I for one have never heard of. Let's follow the major news organizations that we have on this. They say PU is not an accredited university or academic institution that does not grant degrees, etc., which is also what PU says about itself. This characterization is perfectly clear. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the fact they deny it means its not just an accusation, they accept it. The reason we need to say they are not a university is because if we say "not an accredited university or academic institution" we are implying they maybe an unaccredited one, and no RS says that. We have more then one source saying they are not a university.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we please finish the discussion here before making further edits? I don't want to edit war, and I'm not making edits while we talk this out. If everyone disagrees with me, I'll relent, but please, BRD. I can understand the concern that we don't want to imply that they are an unaccredited university. On the other hand, I do not think we have sources saying "not a university". Slatersteven has provided some sourcing for that: daily dot, daily beast, and the like. But these seem really low quality. Are you telling me that these are the sources you think we should rely on? I have claimed that we should follow the major news organizations we have to go on: NYT, LAT, Newsweek, CBC, Buzzfeed News. These seem like much higher quality sources to me than the ones you've provided for "not a university", and none of these higher quality sources say "not a university". Here's another proposal:
 * How about that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been disagreed with. And the above still has the problem of implying it is an unaccredited one, which it is not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, can you also respond to my point about quality of sourcing? Are you really wanting to stand on daily dot? Here's another possibility:
 * That seems pretty clear, and well sourced. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Daily dot is not the only source, and no, we are still implying it is an unaccredited one. You are making the same edit request each time slightly re-worded.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you happy with the current text, as it is in the article right now? It is currently depending on LA times for "not a university", which I think is not what LA Times says. Are you proposing to leave it in its current state or change it? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * We have sources that say "not a uni" one that says (definitely and RS) "not really a uni" other sources that say "not an accredited uni", yes we can paraphrase all of those into "not a uni". But I would rather it said "not a real uni", I am not just that convinced that is all that different from "not a uni" for me to take issue with it. We have no that say "an unaccredited uni".Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing to say that they are an unaccredited university either. I think we should say what the sources clearly say. LAT says "not truly a university". None of the good sources we have says "not a university" so I was trying to follow them. You disagree and want to paraphrase "not truly a university" to "not a university". OK. do you agree with Slatersteven and Hipal on this? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop misrepresenting what I say, I did not say "I want to paraphrase "not truly a university" to "not a university"" I said "I am not just that convinced that is all that different from "not a uni" for me to take issue with it", in other words I have no issue with paraphrasing it what one, not that I want to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing to say that they are an unaccredited university either. I think we should say what the sources clearly say. LAT says "not truly a university". None of the good sources we have says "not a university" so I was trying to follow them. You disagree and want to paraphrase "not truly a university" to "not a university". OK. do you agree with Slatersteven and Hipal on this? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop misrepresenting what I say, I did not say "I want to paraphrase "not truly a university" to "not a university"" I said "I am not just that convinced that is all that different from "not a uni" for me to take issue with it", in other words I have no issue with paraphrasing it what one, not that I want to.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Shall we have a book https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Vd2yDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT97&lpg=PT97&dq=Prager+University+%22not+a+university%22&source=bl&ots=NUcuZEqMgL&sig=ACfU3U3Rcdhjz2uUwRnkH_LrroPdtiWd0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAwYaPt5vsAhURqXEKHeGGATQ4KBDoATACegQIBBAC#v=onepage&q=Prager%20University%20%22not%20a%20university%22&f=false.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

What about something like "PragerU is a media company. The company states it is not an accredited academic institution and does not offer certifications or diplomas." This can be ABOUTSELF'ed to the PragerU home page as well as to a few articles. This way it avoids looking like the company is trying to hide this fact while also making it clear that many sources about PragerU note that it isn't a university. I suppose the concern is people might assume it's something like a Phoenix University or other for profit college. I don't think the particular phrasing is that critical so long as it doesn't suggest they are trying to hide the obvious. Springee (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Springee's proposal sounds fine to me, and an improvement over the current version, which says "not a university" on the basis of the LAT piece that says "not truly a university". Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Without "states": We shouldn't be using their POV, and I don't see any reason not to use Wikipedia's voice. We should use at least one independent source. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that,, although Slatersteven wanted it to be attributed to PU because he said the fact they deny it means its not just an accusation, they accept it. Not sure if you want to reply to that point. In any case, the new proposal would be something like this:
 * How's that? Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't suggest any accusations, so should be fine. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is fine. I restored the link to PragerU's FAQ per ABOUTSELF since that makes it clear they are not claiming to be something they are not.  I suspect we could remove all but one of the other citations per OVERCITE.  If PragerU agrees with the LA Times that they aren't an actual university I'm not sure why we need so many other citations.  Springee (talk) 04:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Re OVERCITE: The three independent sources could be helpful elsewhere in the article, so I thought restoring them all, rather than just one, would be helpful. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll say my peace on the citations but please take it only as respectful disagreement. I don't think "useful elsewhere" is a valid reason to leave them in.  It's a good reason to add them to this talk page for later reference or to add their unique contributions to other parts of the article.  Having so many makes it look like this is some sort of disputed claim vs something PragerU clearly states.  I didn't check all the sources but the CBC source is almost exclusively about Denise Prager and only at the very has a short discussion of PragerU itself.  I don't know if that is true of the other sources.  Finally, at least the CBC link is just a bare URL.  Anyway, please take this as polite disagreement.  Springee (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll say my peace on the citations but please take it only as respectful disagreement. I don't think "useful elsewhere" is a valid reason to leave them in.  It's a good reason to add them to this talk page for later reference or to add their unique contributions to other parts of the article.  Having so many makes it look like this is some sort of disputed claim vs something PragerU clearly states.  I didn't check all the sources but the CBC source is almost exclusively about Denise Prager and only at the very has a short discussion of PragerU itself.  I don't know if that is true of the other sources.  Finally, at least the CBC link is just a bare URL.  Anyway, please take this as polite disagreement.  Springee (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of "According to Mother Jones"
, rather than revert your change here [] I wanted to open a discuss to explain why I disagree with it. This was a discussion topic a while back.[][] My concern then (and now) is that one only needs to watch the several of the videos to see that MJ's summary of the content is not correct. Mother Jones summarized a PragerU video stating PU said there was "There is no police discrimination." The video actually claims that the idea that police use of lethal force is systemically racist is not supported by data. I wasn't able to convince editors that the MJs summaries were so inaccurate as to discredit the specific MJ article. The compromise was to attribute the summaries. For that reason I think the attribution should remain. What is your feeling? Springee (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand your objection right, you feel that the wording implied there is no police discrimination at all? I think it's reasonably obvious that both they and our summary talking about systematic discrimination in both cases, not the (patiently absurd and obviously not intended) statement that no racist police officers exist ever.  But if that's the crux of your issue, it can be resolved simply by clarifying "systematic discrimination" unambiguously. --Aquillion (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The MJ article doesn't use the term 'systemic racism'. Rather, the MJ article says that PragerU argues that "police are not biased against black men". They do not link the PU video Aquillon has now linked in our article, rather, they link a video called "Are the Police Racist" in which the speaker (Heather MacDonald) never uses the term 'systemic racism', and in which she argues that "there is no evidence that police are killing blacks just because they are black." So yeah, per RSN, "Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed." Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. "Police are not biased against black people" is, patiently obviously, referring to it as a systematic issue; the statement as you are interpreting it ("no police, anywhere, hold any biases against black people") would be absurd. And as a WP:SECONDARY source that establishes the relevance of the WP:PRIMARY source supporting the same thing. --Aquillion (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The text you have placed in the article is inaccurate as demonstrated in my last comment. You link a video (by Larry Elder) that is not under discussion in the source, you are using terminology ("systemic racism") not used by the source, and blatantly importing your own OR into the text (on the grounds that it is "patiently [sic] obvious"), while removing attributions that are supported by extensive discussion at RSN. Moreover, the "interpretation" you attribute to me was not my interpretation. I never said that. Please remove your disruptive edit. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Aquillion, the MJ source links to the specific videos they summarized including the Heather MacDonald police video. Linking to a video they didn't discuss doesn't support the summarizies of specific videos made by MJ.  Had you linked to the Heather MacDonald video I would have supported the addition but if you review the past discussion you would see one of the initial problems was editors did not want to link directly to the videos in question.  Springee (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Aquillion, My objections from when this was discussed a year back are MJ falsely summarizes the arguments PragerU made. That was an argument for removing the MJ article as inaccurate. That argument didn't fly last year but consensus was to attribute the summaries. Rather than get into some back and forth I was asking Kodiologist about there reasons for removing the MJ attribution. Three minutes before I posted this the edit was reversed. You have since removed the attribution again. Per the previous consensus would you mind restoring it? That is why I posted today. BTW, MJ linked to this video [], not the Larry Elder video you added. Also, per the previous discussion it was decided to not link to the PragerU videos directly. Springee (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no such consensus in the logs. If your objection is not to the lack of "systematic", you will have to be more specific about the parts you take issue with (ideally by presenting equal or higher-quality sources that disagree); but that was the only issue you raised here ("no police discrimination" vs "not systematically racist".) I think that even that objection is an extreme reach on your part, and isn't relevant regardless because it's completely inappropriate to try and second-guess sources based on your personal readings of the primary source, but either way, given that you objected to the lack of a single word, a better compromise is to just specify systematic racism, which is an argument PragerU unequivocally makes and which, I think, it is plain the source was referring to (any other reading would make the statement patiently ridiculous; and of course many sources use "racism" to refer to "systematic racism".)  More generally, while I know you dislike hearing this, Mother Jones is a high-quality source with a sterling reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; plainly you disagree with them on many things, including disagreeing with their conclusions and interpretations, but that simply isn't a reason to downplay or disregard them as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you don't see it. If you review the discussions you will see that several editors considered MJ to be less than reliable in this case.  Since removal of the MJ source wasn't supported, attribution was the compromise.  That was the outcome of extensive discussions a year back.  Springee (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the source appears to be of high-quality. Could you point out or make substantial arguments to the contrary? --Hipal/Ronz (talk)  17:18, 6 October 2020 (edit)
 * I think we talked about this a year back.[] My concerns back then and now are MJ's summaries of the videos are misleading.  Some editors agree, others didn't.  The compromise back then was to attribute the summaries to MJ.  The only reason why this came up recently is an editor removed the attribution and put it in Wikivoice.  At this point I'm suggesting we stick with status quo.  BTW, I agree with your edit here [].  The Buzzfeed article specifically mentions Rubin.  I also agree there may be ways to improve it.  Springee (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)\
 * Thanks for pointing out the discussion.
 * Who says their summaries are misleading? As far as I can see, it's just some editors.
 * I'm afraid I don't see any strong consensus from the past discussion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This was the related discussion at NPOVN []. Do you see a problem with leaving the MJ attribution in the text?  Springee (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Same response as before, and more so. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. Are you OK with the attribution?  Springee (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Aw geez, I didn't realize this was a point of Wikipedian controversy. I don't have the bandwidth right now to assess whether Mother Jones's summary of the videos is correct, but if it is, we don't need the attribution, and if it isn't, the sentence probably shouldn't be in the article. What we have is a compromise that doesn't make a lot of sense. It is said that good compromise isn't always good synthesis. —Kodiologist (t) 01:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding a reference to the widespread criticism of PragerU to the introduction
The widespread lambasting of the reliability of PragerU's content is one of the most significant things about them, so I think it is appropriate for that to be mentioned in the introduction. Anybody searching the company to check their legitimacy should probably be aware of this controversy, but I've tried to boil out just the most elementary criticisms from the various sources since I do not believe more specific criticisms would be appropriate to repeat in the introduction. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Deja vu. Have all four of those references been previously rejected? Could you please at least check this talk page and it's archive? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Here's the content with refs: --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC) The company has been frequently criticised for their ideological & political bias, use of poor sources, and misrepresentation in many of the videos they produce, in addition to their inclusion of far-right speakers.
 * I would wish for better sources for this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * At a glance, Tripodi seems ok. Mediabiasfactcheck is unreliable. Newsguardtech should probably not be used without close examination and lengthy discussion. Mediamatters is poor. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I was finding it a little difficult to find other in-depth analysis pieces like Tripodi's report, they do not often exist for media companies of this size. I would tend to agree that bias/fact-check sites are inappropriate, but I felt it was more direct since I did not want to insert a whole row of reference tags for individual outlets which had criticisms of their reputability. Is there a convenient way to reference a large collection of sources to demonstrate that a criticism is widespread without it making a mess on the page? If any systematic review of the various reports by other media companies and news organisations exists that would be ideal, but I do not think there is one. I would retain the MediaMatters reference, critiquing right-wing outlets is their job and they have an obvious framing in that direction, but the content is well researched enough that it seems appropriate for this.


 * There are also a fair number of relevant references already on the page, ranging from expression of concern to condemnation:


 * (if anyone knows a way to link to references that are already in the article page that would be handy here) So if there is a more pleasing way to reference this without just tacking all of these onto the end of the sentence I would like to know, as well as any input on the wording of it. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * MediaMatters has been found to be a poor source, and should be attributed. See WP:RSP and the linked discussions. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The existence of wide criticism is a neutral statement for which the MediaMatters article is supporting evidence due to being representative of a wide enough portion of (in this case left-wing) outlets and people. Their bias means they should not be used to represent any sort of consensus and statements taken from their articles should be attributed, but in this particular context their bias is irrelevant to their quality as a source. If they are used elsewhere I will ensure they are attributed appropriately. For similar reasons I think The American Conservative is also an appropriate source for the statement despite also being a generally poor source with significant bias. I am hesitant to include Sludge and Rewire as sources however as they are not as wide-reaching and influential, and hence less relevant. I am thinking the statement should also be altered to reflect the fact that a majority of the criticism has come from centrist and left-leaning people, since Prager's activities are ideological in nature and attract less criticism from conservatives, but that might be more relevant to put into the reception section. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Make a proposal, but watch the WP:OR. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I think my proposal would be along the lines of the original sentence, beginning with something like "The company has been frequently criticised for", but I think I'll put up a list of the criticisms that could be included and the sources that make them so we can decide which are the most relevant to put in the head section. In most cases I would not consider it important for this to be placed in the header, but the fact that PragerU portrays itself as an academic institution means that if a wide range of authoritative sources repudiate their academic integrity it is rather important that this is conveyed to people who are just briefly checking to see if PragerU is a reliable and authoritative source of information. Here are the most common criticisms that have been made:
 * Criticisms from all sources:
 * significant ideological, political & religious bias
 * flawed historical revisionism to support their ideology
 * significant misrepresentations of facts and concepts
 * Criticisms from most sources:
 * propagandistic teaching (pushing an ideological/political/religious agenda through education) (1245)
 * connection to alt-right and far-right groups and individuals, some appearing as speakers (125)
 * use of poor and biased sources (235)
 * (Brackets above show which sources discuss each issue)    I think including all of these in the header would be too much, I think the most relevant are probably the first three, but the propagandism seems quite relevant in the context of PragerU's self-characterisation as a source of education. To avoid imposing too much on the header section it could just be condensed down to "significant criticisms of their academic integrity" and then detail the separate points in the "Reception" section. Receiving any input on the content would be appreciated. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This looks like a promising way forward. I'm not seeing anything that might be OR. Thanks. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would oppose this being added to the lead. This is picking several sources and presenting it as if this were a general summary of what all others have said and those sources certainly aren't strong enough to be used in the article lead.  If a specific source has made a claim then it may be DUE (and some of these sources/concerns already exist in the article).  To treat these sources as generalized is problematic.  Tripodi's widely discussed paper linking is a white paper.  While it did come out of an academic source, it's methods and conclusions have been questioned by white paper with similar sourcing from a different academic (I will have to find the link, it was previously discussed on a talk page around here).  Media Matters and SPLC are biased sources and not considered DUE (or reliable?) for this sort of claim absent other RSs saying "this is what X said about Y".  MJ is already in the article but I've also pointed out that their summaries of several videos are misleading/misrepresent the contents of the videos.  This sort of generalized criticism/summary really needs to come from strong, RSs rather than weaker/activists/biased sources.  We also need to be careful to not conflate criticism with the facts in one/a few specific videos with all the information presented.  The body of the article already has a critical review section.  We should not make the lead a scarlet letter.  Springee (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree we need to be careful with those POV concerns, but we can always get a proposal together then take it to POVN. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If anybody has any input or opinions on how the wording could make it clear that this is "frequent criticism" as opposed to "universal criticism" that would be appreciated. Also Springee may want to read my prior comment explaining why relevance rather than lack of bias is the criteria for sources referenced for this type of information. It is very unusual for any academic institution to receive this type of criticism to this extent, so I think it is definitely notable enough that it should be included in the lead. It may be best if I just proposed a full sentence, receiving any feedback at all about the wording would be much appreciated: "PragerU has been frequently criticised, particularly from left-leaning sources, accusing the media company of flawed historical revisionism, propagandistic teaching style, and misrepresentation of facts and concepts." This should make it clear enough that the criticism is not universal, that there is at least some aspect of left-right politics to who is making the criticisms, and isn't too strongly stated by qualifying them as "accusations". I think the criticisms of bias can be left out because that can be assumed from context. The "connection to alt-right and far-right groups and individuals" could go in there, but I think that is a little less relevant and it should probably be kept short. And the "use of poor and biased sources" is also probably redundant due to context. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * particularly from left-leaning sources That's SYN/OR. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought it might be a good idea as a generalised attribution of sorts, but you're right about the SYN. Removing it does change the tone a little but here's an altered version: "PragerU has been frequently criticised for the content they produce, being accusing of flawed historical revisionism, propagandistic teaching style, and misrepresentation of facts and concepts." MasterTriangle12 (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is settled I'll add it in a couple of days. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is still not OK. The first problem is you can't say "widely criticized" or similar since you don't have a strong source(s) to back that claim.  Second, you really need to make sure the sources that are criticizing the videos are strong.  The current list is not.  Tripodi was most notable for the claim that some more mainstream sources (Dave Rubin etc) lead viewers down a rabbit hole that results in them becoming radicalized.  This paper was never peer reviewed and it's foundation disputed by another unreviewed academic paper by Kevin Munger (A Supply and Demand Framework for YouTube Politics, Kevin Munger & Joseph Pillips, Penn State Political Science).  So we need to be careful how we treat the Tripodi work since it has been challenged by other academics.  Media Matters is simply a weak source.  The American Conservative seems to have a specific issue, not a generalized issue and MJ's specific video criticisms can be shown to be misleading.  Simply put this is not sufficient sourcing to make sweeping generalized claims about all the videos and reactions to them.  Springee (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, very weak sourcing, I agree with Springee. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is poor, especially Media Matters. I third what is saying about this.Eruditess (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had already changed the wording from "widely criticised" to "frequently criticised" to steer clear of any implication of generalisation or consensus which would be WP:SYN. The paper by Kevin Munger is a critique of analysts who frame the youtube recommendation algorithm as the primary driving force sucking viewers into a bubble of extreme or far-right content, a point which is not made in Tripodi's paper so I do not see how anyone could consider it to have "challenged" Tripodi's work. As for MediaMatters, I read through many of the archived discussions and the way it is being referenced in contexts like this is fine since they are not being referenced for a factual claim they are making but rather for their commentary, and they are notable enough that their commentary is relevant, but if someone would like to re-evaluate this justification with at least some detail then please go ahead. Since the criticism is so frequent there are many sources that we could choose from, but there are enough already in the article, here's a couple more from there that I missed: I feel like we might as well include all of them since from this discussion it seems this is something that needs very extensive sourcing, although the point about The American Conservative being less relevant does make sense since it only has the specific criticisms about historical revisionism. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Anything else? If anyone is still uncomfortable with the sourcing it would be good to provide some reasoning, like Springee did. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's been added now. I still think the tone of the word "propagandistic" could be a little strong this usage. The meaning of the word reflects the criticisms accurately, but the negative connotations of the word go beyond it's meaning, so I think a different wording with softer connotations could be an improvement. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why did you add this when it was clear that there isn't consensus for it and your sourcing is problematic? Certainly just dumping a bunch of links doesn't help people verify which claim each link is meant to support.  This is compounded by the rather broad claim you are trying to make here.  Furthermore, the lead should be a summary of the body.  It's not clear what part of the article body you are trying to summarize.  Do the claims you make apply to all their videos or is it just a few that are widely criticized?  Remember they have something like a few hundred videos.  This is a poor add and should be removed.  Springee (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's problematic, and was surprised it was added given the discussion so far. --Hipal (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right about it not summarizing the body directly enough, that was neglectful, I'll roll it back until I've added some of the relevant info to the body. Could you explain why you think the sourcing is problematic? It would be good to know what you thought was wrong with my previous refutations. The only deficiencies I could see so far that makes sense is in calling the criticism "frequent" which could be considered synthesis, or maybe a lack of notability of the sources? Is that what you meant by problematic? And the complaints were about the conduct of the media company and the content they produce as a whole, not any particular video(s), although some sources do point out flaws with particular videos. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the self revert. I think my sourcing concerns are largely the same as above as well as the concern that you are taking criticisms that are often of specific videos and then expanding that into a view that most/all their videos are criticized as such. If the article lead is going to say something about generalized criticism I think we need a source that says as much. We do have a bit of a dumping ground for criticism of various videos already but again that's more focused on specific videos. As for the sources, SPLC shouldn't be cited directly. If other sources say "SPLC said X" then that is OK, but in general we don't see SLPC claims as having weight unless a RS reports the claim. MJ is generally a reliable source but as I said before, in this particular case they are using misleading summarizes of some of the videos to the point that I feel the article shouldn't be considered reliable or at least reliable for those specific claims. The AC seems to have only a beef with one video and mostly due to the presenter, not PragerU videos in general. MediaMaters isn't considered a quality source. The Tripodi work needs to be handled careful as it isn't peer reviewed. The general conclusion that "alt-light" sources lead people to alt-right views is challenged and the specific opinions about PragerU weren't the primary focus of the paper and aren't why it was viewed as notable. Really, I think if you want to make these generalized statements about PragerU we need sources that say about the same thing. We can't bundle a bunch of specific criticisms and decide we have enough to call it generalized. That runs afoul of synthesis. Springee (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think your analysis of the sources is flawed in many ways, but I think you are right about the passage I was adding not being sourced properly, particularly because of the rather controversial nature of the topic. My main intention in adding the passage was to notify a casual reader of the rather significant criticisms of the way in which the media company sources and presents information. I'm opposed to the idea of Wikipedia giving more weight than is due to criticism, but if an entity is presenting itself as an "educational institution" then widespread imputation of their reliability is a rather significant fact that needs to be prominently presented. So what would you suggest as a way to convey this? I really don't like the idea of just making a sentence for each critic since that would dedicate to much of the article to criticism, but what I was doing was probably a bit too generalised. I think crafting a slightly longer passage in the "reception" section with less generalities could be better, and then if there is a tidy way to condense it then we could consider placing something in the introduction. How do people feel about that, and does anybody have some input on what to write? Also, how do people feel about the basic premise of what I am doing? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that a list of specific video criticisms is often problematic. We have no way to judge which of those specific video criticisms are due for the higher level topic that is PragerU vs which are simply something an editor found and thus included.  So is a criticism of video #X really DUE at a higher level.  It may be if many RSs said the video was a problem but probably not if just one op-ed said the presentation was misleading even if the basic facts weren't false.  These lists also doesn't really tell readers if this is say 10 out of 500 (I think that was the number of videos) that people aren't happy with or if these 10 (my number for argument sake) are actually representative of say 30%, 50% or 100% of the videos produced.  That is where/why we need RSs to make those more generalized claims for us.  Ideally that should be a neutral RS since claims of misrepresenting can often be subjective (look at many criticisms of fact checkers as an example).  Springee (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you may be mis-understanding the point here. Despite the flaws in many videos, the sources I was referencing were not focussed on a critique of particular videos but of the mission of the company and the nature of it's content, which they characterised as not seeking to provide a rounded education but to persuade the viewer to adopt a particular ideology, something which is antithetical to the self-image the company tries to create as being a source of education. This is important because PragerU is heavily advocating for the usage of their material in schools, and if a significant portion of those reviewing PragerU consider their mission to be significantly propagandistic then this is an important thing to know, especially if somebody is checking whether their content is suitable for education. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which sources in particular are saying that. I wouldn't use such claims if they come from something like Mediamatters or the Tripodi report (effectively a white paper since it has no peer review).  I think the wiki article is clear that the videos try to present things from a conservative POV.  We would need a very robust source to say they are doing this through misleading or deceptive means.  Springee (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did a summary of some of the sources and the points each one makes earlier, misleading presentation and severe bias were both common ones. The LATimes and NYTimes also support some of them but are much more reserved in their wording, it may be best if any addition had such reserved wording. You may want to read the sources to get a better idea of what they say. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I might come back to this one some other time, I'm not really getting any feedback at all other than "source bad" with no or poor reasoning, it feels a bit disingenuous. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what additional feedback you are looking for. The sources that seem to say what you want are lower quality.  The better sources don't say what you want.  Additionally the lead needs to follow the body.  Adding this content to the lead first isn't the way it should be done (of course it happens that way frequently).  The sort of broad brush summary you are trying to add requires solid sourcing which you don't have.  Springee (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The problems with sources Springee raised were mostly irrelevant or were refuted with no follow-up. The only standing problems were of not enough of the content being present in the body which was the most useful feedback in the entire section, and possibly a synthesis problem that I raised myself, although that only applied to generalised wordings. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problems with sources Springee raised... It's not just Springee raising them, and I don't see much progress. --Hipal (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

UNDUE Douglas Murray content
Noteduck, your expansion of the Murray video content is UNDUE here[]. This appears to be a direct copy of the content you are pushing into the Douglas Murray (author) article[]. Perhaps this would be a good time to rework that material but any more than a sentence or two is too much give the scope of this article isn't Murray or Islam. Springee (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What would your amended paragraph on the subject look like? Given that you have responses from luminaries of the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League specifically discuss this video, it clearly made quite a splash. Do you think the paragraph should be shortened, or removed completely? Noteduck (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's start with a clean up and removal of claims not supported by sources. I've copied the text you created below.  You have some good stuff here so this isn't a case of throw it all out.  It needs a better topic sentence as well as not citing Sludge back to back.  Ideally a single source shouldn't appear in the references twice.  It can be used many times but with only a single citation.  Since the number of views is transitory that information should be excluded.

A 2018 video produced for PragerU by Douglas Murray titled "The Suicide of Europe" led to considerable media discussion and controversy. The video, which has thus far received 7.4 million views on PragerU's website, drew criticism for purportedly "evok[ing] the common white nationalist trope of white genocide with its rhetoric of 'suicide' and 'annihilation'. Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism Mark Pitcavage said that there was "almost certainly prejudice in the video" and that it was "filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric". Similarly, the Southern Poverty Law Center described the video as a "dog whistle to the extreme right", while Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times argued that the video "echoed some of the talking points of the alt-right".


 * The opening sentence contains subjective content not supported by the rest of the paragraph. "Considerable media discussion and controversy" is your WP:OR, not from the sources.  Also, since this is the PragerU article there is no reason to say the video was produced by PragerU.  Since this is the opening sentence we should tell the readers what the video content is before saying what others said about it.  Perhaps an opening sentence like this:
 * A 2018 video by Douglas Murray argued that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate[cite LA Times article]. The article was criticized as supporting a white genocide narrative and being anti-Islam and anti-immigration[cite sludge - bridge just repeats sludge so the it isn't a useful citation].  The video was also seen as echoing extreme-right and alt-right talking points [cite SPLC and LA Times].  
 * This cleans up the text, keeps the points in place and helps the reader understand what the video is before we tell them why it was criticized. Springee (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee, I'd prefer that the we keep the in-text attributions that your proposal removes. Did you have a reason for pulling those out? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The primary intent was to streamline the text. I felt like it reads awkwardly when you have too many X of the Y Institute say Z about A vs Z was said about A.  However, I don't see a huge issue with keeping them.  What about:
 * A 2018 video by Douglas Murray argued that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate[cite LA Times article]. The article was criticized as supporting a white genocide narrative[sludge]. Mark Pitcavage, a fellow at the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism, said the video contained anti-Islam and anti-immigration rhetoric[cite sludge]. The SPLC said the video included far-right dog whistles[cite SPLC]. 
 * That restores the specific attributions. Springee (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the changes I made to the paragraph here [] were discussed above. Why did you revert them including restoring a number of double citations?  Other than cleaning up the paragraph text, the content was nearly identical.  The bulk of the reduction of edit bites was simply due to replacing the redundant citations with links to those already in the article.  At this point the changes you made don't have consensus.  Per wp:NOCON we can come to a consensus version of the edit or revert to the long standing stable text.  Springee (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

the new, shortened paragraph that you added was clumsily worded to say the least. In the current paragraph, there are 4.5 sources: I think the references to all are due and I don't think you can remove any of them or shorten the paragraph any further without compromising its quality. If none of the information is contested, why not leave the paragraph the way it is? Noteduck (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * LA Times
 * SPLC - which thankfully you no longer seem to regard as "self-published"
 * Bridge Initiative - which thankfully you no longer seem to regard as "self-published"
 * Sludge
 * +.5 of a source - Mark Pitcavage in Sludge
 * In the updated paragraph the only removed source was Bridge Initiative. It is redundant since the relevant content comes from BI citing the Sludge article.  If source B is just citing source A and we have source A in the article then common practice is to not include B.  Also, BI's status as a secondary source was not resolved.  The Pitcavage material is not a second source.  It is not sourced to an ADL publication.  It is simply an interview in a story which makes it sourced to Sludge alone.   The updated text was better in large part because it started by telling the reader objectively what The video was about and then offering the assessments.  Springee (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee, delete the reference to the Bridge Initiative if you want. The direct quotes are all quite critical to getting a sense of the specific objections these sources had to the Murray video. Unless you have further rebuttals please leave the text of the paragraph unchanged Noteduck (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The direct quotes are not needed. It comes across as trying to insert "sound bites" rather than summarize which is what we are supposed to do.  You are welcome to contributed by looking at the changes I've proposed above vs what you created and suggest otherwise to harmonize them but the current text in the article should be fixed.  We should at least agree that any citation which already exists in the PragerU article should not be duplicated.  The next part is the LA Times reference should be first since it summarizes the video content.  The other sources can go after as they contain the bulk of the criticism.  It makes for a more logical presentation of the information.  Springee (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * each and every other example of a "critique of a video" from this page utilizes direct quotes. There are three sources in this paragraph (as distinct from one source in each other paragraph) and this material is all important. I'm also somewhat concerned that you have followed me over from the Murray page and are dedicating yourself to contesting my edits without proposing any positive content of your own. Unless you have further rebuttals please refrain from deleting without justification Noteduck (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My first edit to this article/talk page was September 2019. It has been on my watch list since that time.  Springee (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

new proposal
I'm following the WP:BRD process here; I reverted to the original version of the text so we can work out a consensus here. Here's Noteduck's last version:

I agree with Springee that (i) this is awkwardly written, (ii) the Bridge reference is redundant, and (iii) this version does not summarize the video at all. I would add that the claim about "white genocide" needs to be attributed to Kotch if it is to be included. However, I don't see why a remark from Kotch is WP:DUE in the article, so I think it should not be included. Also, the reference to the LAT piece inaccurately quotes Halper. On review of his piece, I cannot tell that Halper means to cite Murray's video (rather than just D'Souza's) as an example of a video that echoes "some of the movement’s talking points" (that's the accurate quote), so this has to come out in my opinion. In light of these issues, I propose this:

Shinealittlelight (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Shinealittlelight, that's a silly argument. This is the paragraph from the LA Times:

Prager says he disavows the alt-right ideology that has gained ground in the Trump era, but the online lessons often echo some of the movement’s talking points. "A video of Dinesh D’Souza, the right-wing author, opining on why Western cultures are superior to others has been viewed 4.7 million times, for example.

Another, featuring Douglas Murray, the British author of several books about Europe and immigration, laments that North African and Middle Eastern immigrants have been permitted to destroy European culture by refusing to assimilate. It has 6.7 million views." The clear implication is that both the D'Souza and Murray videos echo alt-right talking points. Why remove material when we don't need to? How about the paragraph start with: "'A 2018 video hosted by Douglas Murray that displayed the purported negative consequences of immigration to Europe titled 'The Suicide of Europe' drew criticism for...'" I don't get what your objection to the Kotch quote is at all. Here you have three separate articles with the added weight of an expert from the Anti-Defamation League criticizing PragerU's video in very harsh terms, encapsulated in three short sentences - I'm not sure how you can argue any of that is not due Noteduck (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

What is "due" for PragerU's page
I'm seeing a repeated pattern where material is being deleted from PragerU's page on the basis of undue weight. This seems to be mostly the work of Shinealittlelight and Springee, who appear to have been doing this for a while. Material related to the video on Robert E. Lee and the videos hosted by Douglas Murray and Owen Benjamin. My question is - if a reputed media or academic source criticizes a video made by PragerU, what grounds do you have for excluding the material? The brief paragraph under "critiques of videos" about the Douglas Murray "Suicide of Europe" video includes three respected sources and comprises three short sentences. What grounds are there for excluding any of this?

Shinealittlelight, you wrote the following comments about the PragerU page on your talk page in November 2019:

"Now if you really want to see a revert, you should add a positive conservative opinion of Prager U to the reception section, which is now reserved for critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)"

I think this demonstrates that you are struggling to view the source impartially, and should perhaps step back from editing this page. You also describe yourself as a "reasonable conservative" (19 May 2019) in discussion with an editor who seems to perceive Wikipedia as full of leftist bias. It seems that you keep a kind of watch over this page, but I think it's best to engage with your own biases first. Noteduck (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have had issues with this also. I made the assumption that the deletions and the immediate jump to policy lawyering was done in good faith, but after watching for a while it seems I was naïve. Some particular issues are the offhanded rejection of reputable sources and overreaching interpretation of the WP:DUE policy, but overall there seems to be an attempt to create WP:FALSEBALANCE by excluding negative content. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * MasterTriangle12 I just went over this talk page and I realized how egregious the problem with pro-Prager bias is on this page. In 2018, PragerU made several videos made by the "comedian" Owen Benjamin, later revealed to be a holocaust denier. This was written about by:

Individually these might not be due but with the three of them taken together, the deletion of this material looks like egregious pro-Prager bias. I don't understand how Prager platforming a controversial speaker who turned out to be a holocaust denier, then removing his videos, could not be due weight. I'll leave it open to the floor but I think this is quite overt right wing bias Noteduck (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Business Insider
 * Jewish Telegraph Agency
 * Media Matters for America


 * Repeating what I wrote above: editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.
 * First, we need to agree on the quality of the references. Then we can look into how noteworthy and due the information from those references are. --Hipal (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of part of the problem, all that is given is rejection of sources and content, and any debate about the validity of these decisions comes only from the contributor and is barely even engaged with by these complainants. It would seem that the policies and processes of WP are being misused and misinterpreted without the backing of reasoned argument in order to exclude certain content in furtherance of an editorial bias. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Content policy starts with reliable sources. If we can't agree to that, then we'll quickly be heading to enforcement of the sanctions that apply here. --Hipal (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can all agree that there is one high quality journalistic source here (JTA) and two of mixed quality. One high quality source and two mixed quality sources - which have not been deprecated by any means - discussing a controversy about a PragerU video certainly seems due weight. If this is not "due", then I don't understand how any material on this page is Noteduck (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, the JTA ref is the worst of the three. --Hipal (talk) 23:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, why? Is it that you don't regard the Jewish Telegraph Agency as an RS? Or because the piece is marked 'opinion'? Or some other reason? Noteduck (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking. Yes, because it's a clearly identified opinion piece, as explained in WP:RSEDITORIAL. --Hipal (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the contention that opinion columns are completely off-limits for inclusion? This is what I can see on the WP:RSEDITORIAL page:

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news).[6]

When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.[notes 2] If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact. Reviews for books, movies, art, etc. can be opinion, summary or scholarly pieces.[7][8]"

Have a look at the author Bethany Mandel's portfolio on Muck Rack - she's actually quite esteemed. Here she is in the NY Times and The Atlantic. So I'm not sure if I'd call her a "specialist or recognized expert" but she certainly is an experienced journalist writing in a high-quality publication (feel free to make a counter-argument on the quality of JTA if you wish). This is backed by the Media Matters for America source and the Business Insider source, which are two fairly mediocre sources. The JTA article is a detailed exposition of Benjamin's beliefs and ideology. The author reached Benjamin for comment and spoke to some of his supporters, which is a level of professionalism absent from a lot of opinion journalism. In other words, this is not just an anti-Owen Benjamin or anti-Prager spray. I see one good source here backed by two mediocre ones, which I think is surely enough to establish due weight. Of course the material should not be written in Wiki's voice, but "X expressed concern about PragerU's platforming of Owen Benjamin, who later expressed support for white supremacism and holocaust denial" hardly seems undue on this page Noteduck (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)