Talk:PragerU/Archive 6

Climate change 29 April edits
, I have an issue with this recent edit []. This is content that should be presented as an attributed POV. First, the source as reported by The Independent is InfluenceMap. I don't see that the article supports claims that the PragerU videos "lie about the scientific consensus" etc. I think this one where we have to be careful to stick to the content that is clearly supported by the source. Additionally, we need to be careful because if a specific ad is identified as "lying" it would mean we are saying the presenter (likely a BLP subject) is lying. Anyway, as the edit stands I think it should be removed. Is there a way to fix it rather than just remove it? Springee (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Yes, yet another information-free "slam" characterization by a political opponent of PragerU getting put into the article. Why not write an informative article instead? In this case, remove that and find some real analysis of what PragerU has specifically said about climate change. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because something is plainly obvious from primary sources doesn't mean you can just grab any secondary source that mentions it. Even the study cited in the article doesn't include nearly enough specific details about PU's activities. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Support without attribution We're talking about statements of fact published in a news report by a reliable source, which wouldn't normally require attribution. If folks have reason to believe that The Independent published false information or is otherwise unreliable in this specific case, they should raise those concerns at WP:RSN. We've established that reliable sources do not need to "show their work" or provide specific examples to support their statements as would be expected of an academic paper. The "POV" here appears to be in support of the scientific consensus on climate change, which is the mainstream view that we should be reflecting in our articles. I see no sign of "political opponents" here, could you please elaborate on what you meant by that? –dlthewave ☎ 02:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Dlthewave, I think the problem here revolves around WP:V and IMPARTIAL. Certainly per ONUS some questions need to be answered before including this content.  First, The Independent attributes the claims/views/etc to a third party, InfluenceMap.  If they aren't going to put the statements in the voice of the news paper there is no way we should put them in Wiki voice.  Second, there is the question of WP:V.  It's not clear that this a reasonable summary of the content in the article.  For example, which passages support statements like "lie about the scientific consensus".  That brings up a third point, can we reasonably say that "lie about" is WP:IMPARTIAL?  To be clear, I am not saying this article from The Independent isn't (or to what extent it is) a RS for discussions about PragrU and the environment.  I am saying that this source doesn't support the specific text in question. Springee (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just took a brief look through the climate change vids that were noted in the study and article, as well as a few other PU vids on the topic. Their content on the topic seems to be so consistently and brazenly false that any claim of climate change denialism could be WP:V from primary source alone since there are not any alternate interpretations of the content they produce. Whether the language of "lie" is appropriate is a little dubious though, "lie" implies that PU presenters understand that what they are saying is false, which is a rare thing to find a direct source for, but then again an "educational" content producer should be expected to have made some effort to research what they are talking about and the specific point of scientific consensus is not something that you can get wrong without some serious effort. I'm not sure which way to go on that point, I wouldn't complain if "lie" were exchanged for softer language. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the "lie" sentence, since it was a quote from Senator Whitehouse and the previous sentence says essentially the same thing with better wording. The rest appears to be directly supported by the source, meeting WP:V. –dlthewave ☎ 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That helps quite a bit. I added an attribution to InfluenceMap since that attribution was part of the source article.  Springee (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee I'm surprised to see you bring this up. I worked to add material related to climate change misinformation to this page months ago and you fought tooth and nail to prevent any of it getting added, showing a total disregard for WP:BOLD and our usual editorial process, as other editors noted. There is so much material related to climate change misinformation and PragerU - see       plus Springee, you are currently facing a WP:AE hearing on the basis of tendentious editing. If you are having difficulties following editorial policy, it might be best to listen to others more rather than assume you know all the answers Noteduck (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Noteduck, I believe other editors,, for example, also were concerned about your edits. You are confusing concerns regarding specific edits with content in general.  We had a large RfC which should have put much of this to bed.  Please stick to the topic and avoid focusing on editors.  Springee (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee, if you're referring to this RfC, I don't see anything that would apply to this content. –dlthewave ☎ 13:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Noteduck's generalized comment above. You are correct, that specific RfC doesn't weigh into the content being discussed here.  Springee (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Mmm, this discussion went pretty reasonably, whether or not that editor criticism is needed elsewhere I don't think we need it here. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW "Climate change" has zillions of possible meanings and thus just as many ways for a political opponent to claim that someone is denying it. I think that the core definition, and the part that has strong consensus amongst scientists is that there is a global temperature rise caused by human activities and that it has impacts and will have increasing impacts. I looked at the PargerU youtube climate change videos and saw no denial of that. When you go further than that, you move into areas where this is no such strong scientific consensus. And then you can go further than that on how strong and what type of measures to take, there is no consensus. What I saw in the Prager videos was questioning all of the latter items plus various things said by non-scientists in the discourse on the topic. While I would disagree with the inferences in about half of what they said on those things, either way it involves things that do not have the scientific consensus that the basic tenets of global warming have. I wish we could find and use sources that analyze their videos vs. ones that just put out their characterizations. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Have any reliable sources said that? If not, then I'm sorry but we really don't care about your personal analysis of the videos or vague claims about political opponents. We have a reliable source describing it as misinformation; if you don't think it's reliable, take it to RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your post seems to miss the last sentence of my post. I was suggesting, for article quality, to find sources that do more in depth analysis and coverage of their climate change-related videos and materials. The material before that was to give a basis for that suggestion. North8000 (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Climate Feedback, Reuters and The Hill cover some of specific claims if that's what you're looking for. –dlthewave ☎ 22:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Climate Feedback is a RS. It shouldn't be attributed as if it were attributedpov. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted your attribution of Climate Feedback. Do you have a specific reason why this source wouldn't be reliable to state this fact in wiki voice? –dlthewave ☎ 22:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Climate Feedback is offering an opinion/analysis and such claims should be attributed. In that case there were several citations but all were to the same source.  Climate Feedback may be reliable but they aren't a news organization, rather they are a source.  Since this is their assessment it should be attributed. Springee (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? We're talking about the facts of climate science here, not opinions. When did we decide that analysis needs to be attributed? –dlthewave ☎ 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First, this is a recent addition so I want to make it clear there isn't a consensus version of the text. Second, if you look at the RSN discussions of Climate Feedback a number of editors felt it was something like a blog with very high standards.  I don't see any issue with the standards but it isn't a news source nor is it multiple news sources so it's best to attribute this claim.  Springee (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * "it isn't a news source nor is it multiple news sources so it's best to attribute this claim" I've never heard that before, is this a policy/guideline or even a common practice? Or is it a rule that you've made up? –dlthewave ☎ 23:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Dlthewave, please review the RSN discussions. The feeling is the source is reliable but it is being treated as something like SPLC, the views of experts.  Consensus has been clear that SPLC should be attributed.  This is an analogous case.  Why do you feel attribution is an issue?  Springee (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That attribution standard is specific to the SPLC, it's not a requirement for all expert views and I don't see this as analogous at all. Climate change is a hard science where experts are able to objectively identify misinformation; this isn't a political issue where they might hold different viewpoints or disagree on the facts. I did read the discussions and although there were a few dissenting views, there seems to be rough consensus that this is a reliable source and the authors are experts who would be usable as SPS in their own right. What is it about this specific instance that would make attribution necessary? –dlthewave ☎ 23:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * We attribute expert opinions. Why not in this case? Springee (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You say "we attribute expert opinions" as if that's an established fact, but I would say it's decided case-by-case. I've given my perspective on why it's not needed here (this is more of a factual finding than a subjective opinion). Your blanket argument isn't particularly helpful since it's not rooted in policy or practice; could you elaborate on your reasoning in this instance? –dlthewave ☎ 00:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * CF is not a news source. It is in effect an expert opinion.  We treat the opinion as reliable but WP:RSOPINON still comes into play.  If you review the discussions of this source they are saying this is site where experts weigh in on claims.  In addition to that we need to look at the claim being made.  This isn't a case where PragerU says, "average temperature rise is 1.4*", experts say 2.4.  To be honest, we aren't even summarizing the source very well when we say "promote false claims" then provide these 4 citations.  Two of the citations only say "misleading", two say "incorrect" which could be called false.  However, one is about polar bears so it's less climate change vs impact.  Again, the best option is to say who is making the claim. Again I ask, why is attribution an issue?  Springee (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I replaced "false" with "inaccurate and misleading" per the sources. These characterizations look pretty solid to me; they present PragerU's opinion alongside scientific evidence regarding CO2 emissions, global climate change patterns, threats to polar bear populations and climate models. The experts are discussing the scientific consensus, not their own viewpoints/opinions.
 * It may not be the intent, but attribution can cast unnecessary doubt on a statement, as if it may not be factual or accurate. When I see an attributed statement, I ask "Why didn't they say that in their own voice? What's wrong with it?" Is this the impression we want to give here?
 * Could you explain exactly how WP:RSOPINION would apply here? That's for "sources (that) may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact." Climate Feedback is reliable for statements of fact, so I'm not sure why that guideline would be relevant. –dlthewave ☎ 01:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the changes you made. We are clearly going round and round.  We can see what others have to say.  Springee (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * RS doesn't mean attribution isn't needed. Springee (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it does mean that we'd better have a good reason. –dlthewave ☎ 23:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The statement "PragerU's videos promote inaccurate and misleading claims about climate change" can be presented as a statement of fact in wiki voice. It could be sourced directly to PU's videos since it debatably doesn't require analysis that would be OR, but it makes more sense to source it to an article discussing the point in detail. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

There is so much latitude in what could be called "promote inaccurate and misleading claims" that IMO it is a content-free opinion-type statement, best left out and instead find a source that provides analysis. Particularly since it appears that PragerU has not disputed the core tenets of climate change. This is a matter of article quality more than whether or not inclusion is prohibited by policy. IMO if kept in it should be attributed. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Climate Feedback does do a good job of explaining their summaries. Unlike say Politifact, CF's analysis of the claims is rather through.  That said, this they are a fact checking organization and I agree that this is a very open ended statement.  I think including the CF analysis is reasonable but a bit more detail would help.  Perhaps instead of "According to", we could introduce it as "The climate fact checking website, Climate Feedback, analyzed four videos and found their claims to be inaccurate or misleading."  This should address the concern about attribution implying issues with accuracy.  It also says specifically what they did.  This wasn't a general assessment but an assessment of specific videos.  Springee (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it would serve both objectives to put some of their specifics in. North8000 (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * North8000 Have you read any of the sources or watched any of the PU content? PU regularly rejects some of the most basic findings and predictions of climate science, although the portion of science that is rejected does change with each video. It would be good to put some specifics in for context but the statement of promoting misinformation doesn't require attribution. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Well said. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * MasterTriangle12 As I mentioned above, I watched all of their climate change videos that they have on their youtube channel. Nothing more, nothing less. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Part of why we should have attribution in this case is because the specific claims are all pointing to a single fact checking website (an admittedly good one). If we have a wide range of sources saying the same thing then we can say something like "PragerU has been widely criticized for XYZ [cite multiple, independent sources]".  What we can not do is review the videos ourselves and then decide that we agree with the views of a single source thus claims that a subject is misleading etc can be put in Wikipedia voice.  I think it is one thing to say a specific fact is incorrect (X climate agreement was signed in the year Y).  It's another to say, "the content of this video is misleading".  Does that mean every single statement is misleading?  "The contents of this video are false."  Does that mean even the name of the presenter is false?  I understand this is taking things to the extreme but this is why we attribute.  One of the PragerU videos is by Richard Lindzen.  Lindzen appears to be outspoken on some aspects of climate change but his CV certainly suggests he is well versed on the subject.  Are we going to say in Wiki voice that he is misleading or incorrect?  If this were his article we would certainly make sure such statements were attributed to the fact checking source as this becomes a battle of experts. Springee (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Would "PragerU's videos promote inaccurate and misleading claims about climate change" be an improvement over "the content of this video is misleading"? –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we need to say who is making the statement. We can say it in active voice so it doesn't come across as trying to downplay the source.  "Climate Feedback found that PragerU videos on climate change were misleading and contained incorrect facts".  Springee (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I agree active voice is more appropriate than an "according to..." statement. –dlthewave ☎ 03:40, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not "a battle of experts" as Springee says, though. The scientific consensus is clear. It doesn't matter if we as editors determine that a climate scientist (who is an outlier in his criticism) has an "adequate CV", and who then appears in PragerU videos is "misleading or incorrect". This is not how Wikipedia does things, and this is a ridiculous line of argument to even entertain. We're talking about PragerU, not individual personalities who appear in videos bundled with a number of other misrepresentations of the science.
 * If we're trying to determine how to describe the subject, we describe them as reliable sources describe them. In this case, the subject is PragerU, not talking heads in individual videos. We're not talking about Lindzen. This is a red herring, and I'm more than a bit surprised that this is being used as line of argument, and even more surprised that experienced Wikipedians are actually taking the bait. There are several reliable sources that similarly describe PragerU's messaging this way, and they aren't limited to the single fact-checking source that was emphasized. Please, stick to RS, and let's stop moving goalposts. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I think we have addressed the article level issue. Based on your comments I think you are zooming out and arguing the "against scientific consensus on climate change".  But that is a very broad term and isn't an accurate summary of what was discussed/disputed in the specific videos.  The CF links were analyzing 4 specific videos and saying what they felt was wrong in each.  For example this discussion doesn't say anything about denying climate change [] rather it talks about polar bear populations.  In the case of Lindzen, we don't a response to the arguments made by CF so this is currently a one sided debate.  But I mentioned Lindzen has a CV that suggests he is an expert, he does.  He was a full professor at MIT in a field that would specifically study atmospheric behavior and weather etc.  If you knew nothing of his positions on this topic it would be easy to say his credentials establish him as an expert in the field.  Now look at the credentials of the 3 researchers who argued against Lindzen, a prof at U of New South Wales, and  Assistant Professor, San Jose State University and a postdoc at University of Antwerp.  Based on cedentials this isn't a conservative talk show host vs established scientists.  That doesn't mean Lindzen is right, only that this should be treated more like a debate between experts which gets back to why I say attribution is needed.  This isn't moving goal posts.  We do the same when we use other fact checking websites to say things like a politician's claims were wrong.  It's part of being IMPARTIAL.  Springee (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The "polar bear populations are increasing" claim is one of the typical denialist talking points, one which is supposed to show that negative consequences are not as bad as non-denialist scientists say. So, yes, it is about one of the forms of climate change denial.
 * As soon as we start comparing scientific cock length, we have fallen into the denialist trap. Lindzen is one of a handful of climatologists denialist outlets will use, out of thousands. See cherry picking. The other side can ask pretty much anybody, with the same result. Demanding a response to the response does not make any sense: Wikipedia requires secondary sources, not tertiary ones.
 * Opinions of scientists, like Lindzen's, are not a source of truth. They are a source of bias. Scientific methods, be it double-blinding or peer review, were made specifically to prevent scientists' opinions from influencing the results of studies too much. Only dishonest amateurs with an agenda pick the one scientist out of thousands which says what they want to hear. What Climate Feedback writes here is not their opinion. They quote sources for it. Lindzen is wrong. Not wrong according to somebody. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your polar bear comment misses the point. It doesn't argue that climate change isn't happening.  I can accept based on CF's statements but was the polar bear claim meant to imply there is no climate change or was it meant to claim our response is disproportionate/not cost effective?  I might argue electric cars are not a cost effective way to deal with climate change.  That doesn't mean I'm right but it also doesn't mean I'm denying a consensus on climate change.  As for Lindzen, I agree, a simple CV measure isn't proof and we do have experiments to test ideas.  However, it would be naive to assume every test, every experiment has a clear, binary output.  Its a red herring to say opinions of scientists are not a source of truth.  No one has said they are.  Regardless, this is effectively a fact check by experts who, at least in some cases, are disagreeing with other experts.  Hence, attribution.  Springee (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My polar bear comment does not miss the point. Read Climate change denial: Impact sceptics or deniers (who think global warming is harmless or even beneficial). Your opinion about electric cars, on the other hand, does miss the point, as that false polar-bear-populations-are-increasing rumor is only spread by denialists, in order to deny the fact that climate change harms the polar bears. Bjørn Lomborg may not have started it, but he was one the first who used it.
 * You are trying to paint this as an experts-disagree situation, which it is not. Lindzen is wrong, and Climate Feedback tells us why, in what way, how we know that, and where we can check it. Attribution is not needed. That is the way Wikipedia handles such situations according to WP:FRINGE: there is someone selling a fringe position in an unreliable source, and there is a Reliable Source correcting him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your polar bear comment did miss the point. Arguing about the impact to the climate is not the same as denying the climate change consensus.  You are saying Lindzen isn't an expert in the field, based on what evidence?  Has MIT said his work was fraudulent or has since been retracted?  Regardless, I don't think this is a productive discussion so I will drop out now.  Springee (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody said that one type of climate change denial is the same as climate change denial in gfeneral. I did not say Lindzen isn't an expert in the field either. Where do you get that crazy claim I said that? Where does "fraudulence" suddenly come from? You are right about one point: your straw men are not productive, and it is a great idea to stop inventing them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

"Climate change" can refer to 1000's of different things and related claims and assessments. The core tenet which is also a scientific tenet and one accepted by a consensus of scientists is that there is a human-caused global temperature rise which has impacts and which will have increasing impacts. It is incorrect to include something that implies PragerU challenged this when they didn't, and the vague statement in there does that. It can be easily solved by instead including specific findings from the analysis of the PragerU videos. North8000 (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not about "Climate change", it is about "Climate change denial", which refers to only a handful of things, some of which PragerU engages in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought it was implied in my post. Challenging any of the 1,000 things could be called "climate change denial" even when there is no denial of the core climate change tenet. North8000 (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Could be called theoretically, but are not. Climate change denial is never, for instance, about denying the massive changes in climate which occurred at the end of the Permian. It is always about those changes which are happening right now and which are caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and it is always motivated by the desire to protect the energy market from attempts to protect the climate from the energy market. Read Climate change denial. Or better: Read the whole article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like quite a leap, "and it is always motivated by the desire to protect the energy market from attempts to protect the climate from the energy market". There are many reasons why someone may not agree with some aspect of climate change and perhaps more importantly, the political outcomes associated with climate change. That doesn't mean they are looking out for EXXON et al. Springee (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Many reasons why someone may, theoretically (again). But if you look who spreads the false rumors, it is always someone working for, or someone closely connected with, a free-market think tank, or for pro-free-market mass media such as the Wall Street Journal, or a Republican politician who likes free markets a lot, or some fan of one of those. And if you follow where the false rumors are invented, it's the free-market think tanks and that same handful of scientists, each of which has ties to several of them: Singer, Singer, Singer, Seitz, Seitz, Seitz, Lindzen, Lindzen, Lindzen, Lomborg, Lomborg, Lomborg, and a few others, working with Cato, Cato, Cato, Free Enterprise, Free Enterprise, Free Enterprise, CO2 Coalition, CO2 Coalition, CO2 Coalition, and a few others. You are also someone who should read the whole article Climate change denial. Even better: Read Oreskes' book. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that such a broad discussion (motivations etc.) is useful here. To sum up the core item relevant here, the common meaning of "climate change denial"  is the unreasonable denial of the core tenet of climate change.  But it could also be used for a lot of other things, many of them much more reasonable.  IMO a statement based on the latter that is so vague that it implies that they challenged the core tenet (which they didn't) is not a good thing to put in here.  Instead, more coverage of the specifics of what the sources that analyzed them said would be much better. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this concern. Perhaps expanding this from a single sentence to two or so which could provide more detail as to the specific disputed claims.  Springee (talk) 18:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this is not about a single RS criticising PragerU's record of climate change denial, it's about a bevy of sources making this claim, none of which Springee has engaged with   plus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you were following the topic in question you would see it is. You have conflated a larger topic with a specific sentence.  Springee (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But the situation is the same in the other cases too. There is not need to repeat the same discussion for every other source, we should make this a discussion about all the sources. We always say "This RS says PragerU propagates climate change denial". You are trying to use your own WP:OR definition of climate change denial to make the source go away, and we tell you this is not how it works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , well, up to a point. Climate change denial is believed by large numbers of people who are not themselves motivated by the desire to protect the fossil fuel industry, but only because the fossil fuel industry has paid a vast sum of money to have them brainwashed. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Probably half off topic here, but IMO the three top reasons are as an (easiest & indirect) way to oppose proposed measures, treaties etc., and also, like everything else in the US, to follow the dictums of whichever political side in the political war that they are on and third by intellectual incest / confirmation bias. Turning that part of a Wikipedia article into a vague bashfest and working in value-laden vague bash phrases is one type of thing that fuels that problem. Including a more intelligent analysis / dissection of the videos from a good source would be much better.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think N8k's answer is a good one. There is also possible opposition from those who are negatively impacted by some aspect of environmental policy.  A person who sees their electric bill go up to pay for "renewable energy" might question if the policy makes sense or even if the true motivation was climate change vs political patronage. Springee (talk) 19:37, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's right, reasoned opposition to policies is not WP:FRINGE, but the content being discussed isn't that. Oh and "value-laden vague bash phrases" is itself, ironically, a value-laden vague bash phrase. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that the videos were somewhere in between. They were challenging / casting doubt on additional statements / arguments / tenets regarding climate change without challenging the main tenet.  On your last point, I agree, but that is the norm for talk pages but not article space. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some are like what you describe and just mildly cast aspersions on science, but some just completely jump ship from empiricism and deny that the earth is even experiencing any warming. The particularly egregious ones tend to reframe a cherry-picked portion of data in a way that would be absurd if they showed the rest of the data, this is not something that can be done accidentally and is a deliberate and knowing effort to deceive the viewer. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't see "deny that the earth is even experiencing any warming" which would be denial of the consensused core tenet of climate change.  Do you know where you saw that? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. I pointed you to the place where you can learn what the term means, the Wikipedia article Climate change denial, and you refuse to accept the scientific consensus about the subject and try to redefine the term "climate change denial" in such a way that if we use your WP:OR definition, PragerU is not denialist. This is not how Wikipedia works. When reliable sources say they engage in climate change denial, then that is what we write. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First, how I described it in my previous post matched the article that you linked. So you factually blundered and then created speculative wrong insults about me founded on that blunder. And then blended patronizing wording plus baselessly saying that saying that I refuse to accept scientific consensus about something which you did not define. Please quit doing that kind of crap. There's no need or purpose for it here. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * like everything else in the US, to follow the dictums of whichever political side in the political war that they are on This is exactly why we should look at what the science says. By a remarkable coincidence, it says the same thing one of the political sides says. Or rather, that political side is the one which listens to science. This "your position on climate change is determined by your politics" stance does not help you. It is just the old "some say this, some say that" rhetorics traditionally used by the losing side. Next will probably be "we cannot know what is true". Again: this is not how Wikipedia works. The reliable sources disagree with you, you lose.
 * By the way, this is not "the US". This is the English-language Wikipedia, and English is one of the most widespread languages of the world. The US has a very strong denialist and generally anti-science movement which has swallowed one of the two big parties, but that should not make you think that denialists have the same standing everywhere else in the world. I am writing from Germany, for example, and over here, the only political party which embraces denialism is a right-wing one which is shunned by everybody else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * yes everything that Hob Gadling said. Let's not fall for "both sides-ism" here. There is far too little material related to PragerU's well-known record of climate change denial on the page and this encyclopedia is weaker for it Noteduck (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The rebuttals to this point (which were never substantial) seem to have died away. In accordance with WP:BOLD I believe it should be added to the article asap Noteduck (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The content was added and we found a consensus way to address the issue. Springee (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of POV wording
We need to be careful when adding opinions, which is why this edit was reverted. Interpretations aside, it can simply be stated that the video in question has been labeled by some as "anti-immigration". That's obviously well-sourced and sufficient for our purposes here of maintaining WP:NPOV. Earl of Arundel (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not an issue of NPOV; this is an issue of accuracy. The criticisms of mankin are not that she is anti immigration. The criticisms are that the video is inaccurate. LK (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel that it may be incorrect to characterise that as an "opinion" since I do not see a way to view the source material and come to a contradictory conclusion. WP:OR specifically does not preclude basic and uncontroversial interpretation, so it would rather be a matter of editorial discretion whether that interpretation is considered too controversial to be included. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But would it be "uncontroversial interpretation"?Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not dug into all of this but a question at both levels (inclusion and attribution) is usually where some person (or their piece) opposes illegal immigration but not legal immigration and then someone characterizes it/them as "anti-immigration" in general. This is inaccurate at best and is a common tactic to deprecate someone (or their piece) who is a political opponent on the topic of illegal immigration.     Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * True, but it also might well be a dog whistle as well, that is why we do not do OR. The source (for example) claims the video is critical of legal immigration.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do dig in before commenting, the source specifically characterizes the video as "anti-legal immigration". Your general comments are unhelpful. –dlthewave ☎ 12:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My comments already incorporated that; it does not require deep research because it is explicitly in the discussed text. And they are relevant to a discussion on whether or not to keep / remove in-text attribution to that source. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The primary source is quite clearly critical of legal immigration too, half the video talks about it using the various "too many low-value immigrants" arguments that are typical and well known for that topic. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't and don't plan to debate for or against inclusion. I just made my post to try to be helpful a bit and then responded to some issues with a comment that was disparaging my comment. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's ok, now that I think about it I'm in the same boat too, it was a pretty minor point that didn't really need all this. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Attribution
On a completely different note, including attribution also makes it more informative / provides more information. One item of that information is the "who said it?" information itself, the other is that it provides useful context for reading what's in the article. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Some inline refs could be useful per MOS:LEADCITE. Llll5032 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I WP:BOLDly added some refs and shortened the language. Llll5032 (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A different topic than attribution of a statement but thanks. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , we do mention in the body that Climate Feedback and InfluenceMap are the ones who found the misinformation. Are you suggesting that we include attribution in the lead as well? –dlthewave ☎ 23:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just adding a consideration rather than recommending an end result. On the more general question you just posed, if the PragerU video did not dispute the centeral tenets of climate change, then my opinion would be to include attribution in any such statement that leads the reader to believe that they disputed the central tenets of climate change.    <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A significant portion of the whole article is just the attributions, attribution tends to be discussed thoroughly during the addition of content but if you find places where it is lacking then feel free to bring it up. I'm still not sure what is meant here by "the central tenets of climate change" though, do you mean the disagreement with the scientific consensus? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The central tenet (and the one that has scientific consensus) is that we have a human-driven rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gasses which is warming the earth (global warming), changing climate, and that we're headed for more of all of that in the future. There are many other credible related debates that do not involve disputing/ denying that. Political opponents can describe the latter in a way that sounds like they are denying the former, even when that is not the case. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The videos vary in the amount of science they reject or misrepresent as well as various videos contradicting each other, but overall PU rejects many of the conclusions reached by the scientific consensus. PU also claims that there is not a scientific consensus in areas where there is one. It's not the same as the total denialism that many of the PU presenters make in non-PU content, but aside from beating around the bush of full denialism I see little difference in their approach to the topic, so I don't think it really needs clarification. That said, it's still relevant and certainly something that you could add (assuming that PU has actually refrained from that level of denialism). MasterTriangle12 (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have the broad expertise in this area to do that. I did look at the one video which a political-opponent source characterized as climate change denial where  where there was no denial of the consensused tenets. So I do know that such has happened here at least once, enough to make a mention of being cautionary on that.  And pretty basic "cautionary" is attribution to who said it.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I thought there was a concern with the current page content. Don't worry, there's plenty of eyes on the page to catch things like that. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

21 May change to lead
, you restored a recent change to the lead without showing consensus.[] The problem with this change is it shifts claims about the videos from views of the source to wiki voice. Per IMPARTIAL Wikipedia should not be picking sides in this debate. "...for their misleading or factually incorrect content" is a statement of fact in Wiki voice. The long standing version of the lead is "...have been criticized as misleading or factually incorrect" which attributes the claim of misleading or factually incorrect to the sources that support the statements. That version of the text has been stable since you added it 20 March[]. Springee (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a "debate" among reliable sources; there aren't multiple "sides" to pick. I feel that this is an improvement to the version I added in March since we've recently established that these statements of fact about misleading claims don't need to be treated as attributed opinions. –dlthewave ☎ 13:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , for reference, where was it established that statements of fact about misleading claims don't need to be treated as attributed opinions? (I am not disagreeing.) Llll5032 (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the "Climate change 29 April edits" discussion above which resulted in the misinformation findings being presented as fact in the body of the article. We also discussed why this isn't a debate among reliable sources; it seems that the "we shouldn't take sides" position has been throughoughly debunked. –dlthewave ☎ 14:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That discussion didn't establish that these generalizations should be treated as fact. Rather we reached a compromise where a claim was attributed in a way that avoided making it look like wiki editors were discounting the claim.  Per IMPARTIAL we shouldn't be picking sides even if we feel one side is clearly right/wrong.  This is especially true since things like immigration policies are inherently political and rooted in opinion.  This is an encyclopedia, not a persuasion article.  We should always err on the side that gives the benefit of the doubt.   Springee (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * When multiple WP:RS disagree with a non-RS, do WP:DUE ("Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject") and WP:ITA apply to what is in WP voice? Springee, has this been discussed on the noticeboards? Llll5032 (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * O, simple question. Are there any RS that say they do not do this?Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Springee there is a fundamental misinterpretation of policy on your part - there is no "both sides" when multiple RS's report one thing, and zero RS's that contradict them. Noteduck (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The factuality of the statement seems to be well established, I've read through many sources that firmly establish this, and haven't come across any reason to refrain from stating this as fact. The recent change is good though, my one had a slight air of implication that it is in the nature of PU videos to contain misinformation, which is not established firmly enough in sources to put in wikivoice. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Gun ownership
They argue "that gun ownership is a constitutional right"? That needs rephrasing, as that fact is not disputed by those advocating for gun control measures. It comes down to varying interpretations of the 2nd Amendment. Describe their interpretation in more detail. -- Valjean (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * PragerU's interpretation is that gun control is not needed and unconstitutional. I reworded the sentence, keeping in line with the rest of it and 's suggestions.
 * Previous:
 * My revision: –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲   talk  04:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * FormalDude, that is definitely an improvement. Thanks.
 * AFAIK, gun control measures seem to be the sticking point in all the various 2nd Amendment controversies. There is hardly anyone who disputes the validity of the 2nd Amendment, but there is disagreement on its interpretation, all the way from limiting ownership of one muzzleloader (the original situation) to a person who is a member of a government registered and monitored ("well-regulated") militia that only uses it for hunting runaway slaves and game for food (and self-defense), to absolutely no controls/limits, allowing insane private individuals with no registration, oversight, or membership in such a militia, to own machineguns, anti-aircraft/-tank missiles, nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and chemical weapons, etc. Those seem to be the extremes, and few advocate them, although some extreme right-wingers would love to experience the latter situation, and one can legitimately question their sanity and patriotism. Since all elements of the Constitution are subject to interpretation and possible amendments, it comes back to "how to interpret" each element. -- Valjean (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Along the same lines as what Valjean is saying, "against gun control" is very broad and certainly there is a difference between against all types (no restrictions what so ever on what, where or who) vs say (as an example) that the gun laws of the most liberal gun loving state (Texas?) should be the law of California, New York, etc. The original probably overstates the "anti-gun" side since even before Heller most people saw the 2nd A was about individuals, not a collective right.  The new text could be seen as going too far in the other direction since almost no one is arguing that say, violent felons on parole should be allowed to own a machine gun.  I think most readers would understand the update to mean "against some forms of gun control" vs "against every and all forms of gun control".  Still, is there a one or two word way to make it more clear?  The BFN source that supports that sentence mentions several gun related topics and actually said one video argued, "Is gun ownership a right? Of course it is...".  What about something like, "against some forms of gun control" or "for expanded gun rights"?  Alternatively, what about "that gun ownership is an individual right" (ie it was an individual, not a collective right).  Perhaps, "about various aspects of gun ownership and gun laws"?  I think the old one was less technically wrong but more likely to be read to mean the extreme case.  The new one is less likely to be read to mean the extreme case but is less accurate overall. Springee (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In the United States, gun control legislation has remained the same since the Clinton administration, and any reference to being in support of or against "gun control" means specifically increased gun control from what America's had for the past nearly 30 years. This can be anything from background checks to gun buy-backs. I changed the sentence to specify this meaning; hopefully that helps with some concerns. It is of course a complex issue that you can really get into in detail, but in the scope of this article and how little it goes into explaining the reasoning behind PragerU's viewpoints already, I think the adage we have is sufficient. If we wanted to go into it in more depth, we'd need to do so with some of PragerU's other stances as well. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  17:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No changes since Clinton is true at the federal but not the state level. Regardless, I think your change addresses my concern.  I also think Slatersteven is correct, this isn't a big deal one way or the other.  Springee (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would have said this is trivia.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any quotes from any references in this discussion. --Hipal (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Glancing at the BuzzFeed ref, it looks like it's actually about whether or not gun ownership is a right. Anything else seems OR. --Hipal (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I know I could probably find half a dozen sources backing up the three word change to the sentence. Is there really a need for that though? Here's what the BuzzFeed article says specifically:
 * "Now Knaster was hooked on these five-minute explainers — no, of course Israel was nothing like apartheid South Africa, an argument that bugged him — and he moved on to videos covering other topics: gun control, which, it turned out was a way for the government to encroach on its citizens’ rights;"
 * Seems pretty clear that Buzzfeed is reporting that PragerU portrays gun control as an encroachment of citizens' right. –– 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲  talk  22:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

FormalDude's change of "against gun control" to "against increased gun control" seems good. Can we close this discussion as ✅? -- Valjean (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Short Description
Alright, we all had our fun with the reverts. Let's talk this out. Short descriptions are supposed to be rather concise to appear on things like mobile website previews. Per WP:SDSHORT, they should be no more than about 40 characters (bold removed). American non-profit organization that creates videos from a conservative or right-wing perspective is more than double the recommended length at 98. That is why I suggested this version. I don't understand the need to be so precise in a short description. American non-profit conservative media company perfectly describes them and what they do (For the record, it's only 6 more characters than recommended). I would like to see an explanation for why it isn't sufficient. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with the proposed compromise. Iffy★Chat -- 16:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the addition of "conservative" helps and obviates the need for the long version. Mentioning video creation isn't absolutely essential -- Valjean (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * One possible way to cut down the length would be to remove the "non-profit" segment - something akin to American conservative media organization? Rema goxer  (talk) 16:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They're a nonprofit, and we should probably convey that. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "American non-profit conservative media company" really doesn't cut the mustard, so we have seen some much better ones suggested. It isn't sufficient because there is no hint of the rabid raging ultra conservative nature of the videos they produce. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 16:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no hint of them producing "rabid raging ultra conservative" content with in the current short description, so I don't see why you bring it up. If you want to replace "conservative" with "right-wing" in my proposed version then that's fine with me. Whatever gets us to a shorter description. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd argue it's the article's job to point out any bias/noteworthy incidents of misinformation (neutrally and relying on reliable sources of course), which it does pretty well. "Right-wing" is shorter and describes them well, so that's fine by me. Rema goxer  (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What about American non-profit that creates videos from a conservative perspective. I think this does a better job of keeping the key parts while keeping the length short.  Springee (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While certainly shorter, that's still 74 characters - rather long for a short description. Rema goxer  (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A US right-wing propaganda company. The fact that it's non profit is not really that important. GliderMaven (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That fails Impartial. Calling an organization something "Propaganda" is a clear, negative POV, not soothing we should have in a short description. Springee (talk)£
 * No, it is impartial. The media meets the exact definition of propaganda "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view." That's exactly what it is. GliderMaven (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)


 * leaving aside that bit of WP:OR, it's not supported by the article's content, so that's a nonstarter. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there's RS references to PragerU being propaganda out there so it's not OR. They even say they are "focused on changing minds through the creative use of digital media" on their own website. GliderMaven (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "American non-profit conservative media company" conveys all of the information of the current long description in a much more concise manner. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 02:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Non-profit and American seem superfluous: US Company pushing religious conservatism or Company promoting religious conservatism are both exactly 40 characters. GliderMaven (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That it is American and a non-profit are really not superfluous descriptors here... They're kind of critical for telling you where and how PragerU operates. Company promoting religious conservatism is so vague that it can be anything from Chick-fil-A to The Babylon Bee. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times, times"> MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * How about "American non-profit media company for right-wing advocacy". PragerU no longer just produces videos and has positioned themselves as a hub of right-wing advocacy, so the description should cover that. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good but we should say "conservative" instead of right-wing. The article uses conservative a number of times including in wiki voice.  "Right-wing" is used only once in a quote.  Springee (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , your recent edit summary says "right-wing" is "correct and well attested by sources referenced in the article" but the article only uses "right-wing" once and in quotes.  Conversely, the article lead says "conservative" in the first sentence and uses conservative several other times in the body.  Springee (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't check there was a talk page discussion when making my edit - but you're quite right, in several places where the source says "right-wing" the article has unaccountably transformed it to "conservative", including in the first sentence. Rather than also bowdlerise the short description, probably the article should better reflect how the subject is defined by reliable sources. Captainllama (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do be careful in assuming the sources say "right-wing" vs "conservative". The wiki-article clearly uses conservative.  If you think the wiki-article descriptions are wrong then point out what the sources say (not the headlines).  Also, remember that when writing an encyclopedia entry we should always err on the side of more neutral, less loaded terms.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be written to persuade and the use of loaded terms is often done for precisely that reason.  Springee (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

"Opposition to immigration"
Slatersteven, a video that opposes immigration is not the same thing as a video about opposition to immigration. In this case, the video was about alleged support for immigration by the United States, expressed in a critical tone. TWM03 (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Err I disagree, if the video opposes immigration is is a video opposing immigration.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven Of course it is a video opposing immigration, I am saying it is not about opposition to immigration. Do you accept this as a distinction? TWM03 (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see, they have also made more than one video.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven OK, but I only see one referenced in the sources in connection to false information about immigration, so I was referring to that one. Would you still object to the edit I made originally? TWM03 (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, as the lede says it produces "...videos, which cover a range of topics including climate change, racial issues, and opposition to immigration". So the fact one example is not "'about' opposition to immigration." does not mean it does not videos that are, or that this one does not "cover" opposition to immigration.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If we want to refer to other videos we will need more sources, and if you can find more sources backing up the current phrasing then I will have no problem adding them and leaving the phrasing as it is. However, the video referenced in the source if anything appears to ignore opposition to immigration (at least in the US), claiming it is the most generous country to immigrants. I feel that my phrasing would better reflect that source. TWM03 (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We do not say "USA", and there are other sources in the body.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which source says it covers opposition to immigration in any country? TWM03 (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "“The Suicide of Europe,” an anti-immigrant screed hosted by author Douglas" https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/06/07/prageru%E2%80%99s-influence "The video is “filled with anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim" https://web.archive.org/web/20190518195928/https://readsludge.com/2018/12/27/who-funds-pragerus-anti-muslim-content/.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But again, they are not "covering" Douglas Murray, he is the host of that video and is therefore the one doing the covering (of immigration and Muslims). I feel this comes down to phrasing and I'm not sure why my change should be controversial. TWM03 (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What? It's an "anti-immigrant screed hosted by author Douglas" in other words is about anti-immigration. I think it is time for others to chip in as we are going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

If PragerU presented general discussions on topics like immigration then that change could make sense but that is not the type of content that they produce so it is more accurate to describe the videos by what they are advocating for, and particularly on this topic there is little variety in what they advocate for so changing it to a generality is just removing information for no benefit. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is correct to say they have made videos that object to some types of immigration. There are two paragraphs that talk about two different immigration videos.  My only concern with "opposition to immigration" is the summary might be too broad.  It's like assuming that opposition to specific aspects of deregulation is the same as wanting to completely deregulate something.  We also see issues when people say a politician who wants to reduce illegal immigration is against "immigration".  Said politician may be for making legal immigration harder, or may not.  A stance on illegal immigration alone is not enough to say.  Anyway, intros are hard because they are typically high level and generalized so we are balancing using broad brush summaries with the potential to inaccurately summarize.  We could say "opposition to some types of immigration" or similar.   "Some types" (or similar) is a good hedge since we know at least one video has been critical of one type of immigration thus we can't be "wrong". Springee (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We could possibly find another solution to the phrasing of this sentence, by changing it from being about what they "cover" to what they "advocate" or "argue" for (though we would need to be careful with the "racial issues" topic). I still don't think the current phrasing is accurate as "covering opposition to immigration" to me could mean an objective or critical discussion of the reasons behind anti-immigrant sentiment and opposition to immigration (and could be done by someone who supports immigration), whereas their videos just oppose immigration. TWM03 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "opposition to immigration" is accurate, it's an advocacy group that promotes a range of prevalent right wing views, opposition to immigration being one. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 11:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it? First, "they" are in a sense an editorial page.  I'm not sure "they" strictly speaking oppose anything.  Instead they offer a platform for the voices of others.  Beyond that, this is a case where we are misleading our readers if we overstate what they say in their videos.  So presenting it as they oppose any and all immigration (oppose immigration) isn't accurate if they actually only oppose/raise concerns about certain types/cases.  Springee (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Editorial page? heavily funded propagandising you mean. Even Cato Institute has called PU out on their fallacious immigration dog whistling. No one is being "mislead," it is what is - right wing propaganda. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 12:45, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Editorial type in that it's not clear if PragerU's staff has a view then finds the speaker or if they find speakers they think are of interest then let them talk on a subject. Thus in that way they would be like the editorial page in a paper.  As for mislead, yes, if we misrepresent what the videos actually say then we are misleading.  Let's say they made a video that said "all illegal immigrants should be incarcerated for 10 years then deported because they are all murders or criminals in their home country".  Of course such a claim is total crap both moralistically and in fact.  A RS can correctly note the factual error, not all illegal immigrants are criminals in their home countries as well as pointing out the moral failing, incarcerating people who are often taking these actions because they are desperate at home.  That does not mean that the person in this hypothetical case is against legal immigration in any capacity so reporting they are against "immigration" generally is factually inaccurate even if we think their actual reasons are wrong.  Taking the longer view, we don't do the credibility of wikipedia any good if articles over state negative things.  As  noted in another discussion, if we write in a way that makes uninformed readers think we are trying to disparage the subject they will doubt the reliability of the rest of the article.  If a reader looks at the immigration videos and finds they aren't broadly anti-immigration but only in specific cases they would have just cause to doubt other claims in this article. Springee (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * nothing is being overstated in the article, PU regularly packages factual inaccuracy as "truth," and immigration is only one of many topics where they do this. easily fits under the broad category of opposition to immigration, it's not controversial in the least. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 13:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

"PragerU's videos, which cover a range of topics including ... and opposition to immigration...", we do not say they think it, we say some of the videos do they offer do.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It's basically a platform for a wide range of creators of content for generally conservative views. While of course they influence what does or doesn't get in, it's not like everything every creator said is their official position or even their view. For example, they've also been a platform for creators criticizing illegal immigration, a position which is much more widely held amongst conservatives, which I don't see mentioned. To try to pick, emphasize, and give extra prominence and space to the particular videos which have the worst optics or hold the least popular opinions is a distortion that does the readers a dis-service. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "It's basically a platform for a wide range of creators":False, it's commissioned content that focuses on specific talking points pertinent to the right-wing culture war. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 13:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no substantive difference between your statement and mine, just a different choice of words characterizing it more negatively.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That passage is describing the types of videos that receive the most criticism for factual inaccuracies or misleading content, so I was thinking it makes the most sense to note that the criticisms of their immigration content is almost exclusively about their anti-immigration advocacy, but the sentence is describing topics so unless it is rewritten to be describing the viewpoints then I think it could read better if it just says "immigration", although the link should be kept for context. I think it might be unclear that the sentence is only describing the content they are criticised for though so I reversed the order of the sentence to make it clearer. It could have been mis-interpreted as describing the topics that PU covers then saying their videos in general received criticism so I think this change fixes that. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "There's no substantive difference between": "a platform for a wide range of creators" = obscurantism; "commissioned content that focuses on specific talking points" = fact. <b style="color:#552586">Ac</b><b style="color:#804fb3">ou</b><b style="color:#9969c7">s</b><b style="color:#b589d6">m</b><b style="color:#9969c7">a</b><b style="color:#804fb3">n</b><b style="color:#6a359c">a</b> 20:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll avoid specifically responding to that or engaging in a conversation of that nature. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Climate change denialism (update)
I have reviewed the article and although there still appears to be an overuse of attribution (policies like WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV discourage this when facts are concerned), the article currently seems to be in a better state than the last time I looked at it. After finally reading the archive of the last discussion, valid points made there were that it's not a political opinion that it happens, WP unapologetically admits that there are different knowledge acquisition standards and that the reliability of sources vary, and attempts to have articles that take that in consideration. When YouTube tags misinformation videos, it's also more in an optic of public education and to manage its reputation, than a purely political move or corporate corruption (they have ads for the latter)... — Paleo Neonate  – 18:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Further controversy regarding existential questions
As detailed on their Youtube profile, on Feb 9, 2015, Prager University published a video titled 'Does Science argue for or against the existence of God?", though unbiasedly titled, the content of the video was geared towards the 'for' argument, with no attempt to include the 'against' argument. In the video, American Christian author, speaker, and conservative radio host, Eric Metaxas, argues the perfectionism and wholly unlikely scenario of the existence of life on earth from the lens of what they assume to be a scientific argument of unlikely probability, that there are far too many parameters for the existence of life to merely be a coincidence. The notion of intelligent design is implied, though not stated, to discuss that science has indirectly argued for the existence of a creator. There is a collection of self-claimed quotations not included in their original context from mathematicians, scientists and famous atheists including but exclusive to Fred Hoyle, Christopher Hitchens and Paul Davies. No additional evidence has been given for this argument, and the quotations given have not been verified on the video as pertaining to the topic of discussion, or flow of argument of the speaker, but is implied as being subsidiary.


 * I am unsure as to what you want us to do.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Steven, the topic of existentialism has not been discussed in Prager University's main wiki page, i suggest this section to be an addition to the page 'PragerU, but i can't add it myself. "PragerU is frequently criticized for presenting misleading or factually incorrect content in its videos, particularly those that downplay climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and racism, as well as those that oppose immigration.", this list is correct, but they have covered more topics that are misleading and have not been mentioned on the page, this is one that i have found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y3Mo56 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:rs and wp:or. we need sources that say this, not how you (or I) interpret one of their videos.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

How about this from a PhD Astrophysicst from the Forbes Magazine? https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-the-existence-of-god/?sh=5cf045c55ada "Or, can your beliefs — whatever they are — stand up to whatever scientific truths the Universe reveals about itself, regardless of what they are? In the professional opinion of practically all scientists who study the Universe, it is very likely that there is life on other worlds, and that there’s a very good chance — if we invest in looking for it — that we’ll be able to find the first biological signatures on other worlds within a single generation. Whether there’s intelligent life beyond Earth, or more specifically, intelligent life beyond Earth in our galaxy that’s still alive right now, is a more dubious proposition, but the outcome of this scientific question in no way favors or disfavors the existence of God, any more than the order of whether fish or birds evolved first on Earth favors or disfavors a deity’s existence.

There may or may not be other worlds very, very similar to our own out there, but neither result is necessarily an indicator of a divine presence. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Lucianomendez. There may or may not be other worlds very, very similar to our own out there, but neither result is... [+] The truths of the Universe are written out there, on the Universe itself, and are accessible to us all through the process of inquiry. To allow an uncertain faith to stand in as an answer where scientific knowledge is required does us all a disservice; the illusion of knowledge — or reaching a conclusion before obtaining the evidence — is a poor substitute for what we might actually come to learn, if only we ask the right questions. Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y3Mo56 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

and this: https://religionnews.com/2016/07/13/how-eric-metaxas-manipulates-the-past-to-serve-his-political-agenda/, he cites 1966 in the video, more evidence here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y3Mo56 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

and this: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/astrobiology-made-case-god


 * Please read wp:synthesis, do any of your new sources even mention PragaU?Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but these do: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/16414 438 replies on Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru/status/1152348892366692352?lang=en Debunking PragerU Fine Tuning Argument for God | Atheist U, Chicagonow.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y3Mo56 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Before posting here again, please read the link I have posted to our polcies.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh i'm sorry about this, i forgot to read the 'no original research' page you gave me, i was not aware wikipedia was strict on this. Thank for your time, i'm not sure how to close this discussion, please can you close this post for me. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Y3Mo56 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We can just let it die, and it will be archived eventualy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee
It is a fact that prager u posted a video erasing Robert E. Lee for defeating John Brown's slave rebellion. This is not misinformation and it is relevant to the attitudes that prageru has. I don't see how you can claim that this is misinformation or irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104dragon (talk • contribs)


 * Is it?Slatersteven (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please see . This was discussed and no consensus for inclusion means it stays out. Springee (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Hillreporter" is a pretty weak source. Are there other sources available that would indicate coverage of this item is due? VQuakr (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also did you mean Erase as they do seem to mention his role at Harper's ferry.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No consensus does not automatically mean it can not be included unless it is a living person Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Can someone give a reason why this should not be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104dragon (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to achieve consensus for inclusion. I already provided a policy-based reason to exclude, WP:DUE. WP:DRNC that you linked is a WP:ESSAY. VQuakr (talk) 18:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:DRNC is an esssy, not a policy. WP:ONUS is part of wp:v. a policy. Moreover there is an issue of wp:undue, this was one video that has been taken down. So what does it tell us we do not already say?Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not a viewpoint this is a fact, why do people object to including this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104dragon (talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We have told you why, you have still not said what it tells us we do not already say, what does it add?Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Treating someone like a hero for quashing a slave rebellion is a very controversial opinion that people should no about. Can someone explain why people should not know about it. 104dragon
 * We already say they downplay racsm and push "white supremacist logic", I am unsure what more this adds to that. All it does is say the same thing, they are white supremacists. Moreover they removed it, and wp:blp does in fact apply to PragaU.Slatersteven (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the problems is that those examples are mainly the opinions of notable people. That is certainly relevant, but as it is now it fails to give a lot of evidence. 104dragon
 * Yes, and that is what we go with, the opinions of notable people.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but do we not also include examples and evidence  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104dragon (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please take a moment to read the policies that people have linked for you in their rationales before replying; there's no rush here. If you did, you would understand that "it's a verifiable fact" is an inadequate reasoning to guarantee inclusion in the article. VQuakr (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be better to lump the Robert E. Lee point into a brief mention of their defence and veneration of confederates, or the interesting positions they take towards slavery in the US, since those crops up multiple times. This would be much more notable whereas the notability of the Robert E. Lee point by itself is at least debatable because it is just one instance of their positions on these things and the source is of debatable DUEness. Alternately if a passage on the videos they have removed due to controversy were added then it would be pretty uncontroversial for a mention of their Robert E. Lee statements to be in there. I'm not sure how to source that though, unless there is an independent source for their removed videos you would have to rely on archived PragerU pages with transcripts that are now missing and there might need to be a debate about whether that is appropriate. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And we would really need to know why they removed it, after all it could be any number of reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I support the inclusion of the removed material as-is. It's a notable controversy covered in reliable sources about the subject of the article; why wouldn't we include it? Loki (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * if you've found RSs that might establish weight, by all means please share them. That may indeed change the equation. VQuakr (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , Loki (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Right wing watch is not a RS. The article in the student paper is an OpEd.  Springee (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you disputing the sources' description of the Robert E. Lee video, then? It looks to me like something that verifiably happened, which readers would be interested to know about. Why are you so keen on excluding this? –dlthewave ☎ 13:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dlthewave, are you reversing your stance on using questionable sources? You dragged me before an ANI for suggesting it may be OK to use a questionable source even though we could verify the uncontroversial claims using the congressional record of the testimony.  Now you are suggesting it is OK to do basically the exact same thing.  The hypocracy of your question aside, these are not reliable sources for establishing weight to suggest there is a controversy here.  Springee (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * An op-ed in the The Harvard Crimson and a blurb from Right Wing Watch? Go fish. VQuakr (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion with Loki's sources. College newspapers can be reliable and I would say that the Crimson is as reliable as they come; there's nothing that says we can't use op-eds for anything. Right Wing Watch was discussed here in 2020 and there seems to be consensus that it is reliable as well. If there's any doubt, we can always verify against the original video, eliminating any concerns about factuality. –dlthewave ☎ 13:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The college paper article is an OpEd and no, the opinion of college papers are not generally considered reliable. RWW is an activist organization with no consensus regarding reliability or weight.  This isn't a case where we have clear weight for inclusion or other sources have cited RRW for their opinion.  Springee (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To put some perspective on RWW, the AdFonts media bias chart rates the source as hyper-partisan Left (-18.3) and Mixed Reliability (27.6) . The Daily Wire, (I think that was the source you took me to ANI for) is rated as Skews Right (14.2), and Generally Reliable/Analysis (33.9) .  Just incase it was The Daily Caller, it's scores are 16.2 and 30.8 so still better than RWW .  Springee (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Ad Fontes chart is itself not a reliable source, as has been reiterated ad nauseum over at WP:RSN. Loki (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This subthread is about due weight, not factual accuracy of the sources. A student paper doesn't do much to establish this as a significant viewpoint per DUE given its limited impact and scope, and an op-ed establishes no weight. Factual accuracy, though, is also a concern raised separately by North8000 below. VQuakr (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * An op-ed does indeed contribute to due weight for the author's opinion, and we now have several sources voicing the same opinion. Would framing the whole thing as an attributed opinion "X and Y criticized PragerU for posting a video which they say praised Robert E. Lee. The video was later deleted by PragerU." be an improvement? –dlthewave ☎ 13:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the current version has due coverage (no mention) proportional to the weight of coverage presented. VQuakr (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The other issues aside, that description is badly distorted compared to the actual video. The video was a straight-forward recounting of historical items. The only laudatory word used it was for Lee's horse. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * great historical figures like Robert E. Lee is in the second sentence of the video. Loki (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC: PragerU's Robert E Lee video
Should the article include the following:

In December 2020, PragerU posted a video calling Robert E. Lee a "great historical figure", which celebrated him for crushing John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. The video was later deleted by PragerU.

Loki (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Note Previous RfC from earlier this year is here and closed as no consensus. It is not clear what has changed with respect to this story or the available sources since Jan 2021. Ping previously involved editors Springee (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes. The information is sourced reliably, and the proper WP:WEIGHT required for a single short mention of a thing the subject of an article did is incredibly low. Loki (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why is this being asked again? This seems like nothing more than rolling the dice again and hoping for a different result.  As noted in the previous RfC, the sourcing here is very poor.  The reflist is just as poor as it was last time.  The only addition is an OpEd in the Harvard student paper.  Not a factual article, an OpEd.  Right Wing Watch is a highly partisan source of dubious reliability and certainly not one that should establish weight for including this article.  What do we know about the Hill Reporter?  It's a very small left leaning news site with basically no RSN history.  If we were using it for some basic fact, I guess.  However, Loki is trying to use it to establish weight.  Next, why should this be included?  It seems the objective here is to include a video that PragerU took down but why?  If we don't tell the readers why the video was put up in the first place (was it for the reason in the proposed text or something else) and then fail to say why it was removed it looks like we are trying to let the readers draw their own conclusions not from the facts in the sources but from the selective information provided.  That is yellow journalism, not an impartial encyclopedia.  What do RSs say this addition and removal tells us about PragerU.  If all we have is OpEds and similar (The Hill Reporter is a heavy mix of OpEd and analysis) we don't have anything to work with.  Springee (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * very small left-leaning news site is generous to The Hill Reporter IMO. The website is run by MeidasTouch and it doesn’t appear to have any real sense of journalistic integrity. The “masthead” lists five people, including a contributor. It is certainly not a well-established WP:NEWSORG, and its close affiliation with a partisan PAC leaves me suspicious that the website can be given any more reliability than content produced by MeidasTouch itself—content that would almost certainly be unacceptable to cite as a secondary source on Wikipedia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose the only additional source provided from the previous RFC is a student newspaper. Due coverage is no mention. More generally, we should be looking for ways to get rid of the criticism section and absorb the content elsewhere in the article, not adding to the mess. VQuakr (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Leave it out (invited by the bot plus I was here already) Undue, plus a very inaccurate biased description. The John Brown description is flat out false. We're here to inform, not to mislead.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The sources presented do not alone establish due weight—two are media operations run by partisan SUPERPACs and one is a student newspaper. The “Hill Reporter” is not a reliable source generally and using it to establish weight would be absolutely a bad idea. I am less familiar with the “Right Wing Watch” source, though it alone is likely not enough to establish due weight. The citation to the raw video does nothing to establish due weight, much like a reference to a student newspaper on a non-university topic (the only thing that is like a WP:NEWSORG here). As a result, I see no sources that show that coverage of this particular video has weight for inclusion. Since this article should not be an indiscriminate list of Prager’s content, I think that particular videos are probably only due if they receive coverage from generally reliable sources. This is not the case here (as far as I can tell), so I believe that the content should be excluded. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Lean No I don't think this is unreasonable, but it is not particularly notable. I would be happier to see it incorporated into something broader like a passage about PragerU's common practice of defending the confederacy. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I am really not sure what this tells us or adds we do not already say. It just seems trivia.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No I agree with Mhawk10 and I would also consider this to be undue. --Vacant0 (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - terrible sourcing, petty and pointless rhetoric that doesn't improve the article. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 06:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Not until much better sources for this information can be found. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't think this is the forum to review "every" video that is made by Prager. The Article should focus on the company it's self.  Tepkunset (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Look- I despise PragerU. I have very strong personal reasons for doing so- however- this insistence on putting in trivia for the sake of inserting every conservative hate filled post they make is pointless. We are an encyclopedia- we do not need to list every stupid, idiotic, racist video this stupid group pumps out, or when they take onw down. Let this issue drop and lets focus on more important matters. Nightenbelle (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons similar to Mhawk10's. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Isn't the first source in the RfC statement (a YouTube video) a copyright violation? Why are we linking to it anywhere on Wikipedia? — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * True, if it were to be mentioned it would be better to link to an archive of the transcript that was hosted on the PU site. I wonder though, if youtube has a vigorous copyright claiming system then would it be acceptable to expect that if a work that would certainly be in the auto-detection system is still hosted on youtube then that must mean that it is hosted with permission of the copyright holder? Videos are often claimed by the copyright holder but allowed to persist with the revenue going to the claimant. It could only be justified if it is reasonable to assume that the content would have been claimed at the time of linking though. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's pretty clearly a WP:ELNEVER issue; material that violates the copyrights of others... should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation. Doing so knowingly is bad practice. That youtube video is also clearly a copyright violation; the notion that a 36-follower account that claims in its video caption that it is "merely just being a reporter and informer by sharing this" despite not being a "fan of Prager U or Robert E. Lee, nor... think slavery was a good cause for our country" is likely copyright compliant is fairly weak. There are plenty of copyright-infringing videos on YouTube; we can use judgement when it's unclear who the original creator of content was, but there's not much room for judgement here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, it was just an entertaining thought, I don't think you can actually contravene policy that way. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?
My question is in regards to the overall paragraph, "Reason has criticized PragerU's claims of being censored by big tech companies for being false, as the company's content had not been removed from any social media platforms, and that they indicate a misunderstanding of the First Amendment as protecting a party from any type of censorship, when that law merely protects content from censorship by the government.[43]".

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that PragerU's arguments were in response to the law mandating the obligations of companies, creating the difference between open platforms and publishers into regards on what is allowed to be regulated to a reasonable extent? From what I've heard on coverage of the topic, the overall generalization of the argument comes from Section 230,and not from a general law viewpoint of the 1st ammendment. EytanMelech (talk) 01:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Section 230 does not in any way prohibit companies from moderating or "censoring" their content. To the contrary, it expressly protects said companies from legal liability in any way. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
 * PragerU's arguments are legal nonsense fit only for mockery on @BadLegalTakes. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying anything about their argument themselves. I am just saying that it is not correct to say that their claim comes from the law of the first ammendment, but rather that of section 230. I never said that section 230 defended their claim. Just that it was mischaracterized of what they claim upfront on why they believe that they are "being censored". EytanMelech (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * PU tried to argue several avenues of discrimination in court, most of which just mis-applied various state acts, but their main argument was a violation of first amendment rights, which obviously didn't apply to their situation. I have not seen the media that I assume PU made about their conflict with youtube, but in court PU notably did not even mention section 230 or attempt to argue that it didn't apply to the case they were trying to make. They basically just threw some things together to make a point but didn't seriously pursue it. Here's their case: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14304698794959030599 MasterTriangle12 (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Topical Coverage Contradiction
In the article's Content section, it states "Its videos, although topical, largely avoid mentioning former U.S. President Donald Trump." Later in Reception, the article states, "A Buzzfeed News article published in 2018 attributed PragerU's success to the quality of its production values compared to similar outlets and to its use of popular presenters with established audiences. The article also noted that it had received comparatively little attention from news and media analysts due to PragerU's lack of coverage of topical issues, such as Donald Trump." (Bolding mine.) So is PragerU topical or not? You don't have to mention the then-current officeholder to be topical about issues, right? Prince Ludwig (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Largely does not mean never. Also if they avoided major coverage of Trump (the then president) that would be a lack of coverage of a very topical issue, while they might still cover other (but less important) topical issues. So yes, the fact they ignored his actions is highly significant.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It could be worth clarifying since both are only accurate for different definitions of "topical". PU mostly makes videos about what is currently in the right-wing media sphere, but they do typically avoid specifics that are likely to change week-by-week. So the topics are topical but the specifics are mostly not. Avoiding the topic of Trump is long-standing though, likely because he is divisive and they want to rope in as many people as possible, although maybe Dennis Prager never changed his mind about him and still can't stomach the man even though he fell in line. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited and moved the Trump sentence. Llll5032 (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2022
To move “According to Francesca Tripodi, PragerU's videos advance the conspiracy theory, popular among the alt-right, that whiteness and conservatism are under attack and many videos on PragerU focus on delegitimizing the mainstream media, accusing it of being based on emotion or opinion rather than fact.[35]” from the ‘Content’ section to the ‘Reception’ section. And to put “Think Tank” in the lead. 68.97.131.85 (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This first part of the request is specific. While the move looks reasonable, I personally won't do it because IMO such an assertion is is not an assertion of a conspiracy and so in completing the move I would be including / inserting "conspiracy".


 * The second part of your request is not specific.


 * Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.
 * I'm not moving the sentence from the Content section to the Reception section because the source is a critique of conspiracy theories and misinformation and examples of when they've been peddled. It's not a review of PragerU overall–it moreso addresses a specific aspect of their content. For this reason I think it needs more discussion if it is to be moved.
 * I'm not adding "Think Tank" to the lede because that most certainly needs discussion. –– FormalDude  talk  04:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not being specific on the last part. My reasoning for adding “think tank” to the lead, is that the ‘The Gravel Institute’ Is considered a think tank, and in the ‘The Gravel Institute’ Wikipedia article it even calls ‘PragerU’ a ‘think tank’. Also the two organizations are almost identical (the only difference being political approaches) in the way they produce their shows and videos. So since ‘The Gravel Institute‘ is considered a think tank, it only makes sense for ‘PragerU’ to be considered a think tank.
 * Now I do have to say that this does need a Wikipedia consensus, to consider ‘PragerU’ a think tank (as FormalDude advised). But of course the choice is always at the hands of the community. Regards 68.97.131.85 (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think this needs further discussion, but my view is that "think thank" is a WP:WTW. It doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. Are we trying to convey that they're a policy research institute? Because that is not an accurate description of PragerU at all. –– FormalDude  talk  13:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, FormalDude, it does sound a bit biased now thinking about it. We may also have to do remove “think-tank” from ‘PragerU’-like company’s as well (like ‘The Gravel Institute’ and other similar entities). I think I may have accidentally opened a can of worms. Regards 68.97.131.85 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment. I hesitate to even dip my finger into this hit-piece distorted mess of an article. I think that adding think tanks would be an improvement to the current abysmal sentence which describes them only as a "media company" (and the link on "media company" doesn't even go to "media company")   but think tank probably isn't the best word.  The sentence should probably use more generic and descriptive language instead.   I might give it a try. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * An encyclopaedia should favour descriptiveness over genericity so I think Advocacy group would probably be a better fit, especially now that PU is doing much more direct advocacy and producing "teaching resources". A think tank is the sort of organisation that would contribute to PU, but PU isn't one since it only performs the media functions. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s a good point there MasterTriangle12, that defiantly does sound like a better term than ‘think tank’, especially since they’ve done more talk-show-like videos. 68.97.131.85 (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO the recent/current description is better without trying to characterize with a single term.  The lead probably needs a second sentence saying what they do to complete that.  But if we did try the single-term characterization, I think "advocacy group" is the best of the discussed terms. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 68.97.131.85 (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Finances section
Should fracking be in parentheses in the finances section? Much of PragerU's early funding came from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks. It to me feels like It shouldn't be there. Lordbookworm (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a case of WP:BOLD and WP:SODOIT. If it’s nothing particularly controversial then you don’t need permission. Just explain your reasoning in the edit summary. Dronebogus (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022
I think that it should not say fracking in parentheses in the finances section. Much of PragerU's early funding came from hydraulic fracturing (fracking) billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks. I think that it just reads weirdly and doesn't fit with the rest of the article Lordbookworm (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on that change but made it. Note to Dronebogus, Lordbookworm is unable to make the edit because the page is semi-protected and Lordbookworm is not yet autoconfirmed. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh okay Dronebogus (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like the word "fracking" alone would be better, just for conciseness. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with that. I just though that the way it previously was had bad flow.
 * Lordbookworm (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Seems like there is some disagreement about the exact wording. Right now the parenthetical has been removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * As I noted above, I'm neutral on the topic. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Poor sources under reception
This page uses a large number of extremely biased and/or poor quality sources under the reception header, leading to the page seeming to violate the neutrality standard. This should be cleaned up with better sources from more bipartisan sources to improve credibility. MDH77451 (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @MDH77451! Welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to ask you: what "extremely biased/poor quality sources" are there? I can remove them, if you would like. If you want more examples of what are considered reliable sources, see WP:RSP. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 13:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @MDH77451 could you give us an example of a bipartisan source? I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Doug Weller  talk 15:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would suggest something like Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, or some more generally reputable news source. Sources such as “Mother Jones” which are cited in the section I mentioned are openly partisan and directly opposed to PragerU, which does not really make give any significant new information in this section since they are direct competitors. Perhaps this is nitpicky, but the reception section did not read as particularly neutral in voice to me on a first reading. I attribute this in large part to a focus on the opinions of their direct opponents while not citing particularly effective and objective sources. MDH77451 (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @MDH77451 read WP:NPOV - we don't do "neutral" the way that you seem to define it. We consider Mother Jones reliable but as it has a bias it should be attributed which we do where we use its opinion. Doug Weller  talk 15:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This always ends up being a difficult case. Often in the case where politics and culture war type content exist we have to be careful with external sources that might be generally OK but in this case may be doing more fan flaming vs clear reporting.  For hypothetical example assume a fact finding site reviews a claim made in a PragerU video.  That fact finder looks at the facts then argues to a conclusion of "false" and reports it as such.  The fact finder may have rendered a reasonable conclusion based on the agreed facts but they also might have argued to a conclusion vs explored all reasonable conclusions the facts supported.  This is a problem I've seen in other instances but not specifically here.  I do have a specific issue with the MJ source here in that it effectively tried to claim a PragerU video made a false claim by taking the narrow case clearly described in the PragerU video and using that to say PragerU was arguing the general case was false when the general case is clearly true.  Essentially the removed the narrow scope from the argument. I think that is very misleading and should make that MJ article unreliable for use here.  It also speaks negatively of MJ as a source in general.  Those arguments aside, one of the issues here is that most of the sources who are interested in reporting on PragerU are sources who appear to be unhappy with something they have said.  It's a bit like the lie moving faster than the truth.  Those who agree may not waste their column inches (as if that were still a relevant measure) saying as much while those who thrive on pointing out the bad things the other side does/says (and this is a problem on all sides) know they can get clicks from pointing out the flaws in others.  Springee (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * MJ's wording appears to be more summarizing than "Criticisms", so it may be miscategorized in this article. Does anything contradict MJ's claims? Llll5032 (talk) 17:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No but so often we don't have RSs that criticize the criticism. This is a case where editors have to look at the logic and decide if the source is being reasonable.  I raised this objection at RSN a while back .  I think it illustrates the problem with articles that set out to prove someone is wrong rather than impartially explore the claims and where they are right and wrong.  In the case of police bias PragerU's video had a clear, narrow scope and I don't think anyone, MJ included, claims they are wrong within that scope.  MJ hangs their "wrong" on the idea that PU was actually discussing a broader topic and thus they were wrong.  Taking what MJ said, I think they could have reasonably said, "PragerU's evidence supports that there isn't bias in this aspect of policing but watchers may be mislead into thinking this applies more broadly".  What was misleading is to say, PragerU claimed there was no police bias of any kind simply because they didn't explicitly make it clear that they weren't looking at all kinds.  The problem with the attribution in this case is often the reader will take that to be all but the same as Wikipedia saying "this is true".  The fact is MJ did a very poor job summarizing a perfectly reasonable argument and left out the context in order to be able to summarize it as false.  Springee (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much it addresses your objections, but I have edited and moved the MJ sentence. Llll5032 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It certainly is better. I'm still concerned that MJ's spin is beyond a fair, factual assessment but your edit was an improvement.  Springee (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The fact that wp:npov does not prohibit biased sources does not mean that we can't strive to do better than that as sources that are less biased are more informative. Spun talking points of a "source" that is a political opponent are not very informative on the the topic. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk)

Criticism in lede
I don't understand the edit summary I think this was previously discussed. Regardless, it is 100% true they have been criticized for this, we shouldn't take sides and decide if the criticism is correct. See archive 6, first topic for stating PragerU has been criticized for presenting misleading or factually incorrect content.. rather than PragerU has presented misleading and factually.... Given the FRINGE nature of the material, we do take a side. However, the references verify the presentation as well. --Hipal (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with this is we have a range of accusations against PragerU. It's a clear fact that various sources have made the accusations against PU but it's not always clear that they are guilty.  If we are going to say, "this claim is false" then I think we can cite a strong source and say it in Wiki voice.  However, we are making a generalized claim.  If any of the above falls into the gray area then we have effectively overstated the claim.  As  noted in archive 6, "There is so much latitude in what could be called "promote inaccurate and misleading claims" that IMO it is a content-free opinion-type statement, best left out and instead find a source that provides analysis. Particularly since it appears that PragerU has not disputed the core tenets of climate change.".  Take that further, which claims regarding racism are factually wrong vs can be reasonably debated?  Same for immigration related topics.  Again, if we are going to say they are wrong in all these areas our article better have rock solid proof, not just the views of say Politicfact or even a single academic who doesn't agree.
 * I will say, I think this sort of "they are wrong" claims is a problem with many Wiki articles and it would be more impartial to state they are disputed and by whom. Also, thank you for starting the discussion topic. Springee (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Most conversation in any of these areas is spun and imprecise and so a political opponent ("source") can find a way to say that anybody they choose makes wrong statements. Even easier if you conflate "wrong" and the even more subjective "misleading" It's better and less misleading to attribute such claims. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure if it is FRINGE enough? PU is quite obviously first and foremost a propaganda machine but they are fairly careful to bury their falsehoods in at least a thin layer of abstraction or implication, plainly obvious if given even a little scrutiny but I think that little bit of scrutiny might still be too much to declare PU as a whole FRINGE, although the more scientific falsehoods like the climate denialism is obviously FRINGE. I think the lede should probably just refer to the criticism, but as the current edit stood I decided to alter Hipal's edit to be more informative, since PU is rarely factually incorrect (if we are being very technical and generous) but is almost always misleading. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think your edit is an improvement. I'm still concerned that this we have this claim in Wiki-voice.  As I mentioned above, I think we can come up with strong sourcing that supports the view that they have engaged in climate change misinformation.  However, I don't see that for racism.  The wiki article says little about racism.  The most direct I can find in the body is where Mother Jones, in a single sentence, mischaracterizes the content of a PU video.  This is why I think we should avoid these issues by using generalized attribution vs wiki-voice.  Springee (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good points all.
 * (Regarding FRINGE: misinformation on climate change, COVID, race, ... are all FRINGE.)
 * I'm not seeing a good solution, beyond the standard: find better refs and work from them.
 * If we go back to qualifying it with "has been criticized for" or something similar, maybe we could strengthen the criticisms? SLPC's "an indispensable propaganda device for the right" summarizes it well, but that may be too much. --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is very legit. While I think the SPLC cries wolf too much, we shouldn't imply that this criticism comes from a bunch of random twitter accounts who are done complaining about the latest Lord of the Rings product.  What about "criticized by media and experts" or "criticism in the media and by experts" or similar.  We certainly have subject matter experts on climate change who have raised criticism.  However, in terms of "racism" that seems to be isolated to Mother Jones.  I think we should make it clear that this is also not a case where every video is criticized.  They have a lot of videos but it seems like only a few or a few topics really draw out the critics.  Springee (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Because there are so many videos, it would be difficult for us to say much more in a summarizing statement. --Hipal (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Most of the sources we use are not criticizing PragerU, they're making objective statements based on research and/or analysis. Seems like a NPOV violation to not present it as such. –– FormalDude  talk  05:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been wondering whether stating that many sources consider PU to be a propaganda outlet would be acceptable to mention. Although most political advocacy groups are technically propaganda, PU does go far enough with it that it is propaganda in a much more plain sense of the word. Propaganda is colloquially a very derisive term though, so I think it's use in wiki-voice would and should require a higher bar to be met, but it is how PU is referred to by many substantive articles, and in most leftist and a large amount of liberal culture, so it could be worth making reference to this point but it is a bit of a heavy one, and maybe shouldn't be in the lede? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Climate change is a good example. Even the most categorical denials are common and not fringe in that respect, (albeit they probably are Wiki-fringe) even if they are certainly wrong. Then if one gets into the nuances and emphasis in conversation it gets even vaguer. For example, if a conversation focuses on natural variability of temperature, or casts doubt on some possibly-overreaching statements by climate-change activists, that is called spin, which 90% of any speech on a hot-topic is. And, in turn, political opponents of who did that ("sources") have wide latitude in spinning the interpretation of the spin thus enabling wilki--lawyering to use what they say to turn an article into a hit piece. IMO, the answer is to put in objective facts and leave out subjective characterizations. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Climate change theories are a spectrum, ranging from conclusions that can reasonably be reached from looking at the research, to those where the analysis is questionable, to those where the conclusion simply could not be drawn with any logic. The line where you call it fringe is a little arbitrary and up for debate, and some people draw the line in unusual places, but for those theories where the conclusion simply does not follow from the research at all it is absolutely not spin to call those fringe. And I guess the spectrum can go into the other direction with climate change alarmism but that's not really relevant here.
 * Although I don't really like how the page reads a little hit-piece-ish because of all the critical quotes, it is hard to avoid using the statements of critics since although the conspiratorial content is one of the most notable aspects of PU, the way in which Wikipedians can make note of this is quite limited without doing OR. This is due to the carefully crafted pseudo-authoritative style where they will quote a number of true statements, but then state that this leads to a conclusion that the data they cited does not imply, or isn't even relevant to. This is not a factual error but rather an analysis error, which if a reputable source makes note of can be referenced, but to make note of faulty analysis independently is usually OR. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What would be an analysis error that isn't a factual error?  My first guess is that you are referring to spin which covers about 90% of what people in politics say. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I know it may be easy to cynically believe that, but there are differences in the ways people can be incorrect. Do you believe that stating the sky is blue because the sea is blue is just spin? The sea is blue after all.
 * Analysis errors are almost always factual errors, but since the error is in the analysis you need a reliable source that talks about the exact same thing to refute it, which is hard when the claim PU makes is often a vague "we shouldn't worry about climate change" or whatever. I was going to add an example where they misinterpreted the melting rate of greenland ice but I mis-remembered what they said and it turns out their original statement was just factually wrong in addition to being misused. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe that factually wrong statement would be useful for the discussion. Could you say what it was?  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked out their latest climate video "Is There Really a Climate Emergency?" just to see if they were still doing the same old stuff. I thought I remembered them saying that the ice sheets were not melting faster than they were a decade or so ago, which would have been roughly true because the rate of melting increased to a much higher rate around 20 years ago and if you just eyeball a graph it goes straight down at about the same rate from there (it's actually accelerating but that's hard to see unless you look at a graph of the rates rather than quantities). But I went back to check and they actually said 80 years ago, which is even more wrong. The source is from a book that I would have to buy, but I think I found the book's source: this climate denial blog, which has used this study which studied a single glacier and came to the conclusion that in the last 80 years the rate it was retreating was similar to the rate it retreated during the anomalously warm period around the 1940s. But on the blog this was falsely extrapolated to "Investigation Of Long-Term Glacier Melt Rates For Iceland Reveal No Net Change In 80 Years" which implies that some sort of average of all the glacier melt rates has not increased which is just flatly wrong, and I'm pretty sure even the retreat rate of this particular glacier has continued to increase since that study, but I doubt PU bothered to check any of this. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at any other claims, that one just sounded a little ridiculous so I remembered it later. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2022
I would like to see this page and others edited with unbiased opinions and only information about the page, not political opinions or ideologies. 2600:100B:B12B:3CFB:5067:B38C:1BFB:683 (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2022 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Bias against PragerU.
It should also be reported that Wikipedia, YouTube and others have also been accused of presenting false and misleading information by conservative sources. Also, the courts that rejected PragerU's claims, are dominated by Leftist Judges that rule against most conservative cases. For example, Youtube IS in fact a public forum by definition, ask anyone that uses it. As for Climate Change, many scientists disagree some of its claims and not all the evidence supporting it is conclusive, yet any claims that it is wrong or misleading are pronounced false. This is pure bias from the Left. 68.161.169.97 (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read wp:soap and wp:forum. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * YouTube is a privately operated website, no different than if you allowed people into your living room to say or do what they wished. You can have whatever restrictions on what occurs in your living room that you wish; others cannot force their way into your property and force you to hear their views.  331dot (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)