This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofconservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is part ofWikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the majorwebsites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit theproject page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpolitics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofOrganizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofMedia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofYouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofscience,pseudoscience,pseudohistory,conspiracy theories, andskepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
Wikipedia policy notes for new editors: A common objection made by new arrivals is that the article presents PragerU's views in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of it is too extensive or violates Wikipedia'sNeutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) policy. The sections of the policy that apply directly to this article are:
In short, there are certain topics and fringe viewpoints we should not be givingfalse balance to. SeeFringe theories (WP:FRINGE) for more context on how Wikipedia deals with fringe views.
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
Tebaldi, Catherine (2025). "PragerU, Patriotic Teachers, and the Radicalization of US Education Discourse".Alt-Education: Gender, Knowledge and Far-right Metapolitics (1st ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 88–105.doi:10.4324/9781032704319-6.ISBN978-1-032-70431-9.
The problem is í think is the wording. For example, it says PragerU has been spreading misinfo, (which is true) but talks a lot of crap for citing lots of non-neautrual sources, heres some it cites:
Both of those are used in a limited way with attribution (the former is directly attributed to GLAAD, while the latter is written by a historian, and attributed as such.) PerWP:BIASED, it's acceptable to use biased such as GLAAD in a limited way with attribution like that in order to reflect their opinions, where noteworthy. GLAAD is high-profile enough that their opinion is likely worth a brief sentence, while Parry, an academic and a historian, is likewise an expert whose opinion is worth noting when published inWP:RSOPINION. And neither are given a ton of weight - just a sentence in the article each. (In fact, Parry is givenless than a sentence, since he is merged in with a summary of a bunch of other historians as well.) I wouldn't characterize Parry asWP:BIASED the way GLAAD is - doing so causes a problem where anyone can characterize any academic whose perspective they disagree with as biased. But it doesn't matter either way because we attribute him as a historian anyway. --Aquillion (talk)03:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ók, you’re right about the links. But í reccomond you check out the article for yourself. If you will not listen to me judging it, go judge it yourself.Blackmamba31248 (talk)03:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"citing lots of non-neautrual sources" ?? There is no requirement for sources to be neutral. None. Only editors, not even content, must be neutral. Editors must edit neutrally by not censoring what RS say or inserting their own opinions. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)05:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be more specific if the tag is going to remain on the article; without something actionable to fix, it becomes a badge-of-shame, which isn't how such maintenance tags are meant to be used. --Aquillion (talk)02:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it has a severe neutrality problem. Just because a political opponent can pass as a source doesn't mean that we need to use their spun writings to write the article from. Better to find objective informative sources and include informative material rather than characterizations by political opponents. Sincerely,North8000 (talk)17:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a nice sentiment... UnfortunatelyWP:NPOV is "non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." and excluding such sources would be against that policy. We don't allow censorship of sources based on political leanings.Horse Eye's Back (talk)17:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an overtly political group almost all the commentary will come from other political sources. You could probably find some important far-right voices praising their efforts, which could be notable enough to include as commentary like has been done with the critical commentary and I would recommend adding some. For reliable sources though, the lack of any praising the company is just a result of PragerU being nakedly propagandistic and frequently using obvious misinformation to do so, it's a difficult thing to find any way to praise honestly and without bias.MasterTriangle12 (talk)20:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I surely wouldn't want sources that praise them, that would also be value laden characterizations / spin rather than information, the same problem that the article has now.North8000 (talk)01:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ground News is an tertiary aggregator, not a secondary source. In general, I'm skeptical of their whole approach vis a vis Wikipedia, which again seeks to present the consensus view of existing RS on the topic, not ensure that we're being "neutral" when the consensus view is deemed to be biased one way or the other. Maybe you could use Ground News tofind other sources that we could use, but in general we prefer secondary to tertiary sources for claims.Remsense诉01:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
North8000 I have seen you talk about such things many times and I think you may be confusing "value-laden" with "dishonesty" or something like that. A source can be highly opinionated and "value-laden" and still be useful here. Every source that is providing commentary on every topic is value-laden, and so is the the decision to include it, WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Even math is value-laden, it's just that the values there are rigidly defined and easy to check. If someone claims to not be expressing values then they are lying to you or are just thoughtless, also without exception. As long as the source is reputable for their honesty and accuracyon the subject they are being sourced for then it's all good. So even right-wing sources that tend to have a somewhat, uh, "loose" conception of honesty can still often be considered accurate intheir personal appreciation of PragerU's work. That praise can sometimes be notable enough to include in an article since it elucidates relationships between important entities, which is important in political fields. If you read through some articles on political figures and topics you will have seen simple quotes of praise and derision from important entities and I am sure you have found some informative, even if it was from someone who was highly opinionated or who you don't even trust generally.MasterTriangle12 (talk)06:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can mean many things but my context here is some third party'sopinion orvalue-laden characterization of the topic as contrasted toinformation about the topic.North8000 (talk)14:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, when editors are deciding which 1% of sources & source material is going to be used in the article, pick straightforward objective information rather then opinions and characterization by third parties. And so don't seek out material that praises or bashes them.North8000 (talk)19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you did mean what I thought, I was just confused because your answer sounds like you misinterpreted what I said. So after repeatedly restating a desire that most of us have, what do you actually want? Do you want to not quote any commentary on their activities? Maybe just trim down on what is there? What information do you think should be added? Is there a characterisation in the article that you think may be incorrect or unreasonably "value-laden"? Is there ANYTHING you can add to this discussion other than repeatedly restating a general desire? Also, PragerU is only rarely spoken about in reputable sources, and from my efforts sourcing I can say we are using far more than 1%, and I daresay it could actually be most RSs that are used here, it is certainly most of the significant ones at least.MasterTriangle12 (talk)06:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if I was a better editor I would actually be able to act on a general desire like that, I just tire of the wishcasting. Sorry @North, it's not just you, but still doesn't warrant my yelling.MasterTriangle12 (talk)09:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MasterTriangle12: I got mixed up on who made the last post and my post to Aquillion below is also for you: I don't even strive for the high bar of unbiased articles. I do strive for the lower bar where the bias does not damage the informativeness of the article. And IMO in many areas this article fails even that lower bar, providing a badly distorted less informative coverage in many areas. Per below I'm not going to make any push or effort on this article. I would find this an interesting and useful topic to discuss with someone who is in the middle of things wants articles that are good and informative in this respect and maybe this article would be a good catalyst/example for such a discussion.North8000 (talk)15:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forum, off-topic, user behaviour, nitpicking, blah, blah
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
The point of a discussion is exchange of reasoning. You are just stating your opinion, which is worthless for the purpose of discussion. --Hob Gadling (talk)05:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hob Gadling, while you are correct that the opinion isn't actionable, it appears to have been offered in good faith. As such please be CIVIL in your reply. Sometimes people who aren't familiar with Wikipedia can have a reasonable sense that an article has an issue even if they don't know the BOLDLINKS needed to express the point.Springee (talk)12:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to ping me because I have a watchlist. You also do not need to tell me things I already know.
The IP did not know that a pure opinion is worthless here, so I told them. If you do not like the way I do it, try to say the same thing without shocking easily-shocked people like you so much that they feel the urge to sealion. --Hob Gadling (talk)13:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Civility cost nothing. You could convey the same information as you might to a friend. I thinkDoug Weller's message[1] was similar. You can be correct without being dismissive. Even better would be too engage and help.Springee (talk)14:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee an ip entering into an old discussion with no earlier edits shouldn’t be taken seriously. No need to carry this on. And I can’t avoid thinking this might be a logged out accountDoug Wellertalk15:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you talk a lot of nonsense, every knowledgeable person becomes an opponent and can be spin-doctored into apolitical opponent. PU does talk a lot of nonsense about climate change, COVID, history, statistics, and other subjects, so the "political opponent" reasoning is weak sauce. --Hob Gadling (talk)20:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about a political opponent regarding which of the two main sides of US politics they operate on.North8000 (talk)20:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion:I don't even strive for the high bar of unbiased articles. I do strive for the lower bar where the bias does not damage the informativeness of the article. And IMO in many areas this article fails even that lower bar, providing a badly distorted less informative coverage in many areas. Per below I'm not going to make any push or effort on this article. I would find this an interesting and useful topic to discuss with someone who is in the middle of things wants articles that are good and informative in this respect and maybe this article would be a good catalyst/example for such a discussion. Sincerely,North8000 (talk)15:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing. I genuinely, truly believe that this article is an accurate and balanced summary of the topic, both in the sense that what it says is, broadly, true and accurate, and in the more-important-for-Wikipedia sense that it accurately reflects the balance of what high-quality sources say. I wasn't the one who wrote or found most of the sources in this article, but to me, it looks like what someone would come up with if they did a genuine and serious search for high-quality sources covering PragerU, then wrote an article summarizing them; to me, it presents the fairly blunt but accurate conclusion that those sources inevitably reach (on a topic that I think, after all, is very straightforward) in a fair manner. It's possible that I'm wrong! Maybe my biases are leading me astray. But just gesturing at the article and going "it's obviously so biased as to damage its ability to inform people!" isn't very convincing, because, of course, everyone has biases and it's also possible thatyour biases are leading you astray - there are always going to be people who are unhappy with any version of an article like this in a topic area like AP2, no matter how it ends up. So if you want to convince me (and the other people who have said similar things, I assume), you have to actually present the sources you think are missing. I can understand not wanting to put in the time and energy for that, but I did actually do a brief search and my opinion is that those sources simply... aren't there. If you dug hard enough I'm sure there's some rando opinion-piece by a non-expert praising PragerU, but overall, top-quality coverage says that it has played a key role indisseminating far-right propaganda and misinformation and thatPragerU at its core serves to spread misinformation and propaganda in service of the US far right, and to manipulate and radicalize viewers. That isn't me quoting some fire-breathing opinion from GLAAD or something, that's from apeer-reviewed paper, and not one that seems particularly out of line with other comparable sources (to be clear, I found it by just dropping "PragerU" into Google Scholar and picking one of the top ones - the other option wasPragerU as a parasite public - so I wasn't going out of my way to look for negative coverage or anything.) You have to at least consider the possibility that that summary is accurate and that, because it is accurate, virtually all top-quality sources are in agreement on it. --Aquillion (talk)16:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion:Thanks for that thorough response. You have framed the possibilities in ways that are enabled by certain wiki systemic issues. I know that that is vague, but it's a big complex topic. Thanks again. SincerelyNorth8000 (talk)17:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Building an article inherently excludes about 99% of all sources and picks about 1% of them.North8000 (talk)01:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also editorial choices on picking which 1% of the sources and which 1% of what is in sources gets used, which is the reality of Wikipedia articles. And to do that based on looking forinformation rather than value-laden characterizations.North8000 (talk)02:58, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems something of a false dichotomy to me. Not to belabor the point, but I genuinely would be interested in what sources you think should be cited.Remsense诉03:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do citeThe American Conservative,Reason (magazine), theCato Institute, (which I wouldn't cite myself, but we currently do so) andThe Times of Israel (twice), as well as numerous academic sources. I don't think our citations are particularly politically lopsided. It's just that coverage of PragerU generally describes it as producing misleading or factually incorrect information; if that's a generally-accepted fact among sources, then we're not supposed to dig for obscure op-eds and the like that say otherwise just to "balance" it out. If 99% of the sources say that they produce misleading or factually incorrect information, then 99% of our article is going to say that, too. --Aquillion (talk)19:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not advocating right leaning sources. The core points I was arguing for are selecting much more information and informative material and less characterizations. I've said what I had to say / advocate and folks don't agree/ don't want it and I think I'll sign off here regarding this thread. If anyone thinks I can help, please ping me. Sincerely,North8000 (talk)21:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that right leaning sources get much worse treatment than left leaning sources. controversy and criticism are always within the first five paragraphs of an article in right leaning media articles while in left leaning media articles it's difficult to find criticism it's buried within the article and is heavily discouraged within guidelines ofwikipedia's neutral point of viewEasyrider291 (talk)18:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not always the case but there do tend to be fundamental differences between how left-wing and right-wing organisations conduct themselves (most notably dishonesty), which are usually reflected in the type and validity of criticism that each of them receive. At least that seems to be the biggest effect that I have noticed.MasterTriangle12 (talk)07:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is a year old.....but it is difficult to respond to "this is biased"; please detail the specific parts of the article you find problematic.331dot (talk)21:31, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But without basing your disagreement on your own judgment of two PragerU videos. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources. We cannot write "expert organizations A, B, and C each made in-depth analyses of PragerU's output and all agree that PragerU is full of shit but the anonymous Wikipedia user 203.211.74.93 who watched two videos sees it differently". --Hob Gadling (talk)07:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added attribution for the sentence in the first section that says "PragerU has been accused of promoting fascism, racism, sexism and anti-LGBT politics," as the cited source is GLAAD and theWP:RSP says that GLAAD sources "should be attributed." My edit was reverted by the userHipal for being "overly constraining." Will be readding this attribution soon per the WP:RSP, but wanted to take it to the talk page first before I readd my edit.AstralNomad (talk)21:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree that claim should be better attributed but the way you added it was a double attribution. You were saying that GLAAD says they've been accused of those things, whereas it'd be better to simply say that GLAAD accuses them of those things.Loki (talk)23:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Edit requests are to propose specific changes in a "change X to Y" format; if you just want to discuss the content of the article, it doesn't need to be an edit request.331dot (talk)10:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, while most of your changes are simple rephrasing/minor text edits, in several places you have made changes that are either poorly supported by the article or not at all supported by the citations[4]. The changes were made without justification via edit summaries and should not have been restored once challenged. Your change from conservative to right-wing in the opening sentence is disputed since most of the article/sources use "conservative". Additionally, the sentence, "PragerU was founded in 2009 by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager and radio producer/screenwriter Allen Estrin, in order to advocate for conservative views and to offset what Prager regards as the undermining of college education by the left." was changed to say it was founded to, "to promote fossil-fuel and spread disinformation on the climate-crisis.". That claim isn't supported by any of the citations in that sentence (I suspect at some point citations may have been shifted since the citations at the end of the next sentence seem to be the once supporting the reason for the founding).Springee (talk)04:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in that diff or in the other copy-editing that actually changes meaning or is not supported by the wide majority of sources.[5][6][7][8]. Also, lead statements don't necessarily have to be cited if expanded upon in the article body - are you saying that that the "right-wing" aspect should be better built up there? Good idea; hold on.Ceoil (talk)07:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop shouting in hysterical CAPS and discuss this as a grown-up. Have already provided sources, while your demands are unspecified, and templating my talk doesn't change that.Ceoil (talk)10:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am emphasizing as you appear to be ignoring the rules which are clear, if you are reverted, you have to come here and make a case, not us. You should be spending your energy making your case here. Ohh and readwp:npa.Slatersteven (talk)10:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you are hysterically accusing me of not doing is exactly what I am doing. Here. On this "talk page".....""talk" "page".."discussing".Ceoil (talk)10:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does not explain why consensus should to be overturned (As other sources use different language, see the talk page archives), you need to make the case (You, not anyone else) as to why it should be. So I am out of here with a no untill I say otherwise, convince us you are right.Slatersteven (talk)10:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't. We go on reliable sources and wp:verify. With all these weak strawmen, am wondering if you have some sort of invested interest here.Ceoil (talk)10:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try but "conservative" and "right-wing" are not mutually exclusive. I say lets let this sit for a bit, maybe a few weeks, for others to chime in. I'm done on commenting and a bit borded with the circular argumentation, so won't be pushing again for a while. Deal?Ceoil (talk)11:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to choose one or the other. They are both right-ring and conservative. If we have sources for both then we can say both. Both terms have their ambiguities and each helps to clarify the other. For many in an international audience "conservative" may imply centre-right, which is not what American conservatism is. Many, on reading "right-wing", might immediately ask themselves "Yeah, but how right wing? Are we talking Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Giorgia Meloni or Ilse Koch?" Obviously, exploring that is the role of the article but the opening needs to give people a rough idea. If we could pin it down to a specific type of conservative then that would be good. If we have sources for "right-wing conservative" then that would be good. Failing that, "right-wing and conservative" would be OK. --DanielRigal (talk)13:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The majority have said the organization is conservative. Additionally, the body of the article clearly favors conservative. That is likely why previous consensus discussions ended with "conservative".Springee (talk)14:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just to retract here for a moment; the other of my reverted edits was around how to couch that the lobby promotes "fossil-fuel and spread[s] disinformation on the climate-crisis". Thoughts?Ceoil (talk)13:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That PragerU has promoted the use of fossil fuels and climate change disinformation is already in the article. The problem was you changed a sentence that originally said the reason PragerU was founded was to do X to a sentence that said they were founded specifically to promote the use of fossil fuels and climate change disinformation. I don't think even the most critical sources have made that claim. This is why your reflexive reverts and claims that you weren't making substantive changes are problematic. You not only failed to follow BRD, you also failed to understand the problem with your edits.Springee (talk)14:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above points expressed by Springee and Slatersteven. Also IMO there were other substantive problematic changes in Ceoil's edit. Sincerely,North8000 (talk)18:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is in violation of Wikipedia’s so called founding principle of NPOV. Which is a neutral point of view. I’ve tried to contact Wikipedia directly, but they make it nearly impossible. This article is stating pure opinion, and as I reviewed Wikipedia’s take on left leaning tv shows, it is apparent that this page is done on purpose. It needs to be redone to be neutral and not give an opinion. “PragerU's videos contain misleading or factually incorrect information on climate change, slavery[1][2][3] and racism in the United States, immigration, and the history of fascism. PragerU has been further accused of promoting creationism, fascism, racism, sexism and anti-LGBT politics.[4][5] Should read more like, their videos could be thought to contain misleading or factually incorrect to some viewers. Not that they do.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2DBurch (talk •contribs)
Those are statements of fact from reliable sources. We're not going to water them down to improperly present them as a competing opinion just because some have political disagreements with the stated facts. - *MrOllie (talk)18:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV is about accurately reflecting the best-available sources, especially high-quality ones like academia; and the article, as it's written now, simply summarizes what they say.Sourcing on PragerU describes its role as eg. "disseminating far-right propaganda and misinformation" and that "PragerU at its core serves to spread misinformation and propaganda in service of the US far right, and to manipulate and radicalize viewer". We can't water that down just because some editors personally disagree; if you think it's not an accurate summary of what the best sources say, you need to find similarly high-quality sources saying otherwise. Otherwise you're engaging inWP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk)18:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"not give an opinion." An article without opinions goes against Wikipedia's policies, and it has to either be improved or immediately deleted. Coveringcontroversies is essential for articles. See for exampleWikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: The lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."Dimadick (talk)10:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that our correspondent here says that it is "nearly impossible" to contact Wikipedia while, um..., literally contacting Wikipedia there is a possibility that they are confused at the most basic level. Not only can anybody post messages here, anybody can post messages to the various Administrators Noticeboards. You don't need to demand to speak to the manager on Wikipedia. You can just speak to the managers. (i.e. the administrators.) Of course, they hear a lot of bootless kvetching of the type above, and are under no obligation to take it seriously, but there are literally no barriers to contacting them. (Unless they block you for disruption but you'd need to be repeatedly and intentionally obnoxious, ignoring warnings, for that to happen and even blocked users are given an alternative way to get in contact.) I also wonder, given the way that the complaint quotes text from the article with the source numbers without any acknowledgement of those sources, whether our correspondent is even aware that the numbers in square brackets indicate sources and that they can just click on them to see where we got the information in the article from. --DanielRigal (talk)12:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the “Conservatism in the UK” template on this article?
Regarding the recent edit warring: The reference is poor and doesn't demonstrate encyclopedic value to an understanding of PragerU, nor demonstrate due weight. Adding content because of reasons unrelated to the article topic is a POV violation. --Hipal (talk)01:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to those who have said the same thing here previously:
Aesurias, since you have noted that others have made similar statements, please address the responses to those statements. Repeating what others have said without elaboration gets us nowhere. --Hipal (talk)16:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Starting this because of ongoing disputes about neutrality, especially regarding the lead. Should the following lead paragraph be changed, kept or be removed?
PragerU's videos have contained misleading or factually incorrect information on slavery and racism in the United States, immigration, and the history of fascism. PragerU has been further accused of promoting racism, sexism and anti-LGBT politics.
Remove: Sourced incredibly weakly (Vanity, GLAAD, and Weather Channel(!)) and outdated as all hell. It's an embarrassment actually, and doesn't even begin to come close to anything resemblingWP:NPOV. It could not possibly be moreWP:UNDUE, and should therefore be removed completely.2A00:FBC:EE34:6EDF:39E5:3460:445B:4D5E (talk)04:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. that the sources in the lead are kinda weak is actually irrelevant, as leads are generally not even meant to have sources in the first place. that said, other sources in the article's body do reflect that, so it's exactly the kind of thing that should be said thereconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)12:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Should be procedurally closed perWP:RFCBEFORE. The nominator should have started with an edit request; RfCs are time-consuming last resorts for disputes and should not be started without prior non-RfC attempts to resolve the disputes by the nominator.Yue🌙14:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sections 1.1, 3, and 4.1, and citations 2, 3, 6, 24, 25, 47, and 48, and that's if you ignore how often they clump any info on "bad groups" (people who aren't cis and straight, non-americans, non-christians...) with their women (by which i mean women in general), the "traditional values" they routinely choose to promote, and the aforementioned gender pay gap deal. really, there are a lot of missed opportunities here, so i'll recommend that reliable sources get on it so more 7 citations mention this in any satisfactory amount of detail, even though only one is already enough for keepingconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)16:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd just recently reviewed the paragraph after it was deleted and restored. I removed a small bit of content that I could not verify[11], everything else was verified. --Hipal (talk)16:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change It's importance enough to keep especially since some high quality sources mention it. But I would change it a bit to keep it more neutral and minimal. I think the current version violatesWP:NPOV andWP:ATTRIBUTEPOV because it states criticisms as a fact.
I would replace it with something like this:PragerU produces videos from a conservative perspective that have been both widely viewed and criticized for factual inaccuracies and bias.Frankserafini87 (talk)03:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Remove I do not believe it should be included, but if it is, this is how it should be covered. The current lead does present criticism as fact.Jcgaylor (talk)06:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep but change Yes I thank that is much better for the lead, I don't think there is any reason to list the topics on which they are inaccurate and biased, especially since it could imply that they are limited to the very small portion that have been covered in the article.MasterTriangle12 (talk)09:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"widely viewed and criticized" sounds weird. Is "viewed" supposed to mean "viewed as misleading or incorrect"? Removing that part seems like whitewashing. We do not need to be overly nice to an organization the pretends to be a university. --Hob Gadling (talk)12:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it's necessarily being "nice." It's better to keep it as neutral as possible. We are still mentioning that their content has been criticized for being biased and inaccurate.Frankserafini87 (talk)02:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think adding a second "widely" before "criticised" would clear up that ambiguity. I'm not sure a mention of the fact they are widely viewed is needed though, especially since they are no longer particularly noteworthy in that regard.MasterTriangle12 (talk)10:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agreed. How about something like this: "PragerU produces videos from a conservative perspective that have been widely criticized for factual inaccuracies and bias."
Not sure if we should mention "conservative perspective." Also, it might be worth mentioning that they have been criticized by academia and other media sources.
A large portion of the page is dedicated tocriticism of the subject, which can be a concern, but not what this rfc is about. Stating that the subject produces videos is factual. Stating that the videos produced by the subject have been criticized is also factual. So how aboutPragerU produces videos. These videos have been criticized. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo)07:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's meaningless. That should be stated and the reasons for the criticism stated clearly. For example, do they state inaccuracies, lies, conspiracy theories? Describe it briefly in the lead. --Valjean (talk) (PING me)17:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep untouched. Per above. If we had to change it, something like "PragerU has been found to contain right-wing propoganda", if we wish to keep it short but blunt.Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I19:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
nah, i also oppose that. if that wording is used, a reader won't know what they've been criticized for without going deeper into the article. as far as that wording implies, there are equal chances that the videos would be criticized for their ideas, format, time, and ugly shades of blue. the sources used state what they're criticized for, the article says as much, so the lead can avoid being vagueconsarn(talck)(contirbuton s)20:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as-is. It accurately reflects what the highest-quality sources have said; and the level and breath of coverage indicates that this is a major part of the topic's notability. --Aquillion (talk)16:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing controversial here. It is factual and neutral. It reflects sourced content in the body. It is fundamental enough to the topic that it belongs in the introduction. We need to be responsive to valid objections but not to frequent repetition of invalid objections. There are no valid objections here. We do not need to soften our coverage to spare their blushes. --DanielRigal (talk)00:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The balance of reliable sources appear to accurately describe what is their commitment to facts (namely, the burial thereof, in misinformation) and our primary body sections (§ Content and § Reception) appear to reflect the fact that it is a major element in why they have received coverage. There does not appear to be any assertion made that spreading misinformation is no longer what they are primarily known for, only that it is very unfair that we describe this.Alpha3031 (t •c)14:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Edit requests are to propose specific changes in a "change X to Y" format; if you just want to discuss the content of the article, it doesn't need to be an edit request.331dot (talk)10:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=icon}
