Talk:PragerU/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Blatant partisan politicking on this page

I've spoken about this indirectly on the talk page before but it now leads to be overtly said. There is a repeated pattern on this page whereby any material perceived to be unflattering to PragerU is systematically removed, tendentiously edited and questioned. Let's have a look at some of the material that has been removed:

• material related to Douglas Murray (author)'s video "The Suicide of Europe", based on four sources (both journalistic and academic) whose credibility was not questioned[1]
• material related to the removal of holocaust denier Owen Benjamin's material for PragerU, based on three journalistic sources (admittedly, there have been robust discussions about these sources but I contend at least one of them is very high quality)[2]
• material related to PragerU's recent video about Robert E. Lee. This has not been widely reported but at least one journalistic source with editorial control has reported on it[3]
• material related to PragerU's platforming of far-right figures such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Stefan Molyneux and Paul Joseph Watson. This was based on two academic sources and its factual basis was never disputed[4] and the only conclusion I can reach is that it was removed for being unflattering to PragerU. PragerU's extensive connections to the far right have been documented on the talk page[5] based on multiple academic and journalistic sources - as an editor I have pitched the wording of these far right links to the talk page so they can be properly discussed.

As can be seen from the above examples, the only consistent factor in the material that is tendentiously questioned and removed is that it can be perceived as unflattering to PragerU. Now, PragerU is of course a controversial topic on which there are likely to be disputes, and we all need to make ourselves familiar with Wikipedia:Controversial articles. However, we also need to acknowledge that NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content, and that material should not be removed simply because PragerU could perceive it as unflattering.

This is the last attempt I'm going to make to put a stop to these tendentious edits. The editors engaged in this process of tendentious editing know who they are and I'm not going to ping them for now. If we cannot agree on how this page should be written, I'll escalate the matter to an administrator, but in the meantime I call upon the editors in question to set aside their biases and aim to improve this page in line with Wikipedia's policies Noteduck (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

One of the pillars of Wikipedia is the policy on WP:CONSENSUS. If you make one or more changes and a number of editors revert your changes that strongly suggests that you don't have consensus for the changes you are making. A deity of impartiality might come down from the sky and tell us your version is the correct version but Wikipedia says consensus is still required. If you think local editors are wrong you can use various WP:DR methods including the noticeboards, requests for comments etc. Also, please review WP:BRD. While not policy it is widely considered a best practice and many experienced editors will treat it as a personal policy. Springee (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, read the talk page archives. In my experience with this article, you have it backwards, though the anti-PragerU problems have gotten worse in the past year or so. --Hipal (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that through the sole reason of having a majority of people who share the same views regularly editing this page the editors in question have come to the conclusion that this grants full discretion to exclude content that they are not comfortable with, with little to no reasoning, and have been behaving as such for some time, rather than achieving what they believe to be balance through more productive and reasonable means. The page should probably be relegated to admins under full protection but it could be worth trying arbitration to resolve things, I am not familiar with the processes though since I typically edit technical pages and haven't gotten caught up in something like this before. Also I'm not sure about the other accounts but Shinealittlelight appears to be a WP:SPA and should probably have their edits reviewed for advocacy since they seem to have an issue with that. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

MasterTriangle12 I agree with everything you said, and I'm frankly dismayed by what I see as the issues with quality of this page and repeated deletion of good sources. I believe this source will eventually be relocated to admin protection, as I think the content is simply too controversial to be left to open editing, but in the meantime, I'll start by filing an arbitration request under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests You can name up to seven parties in the dispute, and I believe that Springee, shinealittlelight, Hipal, Jlevi and MasterTriangle12 (feel free to mention others who would want to be included) should be included as parties. We all have strong disagreements, but let's try to keep things civil and keep contributing to the improvement of this page Noteduck (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure about Jlevi since I can't recall them appearing myself and there may be others that have contributed who should be added, I'm not familiar with the etiquette but go ahead by all means. I would have been just been sitting on the fence about this if I had not checked through the history of questionably rejected content, but I am a rather forgiving editor and should probably learn to just not put up with this. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

MasterTriangle12 if you've seen additional tendentious edits, feel free to note them here or on my talk page. They would be useful in justifying an arbitration request Noteduck (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is the rather general addition I tried to make, somewhat poorly at first, but the reception and response was characteristic of the wider problem, I might have a fresh peek through the talk history this weekend though if I get time because there are MANY similar cases. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've contributed modestly to this back-and-forth. I first added the article content discussed in this talk page section. I would not describe the editor interaction in that case tendentious because I dropped the topic quite early--there is lots of work to do, and I didn't think it worth my time to engage here. The second minor bit was a comment here. Jlevi (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read wP:talk and wp:not. We discuss article changes, not wikipedia's bias to other user actions.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

PragerU connections to the far right

Suggestion that a new subheading should be created for the PragerU page, "Links to the far right" or something like that. Here are some relevant sources - links to sources posted BELOW quotes:

Reporting by Buzzfeed in 2019 found that PragerU’s videos do not focus on the news cycle, rather addressing “almost every divisive national issue in the United States today: racism, sexism, income inequality, gun ownership, Islam, immigration, Israel, police brutality,” and free speech. In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center said that “more than a few [of Prager’s video topics] function as dog whistles to the extreme right.”

• Georgetown University Bridge Initiative Factsheet: PragerU[6]

For example Prager University (PragerU), an online video portal created by the conservative talk radio host Denis Prager, explains the warped worldview of the extreme right in simple videos with themes, such as police are not biased against black men; man-made climate change is debatable; why we should oppose animal rights and the $15 minimum wage; and that the gender wage gap does not exist (Openheimer, 2018).

• Barbara Franz, "The New Right on American Campuses: Challenges for Higher Education," in Digital Culture & Education 12(1): 2020 1-25[7]

Famous for its weekly five-minute videos which have garnered billions of views, PragerU argues that “the Left” is “akin to hate groups” (p. 39) and that mainstream media is untrustworthy. It also promotes white nationalist thought by far-right thinkers such as Paul Joseph Watson, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Stefan Molyneux (Tripodi, 2017).

• Noah Krigel, "“We’re not the party to bitch and whine”: Exploring US democracy through the lens of a college

Republican club," in Interface: a journal for and about social movements 12(1) 2020: pp492-514[8]

“Sites like Prager U,” Tripodi argues in a report from Data & Society that will be published in May, “create an opportunity to dabble in content that seems extremely innocuous, yet makes connections to the same kinds of ‘revelations’ pushed out by the alt-right.”

• Joseph Bernstein, "How PragerU Is Winning The Right-Wing Culture War Without Donald Trump," Buzzfeed News, 3 March 2018[9]

At the same time, Prager’s amplification strategy also regularly promotes the ideas of white nationalist thinkers, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, and Stefan Molyneux via the same networked strategies. As Tripodi (2018) and Lewis (forthcoming) describe, the implications of creating a dense network of extremist thinkers allows for those who identify as mainline conservatives to gain easy access to white supremacist logic. Leveraging the thoughts of someone like Stefan Molyneux can have disastrous consequences considering that Molyneux regularly promotes “alt-right” “scientific racism” on his own YouTube shows (Evans 2018)

• Francesca Tripodi, "Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices," Data & Society Research Institute 2018, page 36[10]

“[PragerU] gets people questioning and looking for more information, and if nothing else, it is very blatantly algorithmically connected” to the extreme right content found on YouTube, Tripodi explains...As Tripodi’s study demonstrates, PragerU seems to be yet another node on the internet connecting conservative media consumers to the dark corners of the extreme right.

• Southern Poverty Law Center: PragerU's Influence[11]

Third, I explore how the language of culture and identity is taken up in right-wing educational sites. I look at the forum Conservative teachers of America, as well as the online school PragerU and the Far Right YouTube Channel RedIce. Right-wing users adopt discussions of culturally sustaining curriculum to call for a White idenititarian pedagogy—a White power curriculum they disguise in calls for a return to a traditional curriculum, a patriotic curriculum, and above all a curriculum that valorizes the western world. This idea of the “West,’’ and a classical curriculum that valorizes it, is a theme that moves to the conservative PragerU, into White nationalist spaces like RedIce. To twist Wayne Au’s words, they want to teach for White lives.

• Catherine Tebaldi (2020): Speaking post-truth to power, Review of Education,Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, DOI: 10.1080/10714413.2020.1729679[12]

"This latter theory is argued by British author Douglas Murray in his book The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (2017), and is neatly summarized in an educational video Murray did for the far-right fake university PragerU"

• Simon Strick, "The Alternative Right, Masculinities, and Ordinary Affect," in Right-Wing Populism and Gender: European Perspectives and Beyond, eds. Gabriele Dietze, Julia Roth (published by transcript Verlag, 2020) [13]

Homa Hosseinmardi, Amir Ghasemian, Aaron Clauset, David M. Rothschild, Markus Mobius, Duncan J. Watts, "Evaluating the scale, growth, and origins of right-wing echo chambers on YouTube," submitted by Cornell University and awaiting peer review lists PragerU as a "far right" channel.[14]

Feel free to add any additional relevant sources Noteduck (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, here's another relevant source.

• Drew Anderson, "BACKGROUNDER: PragerU’s Ties to White Supremacy, Horrific Anti-LGBTQ Record," glaad.org[15], 6 August 2019 Noteduck (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure we need a sub heading by certainly something like "and has been accused of having connections to the far-right" might be in oredr.Slatersteven (talk)

Agree that a subheading may not be correct. Also, we have to be careful that we don't say/imply PragerU is working with far-right groups. Some of the views expressed in PragerU videos overlap with far-right ideas. Also, both the Bridge Initiative and Tripodi papers are self published and the Tripodi framework was challenged by another academic in a self published paper. The connection aspect of the Tripodi paper has been widely reported but the individual characterizations in the paper are simply self published opinions. I think the other sources should be reviewed before assuming they are all valid. Springee (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Review of suggested sources from above:

• Bridge Init: This is a self published work. It is out of a university group but still self published. It should only be used if referenced by others.
• Barbara Franz: This is a paper published in an open access journal. I don't see anything regarding it's impact factor. As such this source is little more than a self published opinion of the author. Her source for the characterization of PragerU is the Oppenheimer Mother Jones article which is already in the Wiki-article (and contains demonstrably false characterizations).
• Noah Krigel: Again a paper from an open access journal. In this case their characterization of PragerU is taken all but verbatum from the Tripodi self published work. This paper has but a single author and again should be viewed as little more than a self published work.
• Bernstein/BFN: This source is already widely quoted in the article so I'm not sure why it is here.
• Tripodi: Already in the article. Again this should be used with care as it is self published but cited by others. The paper's fundamental premise is disputed in another academic white paper (I would have to look up the reference)
• SPLC: This is a bit circular as they are just referencing the Tripodi report and it's method. I would be more comfortable giving the SPLC opinion weight if cited by other clearly RSs.
• Tebaldi: Another open access journal. Again DUE is an issue.
• Strick: This one is a book published via academic press. However, it just stays that Murray's PragerU video is a good summary of Murray's book.
• Hosseinmardi et al: This is not a published manuscript. Until it's published it can't be treated as a RS.

While this was a long list of sources for the most part it's either sources that are already in the article or are unusable. Springee (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Open-access seems to be equated with unreliability in several of these summaries. But at least one of those is peer-reviewed through a fairly standard process, so it might be worth looking more carefully. Jlevi (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't find an impact factor for this journal. Per the source the author doesn't have an advanced degree. Basically I can't find that this journal has any academic standing and the author certainly doesn't. Springee (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll respond in more detail to the specific contentions about the sources soon, but first I want to alert fellow editors about the unfortunate conclusion I have reached after weeks of arguing with Springee: Springee is not engaged in good-faith editing, but rather engages in a pattern of tendentious editing aimed at preventing the admission of any source that they perceive as unflattering to conservatives. Please read the threads I have started on Springee's talk page and let me know what you think. I may have to escalate this further[16][17] Noteduck (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Responding to each of Springee's contentions specifically:

• Bridge Initiative is not self-published and Springee knows this. It's a Georgetown University academic project
• Franz - again, your obsession with the spurious use of the "self-published" designation. Open-access means free to access but does not mean "not peer-reviewed" - they say they are peer-reviewed[18]
• Krigel - this is a peer-reviewed journal[19]
• Bernstein - this source is here because it supports the contention that PragerU has links to the far right. There is no ban on using a source more than once in an article
• Tripodi - this is not self-published. According to their website they are an "independent, nonprofit 501(c)(3) research institute"[20] Tripodi is a respected University of North Carolina academic, and this group is also linked with some other quite notable academics[21]
• SPLC - the SPLC's contention that PragerU has links to the far right is supported by every source on this list...
• Tebaldi - this appears to be a well-known academic journal[22] It is peer reviewed[23]
• Strick - did you read the source Springee? The sentence is in a footnote, which is why it may not have come up when you searched it
• Hosseinmardi et al - it indeed has not yet been peer-reviewed. Is there a Wiki policy that says research awaiting peer review has zero weight? My understanding as an academic is that it certainly means the source has less weight, but not none.

In short, not a single one of Springee's rebuttals is convincing. "Open access" does not mean low quality or not peer-reviewed. Please have a look at the links I have provided above to threads discussing Springee's tendency to baselessly block or remove material that they consider unflattering to conservative sources. Given the wealth of source material that we have, let's think about how we can incorporate it into the PragerU article Noteduck (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

PS: Springee has deleted the post on tendentious editing that I added to their talk page. While they are entitled to remove content on their own talk page, it's a shame that they didn't engage with the substance of the material. For more evidence of my above points, here is the archived thread[24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 23:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, given your assessment of the JTA ref and comments above, I'm finding it difficult to see how your opinions demonstrate the necessary understanding of content policy. --Hipal (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

:::Hipal, please assume good faith, have a closer look at the wealth of academic and journalistic evidence added to the page in recent edits, and refrain from petty insults Noteduck (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please WP:REDACT. There's nothing about my comment that doesn't assume good faith.

No insult intended. I've redacted my entire comment as a gesture of good will. I previously notified you of my perspective of new editors like yourself diving into topics under sanctions [25], and the need to work from independent, reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hipal just a heads up, I'm drafting a request for full protection by administrators on the PragerU. I think it's unsalvagable in its current form and there's just such a relentless tug and fro that it would be better if we can defer to administrators to help reach a consensus on what this page is going to look like. Other frequent editors on this page like Springee, shinealittlelight, MasterTriangle12 would probably like to know this as well. Noteduck (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect you don't understand what administrators are. They are not mediators nor do they have special status when it comes to determining consensus. Have you looked at WP:DR yet? --Hipal (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

(a little out of place because this thread has been moving quickly off-topic) I think we need to see the reasoning for blocking this move beyond offhanded dismissal and provide some sort of substantive reasoning, else I think it should be given little weight. If the sourcing requirements were actually as strict as Springee is asserting then the entirety of WP would contain only a fraction of the information that it does. And could Springee please read both the Tripodi paper and Kevin Munger's paper so that they can understand how superficial the overlap in discussion between the two is and hopefully conclude that they do not dispute each other, we've been over this before. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I have read them. Note that neither is peer reviewed. Springee (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi MasterTriangle12, thank you for contributions. Hipal, I don't appreciate your contention that I'm ignorant of Wiki's policies and "don't understand what administrators are" - please keep the discussion respectful. Hipal, you have yourself acknowledged the ongoing problems with this page:

Noteduck, read the talk page archives. In my experience with this article, you have it backwards, though the anti-PragerU problems have gotten worse in the past year or so. --Hipal (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, you've been discussing this page as far back as May 2020,[26] so I'm not surprised you can see the problems with it. Without pointing any fingers, it's clear that us Wikipedians have struggled to reach any kind of consensus on what should or should not be included on this page. Even the fairly basic question of what is due on this page is completely unresolved and contested.[27] I maintain my contention that the culling of material that could be perceived as critical of PragerU is so blatant that partisan bias is afoot - see[28] and [29] I believe this page should be submitted for full protection, which would prevent future edit warring and tendentious editing and require administrator approval before any changes can be made. Remember, PragerU is a political juggernaut with BILLIONS of reported views - we're all passionate about the quality of this page and owe it to ourselves to ensure the highest possible standards for this article Noteduck (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Understanding is required. I'll do my best to avoid anything that comes across as an insult.

Hipal, you've been discussing this page as far back as May 2020 That is incorrect.

There are two pages in the talk page archives here.

On the history page for any Wikipedia page, you'll find multiple tools to get statistics for that page. --Hipal (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Owen Benjamin content

Jlevi, I don't think this contribution is DUE on a number of levels[[30]]. The three sources are Media Matters, Right Wing Watch and an opinion article from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. None are good sources (JTI might be but the article is clearly labeled "Opinion"). Next, it's a BLP violation to call Benjamin a "conspiracy monger, and holocaust denier" in wiki voice. These accusations may be true but they are also contentious labels and thus we have to be careful with how we use them. Finally, the content really doesn't say much other than these groups are unhappy PragerU allowed this person to speak. However, without saying what Benjamin said or why the comments were controversial this is basically a he said, she said with little information conveyed to the reader. For this reason and the poor sourcing I think this is UNDUE. Springee (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I removed it. The refs fail BLP criteria as far as I can see, it's grossly UNDUE, and there appears to be SYN/COAT problems by drawing from Owen Benjamin. --Hipal (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

PragerU took down Owen Benjamin's videos afterward, which may make him of more interest to this article. From Business Insider[31]: "Benjamin's "anti-PC" comedy repertoire — previously praised by the conservative free-speech crowd despite being replete with racist and homophobic slurs — started to feature overt anti-Semitism in 2018. Not too long after, his PragerU videos disappeared without explanation from YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter." Llll5032 (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

That's an opinion piece by Anthony L. Fisher, a "Politics Columnist" at Business Insider. It's not a very good reference. --Hipal (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

So, in 2018, PragerU made several videos made by the "comedian" Owen Benjamin, later revealed to be a holocaust denier. This was written about by:

• Business Insider[32]
• Jewish Telegraph Agency[33]
• Media Matters for America[34]

Individually these might not be due but with the three of them taken together, the deletion of this material looks like egregious pro-Prager bias. I don't understand how Prager platforming a controversial speaker who turned out to be a holocaust denier, then removing his videos, could not be due weight. I'll leave it open to the floor but I think this is quite overt right wing bias. I'll listen to responses but currently I think this might call for admin intervention. I'm concerned that material unflattering to PragerU is being systematically removed from this page Noteduck (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please focus on content and assume good faith.

WP:CIVIL:editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I commented just above on how the Business Insider piece is poor.

The opinion piece published by the Jewish Telegraph Agency is not useable.

We've repeatedly rejected the Media Matters piece. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, please assume good faith in your comments about my edits. Please give your rebuttal on the JTA piece - it's not enough to just state "it's not usable". Noteduck (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The JTA article is an OpEd. That means the editorial board of JTA is, in a sense, washing their hands of any specific claims. Thus that article can only be considered the opinion of the author. As such we have to ask, does that author have sufficient WEIGHT to her views that we could put something to the effect of "JTA OpEd author X says BLP subject Benjamin is a [contentious label/claim]? The answer is no. Springee (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, everything I've written above assumes good faith. Please WP:REDACT your statment.--Hipal (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, I'm happy to WP:REDACT if you redact the following statement you made on this talk page, which I regard as patronizing and not conducive to consensus-building:

Noteduck, given your assessment of the JTA ref and comments above, I'm finding it difficult to see how your opinions demonstrate the necessary understanding of content policy. --Hipal (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Noteduck (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this request. Looks like I did regardless [35]. --Hipal (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee

Content regarding PragerU's video on Robert E. Lee has been repeatedly deleted. In the video (which can be viewed in its entirety here: https://www.prageru.com/video/robert-e-lee/), it is argued that Lee is a "great historical figure" who deserves a statue because, among other dubious rationales, "Lee led U.S. marines to crush an attempted slave rebellion," resulting in all the slaves and abolitionists being "killed or captured." This is a provocative and controversial take to say the least (e.g., see https://hillreporter.com/prager-university-praises-confederate-general-robert-e-lee-after-his-statue-was-removed-from-the-united-states-capitol-88088). Is there any serious argument that this isn't noteworthy?23.242.198.189 (talk) 10:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No idea about this specific indident, but we do not need a list of everything they have ever realeased.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

A commenter with a music degree has a negative comment about a PragerU video on what appears to be a left-wing political blog with no established reputation. Yeah, this is not due. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Describing the crushing of a slave rebellion as a positive act for which someone should be held in high esteem is an inarguably contentious position and is therefore noteworthy, there is no reason to keep deleting contributions for any of the reasons listed here, and a quote from PU's video needs no other source in this case. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I should probably mention that the quote from the commentator is unnecessary and not particularly noteworthy, this should be an addition to the "content" section without a critique quoted, unless a suitably notable critique has been made. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:DUE and related policies. We depend on secondary sources to establish that some information is due for inclusion. Since the source provided is not a good source, it does not establish that the material is due. And you can't establish due weight using a primary source. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

"you can't establish due weight using a primary source" Despite the ways in which this is correct, I am sure you are aware that if this was the bar that information had to pass to be included then WP would be a very barren place, including this page. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Did PragerU take down this video? The link above did not work, but the Internet Archive shows there was a video: https://web.archive.org/web/20201108073810/https://www.prageru.com/video/robert-e-lee/ but does not seem to have the transcript (which PragerU normally includes). If this is the 2-minute video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N839Z38w_AU then its mention belongs at Michael Medved who is credited at the beginning of the video. DougHill (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the Hill Reporter article[36]. Note that Hill Reporter is not a "left-leaning blog" as stated before. Critically, Hill Reporter does seem to have editorial control[37]. It has made it onto the foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration page[38] and I believe should be treated as a RS in this context unless other evidence can be adduced against it. Another point to make is that it seems clear that PragerU has gone into damage control mode and deleted/made private the Robert E. Lee video. They are no strangers to controversy but as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) this is the first time they have ever deleted one of their own videos. It's hard to measure the significance of this objectively but I think it certainly deserves at least a passing mention on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 03:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

That is the same article being discussed above. Again, this is an overview of PragerU, not a running list of every negative thing said about any PragerU video. Springee (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, the content you restored twice today [[39]] was originally added by Llll5032 and a IP account. I was also removed by myself Slatersteven and 331dot. The only reason to restore it to the article is if this discussion has reached a consensus that it's DUE. I will only speak for myself but I do not think this discussion represents a consensus for inclusion. The Hill Reporter does not look like a source with WEIGHT. The video appears to have been removed by PragerU but even if it hasn't, the argument that not every criticism of a PragerU video belongs in the wiki-article has yet to be addressed. For these reasons restoring the text is premature at this point. Springee (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

just checking, you accept that Hill Reporter is an RS in this case? Your complaints are with whether it has due/weight issues? Also, would you not concede that it's significant that this appears to be the one time PragerU have voluntarily deleted their own video> Noteduck (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not see evidence that Hill Reporter is considered reliable per RS standards. Additionally, I do not see evidence that it would be considered DUE. Springee (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm removing this; please don't continue to edit war. The story is not due, and the points I and others made above stand. Specifically, they state about themselves that they employ two editors and four staff writers on their "about" page, but I don't know that this is sufficient evidence to show that the piece in question is not self-published. Moreover, the author in question does not appear to have any particular expertise in this area: he holds a music degree. Finally, in any case, the site does not have a significant reputation, and is thus not able to establish DUE weight. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight so your sole problem is whether Hill Reporter is an RS? I'm happy to flick it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noteduck (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No, that is not my sole problem. This material is not DUE aside from the fact that the sourcing is arguably not RS. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to interject that not a single argument for why this is not DUE has been given aside from vague imputations of the reporter and the news agency. It is becoming increasingly difficult to take objections like these seriously and I would recommend not continuing to do so. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: It looks like PragerU has scrubbed the Robert E. Lee video from its website and deleted the tweet that embedded it. 2600:1700:9BD1:7130:293C:B1DF:46E5:8D41 (talk) 06:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks, it's been down for a while. Btw, here is another source with editorship writing in detail about the Robert E. Lee video.[40] I'm making a dispute resolution notice for this page as I believe the partisanship has gotten too much and it's not really salvageable in its current form. Noteduck (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

How is them releasing a pro-slavery video still not part of the article? Norschweden (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Norschweden, unfortunately I believe that material perceived as being unflattering to PragerU is being repeatedly scrubbed from the page - there is an ongoing debate on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard page about it. The Robert E. Lee video is one of the contested items. Hopefully this page will eventually be unlocked and impartial editors can get back to the task of improving this page Noteduck (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Awful sentence transition

Under the "history" section, this paragraph is used

Since a lawsuit over the use of a photograph in 2013, PragerU has used animation in its videos. According to its CEO, Marissa Streit, a group of approximately 500 students called "PragerFORCE" promotes its videos. PragerU reached a billion views in 2018.

The connection between PragerForce and the lawsuit is very abrupt and doesn't sound right imo. Ethan Parmet (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This is the part where you suggest a different wording rather than just complain about what we already have. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a bunch of factoids, the latter two poorly referenced WP:SOAP. A bit of context for the first and perhaps pruning for the latter two would help. --Hipal (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a good writer i dunno what to say instead. Ethan Parmet (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Climate change

I propose a wording closer to the source and that doesn't play with WP:YESPOV (the implied suggestion that it's all equal opinions in relation to climate):

From current:

"In August 2018, PragerU criticized YouTube for adding fact-checks to YouTube videos which cover climate change."

to proposed:

"In August 2018, PragerU criticized YouTube for adding fact-checks to YouTube videos that promote misinformation in relation to climate change."

I would even propose "that promote climate change denial" but that is stronger wording not necessarily used by the source, other than in its header. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, that would be an appropriate change. LK (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well, the "misinformation" piece is crucial. –dlthewave ☎ 13:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal, it is good we make clear it is a fight against disinformation and fringe theories. Climate change is a fact so we should make clear that climate change is a simple fact. Generally uninvolved with this but I can fully support this. Des Vallee (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Per the BuzzFeed News source I think it would be better to say:

In August 2018, PragerU criticized YouTube for adding fact-checks to YouTube videos that question climate change as part of Youtube's effort to combat climate change misinformation.

The is closer to the opening of the BFN article. It appears the fact check would be applied to videos that only challenge information but don't promote alternatives. Springee (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the source does not say that PragerU spreads misinformation about climate change. It says that they made some videos that have been affected by YouTube's new labelling policy, that the list of topics that receive these labels has not been disclosed, but that climate change is one of the topics. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with proposal. In going through past discussions, I had spotted this and wanted to note it here. Thanks, Neonate. --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Potential refs:

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-prageru-missing-context-cli/fact-check-video-presents-climate-change-statements-that-lack-key-context-idUSKBN2712EY - looks usable

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/video-from-prageru-makes-several-incorrect-and-misleading-claims-about-climate-change-richard-lindzen/ - I'm unfamiliar with this website and use in Wikipedia

https://features.weather.com/course-climate-misinformation/ - I'm unfamiliar with weather.com's use in Wikipedia --Hipal (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

People can put forth factual information to raise questions about climate change. E.G selective data. Where is the source that says that the posted information is mis-information? Even if YouTube's determination was considered to be a source, do we know the YouTube identified it as misinformation? For example, fact checking may identify it as correct information which has been removed from context. Or correct information that is too narrow to provide the big picture. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

While PragerU certainly has videos that will be labeled as skeptical on climate change topics, it appears that in this case this is more about PragerU questioning what YT is doing rather than trying to defend any particular PU video. I think we already have content related to PU videos being denial/misinformation etc. So is this material about PU questioning what YT is doing or is this about PU getting mad that YT said one of their videos is misinformation? Regardless, I think the text I proposed is the best so far because it is closest to the source. Springee (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

A agree with this: Springee's proposal above most accurately summarizes the content of the the Buzzfeed story. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, "skepticism" doesn't accurately describe rejection of the scientific consensus regarding climate change. I recommend reading the page on climate change denial. The claim that PragerU promotes misinformation, disinformation, misleading information or denialism related to climate change is hardly a novel one, see just for starters Noteduck (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That is a separate topic. Consider that I might complain both about an unreasonably low speed limit setup as a revenue generating speed trap in my town as well as the ticket I got for going 40 over in that low speed zone (and 20 over what might have been a reasonable limit). The fact that I got a ticket for going faster than even a reasonable speed limit doesn't mean my complaints about my town setting up a speed trap are unwarranted. The sources here are talking not about bad content coming out of PragerU, rather they are talking about YT taking an editorial stance by placing a warning on videos. I presume the concern is that some good content will be unfairly labeled and thus dismissed. Springee (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

To talk about yet another angle, it's a common an accepted practice to try to shift the ground a bit on a big political question by bringing up an example that may not be representative. For a HYPOTHETICAL example, if the science/ math says that the majority of welfare recipients don't work any jobs, then John Smith says "you're wrong; for example Jane Smith here is on welfare and working two jobs" the latter is considered acceptable speech and OK untagged in YT even though it is "denial" of the data & science on the question at hand. One could certainly question YT for eprecating such an opinion. Also, it would not be the norm for Wikipedia to say in the voice of Wikipedia that John Smith's speech is a mis-informaiton campaign. I made up a "shoe is on the other foot" example to promote unbiased analysis. North8000 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that a core item in Wikipedia terms is that two times over including "promote misinformation in relation to climate change." is problematic. First, nothing here even claims that YouTube said that all of the deprecated posts were misinformation. Second, even if they did, YouTube is not a wp:RS much less the the very strong wp:rs'ing that would be required in this case. North8000 (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

"Question climate change" is ambigious and some comments above suggest it may be legitimate criticism. On the other hand, if it's related to the science, the consensus is that warming happens and is mostly a result of human activity. Denial is a strong word, but this means in this context that "questioning climate change" is promoting misinformation, unless it was only related to points in relation to how to implement mitigation regulations and policies. The criticism of Youtube by PragerU was to present it as a politicized, but it's noise, it's a private platform that can remove content that violate its policies, including those about misinformation. Here are two sources from the article that are about misinformation: https://archive.vn/20190911220428/https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zahrahirji/youtube-climate-change-denial https://web.archive.org/web/20181227134554/https://features.weather.com/course-climate-misinformation/ . I'm actually surprised that my single suggestion above is contested by some who suggest non-WP:YESPOV alternatives. —PaleoNeonate – 20:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Using a more general term (which means less extreme of a claim) which leaves more possibilities open is not suggesting those possibilities. Besides, climate change being well accepted science is not relevant to the main issue here. The main issue is that the proposed wording is claiming applicability of that term to all of the tagged posts. That has not been established, nor is there suitable sourcing for it.North8000 (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the original concern was valid but I also think the proposal I made was a better summary of the source. Per the source, YT is tagging video it thinks "question climate change" and it is doing this as part of it's initiative to combat "climate change misinformation". Doing A to videos that have B in accordance with goal C vs doing A to videos that have C. I think everyone supports fixing the current sentence. Springee (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 13:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

References

White privilege

I'm not sure that attribution is needed for According to Snopes, recent history and statistics indicate that white privilege still exists. given White privilege. I'm also not sure if it deserves so much weight without more references. --Hipal (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time finding anything of use to demonstrate stronger weight. https://www.logically.ai/factchecks/library/2777b09e appears to be of questionable reliability, but I'm not finding any discussions on logically.ai. --Hipal (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think citing snopes as an authority on white privilege is pretty cartoonish, especially in response to what is obviously an opinion video. My preference would be to remove the line in question. Bonewah (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll ask the same question that has been asked above. What makes this particular criticism DUE? Clearly there are some videos that should be discussed specifically but if Snopes is the only source I don't see why it should make the cut. Springee (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Concern about some of the Tripodi content

The article currently says of Tripodi that She also demonstrated an algorithmic connection on YouTube between PragerU, FoxNews, and alt-right personalities. This is a reference to p. 46 of her report (which is cited in our article), where she says For example, Tripodi (2018) uses Candace Owens and James Damore as case studies to demonstrate the algorithmic connections between Fox News, PragerU, and “alt-right” YouTube personalities. I have two concerns about this. First, are James Damore and Candace Owens really "alt-right" figures? That seems highly dubious to me. But more importantly, my second concern is: when she says that she used these "case studies" to "demonstrate" these "connections", she cites a 2018 paper she wrote in a venue (a journal?) called Points, but (i) I cannot find this 2018 paper, and (ii) she does not list it on her own website. I can't verify the claim, since the paper is apparently not available for us to read. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think what part of you're looking for is on p. 36 of her report: At the same time, Prager’s amplification strategy also regularly promotes the ideas of white nationalist thinkers, such as Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson, and Stefan Molyneux via the same networked strategies. Loki (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

She again refers to her 2018 paper on that page in support of the point. I agree that she does assert that there's such a connection. But she does not "show" it in this report (as our article currently says); she simply claims to show it in apparently unpublished work from 2018. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight Candace Owens' extreme views are well-known and her praise of Hitler is particularly notorious - I recommend checking out this document[41]. Tripodi may well be referring to an unpublished conference manuscript. Tripodi's report has been extensively cited in the media and academia. Try to see past partisanship in this case Noteduck (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

We can't satisfy our verification policy with unpublished materials that are not available. The ADL source you've provided is critical of Owens, but does not identify her as a member of the alt-right. Please FOC and AGF. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

very few people describe themselves as alt-right, and Owens' extreme views are well-known. Tripodi is referring to her own research as an academic, and as an academic expert you'd expert her to do so. Noteduck (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I cannot verify what her "research" says in this case, as it is not publicly available. That's the main point here. I don't see you disputing that. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Owens original comments were clearly taken out of the context she intended. The provided great fodder for political points but once she clarified what she meant the issue, in rational times, should have been dropped.[[42]] Of course that isn't how click bait politics works. Just ask Howard Dean about his scream. Springee (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether James Damore or Candance Owens are alt-right figures is irrelevant. Tripodi states that on YouTube there is an algorithmic connection between PragerU, FoxNews, and alt-right personalities. It is not up to us Wikipedias to decide whether that "actually" is true or not. ImTheIP (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Our verifiability policy requires that "people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source"; in this case, Tripodi IS the reliable source. It's perfectly normal for an RS to cite information that's not publicly available for various reasons. –dlthewave ☎ 02:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure Tripodi should be viewed as a RS. It's more like a noted opinion. The Tripodi paper is not peer reviewed. It has weight because many have talked about it. I suspect some of that is because the paper seemed to fit a narrative that worked well for the media. Anyway, because the paper was widely discussed I would view it as having weight in a discussion. That doesn't mean we should treat it as a factual source. In general claims have been attributed to Tripodi so that hasn't been an issue. As a self published work I have wondered about using it to make claims that are not supported/discussed by RS discussing Tripodi's findings. Here is my thinking and perhaps it's overly Wiki-lawyering. Let's say Tripodi makes claims A, B and C. Claims A and B are discussed by RSs. Claim C is not. Claims A and B can clearly make it into an article since we just point to a RS to establishes the WEIGHT of those terms. What about C? Our normal policy is to treat unpublished academic work as self published (ie a paper that is say on a university lab website but not yet accepted for publication). Why would we treat the Tripodi work any differently? We don't have an independent review saying claim C is reasonable/adequately supported. Thinking back to my time in academia, I do have to ask, why didn't Tripodi publish this paper through the normal peer review channels? Perhaps this is the differences between more technical fields vs ones with popular/political appeal. Anyway, it's possible we can accept claim C based on the fact that the whole report is widely discussed (not sure how widely or in what form the report is cited in academic work). Anyway, we also should keep in mind that Tripodi's work seems more about how Youtube makes connections vs a truly reliable assessment of the individual channels in question. That Tripodi may have over scrutinized or claims a particular channel is more or less to the right than it really is doesn't necessarily negate the core conclusion about Youtube's recommendation algorithm. Springee (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not self-published, it's published by Data & Society. –dlthewave ☎ 03:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I 100% agree with ImTheIP that all that matters is what the source says, and not our personal opinions of Owens and Damore. I should not have raised that issue (though I also can't tell for sure that Tripodi is claiming that these two are alt-right). What the source says is that Tripodi (2018) is where Tripodi is supposed to have shown her "algorithmic connection" using certain "case studies". Does anyone have access to Tripodi (2018)? If not, it seems clear that we can't report this since it fails WP:V. Otherwise, are you really maintaining, ImTheIP, that we should rely on Tripodi (2018) without having it to check? Or maybe the idea is that we can report "Tripodi says that, in unpublished work, she has shown such and such"? Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Tripodi claims in an RS (her study [43]) that there is an algorithmic connection between PragerU, FoxNews, and alt-right personalities. If you want to disqualify here study, I think you need a consensus on this talk page (which you don't have) or you need to go through the RSN. ImTheIP (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No, Tripodi says Tripodi (2018) uses Candace Owens and James Damore as case studies to demonstrate the algorithmic connections between Fox News, PragerU, and “alt-right” YouTube personalities. So what we can claim on the basis of this is that Tripodi says she showed this in work that isn't public. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Last year I demonstrated that the earth is flat." We can confidently say that not only does ImTheIP claim to have demonstrated that the earth is flat in 2020, they also believe that the earth is flat. Frankly, yours and Springee's objections are getting ridiculous. ImTheIP (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Which specific objection of mine? While above I note a concern with using Tripodi as an independent source I don't actually see that I've suggested any specific additions or subtractions based on the work, only that we should keep in mind that the work is not peer reviewed. Springee (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Tripodi's report has 33 citations on Google Scholar[44] and her reported has been heavily cited in the media.[45][46][47][48] Drag it through RSN if you want, but this is clearly an RS. Noteduck (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't RS. I said it is not the source where she allegedly establishes the claim about "algorithmic connection". Shinealittlelight (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright, let's try to disentangle this. In the report we cite, Tripodi cites herself only twice: one work in 2017 titled "Fifty Shades of Consent?" in Feminist Media Studies, and one work in 2018 called "Mainstreaming the Extreme", in Points. (In addition, the report itself was published in 2018, so there's a possibility that this was a strange sort of recursive citation, which I won't consider further.)

• "Fifty Shades of Consent?" is fairly easy to find: it's here, and she in fact provides a link in the article. However, it doesn't seem to be the right topic, nor is it the right year, so we can discard this as a possibility.
• That means that, discarding the possibility that the report is citing itself, we must be talking about "Mainstreaming the Extreme". "Mainstreaming the Extreme" is much more difficult to find. On her website, she cites this same work as Tripodi, Francesca (under contract) Mainstreaming the Extreme Yale University Press, under "Books". The closest thing I've been able to find is this Medium article, which is on the same topic and published in the same year but is obviously not book length.

My ultimate conclusion here is that Tripodi 2018 exists but we do not have access to it. It's probably buried in a handful of university libraries. As several others have said, we generally trust sources that we believe to be reliable even if we don't have access to their underlying data, so this shouldn't concern us too much. Loki (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

What does an algorithmic connection even mean? Bonewah (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, LokiTheLiar. I think that the Medium post you found is very likely identical to Tripodi (2018). I will email her and see if she can confirm. Here's how I would summarize what she said in that Medium Post:

In 2018, Tripodi observed that YouTube's "related channels" for PragerU included some channels she described as "extreme viewpoints" such as Stefan Molyneux and Carl Benjamin. Tripodi says that James Damore and Candace Owens, who have been guests on PragerU, have closer ties to these viewpoints than PragerU itself, which she contends is the reason YouTube is suggesting these channels to PragerU's viewers. Tripodi says that these connections expand the audience for these extreme viewpoints.

I think this is a lot clearer than what we currently have in the article. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sentence about social justice

PragerU's videos are often highly visible and accessible, with a report by the Data & Society Research Institute finding that a YouTube search for the keywords "social justice" returned a PragerU video that was highly critical of the concept as the first result. Why is this sentence being removed? ImTheIP (talk) 12:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

A whole block of edits was reverted due to edit warring. I think this specific content is going to come up in a RfC that will be an outcome of an active DRN discussion. Springee (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

So the answer is someone was lazy and went for wholesale reverts rather than only reverting what they found objectionable? :) If there is no objection to this particular sentence then I'll restore it. ImTheIP (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Hipal was correct in feeling that so many changes were dumped in all at once over objections that it was probably best to restore the article to it's previous stable state and start the discussion process to get consensus for the changes first. I support the restoration to the previous stable state. That doesn't mean the change in question isn't an improvement, just that we should slow down first. Springee (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

In the arbitration page, I said: this seems to me more about YouTube than about PragerU. In any case, the proposal mischaracterizes the source. What the source says is The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ... In the video, he echoes libertarian critiques of social justice in the format of an educational video... Ok, so "highly critical" is not in the source, nor is "first result". Again, I don't know why this is DUE anyway, but if it is DUE, we have to accurately summarize the source, which basically just says that the Goldberg video came up one time when the author searched "social Justice" on YouTube. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't read the report before commenting. Having now read the report, I agree that the sentence completely mischaracterizes it and is UNDUE. However, the report's allegation, that PragerU employs keyword hijacking, may be DUE. ImTheIP (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not see that the source supports the allegation that PragerU "employs keyword hijacking". Can you provide a quote from the source that supports that claim? Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Political influencers are also able to strategically use politicized keywords for marketing purposes. Specifically, the influencers in the AIN try to get their content highly ranked in search results. ... Some political influencers in the AIN use SEO strategies to exploit “data voids,” or search terms that lack robust results. In this way, they use SEO to “hijack” certain issues and provide specific messages to potential new audiences. ... In my searches, I also found that influencers are explicitly using terminology affiliated with progressive social justice movements and are therefore appearing in search results for those terms. A number of popular videos from conservative influencers use the terms “social justice,” “liberal,” and “leftist” in their videos titles, ... The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ImTheIP (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This says that "influencers in the AIN" try to do this. But it does not specify which "influencers in the AIN" it is talking about. In the "Index of AIN Influencers" included at the end of the report, it does not identify PragerU or Jonah Goldberg as an "AIN Influencer". And, when introducing the point about PragerU, the quote says "also" as if this is a separate point, in addition to the point about "hijacking". I conclude that this quote does not support the claim that PragerU "employs keyword hijacking". Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't clearly say this is a keyword hijack. Also, if a video is a criticism of X then it's not a keyword hijack to use X in the title of the video. This again makes it unclear if the author thinks PragerU is unreasonably using a term to get views to a video not really about that term or if they feel videos that are critical of X shouldn't show up if people search for the term "X". Ultimately this feels like trying to get a paper that appears to be critical of YT's recommendation algorithm into a criticism of PragerU. Springee (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

PragerU is listed in Appendix B: Network Visualization. The author considers it part of the AIN. The section "Search Engine Optimization" is three paragraphs long. The first introduces the phenomena and the two remaining provides examples of it. One of those examples are The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Thus, what is written in the first paragraph (p. 30) applies to PragerU. ImTheIP (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

PragerU is listed in Appendix B as a "Channel" for Dennis Prager, who they do list as a member of the AIN. So yes, the source does say that PragerU is the channel of one of the influencers in the AIN. But it does not say that PragerU itself is a member of the AIN, which apparently consists of certain people (like Dennis Prager), not organizations like PragerU. I disagree with your interpretation of what the Goldberg video is supposed to be an example of. It is not an example of "hijacking"; rather, it is an example of the general phenomenon that the source notes just previous to bringing up the Goldberg video, namely: influencers are explicitly using terminology affiliated with progressive social justice movements and are therefore appearing in search results for those terms. Is this the same as "hijacking"? No. It previously uses that word for a different phenomenon, in which words that "lack robust results" are optimized. This is an example of a different phenomenon, done by Johnah Goldberg and PragerU, neither of which is identified as an "influencer in the AIN". So no, this source does not support the proposed content. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The author defines "hijack" as follows: Some political influencers in the AIN use SEO strategies to exploit “data voids,” or search terms that lack robust results. In this way, they use SEO to “hijack” certain issues and provide specific messages to potential new audiences. Especially note "certain issues" and "new audiences". In the third paragraph the author writes In my searches, I also found that influencers are explicitly using terminology affiliated with progressive social justice movements and are therefore appearing in search results for those terms. This is a manifestation of the strategy described in the first paragraph. The author proceeds to take a PragerU video as an example: The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, "Social justice" is an example of a "certain issue" and the "new audiences" is whomever PragerU hopes to catch. Since the whole point of the study is to investigate the AIM, the author obviously considers PragerU to be part of the AIM or else it wouldn't have been used as an example. ImTheIP (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation. But anyway, the plain meaning of what she says about the PU video is: she did a search on youtube, got the JG video, and she takes that to be an example of using terminology affiliated with progressive social justice movements and are therefore appearing in search results for those terms. This seems to me a point that is not due for inclusion in the article, and that's true irrespective of whether we dress up the basic undue point with her word 'hijack' (which I additionally think is out of step with the source, but we disagree about that). Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

What she is claiming is that PragerU is using SEO techniques to attract viewers to their videos. Specifically, she alleges that PragerU is co-opting "politicized keywords" from the left-wing's vocabulary to provide tailored messages to potential new audiences. This strategy actually is called "keyword hijacking". ImTheIP (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like we've reached the end of our dispute. I think you're misreading the source to say that this is called "keyword hijacking" which as she defines it involves "data voids". But the straightforward way of putting her point is that one time she searched on YouTube for "social justice" and got a JG/PU video about social justice, which she thinks is somehow indicative of a nefarious strategy. That's a silly point, and it's undue irrespective of whether we describe it as "hijacking". But I repeat myself. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The report by Lewis has not been misrepresented, but her wording is somewhat confusing. The source is Rebecca Lewis, "Alternative Influence: Broadcasting the Reactionary Right on YouTube," Data & Society Research Institute 2018[49]

• page 31 of Lewis report. "The search results for “social justice,” for example, include a video from PragerU entitled “What is Social Justice?” hosted by Jonah Goldberg, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In the video, he echoes libertarian critiques of social justice in the format of an educational video (Fig. 8)."
• page 32 "Fig. 8: A screenshot from a PragerU video criticizing social justice; the video appeared as the first result on YouTube for the search term “social justice”
• page 31 of Lewis report: "In fact, all of the top 10 video results for “social justice” are criticisms of social justice from reactionary channels (Fig. 9).(Google Chrome, Incognito in the US, June 19, 2018)."

I've no idea why this is "silly" or "undue" given that an academic chose to write about it in detail in this report and given the immense visibility of PragerU and YouTube videos more generally. Shinealittlelight and Springee, please bring this energy to resolving the dispute over at the DRN page Noteduck (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand. It's notable that a video about X would use X as a keyword. Or is it notable because a video about X but that is critical of X uses X as a keyword? Springee (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

So if I put something about "Right Wing Extremists" on my website, and SEO for that term, is that "hijacking" because I critiqued their initiative? :-) North8000 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah unless there is more to add to this then the mere fact that a criticism of a prominent concept is promoted above content about the concept itself then I do not feel this is noteworthy. If a pattern of this was found though, then I think it could be noteworthy, but only should be added here if a lot of that content is from PragerU. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"Despite its name"

I think that the claim that PragerU is misleading people by virtue of having the word 'University' in its name is sufficiently controversial that it should be sourced. LokitheLiar disagrees here, and claims that the misleading nature of PragerU's name is a case of WP:BLUESKY. What can I say, this seems to me obviously not as uncontroversial as the blue sky. Thoughts? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the fact that Prager University is not a university is self-evidently misleading, and if it was not we would not have any reason to include that line. We don't say Tucker Carlson's show is not a university because that's obvious. But it's not obvious in the case of PragerU, because it calls itself a university, despite not being a university, which is why we feel the need to clarify that it is not a university. Loki (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The sentence still clearly says "PragerU is not an academic institution..." Why is the meaning lost without "Despite its name..."? Springee (talk) 15:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Because that connects the sentence to the reason for including the sentence. It's important to draw attention to the university part of the name before the clarification or the clarification isn't clear. Why are we saying that PragerU isn't an academic institution? Because its full name is Prager University, and it's not actually a university. Loki (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Shall we also say that Hamburger University is self-evidently a misleading name? Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

We honestly probably should. The reason we don't is that Hamburger University is a corporate university, but that those aren't accredited academic institutions is probably worth mentioning more clearly. That article currently seems to be a bit too promotional, unironically promoting the idea of a "degree in Hamburgerology". Loki (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar, Shinealittlelight, I agree with the removal of "Despite its name" from "Despite its name, PragerU is not an academic institution..." [[50]]. I don't see this as a huge issue but without sounds more "factual" or impartial to me. Adding the phrase could suggest cynicisms on the part of the author. Since this is only suggesting vs actually stating I don't think it needs to be removed to stay impartial but I think removal would be better. This change was made a few days ago by AKK-700 in a cleanup of the lead[[51]]. Prior to the cleanup the sentence was longer as it said PragerU was a not for profit. With that text moved to the lead sentence I can see the sentence in question may have come across as naked and needing some sort of lead in. Is there an alternative text that could be used? Springee (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems like we could remove the "Despite its name" without changing the information imparted. What is the actual objection here? Bonewah (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason for the clarification is unclear without it. Simply saying that PragerU is not an accredited academic institution is unclear: because they normally go by the shortened version of their name, a reader that is unfamiliar with the topic might be confused when we say that. Saying that "Despite the name, PragerU is not an accredited academic institution", or that Prager University is not a university, draws attention to the reason for the clarification. Loki (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the clarification is unclear without it. "PragerU is not a university" vs "Despite it's name, PragerU is not a university" The first sentence is short but to the point. The second has a lead in (I generally like that) but it's ultimately no more informative and could be seen as trying to be pointy/scornful, an issue for IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the "Despite its name" phrasing is necessary or editorially favorable. VQuakr (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed "Despite its name" AKK700 19:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you are seeing POV problems where there is none. "Despite its name, ..." is there to make the prose flow. ImTheIP (talk) 02:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Inclined to agree with "make the prose flow". Not certain that "Despite its name, ..." implies (intentionally) "misleading", so much as "confusing". - Ryk72 ^talk 08:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with ImTheIP. The term "University" is indeed misleading Noteduck (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Another reason to include this beyond improving the structure & presentation, is that PragerU has occasionally claimed to be able to provide a full education and made other educational claims that do not not fit with a media company that only produces short videos, it would be worth clarifying this. I'll also add 'courses' as one of services that is not offered, since that is unusual and noteworthy for any organisation that is even just claiming to be a university. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh whoops, I just realised that can't be directly sourced to PragerU. I can't think of a secondary source that noted the absence of courses off the top of my head, if anybody knows of one then it could probably go back in. PragerU does sometimes describe a five-minute video as a "course" but I don't think that would have any relevance since nobody would confuse that with the academic course of study implied by the context. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe PragerU can be cited as long as the information is "mundane" and not "unduly self-serving". ImTheIP (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

For most things I would agree but this is the absence of something over the whole site. It's not very controversial though so maybe I could just use an archive of their main page with menu structure, or put a date on the fact. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The Southern strategy is well documented

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have an obligation to not take sides. Thus we don't assume the SPLC and Swain is wrong. We simply state they don't agree. Again, to what extent the Southern Strategy happened is debated. First, to the extent that any top down message was the cause of the southern realignment and second to what extent the GOP, at the national level, was using coded appeals to racism.[[52]] I don't think any historian says that level was zero which muddies the water. Springee (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Depending on the context the number is far more than 2. We have Swain, Alexander, Johnston, and Shafer from this page plus Lassiter, Kalk and Tindall, Kotlowski. In fact much of the scholarly debate section here is mixed on the subject [[53]]. A big issue is just what North8000 outlined, what are we specifically claiming? Is the debate why the voters switched parties, that at least some Republicans used dog whistle messages, that the overall party deliberately selected this policy? The story is widely repeated because it political gold for those on the other side. However, much like Ford deciding it was cheaper to pay off burn victims vs fix a car, the narrative seems to be more important than the actual evidence. For this reason I think we should avoid suggesting one side is right in wiki voice. Springee (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

LokiTheLiar, we appear to be in a noconsensus state. As such North8000 was right, the text should be reverted to the last stable state. This restores a version that doesn't have consensus[[54]]. Springee (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No one is arguing to cite a Wikipedia article.

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Shadybabs, before reverting edits, please remember that the burden is on you to justify changes to long term text (part of what you changed here [[55]]) and the material you restored regarding the SS is not consensus text and is disputed. Springee (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Revisiting Jan discussion regarding PragerU, Youtube and climate change

Rhododendrites, your edit here [[56]] moves away from the source on the topic. This was discussed in January [[57]]. The specific text from BFN is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noticeboard dicsussion

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