Talk:PragerU

Coverage of PragerU

PragerU has generated almost 200 educational videos featuring many conservatives political figures of note, and a recent censorship controversy has thrust the website into the national spotlight (articles published in the Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, etc). A small subsection on Dennis Prager's page is no longer adequate space to cover PragerU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:4854:7b00:a803:648f:1c79:81bc (talk • contribs) 05:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

controversy & criticism

how about a section about criticism & controversies about what the organisation puts out instead of just about the youtube thing.

also, would be nice to hear WHY each of these videos was removed, & what the content was.

Lx 121 (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. It is a distortion of facts to claim that what PragerU dishes out has anything to do with "education" or "science". --91.67.98.120 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Find some reliable, independent sources on the topic, and there shouldn't be much problem adding such details. --Ronz (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This might be useful. Probably not for anything where BLP applies, but I wonder if Myers' viewpoints on education would be reliable and due. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, this would only devolve into a page bashing PragerU for wrongthink.

I disagree, anonymous editor, as PragerU has made factually incorrect statements. Although, I wouldn't call free thought blogs a credible source. StigmaOfTruth (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — Andy W. (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Prager University → PragerU – Prager University now goes by PragerU on its own website and its social media pages, including YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. Furthermore, recent media coverage of PragerU identifies the organization as PragerU, and not Prager University. See the Wall Street Journal story cited and The Federalist story in this article, along with this piece in The Washington Times. Jsichel (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds fine. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

List of presenters, topics, episodes

While I don't pay a great deal of attention to YouTube infoboxes, I don't believe the list of presenters deserves such prominence, if any mention is due at all.[1] While this is typical public relations material, I don't think it is suitable for an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Same goes for the list of topics and episodes [2]. This article is not a forum to advertise, nor should it be treated as an extension of public relations and marketing efforts for the topic.

If editors can provide some independent and reliable sources, then we'd have something to work from. Maybe we can get some help and guidance from WP:WPMEDIA or other editors more familiar with the general consensus on articles about similar media providers. --Ronz (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise and promote your fringe conspiracy fake news

Merge this with Dennis Prager — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.59.58 (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Promotion tactics

I've just reverted the removal of a sentence about "PragerForce" - students who promote the videos. I disagree that mentioning this promotes PragerU or is non-neutral in any other way. It is a detail of their way of operating (as I said in my edit summary, it helps illuminate its not being an actual university), and the source, while making no secret of its ideological bias, is reputable and so I believe I can trust the specifics it gives about the business side of the organization. (However I had to go to a heavily ideological source to reference the co-founder; perhaps his name is in the Wall Street Journal article, but I can only see the very start of that.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about Buzzfeed News on the RS noticeboard

See here[3]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I've restored the content and source. Two more sources are available at RSN that can be used if there is any continued doubt of reliability and due weight. --Ronz (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion archived at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_239#Buzzfeed_News_as_a_source_for_text_on_PragerU. --Ronz (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

PragerU's obsessive use of unchecked information and being vague

PragerU likes to include info that was unchecked. They also like to be vague. Perhaps we can put that in the Article somewhere. Ericeleven (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It would come to who says they like to include unchecked info and be vague? --Ronz (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over use of reference from Americans United for Separation of Church and State

• Jones, Sarah E. "More Money, More Problems: Billionaires Back Sectarian Courses For Public Schools". Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Retrieved 2018-03-20.
• Added [4], apparently to support the BuzzFeed reference in the previous section.
• Removed at least twice now: [5] [6]
• The author appears to be [7] [8]

I'm not seeing any problems with it, nor any discussions in the usual places (RSN, or deletion discussions). --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what there is to dispute. I see no reason why the Buzzfeed reference is not sufficient. The source that has been offered as an additional source appears to be an opinion piece in a self-published blog. Hence it should not be used for claims about living persons and you should not have reinstated a BLP violation without consensus. The blog does not even support the statement about "largest donors".

Nobody is trying to remove the content, so, to put it bluntly, I don't understand what purpose your edit-warring serves. If you are certain that a self-published blog post is a good source for this content, you should consult WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. My interest to this article specifically stemmed from a RSN discussion. Anyway, thank you for paraphrasing the content. Politrukki (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC.

The Buzzfeed ref was disputed, and there are BLP concerns.

Given the info I've provided, I don't know how "self-published", "blog post", or "opinion piece" apply. As I mentioned, I've found no discussions at RSN or in deletion discussions suggesting it is an unreliable source. AU seems a reputable publisher. The author seems an experienced journalist.

I don't understand how the addition or removal of an additional, supporting source could be a BLP violation.

Other sources are available, from both the Buzzfeed and AU refs. I looked at a few of the ones from Buzzfeed at the time. I've not looked at those in the AU article.

Two sources were offered in the RSN discussion, and the arguments made in the RSN discussion about the Buzzfeed ref seem to apply rather perfectly to the AU ref. --Ronz (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide a quotation – from the blog post – that directly supports the content? BLP policy is very clear on this. You can't use self-published blog posts, especially when the source fails verification. You have not provided evidence that AU is a news organisation and that a piece published in the "Wall of separation blog" (obviously some kind of group blog) is under full editorial control. As the blog post is not a reliable source for content about living persons – particularly when written in Wikipedia's voice – it cannot be used to bolster claims made in reliable sources. (Hypothetically, if a journalist who has won a Pulitzer Prize or five tweets something about another living person, the tweet is still not an acceptable source about living persons. If reliable sources cite the tweet, it may be included in Wikipedia, with attribution.)

In the discussion at RSN I supported including Buzzfeed as a source because it does seems to be a valid case of WP:NEWSBLOG. Now the onus is on you to prove that the AU blog is a reliable source about living persons. Politrukki (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear if you have read anything I wrote, so let's get others involved. To clarify:

AU seems a reputable publisher AU is a publisher, and has been since 1952. [9]

Their "The Wall of Separation Blog" appears to simply be their name for their online publications. I don't see the slightest bit of evidence that the articles there have any independence from AU's oversight. The authors are employees of AU.

The author seems an experienced journalist. She worked for AU for three years. [10] [11] [12] [13]

The reference is itself well referenced.

the arguments made in the RSN discussion about the Buzzfeed ref seem to apply rather perfectly to the AU ref The AU ref is a NEWSBLOG. The author worked for AU, and is now a staff writer for The New Republic.

I don't understand how the addition or removal of an additional, supporting source could be a BLP violation. The second sentence of the ref says, "Dan and Farris Wilks made their fortune in fracking, and according to RH Reality Check’s Brie Shea, they’re putting their ample funds at the disposal of Dennis Prager and his “Prager University.”" Again, this supports the previously disputed content about the Wilks funding PragerU, using the Rewire.News ref brought up at RSN.

Other sources are available, from both the Buzzfeed and AU refs Two sources were offered in the RSN discussion. So we have options on better verifying and possibly expanding on the content. We are here after all, to improve this encyclopdia.

Please restore the ref and let's work from there. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think mediabiasfactcheck.com is accepted as a reliable source. Few examples of comments I found using search:

• "this new source ("mediabiasfactcheck.com") is a sketchy primary source with no indication of reliability at all"
• "Not clear on why 'mediabiasfactcheck.com' is at all relevant to the reliability of a source."
• "Never heard of Media Bias Fact Check and it doesn't appear WP has either. In any case, if they rate Daily Caller and CNN the same, they are clearly not RS."
• "While this fact checker site should be used with some caution, it's often pretty good"
• "useful for no more than a general idea, but better than nothing"

"I don't see the slightest bit of evidence that the articles there have any independence from AU's oversight." – "Editorial control" means that all published articles are fact-checked before publication and the publication runs corrections when they make mistakes. There is still no evidence of such.

"The author seems an experienced journalist. She worked for AU for three years." – That is kind of circular logic. You seem to be saying that the publication is reliable because the author works for it, and that the author is reliable because they work for the publication.

The AU ref is a NEWSBLOG – Just saying a thing does make it true. According to The New York Times, AU is "a liberal advocacy group".

"The author worked for AU, and is now a staff writer for The New Republic." – The blog post was published in 2015, Jones became staff writer at The New Republic in 2017. If Jones wrote a Facebook post in 2015, becoming a staff writer later does not mean that we can cite a (hypothetical) Facebook post in Wikipedia, in Wikipedia's voice.

"The second sentence of the ref says ..." – Your quote generally says that Wilks brothers have funded PragerU, but the source cannot be used for a specific claim about "largest donors" because the source says nothing of sort.

If you wish to add sources, I would suggest reading WP:Identifying reliable sources and using reputable news sources or academic sources. Politrukki (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on getting others involved. --Ronz (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I arrived here from WP:30. I agree that AU has no indicia of reliability or editorial oversight. That AU has published things since 1952 has nothing whatsoever to do with its reliability, just as the fact that Sarah Jones has written for AU for an extended period of time has nothing to do with hers. I also agree that the article does not support the sentence that it purports to - the source supports only that the Wilks brothers have provided unspecified financial support to PragerU, not that "much of PragerU's early funding" came from them. Moreover, the article does not even put its own credibility behind the claim that the Wilks brothers are financially supporting PragerU—it only says that Brie Shea has made that claim. Even a New York Times article reporting that Brie Shea had made a claim could be used to support no more than a statement that Brie Shea had made that claim, and not that the claim is accurate. Steve Smith (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Ronz, can we please use {{Infobox organization}} instead of {{Infobox television}}? The article is about an organization, not a television show. The fact that the organization is known for its YouTube channel shouldn't make a difference. A YouTube channel is not a television show, and even if it was, the article is about the nonprofit that makes it, not the YouTube videos themselves. The reason we need to change the infobox is quite practical. Among other things, using {{Infobox television}} automatically italicizes the title, which is inappropriate. We don't italicize titles for organizations (or YouTube channels). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The notability is clearly the videos and their content, so it may be better to treat this more as an article about the YouTube channel than the corporation.

Given the information that's removed and the change in emphasis by treating it as corporation, I'm not so sure it's a good thing to do.

Briefly looking over notable YouTube channels, it seems appropriate to keep.

How about we look for GA and FA articles, or similar discussions? --Ronz (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't get it. The article says PragerU is a conservative digital media organization. Is a conservative digital media organization a TV show? Now, let's say for the sake of argument we re-wrote the article to be about a YouTube channel, something we don't know would be supported by the sources. Is a YouTube channel a TV show? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

How many of the YouTube channels listed in List of most-subscribed YouTube channels use {{Infobox television}}? I looked through the top 20 and only found one, The Ellen DeGeneres Show. which is actually a television show. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Of the 6 cited reliable secondary sources, only one (the Boston Globe) refers to PragerU as a YouTube channel. The other five refer to PragerU as a company/organization/etc. that has a YouTube channel. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not finding any other articles that are very similar and of high quality, so I'm giving up on that as a way to get some guidance. --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've run across {{Infobox YouTube personality}} being used. --Ronz (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC) I don't think this is a good solution in this case. --Ronz (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the point of this is. Do you need to have a precedent before you'll accept input from your fellow contributors? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The notability is clearly the videos and their content... Given the information that's removed...

I don't know the solution, but am concerned about the removal of info.

Check with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Websites? --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Verifiable info that's not in the body can be moved rather than deleted, yes? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reverted. You don't seem very interested in any of my concerns, so I'll look elsewhere, starting with the WikiProject.

It was added here by a SPA ip. That certainly doesn't give me confidence in it being a good solution. --Ronz (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow. I don't even know what your concerns are beyond that there's some removal of content. Which is why I suggest that we move the verifiable deleted content out of the infobox. How is that not being interested in your concerns? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I've certainly not paid much attention to how infoboxes should be used, but my impression is that they highlight important information. Removing that information from the infobox would then be a POV issue. I'll see what I can find. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Websites#Infobox_for_PragerU. --Ronz (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The solution is to use {{Infobox YouTube personality}} and here is the template in action YouTube_Spotlight.– Lionel^(talk) 02:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't make total sense to me, but I'm fine with it since it doesn't italicize the title. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

"farage and krauthammer dont merit mention"

Why? Both are at least as notable as PragerU. What am I failing to see here? TOWT7 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion, and material about living persons requires high-quality sources. --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

We shouldn't be making our own decisions about who gets listed and who doesn't. I'd support a list, but only if we used objective criteria: either all notable hosts, or all hosts mentioned in connection with PragerU by reliable independent secondary sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can make the assumption that such a list should be added without independent sources demonstrating encyclopedic value in doing so, or finding general consensus to do so in articles very similar to this one. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not an assumption. It's just my opinion. I'd support it, though I understand others might not. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

YouTube fact-checking on climate change

So the Buzzfeed reporters identified PragerU as one of the publishers of a video that YouTube includes a blurb on the scientific consensus of climate change to counter the misinformation in the video. The article goes into no detail on what is in the video, and appears to highlight PragerU solely on how they responded to a request for comment. This seems to be on the line of WP:NOTNEWS, and while I think a case could be made for some mention, even the section heading seems undue. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

The line could be moved to the 'content' section, with some elaboration on what PragerU's videos on climate change say. The 'content' section already mentions climate change denial, so perhaps the youtube fact-checking could be connected to that somehow. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've looked for reliable sources analyzing PragerU's climate change videos and came up empty. I'm unfamiliar with bloggers or the like that are considered reliable for analyzing fringe climate change viewpoints, but those might be our best bet if anyone bothered to give PragerU such notice. --Ronz (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Shadow banning

Ronz (talk · contribs) has removed content regarding the website's content being shadow banned on Facebook. This event has been covered by multiple news sources, most of which fall within the scope of the article Alternative Media (which shouldn't be a discredit upon them), and has been mentioned by President Trump. Therefore, IMHO it has received significant coverage, and should be included here and/or the shadow banning article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Needs to be reliably sourced. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Brietbart, The Daily Caller, PJ Media, BizPac Review, The Blaze, The Western Journal, Fox News Insider. Or are we saying that Alternative Media sources are not reliable sources?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, at-least when "Alternative" means "right-wing conspiracy-theory-monger" (breitbart is not a reliable source. Seriously?) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

None of those are RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Even assuming that some of the sources are RS - the sources (the better ones among them, at-least) generally attribute the claim of shadow banning to PragerU and mention facebook's response, neither of which you've done in your addition, which states the shadow banning as a fact - why is that? Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:16, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

As Snooganssnoogans said, needs to be reliably sourced. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm having trouble finding any RS coverage of the alleged shadow ban. Additionally, the Fox Insider piece includes an apology from Facebook which states that the videos were mistakenly removed and have since been restored. This information should also be included if it can be verified, to avoid implying that a ban is currently in effect. –dlthewave ☎ 19:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

So it did happen, and it was reversed, according to the Fox News source (provided previously) and elsewhere. Thus, I am not making this up.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Clarifying my edit summary. Adding a press release that itself ignores the larger context in a manner to this article that ignores the larger context is a WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SOAP, and POV violation at least. --Ronz (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

NewsMax is not PragerU. Multiple sources verify the statement made by the subject of this article. I included it before Facebook made their reversal, so it was accurate to the time it was added. Now that Facebook has reversed themselves, it should be included that PragerU was censored, briefly on Facebook, and Facebook apologized. This is not soupboxing, or POV, this is a statement of fact. No where in the original context which was removed by Ronz did I push a POV or say anything positive or negative about the subject of this article or Facebook in the article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Warmed over press releases makes it almost impossible to avoid NOTNEWS, SOAP, and POV problems. Focus on recent events is a problem when trying to write encyclopedia articles. --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

RightCow, the sources you provide do not show what you claim they show. On the one hand, neither the Federalist nor anything else you link to says PragerU was shadow banned; they merely say that PragerU says that PragerU was shadow banned. It's obvious from both content and tone that they are uncritically regurgitating the assertion made by the primary source. On the other hand, Facebook doesn't say they reversed their decision to shadow ban PragerU; Facebook says a few videos were hidden by mistake. This is not the same thing as a shadow ban.

An additional problem – which Dlthewave has already pointed out – is that every single source you cite is known to be on the same side of the aisle as PragerU and to be vehemently opposed to social media's ongoing crackdown on far-right conspiracy theory and junk scholarship. I made an effort to find a neutral-ish source reporting on the alleged shadow ban, but the only additional sources I can find are WND, Stormfront, and a number of forum sites. This is not a kind of media coverage that can justify adding these allegations. Damvile (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Exclude for lack of reliable sourcing. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

@Damvile, K.e.coffman, and Ronz: While other sources sources, such as CNET, BBC, & CBN do not use the term "shadow ban", others do as I had provided above, and the terms censorship and banning are used in these three sources I have just linked. So there is censorship of PragerU content going on, and has reached international acknowledgement that the event has occurs. This clearly verifies that this has occurred to the subject of the article. Therefore, please stop denying that it didn't happen. The content should be included in some form!--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The CBN article is garbage.

The CNET article is still NOTNEWS in my opinion. Typical he-said, she-said, lazy reporting.

The BBC article is altogether different, and might be enough to demonstrate some mention is due. How much though, and where? It ties this incident strongly to the YouTube/Google lawsuit, so there maybe?

The BBC article could also be used to support and perhaps expand information in other sections of this article as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: I agree; these are prima facie useful sources and they change things. The BBC in particular is everything that clickbait agenda sites like PJ Media are not. The BBC article is evidence that the shadow ban allegation is considered notable by observers who do not reside in a fringe-right fever swamp and are not just trying to kick up shit out of some kind of performative persecution complex. For the time being, I still don't see a strong case for including the allegation, on the grounds that WP:NOTNEWS, but it's a topic worth watching now. If the topic doesn't go away and becomes a noteworthy part of the PragerU controversy, it may have to be added eventually. Damvile (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That certain sources are being wholly ignored is frustrating to say the least. These sources meet IMHO IRS, even if they are biased (heck CNN is now a biased source (and MSNBC has been a biased source), but that doesn't stop them from being RSs)), they still have editorial oversight and fact-check their content.

The temporary shadow banning, censoring, whateveryouwanna call it of PragerU content on Facebook has been covered by WTSP, Accuracy in Media, Business Insider and spoken about by John Stossel (1, 2). Thus, more than a dozen sources verify that the event occurred, and in context with its content past censorship on youtube, it verifies that its content had been suppressed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Most of the RS coverage is simply repeating both parties without analysis: "Facebook temporarily blocked PragerU's videos. Facebook later restored the videos, saying that it was a mistake. PragerU characterizes the removal as a deliberate act of censorship."

At this point we have sufficient sourcing to say that the removal did in fact take place, but we need to be extremely cautious about describing it as "censorship" or "shadow banning" (or "mistake" for that matter) in Wiki voice unless reliable sources describe it as such. It would have to be an attributed opinion. –dlthewave ☎ 12:36, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I added text on the Facebook removals, adhering to language in BBC and BI reporting.[14] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I trimmed it back. If the sources were a bit better, a tie-in to the Google lawsuit would be clearly due. The news cycle is still early, and there's a lot going on with Facebook's responses to fake news, hate speech, etc. While I'm not keeping up on it, my impression was that Facebook was following Google's lead in many areas. --Ronz (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD I have reverted the trimming. Removal of the context added by Snooganssnoogans (talk · contribs) removes context of the event. In addition content from CNET and other sources should be included as well IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: Reverting a reversion stands in opposition to WP:BRD and leads to edit wars. Please revert the reversion; there is no consensus for the trimmed down version that Ronz created by trimming the content added by Snooganssnoogans.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

But what portions of that context are encyclopedic in nature? As I have pointed out, the most important context that I see is the tie-in to the Google lawsuit.

Please also note that at this date it's only a brief bit of news that may have difficulty standing any test of time. Contrast it with the Google lawsuit, something that was a long-running, widely reported event. While some mention of the Facebook situation may be due, giving it a longer treatment is grossly undue. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

The article presently utilizes Buzzfeed News and Mother Jones, both arguably fall within the biased reliable sources category. Yet above it is argued that certain sources presented by myself should not be used. So why should biased reliable sources which lean Left are OK, but those that lean right are not?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Bias, in and of itself, is not the reason a source is unreliable. It's when they are so biased that their spin affects their accuracy, and they occasionally (or often) push inaccurate or debunked stories. Then they are not considered RS. A number of the sources listed above are definitely not considered RS. Vanessa Otero's chart is pretty amazing and worth studying. Stay within the green and yellow boxes and you're pretty safe. Also take a look at my essay here: The quick and lazy guide to reliable and unreliable sources -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Really Fox News not a reliable source!?! It is easy to make Wikipedia bias if we ignore whole sections of the media landscape that meet qualifications of reliable sources. And making Wikipedia bias is definitely not in keeping with the pillar of neutrality.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

While I do think that the chart is a bit unfair in putting Fox below the Daily Mail, I would like to point out that they tried to downplay police brutality by calling pepper spray "a food product". However, within the broader scope (as per Wikipedia's guidelines, see Wikipedia:NEWSORG), the source's credibility is weighed alongside the article itself. Considering that Facebook has messed up with its algorithms in the past (remember the whole "does this contain hate speech?" thing), it's absolutely plausible that they just fumbled stuff again. On the other hand, they were being investigated for bias. A news organization should provide both of these sides equally, as the BBC article does. An article that biases one side, as Fox and other articles do, should not be used.--StigmaOfTruth (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Should not be used solely, however in conjunction with other sources it may be used or even by it by self in an attributed statement (provided RSN has not reached a stable consensus claiming that a particular source can't be used in a particular context). There is no policy I am aware of that allows for the banning of any source outright, when used properly any source can be used in conjunction with others as long as the standards of reliability are met for the statement itself in at least some of the citations. Could you please inform me as to which policies I seemed to have missed? Endercase (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is probably OK, MJ not so much. The fact is, this is a nontroversy that the usual right wing bloviators are trying to make into something significant. But it isn't significant. PragerU itself is barely significant. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I think this version that we now have is good: it just notes the facts that videos were removed, then gives both sides' responses. Seems very encyclopedic and neutral! AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

gives both sides' responses That's not what we mean by neutral here on Wikipedia. The new source is a warmed-over press release. Using it is WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWS. --Ronz (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Do we have a reliable source for Facebook "initially saying that they contained hate speech"? A label applied by an algorithm is different from "saying", and it appears that Facebook's initial response was a correction and apology. –dlthewave ☎ 01:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Removed. The wording would require basic verification of the reason for removal and something to justify the "initially" portion, which suggests they changed their position.

As I keep saying, this is fuel for conspiracy theories. I'll add now that it's probably fueled by conspiracy theories. It would explain the absolutely horrible references that have been proposed earlier... --Ronz (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the sources, but Conservative Tribune (and probably any site under the Liftable Media umbrella) should not be considered Reliable. They're tabloid at best, with a wild history of misrepresenting people's statements and concocting conspiracy theories attacking any person or group they dislike. For example one story linked Mideast and African immigrants with "Animal Brothels Open in Germany".[15] (Spoiler alert: The supposed "Animal Brothels" don't actually exist.[16]) Alsee (talk) 04:08, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-RS

One editor tries to add a collection of non-RS to this article[17]. They absolutely do not belong here and they do not add anything to the article. The only RS is the Verge, whereas the rest are blatant non-RS (WND, Breitbart, Fox News 'Insider'), with the exception of the 'Preston Business Review' which I have never heard of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Endercase - since you cited "wp:consensus WP:RELIABILITY" - the consensus on the non reliability of Breitbart is here and WorldNetDaily, here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It is also unnecessary to add low quality or unreliable sources when higher quality sources already support the material (also does anyone else find it amusing when someone tells another person not to edit war in an edit summary of a revert?) Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:17, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: here has not been closed and has not yet reached a consensus thus your claim of not being RS is POV and may not be HERE. Additionally, as I have mentioned above per the founding consensus of RSN all discussions about the reliability of any particular source must be made in context, at least as far as I am aware. Additionally,these citations are not being used by themselves to support any new statement. Please cite policy to support the removal. Endercase (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I mean if you can't recognize the WP:SNOW levels of consensus that Breitbart isn't reliable at all in that RfC.... Regarding "is POV and may not be HERE" - I suggest you read and understand the policies and supplements you're referring too before referencing them.

Rather, on what policy basis are you adding the sources? Since there are better sources, this is precisely the case where we never need to use a lower quality or unreliable source Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe that there is a consensus that all the sources are not-RS. Some might be biased sources, but that does not exclude them from being reliable sources, especially given the context of them verifying a POV (as it appears that Endercase (talk · contribs) is suggesting). As I stated at the Shadow banning talk page, it's really easy to exclude one POV from the article space, if one just writes off sources which verify the POV. This does not create neutral article, and excludes relevant verified content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not all the sources - but can we at-least agree on Breitbart and WorldNetDaily being unreliable, or at-least a consensus existing for that? Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@Galobtter: You still have not cited a policy explaining the removal via revert of all of the sources that I added. As such I will be reverting once more (2nd revert for me). A more appropriate action in my view would be take this to RSN or even the admin noticeboard if you so wish. I really wish you would simply engage in discussion instead, once again I have not added any additional content from the sources you are questioning. They are merely being cited to provide the reader who is interested further reading material on the issue. You do not appear to claim that the statement they are being cited in reference too is factually inaccurate or otherwise unreliable. They are being added as additional citations to support the notability if not the accuracy of the statement in question as supported by policy. Are you really just opposing the addition of additional citations? Endercase (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart and WND are notoriously unreliable sources and should be deprecated, (along with InfoWars, but that's not relevant here). The other sources are certainly unusual. I'm not prepared to say anything about them.

Endercase, I would strongly advise you NOT to restore that content until a consensus has been reached. The 3rr bright line is not a permission to get as close as possible. The intention to edit war, even with ONE more edit, can bring down the ban hammer (a block for edit warring). Keep on discussing and use dispute resolution. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: Maybe this should be taken to the admin notice board as well, just to increase the size of the consensus. If I do choose to do another revert (to speed up response time of the disagreeing user(s)) it is well within my rights per current policy unless you can show me otherwise. Thank you for your advice however. Additionally, the editor(s) in question don't even disagree with the edit in question as a whole only a portion of it as such there is some question as to whether the first revert was even appropriate whereas just removing the sources they disagreed with (instead of the entire edit) would have been more appropriate. Endercase (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

IF discussion here is unfruitful (give it some time, like several days), THEN take it elsewhere, but right now forum shopping isn't a good idea. I suspect that if you rework that content and its sourcing, you may well find an easy consensus here. Give it a try right here. Propose a new version, and consider the Bloomberg source below. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart and WorldNetDaily are both on the list of perennial unreliable sources for anything except their own opinion. Neither one is appropriate to use in this context. –dlthewave ☎ 18:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Bullrangifer, there was no content to rework, if you actually read the edit in question you would see it was just adding additional citations nothing more. Additionally, responding to your threat about "bringing down the ban hammer" by saying maybe we should take this to the admin noticeboard isn't forum shopping by any stretch of the policy. Endercase (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Dlthewave, the essay you refer to isn't policy and was likely a bad idea, it also directly contradicts WP:RSCONTEXT which is policy. Endercase (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It also received overwhelming community support. Of course the essay itself isn't a policy or guideline, but it includes links to previous discussions that should give you an idea of how these sources would fare at RSN. –dlthewave ☎ 19:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It received "overwhelming community support" to be linked in the policy, not to become policy. The policy still supersedes it. Endercase (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I know I'm late to the party but the idea of Breitbart and WND being used as reliable sources is, frankly, offensive. I know that Wikipedia has always had extremely low standards (we cite Buzzfeed, for crying out loud), but Breitbart and WND are simply beyond they pale. Twitchy and /r/fatpeoplestories have more ambitious fact checking than those guys. Damvile (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The Verge source cites Bloomberg, normally a RS here. Can that be used? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:06, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

It would make sense to just use the Bloomberg source. –dlthewave ☎ 18:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• The Fox Insider source seems to be repeating claims made by an author in an interview. It's not a high-quality source but may be acceptable for attributed opinions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Preston Business Review is copy-pasted from WND, in fact several paragraphs begin with a lowercase letter because the original attribution was removed.

No other Wiki article references Preston Business Review, and the homepage includes 367 pages of stories supposedly written by a Caroline Biscotti between August 22 and September 8 of this year. –dlthewave ☎ 19:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

After the second paragraph the two articles do differ considerably, not that I consider either one a good source of information. Of course in this case they are not being used a source of information. But, are being used in conjunction with a number of other sources of a higher quality to support the inclusion of the statement that was already in place and to provide further reading to any interested users. Endercase (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please give the two articles another look. They do not differ considerably. Preston Business Review simply deleted several short linked phrases, namely "Breitbart reported"; "a lawsuit that was thrown out by a federal judge who determined YouTube did not violate the First Amendment"; "WND reported last week" and "Last month, WND reported". The differences are highlighted by punctuation and capitalization errors left over from the removals. –dlthewave ☎ 20:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

There is zero evidence that "Preston Business Review" is a reliable source. Nothing there shows any signs of independent editorial oversight, for example. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

See also [18][19][20][21][22][23][24] –dlthewave ☎ 22:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I run across talk page discussions where arguments are so far from policy that I wonder if editors aren't simply trolling us. This is such a discussion. Please make edit requests. If you cannot recognize unreliable sources, please find other ways to participate in improving Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

As I have already stated:"not that I consider either one a good source of information. Of course in this case they are not being used a source of information. But, are being used in conjunction with a number of other sources of a higher quality to support the inclusion of the statement that was already in place and to provide further reading to any interested users." At no point have I made the claim that the sources in question are reliable, just that they do help establish notability. "Additionally, the editor(s) in question don't even disagree with the edit in question as a whole only a portion of it as such there is some question as to whether the first revert was even appropriate whereas just removing the sources they disagreed with (instead of the entire edit) would have been more appropriate." Endercase (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

At no point have I made the claim that the sources in question are reliable, just that they do help establish notability. I hope that's a question. The answer to the question is that no, unreliable sources can not be used to establish notability or noteworthiness in an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Endercase: No, unreliable sources may not be used alongside reliable sources and they cannot be used to help establish notability. We only include the reliable ones. Additionally you seem to be ignoring the obvious problem with Preston Business Review that I pointed out to you. –dlthewave ☎ 14:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

We also don't "provide [unreliable sources for] further reading to any interested users". We would only do that using reliable sources. We really try not to mislead readers. We don't treat reliable and unreliable sources as somehow equal and both worthy of consumption. No, unreliable sources should be avoided in real life and not used here. Don't even read them. Here you'll learn which sources are unreliable. Show that you have a good learning curve by taking that knowledge to heart and changing your reading habits. Don't read them anymore. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Are you guys (@Snooganssnoogans, Galobtter, Ronz, Dlthewave, and BullRangifer:) sure that our policies on opinionated sources don’t come into play at any point? I see reason to believe that they do: Daily Caller and Fox both appear on our list of perennial sources, and DC is marked with a yellow caution and Fox a green check, not a red X. This means that they have not been deemed fully unreliable.

Given that their claim is something that the Verge is also saying, it would make sense to include the idea presented as something they and the right-wing broadly say, rather than the WikiVoice.

@Endercase: This would directly eliminate WorldNetDaily and Breitbart as sources, but keep more than 1 of the sources you selected.

What’s “Preston Business Review”? It sounds like it needs time to prove whether it is good or bad at fact-checking. We don’t really know who runs it and it is too new. - Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Those sources are very bad, and obviously so. WP:CIR. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

If they were saying it in isolation, maybe it would be questionable and there would be a reason to say no. Today, they have another source (the Verge) agreeing that they believe that. It would probably not be objectionable to insert content that says that they believe that, as an opinion they hold. This is why it would be okay to attribute it as their opinion.Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 17:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Fox News Insider is not the same as Fox News. 'Fox News Insider' is where they put the dumb things that Fox pundits say on air. Whenever Fox's RS status is discussed, the pro-Fox crowd is always quick to point out that 'Fox News Insider' is not part of Fox's straight-news reporting. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thank you for informing me. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Education-related YouTube channels

Is Category:Education-related YouTube channels an appropriate Category for this article? Bus stop (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The format of much of the organization's videos as well as its self-described purpose is educational in nature. It only seems natural that the category would fit. Ergo Sum 22:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Academic Credentials

Prager has not offered any explanation for claiming and promoting himself as a university when he is only a video producer pushing specific political viewpoints. (His website is copyrighted to "Prager University", and both site and Facebook page sell "Prager University" t-shirts). Critics have asserted that this willful misrepresentation is indicative of fraudulent intent in claiming credibility to which he is not entitled and soliciting contributions under false pretenses."---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleweye (talk • contribs) 00:20, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to provide references. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Viewer Numbers

Currently (30 Nov 2018), the Wikipedia article about PragerU mentions that "PragerU reached a billion views in 2018." However, there is no indication to how many individual viewers this total view count converts. According to a statement made by PragerU CEO Marissa Streit in December 2017 to the conservative news and opinion website 'The Daily Wire', founded in 2015 by Ben Shapiro (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Wire), a PragerU presenter featured in multiple videos (https://www.prageru.com/presenters/ben-shapiro), PragerU has "more than 60 million viewers" (https://www.dailywire.com/news/24752/prageru-videos-surpass-1-billion-views-james-barrett). Could someone who is allowed to edit the page please add Ms Streit's stated number to the article? 128.12.246.4 (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. The Daily Wire is generally unreliable, and the specific article looks like a warmed-over press release. I've removed it.

Without sources that are reliable and independent, adding such information seems undue and promotional. --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"fake news"

An editor keeps adding text calling PragerU a "fake news" website.[25] Fake news is a specific thing, and while PragerU publishes a lot of falsehoods and bullshit, it's not a fake news website. I mean, the channel doesn't even cover contemporary topics or events like a news website would. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If other editors don't want to use the term "fake news" then that's fine with me. The point is, whatever term you want to use, PragerU is known to purvey outright false information and it's silly not to have that clearly communicated in the article. There are plenty of reliable third party sources for this.

Relevant quotes from Francesca Tripodi's study:

"PragerU’s messaging calls on conspiracy theories regularly espoused by the “alt-right" [...] creating and promoting similarly misleading content [...] PragerU becomes just one node in a growing network of content creators that advertise themselves as mainstream (PragerU, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro) but regularly dabble in alt-right content [...]PragerU does not just condemn white supremacy, but rather uses its platform to try and bring down organizations like Black Lives Matter, and also furthers the reach of conspiracy theories notoriously articulated by the “alt-right.” A prevalent example of this would be the narrative that “whiteness” and “conservatism” is under attack, a talking point linked to “alt-right” campaigns like “it’s okay to be white.” [...] PragerU does not just condemn white supremacy, but rather uses its platform to try and bring down organizations like Black Lives Matter, and also furthers the reach of conspiracy theories notoriously articulated by the “alt-right.”

The way the article is currently written it presents PragerU as a conservative-slanted news source that has some critics. However, PragerU is not a "conservative news source" in the sense that, say, Tucker Carlson is a source of news for conservatives. It's a website that promotes conspiracy theories and spreads lies. For this reason I think the way the article is currently written is very misleading. Feel free to re-write what I wrote. Apparently I phrased it poorly.

Thanks. 4idaho (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Editorials and opinion articles can't be used to state facts and definitely not to violate NPOV policy. Praguer is not even a news website nor pretends to be one. See WP:NEWSORG and WP:EXCEPTIONAL.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

PragerU is propaganda, though I don't think there are sources strong enough to support that description in the article.

I skimmed the Tripodi ref, and am unsure how we could use it. I'd expect that there are some definitions and descriptions in there somewhere, or they are assumed from citations, but I didn't spot them with a quick skim. If they aren't there, then it puts the entire source in question. --Ronz (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

PragerU "algorithmically connected" to extremist content

I am no defender of PragerU generally, but the YouTube algorithm "connects" a LOT of political content (right, left, and center) with extremist stuff--And there are reliable sources noting this exact phenomenon, including articles in The Atlantic, The New York Times, Fortune. In other words, it doesn't seem to be a problem with PragerU (at least not with only PragerU). Anything political will eventually get you a few crackpots, sometimes including people associated with the alt-right. SPLC's takedown of PragerU (the source for the claim in the article) is correct about the frequent misinformation, but this is already mentioned (regarding the Southern Strategy and immigration). The fact that there are often only a few leaps between so-called centrists on Prager and far right-wingers (PragerU ep hosted by Jordan Peterson; Peterson retweets Milo; Milo interviews Richard Spencer, etc.) is maybe something that can be added from the SPLC article. However, the claim about PragerU's channel somehow uniquely funneling people that direction is a stretch and pretty contentious because of all the other sources about the YouTube tendency to do this. In sum, holding Prager responsible for its own garbage info makes sense, but not holding it responsible for the "related content" suggested by YT.--MattMauler (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Given all the problems we have with this article, please identify specific changes you'd like to see and what sources support those changes. --Ronz (talk) 04:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I am suggesting that the section about Francesca Tripodi's study be removed ... but I am looking for feedback on that idea first and foremost. I put this on the talk page because of the edit back-and-forth in which an IP repeatedly removed that section. I am offering evidence for removal of the section (above), not because the Tripodi source is unreliable, but because other RS suggest that promoting extremism is a YouTube algorithm issue, not only a PragerU one. I understand that its removal has been reverted before, but I am wondering if the new sources I've brought here change the situation at all. I am not strongly advocating that it be removed--I am posting here to see if there's consensus for its removal. If editors who are on this page more frequently disagree with me, no action is needed.--MattMauler (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You're not saying any of the references are unreliable, so this is a pov issue? --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess it could be called a POV issue, giving undue weight to the "algorithmic connection" between PragerU and more extreme voices. Basically, it seems to me that articles I linked above render the following sentence of the article almost meaningless, or at least insignificant: "Tripodi observed that many of PragerU's videos are algorithmically connected to extremist content via YouTube's 'suggested' feature." True, but so what? Algorithmic connections can also, for instance, link a measured and well-researched video about Antifa to another video with Paul Joseph Watson ranting about supposedly totalitarian SJWs. If the title contains political buzzwords like "The Left," "Right-Wing," "Nazi" (obvs) or similar words, it can easily lead to fringe stuff in the "suggested" section, and this tendency is well-documented.--MattMauler (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how we could justify removing the material outright without violating WP:OR and POV.

If you want to argue about what we should report from the sources, then I think we could make some progress. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that this criticism be reworded to use the active rather than passive voice as follows: "Tripodi observed that Youtube algorithmically connects many of PragerU's videos to extremist content via their "suggested" feature." The passive construction currently in the article obscures the agent of the "algorithmic connecting", thereby giving the false impression that PragerU does this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The same paragraph caught my eye when reading through the article. Indeed, it seems disingenuous to criticize PragerU for something that Google (via Youtube) is doing. This is a question of neutrality, but also of relevance.TheBlueCanoe 22:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Kelley, Brendan Joel (June 7, 2018). "PragerU's Influence". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved December 31, 2018.

Again, I am concerned that these proposals may be using OR to counter the POV of a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me understand: you think that changing a passive construction to an equivalent active construction would violate POV? Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that the current content could be improved by more closely communicating the information in the reference. The entire line of discussion here appears to rely upon OR to undermine the POV of a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

All I'm suggesting is moving from a passive to an equivalent active voice. There's no OR here. The content is literally exactly the same. The passive wording is just both less pleasing to read and also introduces some unclarity. But there's literally no difference in content between the active and passive constructions, so it's impossible that it introduces either POV or OR problems.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

And I'm saying that it changes the emphasis for the worse in content that needs improvement to better communicate what is said in the reference. Tripodi seems to be saying that PragerU is counting on the algorithm to do this work for them. It's not a problem with PragerU, it's a feature. --Ronz (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

That's what she "seems to be saying" according to whom? I do not think she "seems to be saying" that. Can you tell me where she says it? Because it seems like a POV violation to put what you think she "seems" to be saying, as opposed to what she's saying, in the article. What she says is that there's an algorithmic connection. She does not say anything that I see anywhere about it being something PragerU intended or somehow had control over.Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The last half of the article, especially the second-to-last paragraph. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You're referring to her statement that "Content creators like PragerU are ... relying on search engine optimization and suggested content to elevate their messaging". This does not say that they intend an algorithmic connection to extremist content. You're reading that into her words, which creates a worry about POV violation.Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

In context, I think it does. --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is POV, and also not a very plausible reading of what she says, even in context. When she says that they depend on suggested content to elevate their message, you're reading this to mean that they depend on suggested content to elevate, not their message, but the messages of more extreme content providers. You're reading it to say something different than it explicitly says. Furthermore, in her cited report, she explicitly says that these algorithmic connections are unintentional.Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You appear to be intentionally misrepresenting me to further the OR and POV that started this discussion. Please stop. Please review WP:TALK, especially WP:TALKNO. --Ronz (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

What was my misrepresentation specifically? That is: what did I say was your position that was incorrect? You said that according to Tripodi, "PragerU is counting on the algorithm to do this work for them. It's not a problem with PragerU, it's a feature." I assumed that you meant by this that PragerU is intentionally counting on the algorithm to elevate the messages of more extreme content providors. Is that not what you meant? If not, it was an honest misunderstanding and I am asking you to clarify.Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.

I've been focusing on the Kelley ref. I don't think I've read Tripodi's since it was first added.

• Tripodi, Francesca (2018). "Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices" (PDF). Date & Society Research Institute. Retrieved December 31, 2018.

Who does "Third, bad actors looking to exploit an audience disillusioned with mainstream media can take advantage of such intellectual exploration" refer to? --Ronz (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That's helpful. I think she's including PragerU in 'bad actors' for sure (I assume that was your point). Here's a suggestion:

"Tripodi argues that "PragerU’s choice of guests connects their audience to “far-right” and “alt-right” personalities" as a result of the fact that such personalities sometimes appear on the programs of PragerU's guests, and so they are picked up by Youtube's "suggested" feature."

My thought is that this rewrite manages to make her point more clearly and directly, and also gives some details of the mechanism by which she thinks this association occurs between PragerU and extremism, while avoiding the mistaken idea that PragerU sets up the algorithms themselves. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad we've moved on. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make the change since you agree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. --Ronz (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sludge criticism

In the criticisms section, the article has a criticism from a website called "Sludge" which attempts to rely on the content of a government report from the UK office of national statistics. "Sludge" is not reliable, and their report is false. First and foremost, this is a partisan source that few people have ever heard of. It appears to be something like a cooperative of bloggers. Second, their "report" bungles basic facts: it cites a government report on the frequency of names in England and Wales as if it were a report on the frequency of those names within the whole UK. (The UK is not just England and Wales.) Third, even if we set aside the first two points, Mohammad was indeed the most popular name in England and Wales according to the cited government report. "Sludge" reports that this was an error only because it fails to include the several variant spellings of the name (Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohammad).

If "Sludge" were a reliable source, it would make sense to include an in-text citation. Or, if their report didn't bungle the facts, we could just refer to the government report. But, given that the report is junk from an unreliable source, and given that the underlying government report shows exactly the opposite of the criticism, I don't see that there's anything to include here.Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The ref is: Kotch, Alex (December 27, 2018). "Who Funds PragerU's Anti-Muslim Content?". Sludge. Retrieved December 28, 2018.

It's used three times in the article. Are the two other uses problematic? --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point. The other two references to the Sludge article are in the "funding" section. This section is very poorly sourced in general. Aside from the fact that Sludge is the main source on most of the info in that section, the section itself misreports what Sludge says: Sludge says that the Bradley Family is the second biggest doner *that sludge could identify*, but then in the wiki article it says that they're the second largest donor period. That's not what the source even says. Also, the section is written in a time-sensitive way that is not good. E.g., what year did PragerU spend 40% of a $10 million budget on marketing? I can't tell from the Buzzfeed report. I don't think Sludge is a reliable source here either, and the other sources--Buzzfeed and Mother Jones--are highly partisan sources in this case, and probably also unreliabale. I'd be ok with dropping the info from Sludge and saying that Buzzfeed and Mother Jones have reported that the Wilks and Bradley families are among their biggest donors. Not sure that amounts to a whole section worth of info, though. I'm open to suggestions.Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

probably also unreliabale Mother Jones is reliable. Buzzfeed may not be as high quality, but still reliable.

The Sludge ref is at attempt at good investigative journalism, the type that we should strive to have, but the publisher is relatively new and the article seems to stray from its own sources. If we had better sources, I'd certainly not want to rely upon this. A discussion at WP:RSN may be of help.

The article should qualify much of this per your concerns. Removal would seem to be a POV violation based upon OR. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, I didn't agree to remove the information I just included in the article. I thought you had agreed to qualify the content with the info I included. What qualifications are you agreeing to then? Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm having a difficult time understanding why you restored it as you did, given this discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You haven't been very explicit about what you think is warranted. You said that the material needed to be qualified, and I guessed that the qualifications I introduced were appropriate. If that isn't what you meant, then I apologize for misunderstanding. Can you state more explicitly what qualifications you had in mind? Or even make an attempt to fix the passages yourself? Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that the Sludge ref should be qualified, as you did, for information that does not come directly from the citations that they use.

I think the next step it to determine how else the Sludge ref could be used, given the problems you've identified with the bit about birth names. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being slow, Ronz, really. But when you write that the Sludge ref "should be qualified, as you did", I don't know what you mean. What's wrong with the last attempt I made? There I tried to say clearly what the criticism was in a way that made it clear that Sludge was focusing on a particular spelling of the name. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought I had retained your addition of by the website "Sludge". I've changed it to follow the format of the preceding paragraph. I'm very sorry. --Ronz (talk) 01:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This in-text citation is good, I think. Why can't we also say specifically what statistic he was critical of? Also, no need to be sorry; I'm really not very touchy, and I recognize that editing together is a challenge.Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we should throw it out, and focus on the categorization of the rhetoric, which Kotch and Pitcavage both discuss. --Ronz (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the low quality of the source, that would be WP:UNDUE.Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

So you don't believe Pitcavage's pov is due? Why? --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Because (i) the source of the quote is low quality, and (ii) Pitcavage is not an expert in this area. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Says who? --Ronz (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Says his cv: he works for ADL and has done research on Militia groups. I see no relevant background in Islamic studies. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That's... not correct, and is also WP:OR. A senior research fellow for the Anti-Defamation League's Center on Extremism clearly has relevant expertise on extremist rhetoric. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Mark Pitcavage. --Ronz (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. What we have here is a group blog reporting that a man who has published on militia groups works at an organization that fights discrimination against Jews has something to say about PragerU being anti-Muslim. Whether something is due is a matter of judgment, and we just disagree here. I don't see persuading you, so I guess the conversation is over. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Consensus is a product of applying policy, not personal opinion. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. The question whether some information is due is not just a matter of uncontroversial application of policy, as if it doesn't call for a controversial judgment (i.e., an opinion) about the quality and qualifications of the source and the relevance and interest of the information. It is your opinion that this information is due, and I'm not going to argue about it anymore, but let's not pretend that this isn't an opinion. Anyway, are you now going to change the current inaccurate wording in the article? I myself cannot change it because I do not agree with you that the change you've suggested is due. So it falls to you to either change it or leave it in its current inaccurate state. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Pitcavage is an expert, right?

We have an open RSN discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sludge, right? --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, he's an expert on some things, and yes we have an open RSN discussion. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Then let's wait for the RSN to close, and perhaps work on content based upon what Pitcavage has stated. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. Feel free to follow your own opinion, as expressed in our discussion above, and change the current inaccurate wording by including content from Pitcavage that I regard as undue. It will be up to you to do this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

As for the exact wording, I'm wondering if we have enough sources to make a paragraph specifically on their rhetoric and propaganda. --Ronz (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any source that elaborates the charge. Shinealittlelight (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I made that change, Ronz, because the version you've reverted to leaves it ambiguous whether it is part of his criticism that the rhetoric is anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, or whether that's a fact being reported by wikipedia. Since it's supposed to be part of his criticism, that's why I preferred the version I wrote. I don't understand why you reverted it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the problem, and am concerned that it takes focus away from PragerU's responsibility for their own content. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

elaborates the charge Charge? That comes across as WP:BATTLE.

At least three other refs refer to their rhetoric and propaganda: Tripodi, Bernstein, and Kelly. PragerU’s “5 Minute Ideas” videos have become an indispensable propaganda device for the right. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned that it is ambiguous as it stands. The reader cannot tell whether we mean to say that Picavage is saying that the content is anti-immigrant (etc.), or whether Wikipedia is saying that. If wikipedia is saying that, then it should be clearer in that direction, perhaps by saying something along the lines of "the content is bigoted, and Picavage has pointed out that this will appeal to white supremicists". Do you not see the ambiguity? And 'charge' is appropriate here--Picavage has charged PragerU with having bigoted content. That's part of his criticism.Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

This risks coddling the reader for very little added clarity, and I do not see this as particularly ambiguous. "Charge" would be unnecessarily loaded for the article itself, per WP:SAID, but on a talk page... Sure, whatever. I dislike that this is a WP:CSECTION at all, but that's probably a much larger discussion. Pitcavage's commentary was not provided entirely as a criticism, it was solicited by a journalist as context. Pitcavage's commentary is not significant because it's a "charge", but rather, because it is descriptive. In the article we should use a neutral term when possible. We can mention what Pitcavage says without needing to resort to editorializing. An expert has offered his perspective and we have attributed that perspective to the expert. Any reader willing to read the "Criticism" section of the article should be trusted to understand this. Grayfell (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I didn't propose putting 'charge' in the body of the article. I was just casually responding to Ronz. As for the Pitcavage passage in the article, the proposed rewrite that Ronz reverted did attribute clearly to Pitcavage. That was my point. The current version leaves a subtle ambiguity. Just a subtle one. I agree that it is not "particularly" ambiguous, as you say, and that most readers will understand that this content is from Pitcavage. The bias here is subtle, and easily repaired. The revision I proposed, which was hardly a change at all, was only a small improvement, and adds only a little clarity. That's exactly why it's weird that it was reverted. Every single change apperntly has to be debated ad nauseum even if it is a small improvement. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't see the ambiguity, so the bias is too subtle for me to pick-up on. My thinking is this: The source, and this article, are about PragerU, and the relevant parts of the source are specifically about Murray. The paragraph should focus on Murray, not Pitcavage, per the source. We are naming Pitcavage for context on Murray and PragerU, not because the paragraph itself is about Pitcavage. Grayfell (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Grayfell, I was worried about the subjunctive construction too, so I double checked before I wrote that. Here's the direct quote from Pitcavage: "White supremacists are certainly almost all anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim, so they would certainly agree with a lot of the things that [Murray] says."Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

So what? At this point it's starting to seem like you're trying to whitewash the article. There is no neutral gain to double-and-triple attributing a straightforward comment. This is a form of editorializing. We don't need to remind readers for every sentence that this is just one person's opinion. This is using editorializing tricks to cast doubt on the opinion, or to emphasize its subjectivity far beyond the degree supported by the source. Please self revert and gain consensus to avoid edit warring. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

You wanted the word 'certainly' so I included it. You wanted the paragraph to start with mention of the video (unlike the other criticisms in the section) and I worked with that despite it being somewhat more awkward. I put this out there in a way that was responsive to your concerns, and if you don't like it because you want to retain a subtle ambiguity, then you can revert it. I'm trying to work with you, not against you. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

SFGate source on Google/Youtube Lawsuit

This source adds a lot of additional information, and generally seems superior to the currently cited sources. Maybe instead of just undoing what I did, Ronz, you could recommend a way to use this new source I found? The current content is just flatly inaccurate. It is nowhere stated in any source that the Judge dismissed the case because Google is a private company, for example. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC) Also let me add that if the basic claim of the lawsuit and the reasons for dismissal are undue, then all mention of the lawsuit is undue, which is of course not the case. We should correctly characterize the basic reason for the lawsuit and the reason for dismissal. That information is in the SFGate source. So please suggest some way of correcting the errors in the current version. Shinealittlelight (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the SFGate source could be used to improve the article. Maybe there are errors or problems with the current content. I think it's worth pursuing. Something formatted like an edit request is always helpful. I don't know how the content came to its current state, but I'd guess that avoiding legal terminology might be one driving factor. --Ronz (talk) 04:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe? The SFGate source has information about the basic claim of the lawsuit and the reasons for dismissal that are not in the other sources. So of course it can improve the article. And I've explicitly identified a major error in the current content. Your reason for reverting my edit is that you said ti is undue. It's now clear that this was not true, unless you have something else to say. I'm going to reinstate my content if you can't explain what the problem was with it (other than the fact that I wrote it, of course).Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to steer you to productive directions that don't end with administrative action against you.

One of my biggest concerns with the edit is that it turned the focus toward attacking YouTube. I hope this is enough explanation. --Ronz (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping it productive; I could do without the constant threats from you, as I've mentioned before. If you want to pursue admin action against me, go ahead. I stand by everything I've done and written. I have no idea what you mean when you say I "turned the focus toward attacking YouTube." The edit, based on the SFGate source, had two main goals. First, to correctly state the basis of the lawsuit, which was two complaints that PragerU raised about G/Y. The first complaint was that G/Y had infringed on PragerU's first amendment rights, the second was that they had engaged in false advertising. The second goal of the edit was to include the Judge's actual basis for dismissing the lawsuit (as stated in the SFGate source). Namely, the Judge dismissed it because she thought PragerU failed to make the case that G/Y was a state actor in this case, and because she thought that G/Y's alleged false advertising was "mere puffery". This last charge is not my attack on YouTube, but rather the Judge's attack on YouTube. This is all stated in the sources, and corrects the mistakes in the current version. If you prefer to write it, you're welcome to do so. But this information is plainly due if the lawsuit is due, and so we need to include it since it is reported in a reliable source. Let me recommend, by the way, that you review the WP policies on reverts, including WP:BABY and WP:ROWN. The general idea is to help improve rather than always go straight for a revert, and, if you feel a revert is really necessary, you should include an explanation in the talk page. Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. You're taking this much too personally and defensively. Whatever else you're trying to do is completely overshadowed by your clear personal biases, backed by hostility and assumptions that others are working from a similar approach. This is WP:BATTLE and needs to end. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not taking anything personally. I found a new and better source for this material about the lawsuit, and I made an accurate edit to incorporate the info in the source. You reverted (in my view contrary to the revert policies I mentioned), and now you will not discuss the reasons for the revert or offer an alternative edit to improve the article. If you won't incorporate the superior source I found, or explain why it shouldn't be incorporated, I will restore the material I wrote. Nothing personal on my side; I'm just trying to incorporate the information I found and improve the article.Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz, for that last edit; I hope you see this as an improvement. It looks like you're particularly worried about the last sentence in which I state the Judge's reason for dismissing the false advertising claim. Is it your view that we simply should not state the Judge's reason for dismissing the false ad claim? Or is there another way to state it? "Mere Puffery" are her words, as I said before, which are reported in the SFGate source. I thought that was worth mentioning, insofar as its the only time I'm aware of that a judge has weighed in on the continuing public debate on whether Google (etc) are really providing a neutral forum. But I'm open to suggestion on this.Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that we're making progress.

From what I see of the sources, the false advertising aspect is minor and was easily dismissed. Please note, the Reuters ref, which is probably the best of the three, says The San Jose, California-based judge also dismissed a claim that YouTube engaged in false advertising by implying that Prager’s videos were “inappropriate.” --Ronz (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/380455-judge-dismisses-lawsuit-alleging-google-censorship-of-conservative-youtube that verifies the previous wording, which I pointed out avoids the legal jargon. --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The Hill does not report on the Judge's reason for dismissing the false advertising claim. SFGate and Rueters conflict on what the reason was. SFGate is corroborated in these two sources:

https://www.thewrap.com/judge-dismisses-lawsuit-that-accused-google-of-bias-against-conservatives/ https://www.jurist.org/news/2018/03/federal-court-dismisses-censorship-suit-against-google/ So there are really two questions here. First, did she dismiss based on the claim about "mere puffery" as SFgate suggests, or on some basis related to the content as in Reuters? Here I'm inclined to take the corroboration of the SFGate report to show that the Reuters report is in error. Second, assuming the SFGate is correct, is this information due? I've argued above that it is, because (i) it forms part of the basic information about the lawsuit, and (ii) it's a major statement from a federal judge that's relevant to an ongoing public discussion of the neutrality of fora like YouTube. Shinealittlelight (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb: When you find yourself dismissing a reliable source like Reuters, there's probably something very wrong. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Can't we say the same thing about dismissing SFGate? We have a conflict of reliable sources here. I proposed to resolve it by looking for corroboration. Does that seem reasonable to you? How else might we resolve the conflict? It seems weird to cite both, and as you point out, something is going wrong if we just dismiss either one. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Can't we say No. And very little here seems reasonable. That's why I keep bringing up BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The changes removed a reference without comment, so I've reverted.

It is nowhere stated in any source that the Judge dismissed the case because Google is a private company. The sources say "private entities". If someone wants to make a case that it is OR to say "private company", we could simply use The Hill or BizJournals instead.

As for expanding the section to include the false advertising bit, the sources seem to demonstrate it's undue. It's given little or no mention in most sources, and never given priority.

Also note the SFGate article is simply a copy of the TheWrap article. TheWrap is no Reuters. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, I repeat that it is nowhere stated in any source that the Judge dismissed the case because Google is a private company. And I'm not being picky about 'company' vs. 'entity' or anything like that. The Reuters source quotes Koh describing G/Y as a private entity. But describing them that way is not the same as saying that their status as private entities was the (whole) basis for dismissing the case. Perhaps you think it was implied? But it wasn't implied, as the quote goes on to say that PragerU failed to show that defendents were engaged in a state function. So the implication of the whole quote is the accurate version that I wrote before. Can we please not throw out the baby with the bathwater? Similarly, please restore any reference that were unintentionally deleted--I don't see that any were, but maybe I'm missing something. You needn't revert the whole contribution because of such a minor error. Please help me make this article better. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added thehill.com as a ref, which says In her decision, Koh dismissed the PragerU’s free speech claims, arguing that Google is not subject to the First Amendment because it’s a private company and not a public institution. --Ronz (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

If you think that this version of the article is superior to the version I wrote, which correctly stated Koh's basis of dismissal in terms of failure to make the case that G/Y was functioning as a state actor, then I guess we're at an impasse. I concede that you did find a source to support the inaccurate version of the article that you favor. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Again with the BATTLE attitude. This isn't about my personal opinions, but on the coverage from reliable sources.

I've explained why the language is probably preferred and found many sources that support the exact wording. I'll add that it appears that few or no sources use "state actor" without also "private entities", "private companies" or variations. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep telling me that I'm battling? If I'm battling, I'm in violation of policy and you can pursue admin action against me. So no need to continue repeating yourself: act or drop it. Meanwhile, I'll continue to try to dialogue politely with you and improve the page. The reliable sources conflict in this case. The Judge obviously didn't issue an opinion to the effect that the first amendment does not apply to any private companies. That would be silly. So the current content makes the Judge look like an idiot, and we have a reliable source that corrects this. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)