Talk:PragerU

citiation in first paragraph

I added attribution for the sentence in the first section that says "PragerU has been accused of promoting fascism, racism, sexism and anti-LGBT politics," as the cited source is GLAAD and the WP:RSP says that GLAAD sources "should be attributed." My edit was reverted by the user Hipal for being "overly constraining." Will be readding this attribution soon per the WP:RSP, but wanted to take it to the talk page first before I readd my edit. AstralNomad (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I definitely agree that claim should be better attributed but the way you added it was a double attribution. You were saying that GLAAD says they've been accused of those things, whereas it'd be better to simply say that GLAAD accuses them of those things. Loki (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I see five other references than the one attributed to GLAAD. --Hipal (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I see nothing in the cited sources that accuses PragerU of fascism. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I removed "fascism" from the sentence in the lede , since I couldn't find it verified in any of the relevant sources. --Hipal (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Snopes on PragerU

eg says used in 9 states, which is an update on our article Doug Weller talk 09:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

23 Aug article changes

Ceoil, while most of your changes are simple rephrasing/minor text edits, in several places you have made changes that are either poorly supported by the article or not at all supported by the citations. The changes were made without justification via edit summaries and should not have been restored once challenged. Your change from conservative to right-wing in the opening sentence is disputed since most of the article/sources use "conservative". Additionally, the sentence, "PragerU was founded in 2009 by conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager and radio producer/screenwriter Allen Estrin, in order to advocate for conservative views and to offset what Prager regards as the undermining of college education by the left. " was changed to say it was founded to, "to promote fossil-fuel and spread disinformation on the climate-crisis.". That claim isn't supported by any of the citations in that sentence (I suspect at some point citations may have been shifted since the citations at the end of the next sentence seem to be the once supporting the reason for the founding). Springee (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in that diff or in the other copy-editing that actually changes meaning or is not supported by the wide majority of sources.. Also, lead statements don't necessarily have to be cited if expanded upon in the article body - are you saying that that the "right-wing" aspect should be better built up there? Good idea; hold on. Ceoil (talk) 07:51, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagee, you made plenty of changes in tone. I suggest YOU make a case here. Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Its not a matter of openion or making a "CASE", see the link provided above. Ceoil (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is per WP:ONUS, yoiu want to make a change and its reverted YOU need to get consensus for the change. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop shouting in hysterical CAPS and discuss this as a grown-up. Have already provided sources, while your demands are unspecified, and templating my talk doesn't change that. Ceoil (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I am emphasizing as you appear to be ignoring the rules which are clear, if you are reverted, you have to come here and make a case, not us. You should be spending your energy making your case here. Ohh and read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

What you are hysterically accusing me of not doing is exactly what I am doing. Here. On this "talk page".....""talk" "page".."discussing". Ceoil (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

No you are not, as you have made no case to address the claim you did not obey the previous consensus about "right wing" for a start. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

PragerU is known for its right-wing web videosThe group also continues to try out new formats. Its recent short documentary debut was 20 minutes on a central preoccupation of the rightHow the right-wing network PragerU could fill the void left by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s defunding. Ceoil (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

That does not explain why consensus should to be overturned (As other sources use different language, see the talk page archives), you need to make the case (You, not anyone else) as to why it should be. So I am out of here with a no untill I say otherwise, convince us you are right. Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

It exactly explains why. This is a matter of fact rather than consensus. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

And we go by wp:consensus and not "fact", and one of your sources calls the "conservative". Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

No we don't. We go on reliable sources and wp:verify. With all these weak strawmen, am wondering if you have some sort of invested interest here. Ceoil (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I see the Times of Israel uses 'conservative' freely throughout it's article, I can't read then Boston globe one.Halbared (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

So do we say they are Conservative or right-wing? Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Nice try but "conservative" and "right-wing" are not mutually exclusive. I say lets let this sit for a bit, maybe a few weeks, for others to chime in. I'm done on commenting and a bit borded with the circular argumentation, so won't be pushing again for a while. Deal? Ceoil (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

We don't have to choose one or the other. They are both right-ring and conservative. If we have sources for both then we can say both. Both terms have their ambiguities and each helps to clarify the other. For many in an international audience "conservative" may imply centre-right, which is not what American conservatism is. Many, on reading "right-wing", might immediately ask themselves "Yeah, but how right wing? Are we talking Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Giorgia Meloni or Ilse Koch?" Obviously, exploring that is the role of the article but the opening needs to give people a rough idea. If we could pin it down to a specific type of conservative then that would be good. If we have sources for "right-wing conservative" then that would be good. Failing that, "right-wing and conservative" would be OK. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I would think, 'conservative', as that is what the source states?Halbared (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The sources say that they are both right-wing and conservative. Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

The majority have said the organization is conservative. Additionally, the body of the article clearly favors conservative. That is likely why previous consensus discussions ended with "conservative". Springee (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

just to retract here for a moment; the other of my reverted edits was around how to couch that the lobby promotes "fossil-fuel and spread[s] disinformation on the climate-crisis". Thoughts? Ceoil (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

That PragerU has promoted the use of fossil fuels and climate change disinformation is already in the article. The problem was you changed a sentence that originally said the reason PragerU was founded was to do X to a sentence that said they were founded specifically to promote the use of fossil fuels and climate change disinformation. I don't think even the most critical sources have made that claim. This is why your reflexive reverts and claims that you weren't making substantive changes are problematic. You not only failed to follow BRD, you also failed to understand the problem with your edits. Springee (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Right, we need a soruce saying that is (specifically) why it was set up, and not just to peddle general misinformation. Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

lol... misinformation about misinformation? Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a source, yes or no? Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

I did error on the emphasis, but on the substance yes. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

What does this say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Not much actually. ? Ceoil (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Can you quote the line that says they were set up to promote fossil-fuel and spread disinformation on the climate-crisis? Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Agree with the above points expressed by Springee and Slatersteven. Also IMO there were other substantive problematic changes in Ceoil's edit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Outvoted 3 to 1: damn. I'll drop the stick and leave to others. Ceoil (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is in Violation of NPOV

This article is in violation of Wikipedia’s so called founding principle of NPOV. Which is a neutral point of view. I’ve tried to contact Wikipedia directly, but they make it nearly impossible. This article is stating pure opinion, and as I reviewed Wikipedia’s take on left leaning tv shows, it is apparent that this page is done on purpose. It needs to be redone to be neutral and not give an opinion. “PragerU's videos contain misleading or factually incorrect information on climate change, slavery[1][2][3] and racism in the United States, immigration, and the history of fascism. PragerU has been further accused of promoting creationism, fascism, racism, sexism and anti-LGBT politics.[4][5] Should read more like, their videos could be thought to contain misleading or factually incorrect to some viewers. Not that they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2DBurch (talk • contribs)

Those are statements of fact from reliable sources. We're not going to water them down to improperly present them as a competing opinion just because some have political disagreements with the stated facts. - *MrOllie (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• WP:NPOV is about accurately reflecting the best-available sources, especially high-quality ones like academia; and the article, as it's written now, simply summarizes what they say. Sourcing on PragerU describes its role as eg. "disseminating far-right propaganda and misinformation" and that "PragerU at its core serves to spread misinformation and propaganda in service of the US far right, and to manipulate and radicalize viewer". We can't water that down just because some editors personally disagree; if you think it's not an accurate summary of what the best sources say, you need to find similarly high-quality sources saying otherwise. Otherwise you're engaging in WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

"not give an opinion." An article without opinions goes against Wikipedia's policies, and it has to either be improved or immediately deleted. Covering controversies is essential for articles. See for example Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section: The lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Dimadick (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

IS this a TV show then? Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Given that our correspondent here says that it is "nearly impossible" to contact Wikipedia while, um..., literally contacting Wikipedia there is a possibility that they are confused at the most basic level. Not only can anybody post messages here, anybody can post messages to the various Administrators Noticeboards. You don't need to demand to speak to the manager on Wikipedia. You can just speak to the managers. (i.e. the administrators.) Of course, they hear a lot of bootless kvetching of the type above, and are under no obligation to take it seriously, but there are literally no barriers to contacting them. (Unless they block you for disruption but you'd need to be repeatedly and intentionally obnoxious, ignoring warnings, for that to happen and even blocked users are given an alternative way to get in contact.) I also wonder, given the way that the complaint quotes text from the article with the source numbers without any acknowledgement of those sources, whether our correspondent is even aware that the numbers in square brackets indicate sources and that they can just click on them to see where we got the information in the article from. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Why is the “Conservatism in the UK” template on this article?

As far as I can tell Prager U has no connection to the UK, so there is no reason for that template. 22090912l (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Well they have enough videos about it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Harper

Regarding the recent edit warring: The reference is poor and doesn't demonstrate encyclopedic value to an understanding of PragerU, nor demonstrate due weight. Adding content because of reasons unrelated to the article topic is a POV violation. --Hipal (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Adding to those who have said the same thing here previously:

This article is in deep breach of WP:NPOV!!!! Some of the stuff on this page is insane Aesurias (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Aesurias, since you have noted that others have made similar statements, please address the responses to those statements. Repeating what others have said without elaboration gets us nowhere. --Hipal (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

RFC

Starting this because of ongoing disputes about neutrality, especially regarding the lead. Should the following lead paragraph be changed, kept or be removed?

PragerU's videos have contained misleading or factually incorrect information on slavery and racism in the United States, immigration, and the history of fascism. PragerU has been further accused of promoting racism, sexism and anti-LGBT politics.

2A00:FBC:EE34:6EDF:39E5:3460:445B:4D5E (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Remove: Sourced incredibly weakly (Vanity, GLAAD, and Weather Channel(!)) and outdated as all hell. It's an embarrassment actually, and doesn't even begin to come close to anything resembling WP:NPOV. It could not possibly be more WP:UNDUE, and should therefore be removed completely. 2A00:FBC:EE34:6EDF:39E5:3460:445B:4D5E (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Above vote is from the filer. The Banner talk 12:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• keep. that the sources in the lead are kinda weak is actually irrelevant, as leads are generally not even meant to have sources in the first place. that said, other sources in the article's body do reflect that, so it's exactly the kind of thing that should be said there consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  oh right, i'll mention that the ip might be @R9109, who previously removed the claims from the lead with more or less the same rationale and then mysteriously disappeared earlier this month consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:34, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's not me at all and a lot of people have tried to edit that part in the past. 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:BBEC:9B26:210E:EE26 (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment – Should be procedurally closed per WP:RFCBEFORE. The nominator should have started with an edit request; RfCs are time-consuming last resorts for disputes and should not be started without prior non-RfC attempts to resolve the disputes by the nominator. Yue🌙 14:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  I've tried a lot of edit requests in the past and always get told "find a consensus first" in 90% of cases. So that's what I'm doing here 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:BBEC:9B26:210E:EE26 (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  To be fair, we have discussed this issue a lot. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  Also, @Yue, RFCBEFORE isn't actually mandatory. It's almost always a good idea, but it's not absolutely required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

• keep, the sources in the lede are not the only ones for this, there are also sources in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's not true at all, the word "sexism" for example is only found once on the entire page - in the lead. 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:8550:2FE:BDBE:898F (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes it is, we may not use the word, we do discuss the concept. Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  Where? You mean that single sentence about "gender pay gap"? 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:8550:2FE:BDBE:898F (talk) 15:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  "there are also sources in the body". Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  Could you tell me where the concept of sexism is discussed and sourced in the body? 2A02:810D:AE1C:C800:8550:2FE:BDBE:898F (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  sections 1.1, 3, and 4.1, and citations 2, 3, 6, 24, 25, 47, and 48, and that's if you ignore how often they clump any info on "bad groups" (people who aren't cis and straight, non-americans, non-christians...) with their women (by which i mean women in general), the "traditional values" they routinely choose to promote, and the aforementioned gender pay gap deal. really, there are a lot of missed opportunities here, so i'll recommend that reliable sources get on it so more 7 citations mention this in any satisfactory amount of detail, even though only one is already enough for keeping consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven, your intended reply was a little broken. i wasn't sure where to put it, so i removed it for now to avoid formatting issues. it'd be a good idea to try again consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 16:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• keep per WP:LEADCITE—blindlynx 16:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep again, we have citations for this, they do not have to be in the lead. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep I'd just recently reviewed the paragraph after it was deleted and restored. I removed a small bit of content that I could not verify , everything else was verified. --Hipal (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - Although I would clean up the sourcing as there are much better sources out there. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep but change It's importance enough to keep especially since some high quality sources mention it. But I would change it a bit to keep it more neutral and minimal. I think the current version violates WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV because it states criticisms as a fact.
• I would replace it with something like this: PragerU produces videos from a conservative perspective that have been both widely viewed and criticized for factual inaccuracies and bias. Frankserafini87 (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Weak Remove I do not believe it should be included, but if it is, this is how it should be covered. The current lead does present criticism as fact. Jcgaylor (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  keep but change Yes I thank that is much better for the lead, I don't think there is any reason to list the topics on which they are inaccurate and biased, especially since it could imply that they are limited to the very small portion that have been covered in the article. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  This seems more like an opening paragraph that a NPOV encyclopaedia would have.Halbared (talk) 10:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  "widely viewed and criticized" sounds weird. Is "viewed" supposed to mean "viewed as misleading or incorrect"? Removing that part seems like whitewashing. We do not need to be overly nice to an organization the pretends to be a university. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say it's necessarily being "nice." It's better to keep it as neutral as possible. We are still mentioning that their content has been criticized for being biased and inaccurate. Frankserafini87 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  I think adding a second "widely" before "criticised" would clear up that ambiguity. I'm not sure a mention of the fact they are widely viewed is needed though, especially since they are no longer particularly noteworthy in that regard. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 10:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes agreed. How about something like this: "PragerU produces videos from a conservative perspective that have been widely criticized for factual inaccuracies and bias."

  Not sure if we should mention "conservative perspective." Also, it might be worth mentioning that they have been criticized by academia and other media sources.

  I still believe we should keep it as neutral and minimal as possible since it's in the lead. More detail can be provided in the body. Frankserafini87 (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• A large portion of the page is dedicated to criticism of the subject, which can be a concern, but not what this rfc is about. Stating that the subject produces videos is factual. Stating that the videos produced by the subject have been criticized is also factual. So how about PragerU produces videos. These videos have been criticized. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  That's meaningless. That should be stated and the reasons for the criticism stated clearly. For example, do they state inaccuracies, lies, conspiracy theories? Describe it briefly in the lead. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep untouched. Per above. If we had to change it, something like "PragerU has been found to contain right-wing propoganda", if we wish to keep it short but blunt. Babysharkb☩ss2 I am Thou, Thou art I 19:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
• Change to something worthy of an encyclopaedia that does not present criticism as fact, wot Frankserafini as written, seems OK.Halbared (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  nah, i also oppose that. if that wording is used, a reader won't know what they've been criticized for without going deeper into the article. as far as that wording implies, there are equal chances that the videos would be criticized for their ideas, format, time, and ugly shades of blue. the sources used state what they're criticized for, the article says as much, so the lead can avoid being vague consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:03, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a valid summary from a NPoV. High-quality sources have documented PragerU's role in spreading misinformation, and that role is a defining characteristic of its notability. — Starryskyzero (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep as-is. It accurately reflects what the highest-quality sources have said; and the level and breath of coverage indicates that this is a major part of the topic's notability. --Aquillion (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. There's nothing controversial here. It is factual and neutral. It reflects sourced content in the body. It is fundamental enough to the topic that it belongs in the introduction. We need to be responsive to valid objections but not to frequent repetition of invalid objections. There are no valid objections here. We do not need to soften our coverage to spare their blushes. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• The balance of reliable sources appear to accurately describe what is their commitment to facts (namely, the burial thereof, in misinformation) and our primary body sections (§ Content and § Reception) appear to reflect the fact that it is a major element in why they have received coverage. There does not appear to be any assertion made that spreading misinformation is no longer what they are primarily known for, only that it is very unfair that we describe this. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep I don't see any problem and it matches the rest of the rest of the article. Again citations are done throughout the article, etc. Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2026

Delete the following entry as it’s references don’t appear to be make the entry factual

PragerU's videos have contained misleading or factually incorrect information on slavery and racism in the United States, immigration, and the history of fascism. PragerU has been further accused of promoting racism, sexism and anti-LGBT politics.<ref name=":4"

~2026-50171-2 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

RS disagree Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

And see above. Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 Jul 2026 - "University"

Please add:

"Despite its name, it is not an accredited academic institution."

reference:

• ‘Masquerading as a university’: inside the brazen rightwing plan to conquer American schools, theguardian.com, 8 Apr 2026

Thank you in advance, --~2026-34507-11 (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

We already do, read the article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)