Talk:PragerU/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

CEO image

Marissa Streit, CEO, in 2018

@Hipal: In this edit, Hipal removed this image of the company CEO with the comment don't see how the image of a non-notable person adds anything encyclopedic, though it is PROMO. It's the company CEO, which is an important person to the company, so quite encyclopedic. Company articles are generally benefited by the image of their CEO. Microsoft has pictures of all three of its CEOs (they're independently notable, of course, but that doesn't matter for their inclusion in other articles, we don't have a rule "only include pictures of CEOs if they have their own article", they're in the Microsoft article because they're important to Microsoft); Babylon Bee has a picture of its CEO, though he doesn't have its own article, etc. --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this discussion.

Yes, within PragerU, she's important, hence my PROMO concerns.

This repeats the problems identified at Talk:PragerU/Archive_7#On_the_dispute_of_the_CEO_of_PragerU_being_added. --Hipal (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I clearly missed something. She's important, so adding her photo would be promotional? I don't understand. This is an article about the company. We are supposed to cover the important information about the company. That's the whole point of the article. --GRuban (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Per the past discussion, she's barely important enough to mention at all. --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

She's the CEO. She runs the company. Both the best sources, the New York Times and the LA Times, write about her running the company. Just above you, yourself, write that she's important. --GRuban (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Please don't make this a case of IDHT, nor misrepresent me. --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Please can you explain your objection the picture in clear terms? I don't understand the objection. It seems like quite an ordinary thing to include. I don't see it as promotional. If that is what you are claiming then please explain how it is promotional because this is not at all obvious to me. DanielRigal (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You are supposed to look for pictures that make PragerU look bad. :-) North8000 (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This picture does neither that nor the opposite though. It's just a picture. I don't understand what the argument is about. Is the problem that it is shot slightly from below? That's not ideal but it's not bad enough to stop us using it. I'm sure we have a lot of other pictures like that. In fact, the picture of Prager, which absolutely nobody is complaining about, is also shot slightly from below. Would it be better if we cropped it to take her knee out? I don't get it. Why is this specific picture a problem? DanielRigal (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

My comment was tongue-in-cheek. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Image seems fine to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Why does an encyclopedia article about PragerU need this picture? We already agreed that anything but the briefest mention of her was a problem. The policies identified in the previous discussion are: SOAP, RECENTISM, UNDUE, and BLP. --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is any firm policy reason to exclude the image. I don't think it is needed, but it seems fine to leave it in since she is a fairly involved CEO and presents a lot of videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterTriangle12 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

And on that note, I'm going to call Wikipedia:Consensus. She has been the CEO since either 2011 (New York Times) or 2009 (LA Times), which is either most or all of how long the company has been around, so WP:RECENTISM is not an issue. I can't even figure out what Hipal must mean by the other WP:OMGWTFBBQ. Why does the article need this picture? It doesn't need it any more than it needs nearly any given bit of information, but it benefits from it as much as pretty much any other bit of the article; as the CEO she is a prominent representative, leader, and symbol of the company, that's what a CEO is, and showing a picture of all that helps in comprehension. The other concerns seem to be

• "we already discussed it" (the image was not discussed, and during the discussion, the sentence about Streit's CEO status and history did not even have a reference, much less from two of the most respected newspapers in the country);
• "she's important"/"she's not important"/"don't use my words against me"
• and finally LOTSOFCAPITALLETTERSTHATDON'TAPPLY

If there are other legitimate concerns, we will do our best to address them, but until then it looks like we have what we call Wikipedia:Consensus (or, if anyone prefers, CONSENSUS) that the image be in the article. --GRuban (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Being dismissive of policy is no way to create consensus, but it is IDHT, as I cautioned earlier.

Thanks for the refs. They change everything.

Marissa Streit, who had been a Hebrew tutor for another PragerU backer, joined as the company’s chief executive in 2011, and videos started going out. Why aren't we including some of that info from NYTimes?

I don't see anything verifying she was an "officer", so removed it. I'm assuming it was mandatory military service. --Hipal (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is fine! Feel free to include more about her, she as such isn't really my focus, which was mostly adding the image. We all have our favorite ways to improve articles, this is often mine. The linked sources were actually in the article before, 7 uses of the NYTimes and 6 uses of the LATimes article respectively, I don't know why no one brought them up during the previous discussion you reference. Thank you, Hipal, ITTITBOABF --GRuban (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)