Talk:Project Veritas

Type field in infobox

Hello, I work for Project Veritas and would like to request a correction to the "type" field in the infobox. According to the infobox's documentation at TemplatedInfobox organization, this field is meant to describe the legal entity type of the organization (non profit, governmental, etc.), not to serve as a description of the organization's purpose or activities. Please correct the field to "501(c)(3) nonprofit" to accurately reflect the organization type. Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

that is not how I read it. NOw there maybe an argument for ngo.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the type is Non-governmental organization the legal status is 501(c)(3) and the purpose is disinformation. Something like this:

Project Veritas

Type	NGO
Legal status	501(c)(3)
Purpose	disinformation

Vexations (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that works.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have added the "type" and "status" fields to reflect that PV is a 501(c)3, per Sal at PV's request and Vexations' suggested solution, and retained the previous text in the "purpose" field. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi GorillaWarfare. Thank you for fixing the issue with the "type" field. However, we've run into a similar problem with the "purpose" field. When talking about an organization, "purpose" refers to the central goal of an organization or the reason for which it was founded. Just because a book written by a few scholars uses a throwaway pejorative to refer to Project Veritas ("In November 2017, for example, the right-wing disinformation outfit Project Veritas tried..."), this in no way means that "disinformation" is the purpose of the organization according to this source. And I have not found any other source that makes such an extraordinary claim either.

If you are concerned that removing the "purpose" field would prevent readers from learning about Project Veritas's supposed "disinformation" (an allegation that, obviously, Project Veritas takes strong issue with), be assured that the term is used prominently in the "Minnesota videos (2020)" section.

Finally, if you look again at the documentation at Template:Infobox organization, the examples provided for the "purpose" field are broad, concise and neutral: humanitarian, activism, peacekeeping. "Far-right provocateur and disinformation group" doesn't exactly fit the model. I can think of more appropriate possibilities for "purpose," e.g., journalism, education (which is PV's official IRS designation - see here) or even activism. But seeing as most articles with this infobox don't even use the "purpose" field, including this article until a few days ago, I think we are all best served by just removing it.

I appreciate your civility and open-mindedness in interacting with editors like me, as there is ample room for cynicism here. I hope I can return the favor. Thanks again, Sal at PV (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It's patently ridiculous to claim that an organization whose entire modus operandi is producing falsely edited videos, often obtained through fraudulent, unethical and even illegal means (noting that the founder is a convicted felon who tried to install an illegal wiretap into a United States Senator's office), has a purpose of anything but disinformation.

Further, the sources are very clear.

1. Project Veritas is "a great example of what a coordinated disinformation campaign looks like" (New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/politics/project-veritas-ilhan-omar.html)
2. [1] "In November 2017, for example, the right-wing disinformation outfit Project Veritas tried to trip up the Washington Post..." - not a "throwaway pejorative", as you falsely claim, but a rather complete analysis on page 357-358 of the tactics used by propaganda groups such as PV attempt to goad journalistic entities, and a specific example of how the Washington Post resisted PV's disinformation effort by employing professional process.

Given that you are an employee of PV, which IS a disinformation group, I think it is right that any reader seeing your posts consider Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sal at PV: The original edit request was fairly uncontroversial and there were no objections, so I was happy to implement it. This subsequent request I won't implement without a solid consensus to remove the field. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I understand the reluctance to take out the "purpose" field without consensus, but it seems to me that the WP:BURDEN of proof to demonstrate verifiability should be on those who wish to add "disinformation" to the infobox. As I wrote above, none of the sources listed say that the purpose of Project Veritas is disinformation. The New York Times article quotes researchers who called a specific video a "disinformation effort," not referring to Project Veritas as an organization. (Contrary to the atrocious - and syntactically nonsensical - misrepresentation above by IHateAccounts: Project Veritas is "a great example of what a coordinated disinformation campaign looks like") The same is true of the Media Matters source - it does not use "disinformation" to refer to the organization, but to one particular video. (Though in any case it should go without saying that Media Matters should not be used here, as it is established at WP:RSP as a "biased or opinionated source.") And the Network Propaganda book that refers to PV as a "right-wing disinformation outfit" also says nothing about the organization's "purpose" - only what the authors believe is an appropriate characterization of PV in light of its tactics.

As the assertion's verifiability is challenged, the default should be to remove the content until the burden of demonstrating verifiability is satisfied by a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. And that does not include IHA's appeal to ridicule fallacy that it's "patently ridiculous" to claim that PV "has a purpose of anything but disinformation" - Wikipedia should be better than that. Sal at PV (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The "purpose" field is not intended for critic's opinions about an organization. I agree that the word "disinformation" does not belong there. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

PV started out as a propaganda group, with fraud and faked editing their Modus operandi, from their first videos. Every time the full story comes out, their frauds fall apart. That they send a paid employee to WP:POVPUSH here is humorous, but nothing more. The wording has three high-quality sources, satisfying WP:RS and WP:V, and is 100% accurate; everything thus far argued by "Sal At PV" falls into Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies territory and should probably be taken with an entire salt lick. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with all of the above, even its name is dishonest. However, it might be fairer to say "propaganda".Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The proponents of including "disinformation" in the purpose field have still not responded to my main objection above, which is that not a single reliable source says that the purpose of Project Veritas is "disinformation." As I elaborated on above, the three sources currently cited either refer to one specific action taken by Project Veritas (the 2020 Minnesota videos) or to a description of the organization as a "disinformation outfit" with no assertion that "disinformation" is PV's purpose.

As a side note, WP:MANDY refers to avoiding false balance in an article, not as IHA appears to be misapplying it: "Don't listen to anything Sal at PV says, since he works for Project Veritas." Sal at PV (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well actually yes "disinformation outfit" means that is their purpose, its what they are there for. (note the post I replied to has now been deleted).Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That's also a gross misunderstanding of WP:MANDY. White supremacists and neo-nazis do not often admit to being white supremacists and neo-nazis; likewise, propaganda organizations do not often admit openly to being propaganda organizations. Thus when Sal makes claims that this particular organization's purpose (despite its history of blatant fraud, dishonest and deceptive editing of video and audio, false claims, and manufacturing propaganda and disinformation) is not propaganda or disinformation... "well he would say that, wouldn't he?" The essay itself even notes, "Company Y has been successfully prosecuted for fraud. We don't need to say that the company denies wrongdoing." IHateAccounts (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that descriptions in reliable sources like "Coordinated Disinformation Campaign" and "right-wing disinformation outfit" can be summarised as "purpose:disinformation". To insist that we need to have three sources that say, in exactly these words: "The purpose of Project Veritas is disinformation" is not a legitimate claim; it's just obstruction. Paraphrasing is an essential aspect of encyclopaedic editing. It has been done correctly here. Vexations (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: First, as I've said above, the phrase "coordinated disinformation campaign" was not used as a description of Project Veritas; it was used as a description of the 2020 Minnesota videos, which were produced by Project Veritas. It makes absolutely no sense to call an organization a "campaign," which means (quoting Wiktionary) "a series of operations undertaken to achieve a set goal."

Second, it is false to say that "right-wing disinformation outfit" can be summarised as "purpose:disinformation". That is not an accurate paraphrasing at all. "Disinformation outfit" was used to characterize the methods and actions of the organization, not its purpose - which has variously been described in RS as "to discredit mainstream media outlets and left-wing groups" (source) or more broadly "the destruction of the liberal media" (source). And furthermore, for such a controversial statement like calling an organization's purpose "disinformation," yes, you should have at least one source that says it outright rather than vaguely hinting at it. Sal at PV (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sal at PV, Let me get this straight. You'd like us to change purpose to "the destruction of the liberal media"? when the source says it is the unstated mission. And you represent Project Veritas? Is that correct? Vexations (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok this is getting nonsensical.

1. "the phrase "coordinated disinformation campaign" was not used as a description of Project Veritas; it was used as a description of the 2020 Minnesota videos, which were produced by Project Veritas" Attempting to use an example of PV's organizing a specific disinformation campaign to claim the organization's purpose is not creating and disseminating disinformation? That's just... wow.
2. VOA News, under the trump administration, is no longer trustworthy... but even if it was, this story does not say "to discredit mainstream media outlets and left-wing groups" is the "purpose" of PV. It uses the phrasing "a New York organization that targets and tries to discredit..."
3. Likewise, the New Republic article does not say the "purpose" of PV but rather uses the words "unstated mission", in the context of analyzing O'Keefe's seemingly personal grudge against reputable news organizations that haven't fallen for his scams and credulously reported his disinformation. "O’Keefe is treated as a clown by self-respecting journalists for good reason. He built his career on manipulative videos that fed into fantastical right-wing narratives, particularly surrounding race and abortion. These videos would then be posted online—Andrew Breitbart was an early booster—fueling right-wing outrage for weeks."

The facts remain pretty overwhelming. Project Veritas has had numerous targets over the years - voting rights advocacy organizations such as ACORN, United States Senators, reporters that O'Keefe has a personal grudge against such as Abbie Boudreau, women's health organizations such as Planned Parenthood - and sometimes they have just plain been producing nonsensical alt-right/racist/xenophobic propaganda, such as the "Bin Laden Mask River Crossing" incident. It would be impossible to say that PV's "purpose" was the destruction of any one of these individual entities, though their actions do often seem motivated in part by the personal animus and bigotry of O'Keefe and his employees.

The purpose of PV is, quite simply, the production of right-wing disinformation that can be disseminated and amplified by various right-wing media outlets, outfits that lack journalistic integrity and are willing to repeat propaganda credulously. Its purpose is to be a right-wing disinformation outfit [2], as such. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...and the humorous essay WP:DEADHORSE is starting to seem to apply.

• HuffPost states that Project Veritas is a "fraudulent far-right propaganda outlet".
• A Fox TV station states that "The lack of verifiable evidence, allegations of misrepresentation and entrapment, and coordination with conservative causes, has been part of Project Veritas’ method of operation."
• The Tucson Daily Star/Tucson.com says Project Veritas is "a right-wing group known for undercover stings and deceptive videos".

Those are just a few examples, I am certain I could find many more sources that use words such as or related to any and all of the following: fraud, deception, propaganda, deceptively-edited videos, bribery, lawsuits filed against Project Veritas and its employees for libel/trespassing,Veritas' own lawsuits throw out of court, and so on. All of those descriptors of Project Veritas actions collectively according to editorial consensus have been taken to mean words including disinformation and it seems to me and the overwhelming number of editors commenting on this page that we are fine with that descriptor.

WP could say, according to WP:IRS, that Project Veritas' purpose is "fraud/deception". But I digress...I really came here to say that for an editor to insist that Wikipedia must use the exact wording that sources use is a mis-reading of WP guidelines and basically carefully-couched POV-pushing. The present editorial consensus is that the purpose parameter of this article's infobox be delineated as Far-right provocateur/disinformation but I'd be happy to adjust it to something that would include "fraud/fraudulent" & "deception/deceptive" & "propaganda" if that becomes the editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we can also go to WP:RS dictionaries and other WP:RS sources here, to determine if "disinformation" is an appropriate synonym representing the various WP:RS:

1. "false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth" - Merriam-Webster [3]
2. "false information spread in order to deceive people" - Cambridge [4]
3. "deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda" - Dictionary.com [5]
4. "False information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda..." - Oxford [6]
5. "false information that is intended to make people believe something that is not true" - MacMillan [7]
6. "Dictionaries typically define "disinformation" as the dissemination of deliberately false information" - NPR [8]
7. "When false information is knowingly shared to cause harm" - Wardle, C. and Derakshan, H. in Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making (2017).[9]

It looks like this is exactly what Project Veritas exists for; to create and disseminate false information in order to cause harm to their myriad targets. In other words, disinformation. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: Purpose should be removed (the status quo until a few weeks ago) or replaced with something that is actually supported by RS. I have no special liking for the overwrought "destruction of the liberal media," but at least it's there in the RS as PV's mission (a rough synonym of "purpose"), unlike "disinformation."

@IHateAccounts: You are still confusing actions/methods with purpose. It doesn't matter how many sources you find that say that PV purveys disinformation. None of those sources make the claim that it is PV's purpose. And what's more, It looks like this is exactly what Project Veritas exists for is classic WP:OR - and the dictionary definition you apparently need to look up is "purpose," not "disinformation."

@Shearonink: Same comment as I made to IHA: You are confusing "method of operation" (as it says in the Fox 9 source you cited) with purpose. They are not the same thing. Nor are they synonyms or paraphrases of each other. For a Wikipedia editor to determine an organization's purpose based on sources that talk about its methods is WP:OR.

I've been accused of pushing POV here, but the truth is that I'm the only one arguing dispassionately based on Wikipedia policies (with the exception of Spiffy sperry), and it seems to me that the POV push is precisely in the opposite direction. Perhaps cooler heads can be found at WP:NPOVN. Sal at PV (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps so. If you think that a NPOVN report is needed, well, that's why Wikipedia has noticeboards and processes to discuss issues that might arise between editors about content. Have at it. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"I've been accused of pushing POV here, but the truth is that I'm the only one arguing dispassionately based on Wikipedia policies" - I believe this claim falls into a pattern known as DARVO. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sal at PV, since you seem to speak for PV, perhaps you clarify what PV's view of its purpose is. You want the field removed, but not because the organization doesn't have one. There is broad consensus that we don't care what an organization says about itself, only what independent, reliable sources say.

Is there independent, reliable source that states the purpose in a way that satisfies our needs for NPOV and reliability that PV agrees with? Does such a source exist? Vexations (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

We can resolve this dispute by using the methods parameter in Template:Infobox organization. Project Veritas uses disinformation as one of its methods. — Newslinger talk 23:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I don't know that this will really resolve anything, because I suspect there will still be people trying to get a "purpose" instantiated. Plus, review of numerous sources shows that a primary purpose of PV is the production of disinformation. This remains true whether the produced disinformation is then used to attack specific people (such as a senator), or organizations (ACORN, Planned Parenthood, etc) or merely spread around in right-wing media circles for other reasons (such as the "Osama Mask River Crossing" incident used to bolster xenophobia and racist/islamophobic bigotry). IHateAccounts (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Focus?

• Comment. {only here because I monitor IHA's contributions} I will be honest, I always assumed |purpose= was meant for things like a mission statement (as in like an organization's reason for being in their own words). I think that's how most people would logically think that is what purpose means. According to their website, their mission is to Investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparent society. For me, it would seem their main purpose (out of that) is to primarily just investigate corruption.
  However, we could just swap purpose with focus. We might do that for a few different reasons, but my primary motivation is to just separate what this organisation may say about itself versus what it does in practice. I am going to do try that and see if I get any objections. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  MJL, I guarantee that there will be objections if you do that. It would be better to get consensus for your proposal here first. WRT to only here because I monitor IHA's contributions I have something to say to you about that too, but I'll do that on your talk page. Vexations (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Vexations, MJL's user page lists IHateAccounts as their adoptee, so I don't think there is a behavioral issue here. As for which parameter to use, I don't have a strong opinion either way as long as the infobox is not altered to materially change what the article is saying. — Newslinger talk 22:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, I missed that. Struck. Vexations (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

lol that was an awkward misunderstanding.
@Vexations: Do you object to the proposed change or did you just revert on procedural grounds? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Getting back to topic, I believe the discussions on this page, and the sourcing, show that WP:MANDY and WP:ABOUTSELF prohibitions on unduly self-serving claims apply very strongly to "according to their website" with regard to a group such as PV whose primary purpose is the creation of disinformation. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Okay, but we could also just as easily say their primary focus is those things is my point. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• That is an interesting point that has wider implications than just this article. If that were really what the |purpose= is for, it should not be named "purpose" because it would mean we would agree in Wikipedia's voice with what organizations say about their purpose. Template:Infobox organization says, Organization's purpose or focus (humanitarian, activism, peacekeeping, …), so that does not help. Should we start a discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox organization? The people there should know more. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Hob Gadling: I thought about that, but I figured it might be easier to sidestep that issue by using |focus=. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: PV's view of its purpose is what it says in its mission statement. But I accept that PV's mission statement doesn't interest you, and it has never been my goal to push that language. Instead, we should acknowledge that the purpose field is an optional field in Infobox organization, and should be removed in the absence of verifiable information to put there.

Alternatively, there are lots of RS that talk about what PV "tries to" accomplish, broadly, through its actions, and that could be acceptable for purpose (unlike "right-wing disinformation outfit"). Here are several examples:

• "Project Veritas is a conservative group that tries to undermine the mainstream media through undercover stings." (Salon)
• "Project Veritas is an organization that tries to discredit the news media and liberal groups through undercover 'sting' operations." (USA Today)
• "Phillips appears to work with Project Veritas, an organization that uses deceptive tactics and secretly records conversations in an effort to embarrass members of the mainstream media and left-leaning groups." (Washington Post)
• "Project Veritas, the guerrilla group that tries to undermine news outlets like CNN and The Washington Post" (New York Times)
• "Project Veritas, a conservative organization that tries to set up sting operations on a variety of groups in attempts to expose perceived bias" (ABC News)

Any of those examples would be fine in place of disinformation. As I've said, there are no RS that say - either directly or via synonyms/paraphrasing - that PV's purpose is disinformation.

@Newslinger: I don't understand the fixation on shoehorning "disinformation" into the infobox no matter what. The "coordinated disinformation campaign" quote is already in the article, in the "Minnesota videos (2020)" section, and it is a stretch to say that RS present "disinformation" as a "key fact" about PV, which is the standard set forth in MOS:INFOBOX. That notwithstanding, the specific objections I raised above to using "disinformation" in the purpose field do not apply to the methods field, as you suggest. I would only insist that the methods field also include PV's actual well-documented methods, i.e., undercover journalism, sting operations and secret recordings.

@MJL: I appreciate your good-faith effort to find a workable solution here. But "focus" doesn't work either, as you won't find any RS saying that "disinformation" is PV's focus. To say that it is one of PV's "methods" might be supported by RS, as Newslinger suggested, but focus is no more supported by RS than purpose. Sal at PV (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sal at PV: "PV's view of its purpose is what it says in its mission statement." - "Well they would say that, wouldn't they?" WP:ABOUTSELF policy is clear here, as a disinformation project, PV's claims fall into the category of "unduly self-serving" and carry no WP:WEIGHT compared to the clear preponderance of coverage in reliable sources.

Likewise, to the dishonest argument "we should acknowledge that the purpose field is an optional field in Infobox organization, and should be removed in the absence of verifiable information to put there"? Whitewashing the article is a no-go, and plenty of WP:RS have already been provided in this regard previously, with the sourcing linked in the infobox as well.

On the other hand, I think it's important we reflect descriptions such as "discredited right-wing attack group" and O'Keefe, the group's leader, as "a duplicitous purveyor of fake news – and an incompetent one at that."[10] IHateAccounts (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sal at PV: I get you are in a difficult spot here because Wikipedia treats mainstream media as the only reliable sources, and your organization is pretty much dedicated to exposing and antagonizing said media. However, those are the rules, and we really can't make exceptions to them for a single article. To respond to your sources:

Extended content

A woman who made up a false story about her relationship with disgraced Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore... Post reporters revealed her deception as part of a plot orchestrated by [Project Veritas]. Salon Using video — which is often selectively edited — Project Veritas claims to expose media bias and hidden left-wing agendas. [emphasis added] USA Today [James O'Keefe and Project Veritas specialize] in undercover audio recordings or videos that seek to reveal supposed dishonesty or corruption, usually by Democrats or organizations perceived to be liberal. [O'Keefe's] critics say his methods are deceitful and that his group peddles disinformation. Bloomberg A deceptive video released on Sunday by the conservative activist James O'Keefe... was probably part of a coordinated disinformation effort, according to researchers at Stanford University and the University of Washington. [emphasis added] New York Times The Daily Beast reports that Boyland also had a history of promoting anti-vaxxer and coronavirus conspiracy theories, along with far-right disinformation from Project Veritas, online. [emphasis added] The Cut citing The Daily Beast Project Veritas is known for its sting operations aimed at such groups, which have prompted allegations that it has published deceptively edited videos. New York Times Project Veritas, which has a long and documented history of failed sting operations, and also of releasing deceptively edited and out of context videos... The Wrap ...editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented The Blaze quoted by NPR Project Veritas and its leader, James O'Keefe, have gained a measure of fame in right-wing media circles for their sting operations, entrapment tactics, and deceptively edited videos. Sahan Journal A Pattern of Disinformation The lack of verifiable evidence, allegations of misrepresentation and entrapment, and coordination with conservative causes, has been part of Project Veritas’ method of operation. [emphasis added] Fox 9 The purpose of Diamond Dog [an operation by Project Veritas], as one source close to the organization put it, is "literally to get Trump reelected." [emphasis added] The New Republic Project Veritas has attracted skepticism for its tactics in the past, including selective editing and undercover reporting. USA Today Project Veritas has a long history of running sting video operations that feature dishonest editing of their subjects. For example, a recent video by the group accusing Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar of voter fraud was found to be a "coordinated disinformation campaign," according to researchers. Maine Beacon

My conclusions is that I think there is definitely enough sources to justify including disinformation as a method of operation. Is there enough to justify including it as a focus/purpose? I would like to see some more evidence of that, but I don't doubt it's out there (ping: IHateAccounts). I just couldn't find enough of it.
Note. There also seems to be no objection to keeping Far-right provocateur as a purpose. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sal at PV: I asked if there were any independent, reliable source that states the purpose in a way that satisfies our needs for NPOV and reliability that PV agrees with? You referred to your mission statement, which isn't quite the same as purpose. However, your own website, at https://www.projectveritas.com/about/ does state: Our purpose is to elicit truth. So, my question stands, are there any sources that we can use that also say that? Vexations (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The term "disinformation" describes a key aspect of Project Veritas's operations, which is why there is strong support for keeping it in the infobox. This is corroborated by multiple reliable sources, including but not limited to the ones MJL listed and the ones currently cited in the infobox. Removing the term would effectively whitewash the article, and negatively impact the quality of the article. Project Veritas also does other things, as your quotes show, but they are in addition to the organization's use of disinformation as a strategy. The fact that Project Veritas is opposed to credible news sources and left-leaning groups does not negate the fact that Project Veritas performs disinformation. — Newslinger talk 00:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Edited: — Newslinger talk 02:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the WP:RS sourcing indicates that PV doesn't "perform" but rather "produces" disinformation. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be more semantically accurate. — Newslinger talk 00:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Frozen google snippet

While this isn't directly relevant to the article. Google appears to have frozen the snippet from Wikipedia to "Project Veritas is an American, deemed by its detractors as a far-right activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.", which out of line with the current lead. Presumably this was due to complaints from PV itself? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

That does look like someone went directly to Google and tried to scrub the text. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

It could be that Google has just got an old version of the page, though I don't know if that version's been in place for some time. Usually Google scrapes pretty regularly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It's been like this for a while, it seems more likely that it was deliberately fixed somehow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

The Google Knowledge Graph entry for Project Veritas has been updated. I assume that Google failed to sync the changes after Special:Diff/991971824 due to a technical issue. Changing the first sentence, as I did in Special:Diff/998776784, triggered Google to sync the changes again. — Newslinger talk 06:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia continues to relegate itself to the fringes of the internet by deeming most of the world's political organizations "far right"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I understand that by the standards of the people who invaded Wikipedia this election cycle, everything is "far right" and a majority of political pages now open with "Far-right" disclaimers and that most of you considering yourselves "by any means radicals" will never repent in this regard. However just for the sake of humor, how can a whistleblower organization possibly be "far-right" or "far-" or "extreme" anything? This has reached the point of absurdity. IF everything is "far-right" then the term has no meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C800:7BD0:7993:CDCE:ECE3:5491 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Your perception is warped. Using the phrase "this election cycle" already shows that it is confined to one country, probably the US.

Maybe Wikipedia describes most organizations you are familiar with as far-right, or even most US organizations, but that is more your problem, or that of the US, than Wikipedia's. (To give you a bit of perspective: If the two biggest US parties were to compete within to political landscape of, for example, Germany, one of them would be far-right and the other centre-right.) And no, calling oneself a "whistleblower" is not insurance against being called out on one's political position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Incredibly weaselwordy answer. But that's what you would expect from Wikipedia, the "free" encyclopedia. A mockery of what it used to be a decade ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:248F:6500:1966:EBBE:72AD:5203 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

If you mean "according to policy" YES.Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I retract ans strike my first answer as too WP:FORUMy. Better answer: See WP:TALK. If you do not have a suggestion for improving the article, this is the wrong place for not having it. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Vojtaruzek edits

@Vojtaruzek: please lay out the edits you wish to add, and the specific sources you wish to use. If they are not listed green at WP:RSP you will have to explain why you believe each source is reliable for the content. You have been notified multiple times to take your concerns here, when warned on your talk page and in edit summaries. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I tried to talk to the other reverters on their talk pages, was immediately reverted as well, obviously they didn't even watch the video, but OK. So, what I want to do is to add a new chapter to the "History" tab in this article, this time about a video featuring Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, speaking about further plans after the suspension of Donald Trump account. This video was origianlly posted on PV website and on James O'Keefe's twitter. and later shared by multiple sources (most of which just included the video itself and at least partial transcription of what was said in the video. Sadly, revisions were always reverted, under justification that the source is unreliable. I tried to find more of them, but all were rejected (sometimes under justification that the source is unreliable simply because it shares the video).

I therefore formally propose to add a chapter.

Twitter CEO video

In January 2021, Project Veritas released a video of Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, talking about the plans the company has after the suspension of Donald Trump's account. This video was supposedly recorded by a whistleblower. Dorsey claimed: “We are focused on one account [@realDonaldTrump] right now, but this is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and it’s going to go on beyond the inauguration,” Mr. Dorsey said. “And we have to expect that and we have to be ready for that." He also specifically mentioned the QAnon movement (a large number of QAnon accounts were recently deleted) and that Twitter needs to focus on the ties between its accounts (namely Trump) and real world violence.

The revision only focuses on what was said in the video and on the fact that PV posted it on their web and twitter. It isn't concerned with the implications of what Dorsey said. I would advise you to go watch the video, because they really posted it and those things are really said there.

THere are many news outlets who refereed to this, sadly, Ihateaccounts stated in the first revert that the source is unreliable because it shared it (circular logic). But the most "accepted" by Wikipedia is Fox news, again, it mostly just shares the video itself and speaks about what it contains. . But I still don't understand why everyone so vehemently refuses to go see the video for themselves.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vojtaruzek: The first problem is you are continually trying to use "sources" that are known to be problematic because they have repeatedly violated ethical and journalistic standards to push propaganda and disinformation. Cases in point: Project Veritas's website, their twitter account, and Fox News (which is listed at WP:RSP not to be trusted for items related to politics, which this absolutely is).

The second problem is that you are continually making a number of personal attacks and simply false statements.

Project Veritas is known for fraudulently editing the things they release. Knowing that, trying to trust what they have put out is extremely problematic; they are the exact opposite of a reliable source for encyclopedic purposes. We need to wait until there is coverage from actually reliable sources on anything they produce, not just their latest disinformation being pushed by the "usual suspects", right-wing outlets that will credulously repeat and try to promote the disinformation that PV produces. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ihateaccounts:. The ones you would propably consider reliable have yet to report about this, as things like this usually attract attention of media who specialize on them. Of course, it is entirely possible that some media will ignore it at all. And why is it politics? Because it features Trump, because it deals with potential censorship plans? To me, it just sounds like an attack on Twitter, which is not a political party.

The second problem - After being continually reverted despite just claiming that there is a video of something (despite the sources having it) you would get that feeling too, but I did not make personal attacks, most of the time, I simply requested people to go see the video for themselves and said that certain things sound bias (like when you reversed the first edit, saying that the source is unreliable because it shares something made by PV (circular logic).

Third - That is literally said in the beginning of an article, plus, the edit was not meant for people to trust it, just to know that they posted the video (as the article contains many of such events about leaks and other things posted by PV). So I think that anyone who comes here will read that first and in best case will go watch the video for themselves. To be honest, though, that video didn't look edited, although it is certainly possible Dorsey clarified what he meant and the video "ended or began" prematurely (in which case, Twitter will likely publish the rest). But if you just want to wait until someone "reliable" covers it (I think they eventually will), like with the others (I didn't search PV for leaks that were not covered by these media), then fine. But I swear, the video really exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 04:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vojtaruzek: It's not the ones "I" consider reliable; it's what Wikipedia policy considers reliable, and the consensus regarding virtually all that you proposed at WP:RSP indicates they are not reliable for this. If you're trying to push disinformation into wikipedia, you're going to have a bad time. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, having located a transcript: "I don't believe this is going away any time soon. And the moves that we're making today around QAnon for instance, one such example of a much broader approach we should be looking at and going deeper on. So the team has a lot of work and a lot of focus on this particular issue. But we also need to give them the space and the support to focus on the much bigger picture. Because it is not going away. You know, the U.S. is extremely divided. Our platform is showing that every single day. And our role is to protect the integrity of that conversation and do what we can to make sure that no one is being harmed based off that. And that is our focus." It looks like the reason this isn't being picked up in anything reliable is that when you see the actual text, it's nothing; it's the same things he said publicly [11] before. Sure, the right-wing propaganda outlets are trying to make something nefarious out of "ooh secret video" from a dishonest disinformation mill, but there's simply nothing there. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)..

@Ihateaccounts: He also said that “We are focused on one account [@realDonaldTrump] right now, but this is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and it’s going to go on beyond the inauguration,” which sounds like "something", so those outlets pointed that out (and get called "right wing propaganda" for that. Calling articles about the existence of a video "disinformation", despite the fact that the video really does exist (and even speaking about it) is a little doublethinky. I wonder how "reliable" outlets will put this, if they even speak about it. Which is why I would prefer people to watch for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 12:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

When RS care so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Dorsey announced something in a meeting on January 8 that was subsequently enacted the following Monday. Twitter had already announced in July last year that they would do something like that. There's really nothing to report. The leaked video doesn't reveal any discrepancies between Dorsey's public and private statements, but PV announced "video evidence inside Twitter". The disinformation is implying that there is evidence of malfeasance. There isn't. Vexations (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC).

It is primarily meant to report discrepancies between the recent public statement, where Dorsey nearly tearfully said that he didn't really want to ban anyone, that it sets a dangerous precedent and some other things. But at the same time said things mentioned in the video, that is a big discrepancy. Disinformation may be based on not publishing the whole video or something (as I said earlier), but not on stating that what Dorsey says publically doesn't reflect the entirety of Twitter's internal policy. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not even the sources you cited say that there's a discrepancy between Dorsey's public and private statements.Vexations (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I thought those sources were unreliable anyway ;-). Also, you know that this video was released just few days after Dorsey made those public statements. That surely isn't a coincidence on the side of PV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

PV's got a pattern. They think this can be ginned up into a controversy, provided enough dishonest right-wing media outlets (such as the Moonie Times, Breitbart, etc) misreport on it the way PV is dishonestly misframing the story. And they released it now, because (a) they have it now, because (b) they're desperate to get themselves into the news cycle right now [12], and (c) because they really don't care about the content, their audience doesn't bother fact-checking or even reading past the headline.

So Jack Dorsey, in both public and private statements, said that Twitter's going to wind up having to take down a lot of accounts, especially QAnon sockpuppets and other deliberate bad actors? News Flash: Water Is Wet, and Don't Eat Yellow Snow. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that Dorsey spoke about "dangerous precedent" in banning Trump a few days ago, basically pretending that the ban was a one time exceptional necessity, yet a recording immediately surfaced, where he basically says that Twitter will go much further in banning users, basically that Trump was just the beginning and that it is going to be "much broader", which contradicts his original message a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Vojtaruzek, Twitter, in July last year announced sweeping measures aimed at cracking down on the QAnon conspiracy theory, including banning thousands of accounts. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53495316 So that's what they did. You may have understood Trump's ban to be a one time exceptional necessity but the reliable sources do not support that claim. Vexations (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Vojtaruzek:Are you joking? Twitter bans people all the time, for far less than the number of violations Trump had racked up when they allowed him to hide behind exception after exception after exception.[13] There were people who made accounts whose sole purpose was to repost everything he tweeted: they got suspended or banned, over and over again, for obvious violations.[14][15][16] It takes a hell of a dishonest misrepresentation to take Dorsey's comments about how Twitter became an amazingly toxic environment - mostly due to their failure to properly police the alt-right, and their new understanding that yes, violent cults like QAnon, and other hateful, bigoted movements, can't be allowed to flourish on their platform - and decide that means that Dorsey was somehow being dishonest when he says it's sad that Twitter winds up having to ban accounts. I'm sure, in an ideal world, he would love to not, and he's finally coming to the realization that certain people/groups (e.g. nazis and similar) are simply too toxic to be allowed in the door. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Ihateaccounts: I know that Twitter bans people all the time, yes, that doesn't mean it is impossible for them to ban more of them. Yes, Twitter is toxic environment, but not for the reason of "tolerating nazis", far-left and progressives can basically do whatever they want. For example, J.K Rowling got a lot of death threats for saying that pregnant people are called women (a lot of example can be found on google pictures), a lot of those, including verified accounts, were unpunished. Same with, for example, calling for violence during BLM protests. The problem with the "paradox of tolerance" is that "nazi" became a buzzword to accuse people (for variety of reasons, for example, I got the "honor" for not agreeing with banning guns and praising the Czech example) in order to justify their ban or deplatforming, which leads to eventually extending the "you can't be allowed here" thing on people who do not deserve it. Nazis can only flourish if they themselves have the power to silence people (like SA did in Germany between wars), the ideology is literally based on silencing dissent (for good reasons, as it can't be justified). Vojtaruzek — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Vexations: Yes, I know, which makes the "go further" plan a bit disturbing. I didn't understand it as a "one time necessity", I see it as a culmination, as a lot of Trump supporters were also banned before it. But Dorsey officially said that it sets a precedent and such, which is contradicted by the leaked internal video. Vojtaruzek — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Vojtaruzek I cannot stress this enough: we consider what reliable sources have to say about this. No sources at all, not even the unreliable ones you cited, support your position that there is something contradictory about Dorsey's statements in the video vs his public statements at the same time, so we're not going to claim that in the article. Now, unless you have a constructive proposal, based on reliable sources, for improving the article, I'm going to close this thread because there is nothing "actionable" here. Vexations (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with IHateAccounts.PailSimon (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, here's the problem: the video you quote may or may not be real; PV has a track record of deceptive editing, so you can't trust 'em. That said, Jack very well could have been discussing Trump's account, and saying what he said in light of the special privileges that account has, until recently, enjoyed. If I were managing a workgroup facing similar challenges, I would tell them to deal with the big problem first, and then chase the smaller problems.

So the point here is that you're asserting you're the only person who's found the smoking gun, and you need to tell everyone. That's not what Wikipedia does. We discuss and publish what other reliable sources say. Here's what you need to do:

• Discuss the article on the article's Talk page. Don't go to other editors' Talk pages and insult them (Tell me, did you actually not watch the video, since you deny its existence so vehemently, or are you just trying to cover it up?)
• Don't try to spin the rules. I can find someone on the Internet who's written that the sky is green. Just because they have said it, doesn't mean it's true.
• Don't keep re-inserting text. Try it once. If someone objects, go to the article's Talk page and make your case. If it doesn't happen, let it go and move on.

Also, remember to sign your posts (with four tildes, "~~~~"). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm going to properly indent a reply by PailSimon. Please feel free to revert if you object. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The video is real, I watched it, although I admitted it might not contain everything (The Fox NEws article also included a reaction from Twitter spokesperson, basically that there is nothing in the video that would contradict the official and long standing policy (although it does contradict what Dorsey said few days before that), so those articles weren't saying that sky is green (they usually involved the video). I simply wanted to add the info about the video with sources that include it, so that people can go there and watch it themselves. The beginning of the article is quite openly anti-PV, so they would propably know they should not take the information they see there for granted. I was actually thinking about expanding the "Purpose" with "Officcial: Whistleblowing, Undercover Journalism" but I doubt that would last long. Vojtaruzek — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That suggestion for the "purpose" would absolutely be against established consensus and fall under WP:MANDY, and would be rightly reverted immediately. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vojtaruzek:The video does exist; of that there is no argument. The question is whether or not it is genuine, i.e. correctly depicting what occurred during said conversation/meeting. There are some really good hucksters out there, both in PV and outside of it, and without digitally analyzing the video, you can't tell if it's fake or not, and that's the problem. When it comes to people (or groups) who lack integrity, I remember an old adage, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.", and that applies to PV's track record.

Seriously, it seems like you're dug in like a Georgia tick on this one. With several editors are saying "no", and you saying "yes", the consensus here seems pretty clear. Don't try to fix the Internet (see https://xkcd.com/386/, especially the alt-text). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, such edits would not be a slander, shame this has happened here. I noticed that many wikipedia pages are basically meant to discredit people and pages that do don't like censorship (for example, Gab is openly called an "antisemitic page" and even featured in the "Antisemitism" series, just for refusing censorship, on the basis of fallacy "You don't like censorship? That means you agree with nazis!". But whatever, close it, if you like, but I hope I won't find the same information I said about those videos (PV has published another one, but it looks very edited - a lot of cuts) in a few days, since that would make this whole affair and your defense against those information pretty pointless. Bye. Vojtaruzek — Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Gab is not called an "antisemitic page" for "refusing censorship". As the article plainly states, Antisemitism is prominent among the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter. The article says so because reliable sources have thoroughly documented it to be true. We don't write articles to "discredit people"; at most, we document how they have already been discredited. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vojtaruzek: Please do not advance facetious arguments or mischaracterize the actions of other wikipedia editors. This is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, it seems your problems aren’t ones that can be resolved through this venue without a significant re-think of our policies and guidelines. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• We wait for reliable secondary coverage and write based on that, obviously. In this case I think it's non-negotiable - this concerns negative accusations against a WP:BLP cited to an extremely low-quality source with a reputation for manipulative editing. Under absolutely no circumstances can we cite anything regarding a living person solely to Project Veritas directly, and I'd be extremely skeptical about using secondary sources that are both biased and of dubious quality when it comes to American politics to source it, like Fox. If it's actually reliable and noteworthy, better sources will pick it up eventually; if they do, we can use their interpretation and analysis to determine how we cover it. We can't touch it until then. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Gab is literally featured in antisemitism series and the article itself almost solely focuses on slights and accusations of "far right userbase" "racism" etc. So yes, it is labeled "antisemitic page". And trying to fix this bias is met with immediate revert (based on careful selection of media to exclude those who do not agree with those slights) and eventual ban (which I got, of course). Shame that Wikipedia is now used to discredit people who are against big tech (both Gab and PV, for example). I should go, before I get another ban. Now, do what you must and erase this whole section. I am sure that is inevitable. Vojtaruzek (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vojtaruzek: You're not doing yourself any favors with this behavior. The wikipedia policies involved are clear, and screaming "bias" nonsensically isn't a valid argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

“Purpose: disinformation”?

Whoever wrote this needs to take a hard look at him-/herself. This is a postulate with no reasoning which makes it a non-argument. Unless you have a direct quote from the founder, that their purpose is to spread disinformation, then this should be corrected. I think that the founder of PV thinks he is telling the truth, wether or not that is so, this wiki page is in fact spreading disinformation by saying ‘their purpose is to spread disinformation’.

The reason for this is that it insinuates that they have ill intent, which is not proven. And so it is inaccurate and opinionated. RhetoricianOfOurTime (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)— RhetoricianOfOurTime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please see #Type field in infobox. However, Wikipedia describes what reliable sources say about a subject, not what those subjects say about themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@RhetoricianOfOurTime: I see that your account was created for the sole purpose of making this complaint. Had you read the discussions above, you would see that this has already discussed in great detail, and the consensus is not with you. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)