Talk:Project Veritas: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:16, 15 August 2021

faq page

Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation, click the [show] link to the right of a question.

Q1: Why does this article describe Project Veritas negatively?

A1: Wikipedia's aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources say; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This means that if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative. Since most reliable sources describe Project Veritas negatively, this article also describes Project Veritas negatively.

Q2: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is far-right?

A2: The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. Over a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas as a far-right organization. Please see these references for details.

Q3: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is an "activist group"?

A3: The "activist" descriptor is based on many multiple independent and reliable sources. These sources describe Project Veritas as an activist organization or a group of activists. Please see these references for details.

Q4: Why does this article say that Project Veritas edited videos "deceptively"?

A4: The "deceptive" phrasing is cited to many multiple high-quality reliable sources. More than a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas editing its videos in a "deceptive", "misleading", or "manipulative" manner. Please see these references for details.

Q5: But what if the sources are biased?

A5: Reliable sources are, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources, not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you have reliable sources that express contrary points of view or refute any statements in this article, please feel free to discuss them here. If you are unsure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Sources or search the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if its reliability has been discussed in the past.

Q6: Shouldn't this article avoid using as sources media outlets against which Project Veritas has published exposés?

A6: Some editors have made the argument that, because Project Veritas has targeted various news outlets (such as The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR) in its operations, those news outlets should be considered unreliable with respect to Project Veritas due to conflict of interest. A 2020 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability found that disqualification of sources based on alleged conflicts of interest such as this did not have community consensus.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Veritas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 21 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

United States B‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism B‑class Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American B‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

New York (state): Hudson Valley B‑class Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Mid-importance).

Journalism B‑class Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Skepticism B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Sal at PV (talk · contribs) has been paid by Project Veritas on their behalf.

The Amy Rorbach hot mic video

I propose we include a brief mention of the notable fact that Prohect Veritas leaked the hot mic video of Amy Rorbach saying ABC chose not to air important information on Jeffery Epstein, since this was covered by and got lots of views, comments, and coverage in may independent RS. One proposed source is Fox news. Forich (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News is a source to avoid for political coverage - and Project Veritas is indisputably a political entity. Better sources would be needed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And CNN isn't? Gongfong2021 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I'm glad we agree. --Calton | Talk 21:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It was notable enough for a full description in another article, it was easy to find a reliable source that covered the story impartially. It seems to me a couple of sentences plus a wiki-link is warranted. -- M.boli (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit extended-protected is being considered for merging. ›

this is not a far right mouvement 50.117.252.28 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not say it is a movement As to the rest, see the talk page archive..Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the FAQ. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project Veritas vs NYTimes

I see this defamation suit is moving forward to the discovery phase. Since the NYTimes stated they used Wikipedia as their source and they now have the potential to lose, I'm surprised there hasn't been a reassessment of the way the article is written Pkeets (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for any of that? --Aquillion (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe sources on this been posted here before. It's been going on for a while. [1] There are various sources reporting the NY Supreme Court ruling in favor of Project Veritas on Friday, but probably none you'll like. [2] Pkeets (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is correct. Let me restate: Do you have any reliable sources (ie. ones with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; "mainstream" ones, so to speak) for your claim that the New York Times cited things to a Wikipedia article which a court has found to be inaccurate? The Washington Examiner is a low-quality source with a heavy bias, and you cited an opinion piece on top of that; given that Byron York has no relevant expertise, his personal feelings about the topic aren't really useful. If, as you say, it is significant, you should be able to find better sources on that point. The article's current version, meanwhile (while it could always use more cleanup) is mostly cited to large numbers of high-quality academic sources - especially in the lead section, which has about a hundred sources from a wide variety of high-quality places. You will need sources of comparable credibility and weight, or problems with the existing sources, in order to start serious discussions about large-scale changes. If your only concern is that you personally believe the NYT might lose a lawsuit about a specific statement they made, and you feel that the statement they made might relate to specific things in Wikipedia, we can simply wait for the case to complete and then look at what high-quality mainstream coverage says - and especially if a significant percentage of those hundred sources we cite in the lead issue retractions or corrections, or if broad mainstream coverage changes significantly afterwards. But right now I am not seeing it. Lawsuits are long and huge and complex and messy, and of course anyone can sue anyone else at any time for any reason; they mean very little until / unless they reach a decisive conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can wait for the conclusion. Meanwhile I see Project Veritas has announced they'll be releasing the depositions. Pkeets (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 ::I believe sources on this been posted here before. It's been going on for a while. [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/the-new-york-times-embarrassing-defense-in-the-project-veritas-case] There are various sources reporting the NY Supreme Court ruling in favor of Project Veritas on Friday, but probably none you'll like. [https://www.ntd.com/new-york-supreme-court-sides-with-project-veritas_660391.html] [[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] ([[User talk:Pkeets|talk]]) 02:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 :::Your assumption is correct.  Let me restate:  Do you have any [[WP:RS|reliable]] sources (ie. ones with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; "mainstream" ones, so to speak) for your claim that the New York Times cited things to a Wikipedia article ''which a court has found to be inaccurate?''  The Washington Examiner is a low-quality source with a heavy bias, and you cited an opinion piece on top of that; given that Byron York has no relevant expertise, his personal feelings about the topic aren't really useful.  If, as you say, it is significant, you should be able to find better sources on that point.  The article's current version, meanwhile (while it could always use more cleanup) is mostly cited to large numbers of high-quality academic sources - especially in the lead section, which has about a hundred sources from a wide variety of high-quality places. You will need sources of comparable credibility and weight, or problems with the existing sources, in order to start serious discussions about large-scale changes. If your only concern is that you personally believe the NYT might lose a lawsuit about a specific statement they made, and you feel that the statement they made might relate to specific things in Wikipedia, we can simply wait for the case to complete and then look at what high-quality mainstream coverage says - and especially if a significant percentage of those hundred sources we cite in the lead issue retractions or corrections, or if broad mainstream coverage changes significantly afterwards.  But right now I am not seeing it.  Lawsuits are long and huge and complex and messy, and of course anyone can sue anyone else at any time for any reason; they mean very little until / unless they reach a decisive conclusion. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 03:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
+::::Okay, we can wait for the conclusion. Meanwhile I see Project Veritas has announced they'll be releasing the depositions. [[User:Pkeets|Pkeets]] ([[User talk:Pkeets|talk]]) 03:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)