Talk:Project Veritas: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:45, 13 September 2022

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.

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.

Associated Press: PBS lawyer resigns after being caught in Veritas sting

I think this content should be added to the article.

What do others here think?

Associated Press:PBS lawyer resigns after being caught in Veritas sting:

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-entertainment-coronavirus-pandemic-8f586d687ab332777a7a059457ff818e

ABC News: PBS lawyer resigns after being caught in Veritas sting:

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/pbs-lawyer-resigns-caught-veritas-sting-75208013

PBS: PBS Addresses Project Veritas Video:

https://www.pbs.org/publiceditor/blogs/pbs-public-editor/pbs-addresses-project-veritas-video/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue it's a bit too WP:RECENT, and wouldn't take a Veritas report as authentic at all. I'm sure the reporter made some stupid comments, but that's Veritas' MO: goad someone into saying a sound bite they can take out of context and blow it up. EDIT: Further to my point, we need folks to actually analyze this and see if it's anything relevant to Veritas, or just another one of their "reports," which wouldn't deserve any emphasis here per WP:DUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How, exactly, is a Veritas report not authentic? -- Frotz(talk) 18:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article? Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. What is the answer? -- Frotz(talk) 18:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As they are known to deceptivly edit videos,(in other words, lie) nothing they say can be taken at its word. Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments everyone.

I need to make two clarifications.

First, I'm well aware that Project Veritas is not a reliable sources. That's why I did not post a link to Project Veritas. The sources that I did cite are reliable. It is the content of these reliable sources that I am interested in.

Secondly, the video is not notable. What is notable is the response to the video. A high ranking employee at PBS resigned. That's notable.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell us why Project Veritas is not a reliable source and why its report is not authentic. Is it because they are primary sources? -- Frotz(talk) 21:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what is encyclopedia-worthy here. The first two references (both are the same AP report) say "a contracts lawyer in PBS’ general counsel office, was recorded offering political opinions in what appeared to be a barroom conversation..." The AP report did not indicate the person was a PBS official, no indication that anybody was speaking or acting on behalf of PBS, no indication that anything related to PBS's course of business was involved. Google-searching, I found no indication the lawyer is a notable person. The response by the PBS public editor was congruent with the AP report: an employee in a non-policy, non-editorial position said some hateful things. The public editor went on to say PBS disapproves of such attitudes, it does not control a person's speech when they are off the job especially if they are not in public-facing positions, and he no longer works for PBS. If the lawyer were by himself a notable person then this report would belong in his Wikipedia article. But he isn't notable, and PBS wasn't implicated, so I'm not seeing significance. -- M.boli (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question: Why is Project Veritas not a reliable source and why is its report not authentic? The AP article clearly states that a PBS lawyer was caught praising rising coronavirus cases and suggested that children of Republicans should be put in reeducation camps. Employment contracts often have a clause that forbids doing things to bring the employer into disrepute, which is exactly what this lawyer did. Contract or not, barroom or not, PBS was well within its rights to fire him over this. -- Frotz(talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer "Why is Project Veritas not a reliable source and why is its report not authentic?", as was said above, it's because they deceptively edit their videos. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or {per wp:rs), they have to have a reputation for fact-checking, and not for making stuff up. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or more precisely: PV videos are not "made up," what they show in their videos is real recording to the best of my knowledge. The message communicated by the video is the deception. -- M.boli (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conversation has been diverted. The question at hand is: whether the events surrounding a particular PV video are worthy of mention in Wikipedia. I claim the person at the focus of the video is not notable and he was not representing the organization he happens to work for. If there were significance to this incident, the significance would be reported by reliable sources. Until now it is an unimportant meh! Perhaps another trophy belongs in the PV trophy room: another sucker bagged. That's about it. -- M.boli (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is basically what I attempted to convey earlier. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NBC News: CT Attorney General Launches Investigation

I think this content should be added to the article.

What do others here think?

NBC Connecticut: CT Attorney General Launches Investigation Into Greenwich School Administrator Seen in Viral Video:

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/ct-attorney-general-launches-investigation-into-greenwich-school-administrator-seen-in-viral-video/2863993/

Connecticut Mirror: AG Tong opens civil rights investigation of Project Veritas allegations:

https://ctmirror.org/2022/09/01/project-veritas-jeremy-boland-greenwich-ct-investigation-william-tong/

Greenwich Time: CT officials to investigate Greenwich school administrator’s discussion of hiring practices after viral video:

https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/CT-officials-to-investigate-Greenwich-school-17413238.php

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many recordings and incidents covered in the article that we need to consider whether any new recording or incident is prominent enough for inclusion. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we should not document every single recording or incident in this article. Per the balancing aspects policy, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news." Recordings or incidents should only be considered for inclusion in the article if they result in an unusually significant outcome, or generate an unusually high amount of reliable source coverage in line with the other recordings or incidents presently in the article. — Newslinger talk 06:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The video is not notable. What is notable is the response to the video. First, a public school put its vice principal on leave. And second, the state's Attorney General launched an investigation. It's these two things that are notable. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As with the above, we can't have every incident. Only those that have some kind of repercusions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you think there are no repercusions. A public school put its vice principal on leave. And the state's Attorney General launched an investigation. Please explain how these two things do not constitute repercusions. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what was the result, was anyone fired? Did the state find any evidence of wrongdoing? This is wp:blp material, so we can't include accusations of wrongdoing, without also saying what the findings were. When and if we know the outcome then we might be able to include this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The articles from the CT Mirror and Greenwich Time seems most thorough. The Mirror seems like a brief blurb. -- Frotz(talk) 19:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cited the Mirror twice. I think you meant NBC for one of those. Besides, I'm interested in reliability, not length. Are all three sources reliable? SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I meant the NBC one. They all seem reliable, but the NBC one doesn't seem to say much more than "This is bad". -- Frotz(talk) 21:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s Not Far-Right

There’s no such thing as “far-right,” as there’s only far-left. -HistoryGuy94 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 ::You cited the Mirror twice. I think you meant NBC for one of those. Besides, I'm interested in reliability, not length. Are all three sources reliable? [[User:SquirrelHill1971|SquirrelHill1971]] ([[User talk:SquirrelHill1971|talk]]) 19:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 :::My bad.  I meant the NBC one.  They all seem reliable, but the NBC one doesn't seem to say much more than "This is bad".  -- [[User:Frotz|Frotz]]([[User_talk:Frotz|talk]]) 21:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
+== It’s Not Far-Right ==
+There’s no such thing as “far-right,” as there’s only far-left. -[[User:HistoryGuy94|HistoryGuy94]] ([[User talk:HistoryGuy94|talk]]) 21:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)