Talk:Project Veritas: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:01, 28 August 2019

Conservatism Start‑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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article reads like a hatchet job. Needs more neutral wording and sources.

Can some disinterested, objective, apolitical editors please assist me in making this article more encyclopedic? It reads like a screed right now. A user called "Grayfell" is objecting to any edits in this direction... EmilCioran1195 (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The wording: "The group's productions have been widely criticized and dismissed as misleading, fabricated or taken out of context; a failed attempt to sting The Washington Post led to widespread mockery" is, unsurprisingly, not supported by the sources. For the record, I became interested in this "Project" after reading about "bias" at Google. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you disagree with the reliable sources cited here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I'm sorry you've misunderstood the substance of my concern. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cited sources expressly support the statements; if you want to change them, you'll need to get consensus here on the talk page first. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they don't, as I explicitly stated in my edit summaries. Do I need to quote the entire articles here for you to admit that the words "widespread mockery", for instance, do not appear in them? Are you simply lying or have you not bothered to actually read the sources you're arguing about? EmilCioran1195 (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two cited (conservative) sources for that statement discuss how Project Veritas has become an embarrassment to the conservative movement and resulted in, yes, widespread mockery. You're welcome to propose alternative paraphrasing. You seem to be under the misapprehension that we have to quote sources directly; to the contrary, we are encouraged to paraphrase and sum up what the sources say. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did try, and you deleted it. Repeatedly. Again, you're being deliberately misleading - as you are on the other article you've followed me to - the sources for the statement don't say anything approximating "widespread mockery", and to say that the usage of that phrase is simply "paraphrasing", is utterly false. EmilCioran1195 (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with EmilCioran1195. Article is in need of overhauling, because it is blatantly leftist-biased as it currently reads. Unfortunately that is par for the course with many tightly-controlled political articles on this site, mostly as a result of which sources the 'hive mind' arbitrarily deems reliable/unreliable. - JGabbard (talk) 03:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be rewritten. It is currently a dump, and contains more information on what "reliable sources" think of the subject of the article, than what Project Veritas has done. We should probably just scrap the whole thing, @JGabbard:. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 06:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked the wording, replaced the sources on that, and added a few more sources for the first part. I think that overall, though, the article reflects how Project Veritas is covered in reliable sources. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issues I found

Undue weight - the article goes in extreme detail about all of the controversies surrounding the productions by project veritas, however none of those productions are mentioned in this article, also, it does not make sense to include a section about funding, if we do not even explain what they get this funding for.
Disproportional coverage - again, same thing, why are the editors writing this article so hell-bent on the controversies and how James O'Keefe got a $100,000 lawsuit? Shouldn't we explain what the Project does without using weasel words first?
Rewrite - pretty obvious, with all this stuff it's hard to make the article actually readable, better just rewrite it.

Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 06:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is currently covered exhaustively at James O’Keefe, specifically James O’Keefe#Major works and James O’Keefe#Other activities. Perhaps they should be migrated here as they may be more appropriate for the group page rather than an individual page. . Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll place a template there so we can discuss it. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 06:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Cheers, [[User:FriyMan|<b style="color: #000000">Friy</b><b style="color: #FFA500">Man</b>]] [[User talk:FriyMan|<sup>Per aspera ad astra</sup>]] 06:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 : Most of that is currently covered exhaustively at [[James O’Keefe]], specifically [[James O’Keefe#Major works]] and [[James O’Keefe#Other activities]]. Perhaps they should be migrated here as they may be more appropriate for the group page rather than an individual page. . [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 16:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
+::Yeah, I'll place a template there so we can discuss it. Cheers, [[User:FriyMan|<b style="color: #000000">Friy</b><b style="color: #FFA500">Man</b>]] [[User talk:FriyMan|<sup>Per aspera ad astra</sup>]] 06:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)