Talk:Project Veritas

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)

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)

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

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

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)

As far as Consensus is concerned, I agree with all of EmilCioran1195 statements on this talk page.

209.52.113.68 (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This user Grayfell is using abusive practices to push a leftist ideology on Wikipedia across multiple pages. I was trying to increase the neutrality and objectivity of the Project Veritas page and user Grayfell kept reverting legitimate posts that most in the talk page agree upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.176.88 (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Project Veritas is already covered neutrally and objectively; mainstream reliable sources widely dismiss the organization and its work as fabricated partisan nonsense. That you disagree with that is irrelevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

14 percent of people in the US trust the media because it is fabricated partisan nonsense. We should use reliable sources instead of citing only the biased left-wing sources like The Verge, NPR, and Snopes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.176.88 (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome to believe that if you like. That's not how Wikipedia works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The article could similarly read, the organization has been widely praised for its in depth investigations and tough journalism by Fox News, Breitbart, and RT. But that would be just as biased too. We need a happy medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.176.88 (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This article's tone and direction is absolutely rife with bias. It's pretty embarrassing. Why are "progressive" leftists so prone to slant, bias and censorship? I concur with everything that's already been said above by the rational people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.222.29 (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur. I find little resemblance between some of the sources and parts of the quotes. By randomly selecting specific sentences and reference sources, it seemed to be going on for the majority of the page. On top of that, the page tends to show only the (very opinionated) view of one side of US media, without any, for even the appearance of objectivity, opposing views. In the bottom line, although Project Veritas is negatively viewed by some (or even majority of )credible sources, I would expect an objective article to show opposing viewpoints and avoid the suggestive depiction of veritas as completely dismissed by credible sources. 212.179.111.106 (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide one example of something positive we ignore from one of the sources we currently use?Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. First, I'd like to note I've only wanted to voice my opinion as a wiki user. Although I value the efforts Wikipedia users put into Wikipedia, I don't wish to heavily participate here at the moment. As such, without much research, I do believe that for the sake of objectivity more positive references could be added. Specifically, contradictions to some of the harsh language used (regardless of it being accurate or made by an RS) around the page, at least to convey there's more than one view within RSs. I don't think it'll be too difficult finding more supporting views from say, Fox News (currently, one as far as I can see). If you think it is, however, perhaps we could put up a such a specific request in the talk page? I bet other users (or me, when I'm bored?) will be able to find some such references from RSs, or at least show an effort towards providing more viewpoints. signing off, 212.179.111.106 (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Paragraph on "massive voter registration drives"

Hi, I work for Project Veritas and would like to suggest some edits to the page. I understand that some of you may have strong opinions about the organization, but I hope that my suggestions can be judged on their merits and in deference to Wikipedia policy. I fully respect Wikipedia's process and content guidelines and will accept the consensus of the Wikipedia editing community. I will aim to adhere to WP:NPOV in my suggestions while acknowledging my own conflict of interest, and, of course, will refrain from directly editing the article.

The first item I want to point out is the second paragraph in the "ACORN videos (2009)" section ("A Washington Post correspondent reported..."). The claim that O'Keefe "said he targeted ACORN" because of "its massive voter registration drives" and its focus on Latinos and African Americans was subsequently retracted by the Washington Post, as you can see in the "Correction to this article" in the source. Because of the retraction and because the claim is no longer supported by reliable sources, the paragraph should be removed.

Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Seems a valid request.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Just following up here. It looks like no one has any objections to the edit that I've suggested. @Slatersteven: Since you commented approvingly, would you mind going ahead and removing the paragraph? I would do it myself, but, as I've said, I'm avoiding editing the article directly. Thanks, Sal at PV (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Sal at PV, turns out the story is by Darryl Fears and Carol D. Leonnig. The latter is a notable journalist specialising in investigative reporting in US politics. So I fixed the attribution. Guy (help!) 22:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The argument is they withdrew the claim, which they seem to have done.Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, they did not withdraw the claim. They withdrew only the assertion that O'Keefe himself identified black and Latinx votes as a motivator. The corrected text (and our text, which follows it) doesn't contradict the fact that (a) O'Keefe does appear to have identified voter registration drives as a motivating factor and (b) ACORN mainly registered black and Latino voters. That doesn't require O'Keefe to have said that the black and Latino voters were the reason, and we do not, as far as I can tell, say that he does.

And in context this is not at all surprising. Voter suppression is a core GOP tactic, and this has generally focused primarily on black and ethnic minority Americans. Republicans generally push back hard wherever there is any chance that more back Americans might get to vote (see for example the Florida ballot measure restoring the vote to time-served felons, which Ron DeSantis is doing his damndest to undermine). The majority of voter suppression measures, from disenfranchisement of felons to voter ID laws to purges to closure of DMV offices and polling places - disproportionately affect black Americans. And in the same way, voter registration drives disproportionately register black Americans. The more black people vote, the worse the GOP does, and everybody knows it.

So there's no need for him to say the quiet part out loud, the facts speak for themselves. He targeted ACORN due to voter registratuion drives, and ACORN registered large numbers of minority voters.

In some contexts, X targeted Y due to voter registration drives. Y mainly registered black voters" might be a BLP issue. In this case, it's not, because it lies within the context of a series of actions by the GOP and its supporters that are completely consistent in delivering, regardless of intent, disproportionate suppression of black and ethnic minority votes. And as we saw from the Hofeller documents, they are fully on board with this. Guy (help!) 13:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: @Slatersteven: There is nothing in any reliable source to support the statement that currently appears in the Wikipedia article: "According to Darryl Fears and Carol D. Leonnig of Washington Post, O'Keefe 'said he targeted ACORN for the same reasons that the political right does: its massive voter registration drives.'"

And the statement that "ACORN mostly registered people from the Latino and African American communities" - even if true on its face - is irrelevant and violates WP:SYNTH, as no reliable source cites this as a reason for Project Veritas to have targeted ACORN.

Since the second quote from O'Keefe ("Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization.") was not retracted, it is the only part of the paragraph that should still be considered valid for Wikipedia. So I propose changing to:

Describing ACORN, O'Keefe said: "Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization. No one was holding this organization accountable. No one in the media is putting pressure on them. We wanted to do a stunt and see what we could find."

Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Don’t overstep Sal at PV, you can propose changes but don’t pick fights with editors, question consensus, badger, or treat this talk page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sal at PV, the article by Fears and Leonnig is a reliable source. The correction does not amend the statement about voter registration drives: that stands, in the current version, after the (relatively minor) correction.

The correction, in full, is: correction: This article about the community organizing group ACORN incorrectly said that a conservative journalist targeted the organization for hidden-camera videos partly because its voter-registration drives bring Latinos and African Americans to the polls. Although ACORN registers people mostly from those groups, the maker of the videos, James E. O'Keefe, did not specifically mention them.

All that establishes is that he did not actually say the quiet part out loud on this occasion.

We're not going to parrot O'Keefe's claims to be a neutral watchdog holding leftists to account because the evidence of dishonesty means we cannot take a word he says on trust, and anyway, he would say that, wouldn't he?

I'll trust PV when it publishes an exposé of Republican voter suppression efforts. That's when we'll know it cares about democracy rather than partisan activism. Guy (help!) 18:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Just dropping this relevant article here: Voter suppression in the United States. I wonder if we should have more focused articles like Voter suppression by the GOP in the United States (a major GOP tactic) and one for the Dems (there may be a few cases)? -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Voter suppression in the United States is almost exclusively a Republican phenomenon. Certainly since the Southern Strategy. It's how the institutionally racist Dixiecrats-then-Republicans maintain hegemony. Guy (help!) 18:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: You say that the statement about voter registration drives "stands, in the current version." But it does not stand: The body of the article no longer makes any reference to voter registration drives in connection to O'Keefe or Project Veritas. Sal at PV (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Following the latest changes you made, the paragraph is still inaccurate. The WaPo article never cites "conservative hatred for the organization significantly motivated by its voter registration drives" as a reason for O'Keefe to have targeted ACORN. The quote from Doug Giles is not presented in the article as a reflection on O'Keefe's motivation, and Wikipedia should not suggest that it is.

The only parts of the WaPo article that speak directly to O'Keefe's reasons for targeting ACORN are 1) the second paragraph, which states that O'Keefe was "burning mad after watching a YouTube video of ACORN workers breaking padlocks off foreclosed homes and barging in"; and 2) the quote from O'Keefe that "Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization." Any other suggestion as to O'Keefe's reasons for targeting ACORN would be original research.

And again, the inclusion of the line about ACORN registering people from Latino and African American communities in a paragraph about O'Keefe's reasons for targeting ACORN insinuates that the two ideas are connected, which is an unsourced and untrue claim. Sal at PV (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Again Sal at PV, your job here is to make suggestions it is not to argue policy. You appear to have a significant knowledge of wikipedia so at this time I am asking whether you have ever edited using any other account at any time, you are required to answer this question honestly. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sal at PV it's safe to assume that I know policy a lot better than you do, after more than a dozen years as an admin here and many tens of thousands of edits. I and no doubt others are checking your comments, but it takes time because as you can't fail to be aware PV is a fundamentally untrustworthy source so we cannot take a single thing you say on trust. Guy (help!) 14:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: I have never edited using any other account at any time. To your first point, I am making a suggestion regarding the article's content. My suggestion is informed by my understanding of Wikipedia policy, which seems to me an appropriate approach for an editor in my situation.

@JzG: I am not questioning your knowledge of policy, nor claiming that I understand it better than anyone else here. I am making a content suggestion, in light of Wikipedia policy, and I continue to hope that you and other editors will judge my points objectively, on their merits. Sal at PV (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh the irony. Guy (help!) 17:06, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Have you had time to check my comments, as you suggested you and possibly others would do? I would like to take steps to get input on this from uninvolved editors, but not before giving you a chance to respond to the substance of my earlier comment. Sal at PV (talk) 13:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Your argument has been judged objectively on its merits and found wanting. Do you have any other edit suggestions? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on motives for targeting ACORN

The consensus is for option 1. There is no consensus for option 2 or option 3.

Cunard (talk) 07:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

---

How should James O'Keefe's motives for targeting ACORN be described?

Option 1: The current version, arrived at following these edits

Option 2: "Describing ACORN, O'Keefe said: 'Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization. No one was holding this organization accountable. No one in the media is putting pressure on them. We wanted to do a stunt and see what we could find.'"

See the above section for the relevant discussion. (Disclosure: I work for Project Veritas.) Sal at PV (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 When reliable secondary sources report motives, they are more reliable than what the subject says. For example, the reason why someone committed a homicide reported in reliable sources is usually more reliable than the accused's statement that they acted in self-defense. TFD (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Options 1 and 2: They should both be included, as long as the Option 2 quote can be properly cited. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

My response assumes that each option is represented accurately with the given citation(s). I have not independently verified this. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 given that O’Keefe himself is highly unreliable why would we ever take his word over that of a WP:RS? I note that of the four statements made in that quote two are either hyperbole or outright lies (the middle two) and the other two are questionable, OP appears to be trying to insert a false balance into the piece. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 "According to Darryl Fears and Carol D. Leonnig of Washington Post, O'Keefe's targeting of ACORN, coordinated with Andrew Breitbart, was due to conservative hatred for the organization significantly motivated by its voter registration drives - Giles' father Doug characterized them as "ACORN lug nuts ready to register Mickey Mouse"".Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. The use of an RFC seems dubious, as well. That a company dislikes how reliable sources describe it is not a license to waste the community's time. If someone without a COI thinks this is worth an RFC, they should be able to summarize it in neutral language. Otherwise, let it go. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces, Spiffy sperry, Horse Eye Jack, Slatersteven, and Grayfell: The current version (specifically the part about "conservative hatred for the organization significantly motivated by its voter registration drives") is not reflected in any way in the source - please check the Washington Post article for yourselves. If you think my alternative is too promotional because it's a direct quote from O'Keefe, I can accept that - let's come up with something different, or leave the paragraph out entirely. But why should the current version stand when it's unsourced and untrue? Sal at PV (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if the sourcing wasn’t good (I think its acceptable) it appears to be true. What in the world makes you think it isn’t true? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you come up with new text. I don't think it is good style to use direct quotes. TFD (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: How about: "O'Keefe said that he targeted ACORN because of the organization's influence on elections and because he believed the media was not pressuring the organization sufficiently." Sal at PV (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but in what way?Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The source doesn't elaborate any further than this about O'Keefe's reasons for targeting ACORN beyond the quote from O'Keefe about "politicians getting elected single-handedly" so any further details on this would be speculating in Wikipedia's voice.

@The Four Deuces: The source doesn't address PV's intentions. The quote from O'Keefe is all we've got. The source certainly doesn't talk about "conservative hate" or "voter registration drives." Sal at PV (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the text should say what PV's intentions were, rather than what they said they were. O'Keefe's statements could be true, false or somewhere in between. Quoting or paraphrasing them doesn't actually tell readers very much. TFD (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and The Four Deuces: Did you mean to respond further here? It concerns me that this RfC seems to be leaning toward support of a paragraph with no basis in any reliable source. I again encourage those supporting Option 1 to check the Washington Post article and show where it says that conservative hatred and voter registration drives were the reason that O'Keefe targeted ACORN. And if you don't want to include O'Keefe stated motivation, then the unsourced paragraph should be removed altogether. Sal at PV (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 obviously since that's my edit. It's also fully consistent with O'Keefe being a Republican, since voter suppression and gerrymandering are core Reppublican policy. Guy (help!) 13:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

We need RS to say it, not for it to be true.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I have said all I have to say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Sal at PV, I neither like nor dislike PV. I dislike political activism masquerading as factual reporting. Whoever does it. Guy (help!) 15:15, 11 May 2020 (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.

RfC on verifiability in ACORN section

Are the following statements in the "ACORN videos (2009)" section properly supported by the reliable sources cited? Please answer which, if any, are supported. I have labeled in bold the parts whose support from reliable sources is disputed and supplied the relevant cited source for each instance.

1. "O'Keefe's targeting of ACORN, coordinated with Andrew Breitbart, was due to conservative hatred for the organization significantly motivated by its voter registration drives." (Cited source)
2. "Mr. Vera lost his job and was falsely accused of being engaged in human trafficking." (Cited source)
3. "O'Keefe agreed to pay $100,000 to former California ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera for deliberately misrepresenting Mr. Vera's actions." (Cited source)
4. "The settlement contained the following apology..." (Cited source)

Disclosure: I work for Project Veritas. Sal at PV (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• None are supported by the sources as COI proposer. 1) The WaPo article cited never ties O'Keefe's motivation to "conservative hatred" or "voter registration drives"; 2) The Forbes source cited never says that Vera was accused of human trafficking; 3) The LA Times source says the $100,000 payment was to settle the lawsuit, not for misrepresenting Vera's actions; 4) The LA Times source never says that the settlement contained an apology, only that O'Keefe said he "'regrets any pain' suffered by Juan Carlos Vera." Sal at PV (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• 1Yes

2 Yes, that is what deception is (and source 3 supports it too).

3 No, it does not support that. He was done for surreptitious recording of someone’s voice and image.

4 NO, it says he regretted any pain (so that is what we should say).Slatersteven (talk)(12:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)) 13:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to 1, 2, and 4; no on 3. Same reasoning for the first three as Slatersteven. For 4, I would say that saying that he "regrets any pain" is fairly clearly an apology. Loki (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @LokiTheLiar: 1) Where do you see this in the source? It says nothing about conservative hatred and voter registration drives as O'Keefe's motivation. 2) Where do you see a source - any source - that says Vera was accused of human trafficking? 4) The statement of regret was very intentionally not an apology. An apology would have been an admission that O'Keefe did something wrong. He did not say that; he said he "regrets any pain suffered by Mr Vera or his family." That is not the same as an apology by any stretch. Sal at PV (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dude... A second grader knows thats an apology... Why does Mr. O’Keefe feel his statement was not an apology? I assume given your position you can ask him. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I completed the fourth grade and do not see that as an apology. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. If RS's don't call it an apology then we should not call it an apology. Bodole (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Our job is to summarize not quote verbatim, in summary he apologized. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, maybe, and yes. I’m not entirely sure how we should phrase the information about the settlement, in general settlements make wikipedia editor’s jobs much more complicated. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Sal at PV, you maintain that "regrets any pain" doesn't mean an apology (personally I don't have an opinion)--why does your boss want you to get this changed? "Regret" is OK, but apologizing isn't? Is it because your boss doesn't think what he did was wrong? Just wondering. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: To apologize would have implied an admission that there was something improper about O'Keefe's actions. The wording of the settlement was chosen very carefully to avoid that implication. O'Keefe has stated publicly that he is proud of PV's investigative journalism in the ACORN story. Sal at PV (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, the old "sorry not sorry". Wow. So he didn't actually "regret any pain". I think you forgot to put quotation marks around "investigative journalism"; you can't state as a fact that this is what your outfit does since reliable sources judge it quite differently. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: What RS? None of the links in the thread call it an apology. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. We should not be the ones determining that it is an apology. Bodole (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bodole: huh? See my "vote" below. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm sorry, I put my reply in the wrong subthread. I've struck it out. Bodole (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Bodole, no worries. I thought for a moment that an admission of ... regret? could be taken as an apology, which I thought was kind of normal, but apparently that was not the case here. My "vote" should be read as a support of your "vote" on 4, which I agree with. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense and I agree. Bodole (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• 1No. No mention of hatred or any synonyms.

2 No. No mention of human trafficking or any synonyms. This is also an opinion article, so therefore not an RS.

3 No. No mention of deliberate misrepresentation or any synonyms.

4 No. "Regret" is not a synonym for apology.

This is being treated as more complicated than it should be. The statements in the article are simply not directly substantiated by the sources. We need to avoid OR or SYNTH. Bodole (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

• 4 No--clearly he wasn't apologetic about anything. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• No to all four. The settlement should be covered, but all four of these specific phrases seem to be misleading, a matter of opinion, or just incorrect. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Question for those who answered "Yes" on statements 1 and 2: Can you please point out where, specifically, you see support for those statements in the cited sources? Because I don't see it. Note that for statement 2, the disputed word is accused, i.e., I don't see how the sources support the contention that Vera was accused of being engaged in human trafficking. Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

1:"They have long seen the liberal group -- which offers housing and other services, including voter registration..."Republicans accused ACORN of voter-registration fraud in last year's presidential race.", So yes conservatives has an issue with them over voter registration. 2: You are right it does not used the word "accused" rather it says that Mr. Vera had not in fact engaged in human trafficking and had not agreed to participate in human trafficking and of "smearing an innocent man by suggesting he is willing to participate in the flesh trade turns out to do that individual serious damage".Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the source states that conservatives didn't like ACORN, but it never says that this was O'Keefe's reason for targeting ACORN. To make that logical jump would be original research. And as for Vera, the source (which, as one editor pointed out, is an opinion piece) says that the videos caused Vera "serious damage" - no mention of anyone accusing Vera of human trafficking following the release of the videos. Sal at PV (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

1: is the gist as I see it. 2: the source says "smearing an innocent man by suggesting he is willing to participate in the flesh trade turns out to do that individual serious damage", nor do we say anyone accused Vera After the realise of the video.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia currently states: "Due to O'Keefe's release of the dubiously edited video... Mr. Vera lost his job and was falsely accused of being engaged in human trafficking." Meaning that, as a result of O'Keefe's video he was then accused of human trafficking - which is not supported by the sources. Sal at PV (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Well he could not have been accused (even in the video) until it was released.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I see we are reading the sentence in two different ways. Maybe we can agree on clearer language that satisfies both of our concerns and removes the ambiguity? To my eye and surely to eyes of others, the word "accused" and its current placement in the sentence make it seem as though some unnamed people made accusations about Vera's actions, which is not a verifiable claim. If we are trying to convey how the video portrayed Vera, then we should say so using that kind of precise language, i.e., that the video portrayed Vera as being engaged in the activity. Sal at PV (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

If you want change Accused to Portrayed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Would you mind making the edit? I am taking great care not to edit this article directly, due to my COI. Thanks a lot, Sal at PV (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yes to all four. All of these are fine as-is, though the first one needs to be attributed (which it currently seems to be); they're reasonable paraphrases of what the sources say, even if O'Keefe objects to them. That said, an additional source should be used beyond the Forbes piece (which I have added.) In particular, the Atlantic source says Former ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera sued after being wrongly portrayed as a willing participant in an underage sex-trafficking scheme, which plainly cites the the second one. The third one is covered extensively by sources elsewhere in the article, as well as by the AG's report in the cited source, and numerous sources describe his statement as an apology for the fourth one. --Aquillion (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is biased. Project Veritas has demonstrated at least as much respect for the truth as corporate media.

This Wikipedia article is biased. Project Veritas has demonstrated at least as much respect for the truth as corporate media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:C100:9A50:0:0:0:800E (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

OK can you give one example of where out article unfairly characterises one of their correct claims as false?Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This is some supporter or member of PV, see their reverted edit here. Might be better to just delete this section. Doug Weller talk 15:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Article missing PV scoop of Amy Robach calling out ABC for killing Epstein story

Is there a reason the biggest story broken by Project Veritas is not featured in the Wikipedia article about Project Veritas? It was picked up by all of the major media and was huge at the time. Having such important content omitted from the article makes Wikipedia look untrustworthy. 68.199.222.168 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

IP concerns

Saying that the videos are deceptively edited is not only slander but also false, and makes it seems as if Veritas is changing words, which is untrue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B126:5BCA:8CD9:DE14:DC6A:3892 (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

A, We go with what RS say. B, no "deceptively edited" does not mean "changed words". To illustrate.

"A, We go with what RS say. "deceptively edited" does mean "changed words". To illustrate.", I did not change any words, just removed a couple.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)