Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

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

I disagree that the article accords undue weight or "disproportional coverage" to controversies. To the contrary, the article seems to reflect what the reliable sources say about the subject. This is a highly controversial organization whose activities have received a lot of substantive criticism, so obviously that's going to be reflected in the article. If you think additional context is needed, the solution is to add that text, rather than applying three needless tags. I have myself added some additional context about the group's affiliate, etc. Neutrality^talk 13:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bias Tarnishing Wikipedia's Credibility

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Just a random passer-by letting you all know that left-biased articles like this don't influence anyone, they just make Wikipedia look bad and reduce its trustworthiness. I clicked the link thinking "I wonder if this is another leftist hit piece, or will I be pleasantly surprised?" No surprise forthcoming. Feel free to pile on with the usual whining about how you're just repeating what "reliable" sources have to say, etc. etc. It's all been said before and no-one believes it, but if it makes you all feel better... Just so you know: you can carry on down this path and ensure Wikipedia slides further into irrelevance, or you can redress bias and retain a degree of standing; your choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.136.97 (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Content from the James O'Keefe page should be imported

All of PV's activities are comprehensively covered on the O'Keefe page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

If it's related to PV, go for it. --HSukePup (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2019

Found this article on Ray Moore from the Washington Post in 2017. There is no mention of Project Veritas, or any uncovers to the best of my knowledge. In addition to this, I noticed that all of the sources being referenced on the matter link to sites like The Guardian, CBS, CNN, and even the Washington Post itself - they are left-leaning, and one of them is the subject of this story. It may come off as a little bias.

Here is the article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/woman-says-roy-moore-initiated-sexual-encounter-when-she-was-14-he-was-32/2017/11/09/1f495878-c293-11e7-afe9-4f60b5a6c4a0_story.html Nevylior (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a different story about Roy More; Project Veritas attempted to trick the Washington Post with a hoax because they wanted to discredit that particular story. (And, of course, this happened after that story was published, so naturally it isn't mentioned there.) These details are in the New York Times coverage, already cited in the article; search for 'Leigh Corfman' in that NYT article and you'll see how these things are connected. --Aquillion (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Collapse per WP:NOTFORUM; this isn't the place for general musings about Wikipedia philosophy.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Deceptively Edited Description? The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups. I thought Wikipedia focused on factual descriptions??? I need to reconsider how much to trust Wikipedia. Bludimon (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC) — Bludimon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. That line is extremely well-sourced; as far as I can tell, it's an uncontroversial fact as reported in mainstream coverage. Do you object to any of the sources in particular? Or do you think that that's an inaccurate summary, or giving them undue weight? Do you have sources you feel disagree? --Aquillion (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC) I find it interesting that this article does not contain links to the repeated rulings made by multiple courts around the US that stated that Project Veritas videos are not deceptively edited. I've also found it interesting that this article does not contain any links reporting the outcome of the six lawsuits against Project Veritas and the fact Project Veritas has never lost a lawsuit against it. For a supposedly "neutral" and "extremely well-sourced" article, that's a pretty big oversight. 70.75.197.210 (talk) 09:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC) ^ Needs citation. Lots of it. You're basically trying to refute all the other cited sources currently in the Wiki article. HSukePup (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC) As HSukePup says, you'd need citations for the "repeated rulings made by multiple courts around the US that stated that Project Veritas videos are not deceptively edited." I'd also point out that on its own, the bit about lawsuits (if true) wouldn't necessarily mean anything because not everything leads to a lawsuit and because there's many reasons why a lawsuit might be dismissed; we would need WP:SECONDARY sources discussing legal events to provide the sort of interpretation you're implying (ie. the idea that this somehow vindicates Project Veritas.) As far as I'm aware, no mainstream reliable sources say that. --Aquillion (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Considering how many articles I found in the Washington Post, and the New York Times, reporting on lawsuits against Project Veritas failing, it is obvious you are not interested in actually finding out the truth about the lawsuits, and are instead interested only in maintaining this biased, hatchet-job of an article. You want to find proof? Search "Project Veritas Lawsuit" on Google. The very first result is from this year (The Hill), talking about how a lawsuit was thrown out of court. There is a website called "Project Veritas Exposed" which has a list of lawsuits made against it, as well as links to some court documents. The "Project Veritas Exposed" site seems intent on conflating O'Keefe's previous activities (ie. the ACORN incident) before Project Veritas existed with Project Veritas, but a quick search shows that O'Keefe didn't found the organization until mid-to-late 2010, after the ACORN-related lawsuits began. If I could edit the article myself, I would have provided citations, but you people have locked it down. 70.75.197.210 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Again, if you wanted it added to the article, what you'd need isn't just something saying "some random person sued them and failed to show that they were trying to defame her specifically." You'd need something saying what that lawsuit means - your interpretation of it (ie. it means that Project Veritas is totally vindicated for everything and all the other coverage saying they deceptively edit videos in in other contexts is debunked) is just, well, your interpretation, and we can't put that in the article. If we had some sources comparable in weight to the ones cited in the lead saying that, we could cite them, but "subject wins a random lawsuit not currently mentioned in the article at all" isn't really meaningful on its own. And, generally speaking, lawsuits a subject loses or settles unfavorably are considered more WP:DUE than one they win (unless the coverage for the lawsuits they won is absolutely overwhelming) - anyone can sue anyone else for any reason, so a lawsuit that doesn't go anywhere means little on its own. --Aquillion (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC) I am new at Wikipedia and I am enjoying providing a few edit. One thing that strikes me as odd on Wikipedia pages with a political content is that sometimes editors will give their opinion and then use sources to try to support their opinion. I thought the previous description of Project Veritas, before I provided balance, was one sided and misleading. Not what one wants to see in an encyclopedia. Anyhow, I'm glad to contribute where I can. Best to all. Alainlambert (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC) Wikipedia should reflect the contents of RS. If many RS report that PV is known for deceptively editing videos, then we state that in Wiki voice. We don't remove that just because we personally disagree with it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC) With all due respect, if you posted 20 references of people who have the same opinion, it wouldn't turn their opinion into objective facts, nor would it make this page balanced. I have reinstated my changes and I welcome you, instead of reinstating your prior version, to instead at something to the effect that "critics of Project Veritas claim that the company "deceptively" edits their videos" That, in view, would highlight your concern - and others - that Project Veritas is deceptive. Making it a fact just isn't right. Best regards. Alain Alainlambert (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Please avoid teniditious editing and look to build consensus with you fellow editors (perhaps by citing a source you believe supports your assertions?) rather then decreeing that you alone know what is a fact and what is not. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC) No opinion piece has been cited. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Alainlambert, I have added a note to your user talk page explaining in detail the issues with your editing. I won't repeat myself here, but to briefly summarize: (1) You seem to be confused about the difference between news articles and "opinion." The pieces cited here are from outlets like the Associated Press and WBUR, which are one of many, many sources (scholarly and journalistic) that establish the deceptive nature of the group's videos. We follow the reliable sources here. You might also find WP:FALSEBALANCE to be informative here. (2) You must not restore newly added content that has been challenged by other edits (particularly multiple other editors) on policy-based grounds, unless you have a consensus to do so, which of course you don't. (3) Finally, and most importantly, please carefully read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (BLP). That is a policy that sets forth special considerations when making edits dealing with, or implicating, living or recently deceased individuals. Your changes downplay or remove references to the deceptive nature of the group's videos. That creates a false and negative impression about the individuals — including relatively private persons — targeted/named in the group's videos. We take BLP very seriously here, so that's simply not an acceptable thing to do. Neutralitytalk 02:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Dear Sir, thank you for the input. I will read with interest the links you provided. The fact remains, adding sources where below express their opinion should be exposed properly and presented as such: people's opinion. If you could find another 100 sources where people have the same opinion will not change the nature of the facts. You state: "You seem to be confused about the difference between news articles and "opinion." The pieces cited here are from outlets like the Associated Press and WBUR, which are one of many, many sources (scholarly and journalistic) that establish the deceptive nature of the group's videos." I guess this is where we differ: quoting a source such as the one you mentioned - and those listed on the page - does not mean it is not opinion. I hope we all agree on that in today's environment. As set the page on Project Veritas is biased, non-informative and non-balanced at all. While I am all for following the Wikipedia rules, I am convinced that providing balanced and informative information is in line with core values of Wikipedia. I will read some of the link you provided and decide what the best course of action to render the page balanced. As far as your statement that I made changes "to downplay or remove references to the deceptive nature of that group's videos that creates a false and negative impression about the individuals" is absolutely not true. I added the description of Project Veritas as per its website, I deleted adverbs that turn opinions into facts and added a Section for you and other to develop the negative side of Project Veritas, as its critics see it. I fail to see why anyone wouldn't want balanced pages. Anyhow, I am grateful for the input. Kindly. Alain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainlambert (talk • contribs) 10:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Further thoughts on this page My philosophy about editing on Wikipedia can be summed up in a post I recently wrote on my cycling blog. I tell the story about climbing Whiteface Mountain listening to the Beatles Red Album (1962-1966). That is when I discovered that you can’t listen to the Beatles with only one earbud. Try it with All My Loving. You can clearly hear Paul’s bass and George’s guitar on the left side and there is pretty much only the singing on the right side. Ringo is faint on each side. That’s just the way they were recording back in the days, I guess. In other words, if you listen to the Beatles with only one earbud, you only get part of the song. Which to me is the same thing in politics and media. There are people on "both sides of the aisle” who believe their sources of information gives them the whole truth when in fact, they are only getting a part of it, like listening to the Beatles with only one earbud. I personally have a very broad and diverse source of information which “crosses across the aisle”. I have a paid subscription to the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. I read Politico and Breitbart. I listen to NPR and Rush Limbaugh. I watch CNN and Fox News. To me, being informed means using the “left” earbud and the “right” earbud. One of the main obstacles to being truly informed is that some people believe certain news outlets present what is normative, that they present THE reality, when in fact it isn’t so. Personally, I prefer All My Loving with two earbuds. The same applies to all the other songs on the Beatles Red Album and Blue Album. Many pages about political matters on Wikipedia, including the one on Project Veritas give you only part the song. It takes two earbuds to get a full Beatles song, only one isn't enough. It takes two earbuds to get a full political point, only one isn't enough. Here are two examples: Quebec Language Laws: In the Province of Quebec, many in the anglophone community - which represents about 10% of the population - feel that the province's language laws discriminate against them. The Province of Quebec, with a French speaking population of about 7 million is surrounded by 360 million English speaking people. In order to preserve its language and culture, the Province has language laws designed to give prominence to French in most aspects of life. Both statements are true. If I wrote on Wikipedia about Quebec language laws, I could decide to focus on only one of the two aspects noted above and through 'sourcing' I could present an unbalanced and misleading page which respects Wikipedia's rules. Seat belts Seat belts save lives. Seat belts kill people. Both statements are true. If I wrote on Wikipedia about seat belts, I could decide to focus on 'seat belts kill people' and through 'sourcing' I could present an unbalanced and misleading page which respects Wikipedia's rules. I personally don't care much about Project Veritas, but I do care about truth. Alainlambert (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding information about Expose 2020

@Slatersteven:, why did you revert my edit? The page chronicles various campaigns of Project Veritas, per its history, and I am simply adding its latest campaign. Your edit comment is unreadable due to typos and lack of clarity. Please explain why you disagree so we can reach consensus. Bodole (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

A number of reasons. 1> (As I said) it might be a bit undue, we do not need to list everything they do, only what others consider notable. 2> (as I said in the edit summery) this maybe a bit of Crystal balling (see also 1), as they may not even go ahead with this (and number of things can happen to stop them). When (and if) this becomes a noted campaign by them covered by RS we may be able to mention it, but not until then. We are not a directory or catalog of their products.Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:Notability pertains specifically to articles as a whole, not to specific content. A small section in the history section of an article on an organization does not need to be covered by WP:RS. This is clear from policy. I am not crystal balling because the subject of the edit is not predictions about what they will do in the future. The launch of the campaign is more than sufficient to include in this section. Bodole (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Which is why I did not link to notability (this is more to do with wp:not wp:undue). We do not list everything they do, and there is no need to. We are not an indiscriminate list, nor are we a directory.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not suggesting we list everything they do. This is clearly a major campaign, and is clearly of similar importance to other items in the list. Would you like an RFC to see if other editors agree? Bodole (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No it is not clear, as they are not an RS for it being major. But if you want an RFC go ahead.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

LOt of random SPA IP's showing up.Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

David Wright (journalist)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/abc-news-suspends-david-wright-for-remarks-made-in-project-veritas-video-report — Preceding unsigned comment added by AppliedCharisma (talk • contribs) 18:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

This seems important...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/07/us/politics/erik-prince-project-veritas.html

Project Veritas used ex-professional spies recruited by Erik Prince, to infiltrate target groups. Looks like the grift is bigger than it seems on its face. Guy (help!) 20:22, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I would like to wait and see if this has legs. Also three are a number of issues this could end up covering, so more analysis would be useful.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Corrections to "Reception and lawsuit" section

In the "ACORN videos (2009)" section, in the fifth and sixth paragraph of the "Reception and lawsuit" subsection, there are multiple inaccuracies that should be corrected:

1. End of fifth paragraph: "Mr. Vera lost his job and was falsely accused of being engaged in human trafficking." The second part of this sentence (that he was accused of being engaged in human trafficking) is not supported by the cited source or any source that I could find. So that part of the sentence should be removed.
2. Middle of sixth paragraph: "O'Keefe agreed to pay $100,000 to former California ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera for deliberately misrepresenting Mr. Vera's actions." The second part of that statement is untrue: The settlement agreement explicitly states that "it is in no way representative of any actual or implied admissions of liability" and that it was "executed solely to avoid costs and risks of potential litigation." The settlement gives no indication that O'Keefe's payment of $100,000 was tied to "deliberately misrepresenting Mr. Vera's actions," and neither does the Los Angeles Times source cited here. The sentence should be changed to read: "On March 5, 2013, O'Keefe agreed to pay $100,000 to former California ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera to settle the lawsuit, and acknowledged in the settlement that at the time he published his video he was unaware that Vera had notified the police about the incident."
3. End of sixth paragraph: "The settlement contained the following apology..." There was no apology, only a statement of regret, which is a non-trivial distinction. The sentence should be changed to: "The settlement contained the following statement..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sal at PV (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

   Sal at PV, please stop asking us to whitewash the article. O'Keefe deliberately misrepresented Vera's actions, was sued and paid $100,000. Such settlements always say they admit no fault, but that's not necessary: the facts are established elsewhere. I understand that O'Keefe's reaction to being caught ruining a man's life through fraudulent claims was to refuse to express sorrow, I think the existing text makes him look rather less evil, don't you? Guy (help!) 19:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

None of what you've said makes the current Wikipedia text any more accurate. To repeat: 1) Vera was not "accused of being engaged in human trafficking"; 2) The payment of $100,000 was to settle the lawsuit, not "for deliberately misrepresenting Mr. Vera's actions"; and 3) O'Keefe expressed regret but did not apologize.

Never mind how you or I feel about whether O'Keefe is a good or bad person. This is about following what the reliable sources say the facts are, like Wikipedia is supposed to do. Sal at PV (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I have been reading up about this. I see the breadcrumb trail now: PV has been systematically bullying outlets into clarifying parts of the story (misrepresented as retractions by PV), using the usual tactic of threatening expensive litigation. What lovely people you are. The videos were deceptively edited. We don't care what O'Keefe publicly admitted to. Lawsuits generally pick the easiest case to win, in this case the unambiguously illegal privacy violation. That has no bearing on the background, which is characteristically misleadingly edited footage (and this is, after all, what PV are known for). Guy (help!) 20:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please establish a consensus on this talk page before using the {{edit COI}} template. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 16:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: I get it: You don't care for Project Veritas - you have made that very clear on this Talk page. But if no reliable source says something, then Wikipedia can't say it. As an admin, and someone who knows how Wikipedia works far better than anyone else who is active on this page, you should be able to put your personal feelings about PV aside and work to ensure the content of the article strictly follows reliable sources. If implementing my correction requests is simply too odious for you to do, I would be happy to open an RfC to let others help establish consensus here. If there is a more appropriate way to encourage uninvolved and unbiased editors to contribute here, I'm open to suggestions. Sal at PV (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of bias, it could easily be interpreted as a WP:PA. Its important to WP:AGF of your fellow editors. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Sorry, I meant to post that in the most recent thread and didn't realize that JzG already responded. Can you please fix it? I don't want to confuse things any further. Thanks, Sal at PV (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

As it has now also been replied to no, it will just make things even more confused.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 11 May 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.

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)

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)

Accuracy

The organization ALWAYS releases the full videos from which their initial, shorter vids are taken. The idea that they are 'deceptively edited' is ludicrous. Each time they've introduced another exposé, Veritas is accused of making things up, then after the hooplah fades, they are proven right. Momsaid (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is why they have had to pay out over such issues.Slatersteven (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Mom said you just did a fib! Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Corrections to "Abbie Boudreau (2010)" section.

First, the section states that "Following the Boudreau incident, Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement." However, if you read the Politico source cited, you'll see the settlement had nothing to do with the Boudreau incident other than the settlement being chronologically following the incident. This information about the settlement might be relevant for a section on Izzy Santa, but it is completely irrelevant in a section on Abbie Boudreau and should be removed. Second, the section states next that "Funding decreased from conservative political organizations following this CNN incident." This is also not supported by the source. The closest the Politico source comes to saying this is when it says:

"He gained many fans after the ACORN sting," said Gonzalez. "But then, when he was arrested and then we had the CNN thing happening," Gonzalez said "even many in the conservative movement started doubting whether James could really go forward beyond that."

"Doubting" is not the same as "stopped funding" and the source never states that funding decreased following the CNN incident. In fact, the truth is that conservative funding of PV increased at the time, though this is beside my point that this unverifiable sentence should be removed. Sal at PV (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"In fact, the truth is that conservative funding of PV increased at the time” if you have a WP:RS for that (heck we’d even about self for this) we can include it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: As I said, the part about PV's funding increasing is beside the point (though it happens to be true). There are primary sources such as tax filings that I could provide, but that is not relevant for what I am proposing here, which is to remove the current unsourced sentence, per Wikipedia's policy that information needs to be verifiable. Can we agree that the sentence should be removed, or do you believe the sentence is properly supported by the sources, somehow? Sal at PV (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Primary sources are relevant for WP:ABOUTSELF, it appears to be supported by the politico headline "James O’Keefe's plans derailed by infighting, lack of funding” but you’re right there isn't anything 100% in the text. I’d say we have a conundrum, you have presented us with a solution in the form of sources which show that funding actually increased so provide them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

You say that "it appears to be supported by the politico headline." But that is not true. While the article refers to "lack of funding" and "weaker-than-expected fundraising," it later elaborates that "even as Project Veritas has fallen short of its fundraising goals, O'Keefe has established some connections of his own to deep-pocketed conservative groups." And critically, there is never any connection drawn between PV falling short of its own fundraising goals and the CNN incident. So there is absolutely no support for the statement that "funding decreased from conservative political organizations following this CNN incident." Sal at PV (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You can either read that as saying that funding decreased as a result of the CNN incident or that funding decreased in the period following the CNN incident. That ambiguity could be cleared up but don’t pretend it isn't ambiguous. Still waiting for you to provide the sources you said you would. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Neither version of how you say it's possible to read the sentence is supported by the Politico source in any way, and the burden of proof is on Wikipedia to demonstrate otherwise. And in any case, if it's the second version, i.e., that funding decreased in the period following the CNN incident, that is to say, there is no real connection between the CNN incident and the weaker-than-expected fundraising beyond the chronological sequence of events, then it makes no sense to include the sentence in this section. You could just as well name anything that happened to Project Veritas over the course of the year 2011 and it would still be technically true but completely irrelevant for a section on the CNN incident in the same way.

As for the sources you keep harping on, I've said repeatedly that these are beside the point. I have no interest in adding a sentence about revenue increasing; I'm only interested in removing the unsourced statement about revenue decreasing as a result of the CNN incident. If you want to look at PV's tax filings for whatever reason, they are public documents that can be viewed on the IRS website or on other websites that store such information. Sal at PV (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC on verifiability in ACORN section

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The request at ANRFC asks for "...an uninvolved and politically neutral editor..." Closing discussions is, according to policy, only supposed to be done by uninvolved editors but beyond that we don't get to choose closing editors based on preferred attributes. Fortunately, the discussion below presents no real difficulty. For statements 1, 3, and 4, a clear consensus exists that the language challenged is not accepted. For statement 2, a rough consensus exists that the language challenged is not accepted. The discussion below did indicate that there was some ambiguity on some of the points but whether other language could be supported would be a matter of speculation best left to the normal editing cycle. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

---

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)(13:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)) 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) 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)

@Aquillion:1) How is attributing O'Keefe's motives to "conservative hatred" a reasonable paraphrase of the source? The source says that conservatives disliked ACORN. The source says that Hannah Giles's father disliked ACORN. But the source never ascribes O'Keefe's motivation in targeting ACORN to this, and that is what is at issue. 3) There are no sources, cited in this article or otherwise, that say that the $100,000 payment was for anything other than to settle the lawsuit - with no admission of guilt. Certainly there may be sources that accuse O'Keefe of wronging Vera. But that's objectively not what the payment was for, and saying so is unverifiable. 4) There are not "numerous" sources that describe it as an apology. There is a cited source from a blog aggregator, The Atlantic Wire (here), which quotes Wonkette referring to an apology - but neither Wonkette nor The Atlantic Wire is a reliable source. And the cited Law360 source (here) no longer refers to it as an apology. On the other hand, the Friedersdorf piece in The Atlantic (here) explicitly states: "As you can see, the resolution didn't require O'Keefe to admit wrongdoing or to fully apologize for the wrong he did Vera." Can't we just agree to call it a "statement" and be done with this? Sal at PV (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Invited by the bot. #1, #2 & #4 are not supported by the sources. #3 is a behind a paywall and I couldn't check. "Regrets pain" is very different than "apology"; the former is not an admission of guilt, the latter generally is. IMO it's unthinkable for Wikipedia editors to be making that transformation. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Re 2: "smearing an innocent man by suggesting he is willing to participate in the flesh trade" is perfectly well summarised as "falsely accused of being engaged in human trafficking". This looks like an opinion source and so might require attribution and/or an additional source - but it is also verified by the LA Times which says he the video falsely "appears to show that Vera was willing to help O’Keefe smuggle underage girls into the U.S. to act as prostitutes" which is well summarised as "falsely accused of being engaged in human trafficking".[1] (See also Daily Beast[2] and Atlantic [3] which use wording even closer to the text in the RfC, although may be opinion sources.) Re 3: this is adequately sourced. Re 4: I think the "regret any pain" formulation is what we'd call a non-apology, so better to use the actual words. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bodole: Concur 100% that “This is being treated as more complicated than it should be.”

• 1No. Attributing hatred is clearly editorializing. Wikipedia needs to be above partisan rancor like this.

2 No. Absolutely no mention of human trafficking.

3 No. No mention of misrepresentation, no reliable verification.

4 No. Just say regret if it’s regret.

Spirited debate, but let’s put this business to bed. Smilingbandit (talk) 14:52, 9 July 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.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020

As per NPOV, I recommend removing tags suggesting ProjectVeritas is a right-wing advocacy group. ProjectVeritas is project committed to net neutrality, and sources indicating it is right wing. Sources are not reliable indicating this is a right wing advocacy group [1][2][3][4]. ProjectVeritas is non-partisan and is not right wing. Highlighting big-tech platforms methods of stifling primarily conservative content does not make it right wing. It remains dedicated to net neutrality. Ashleybackwoods (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Feel free to come back and try this again once you've changed well-established consensus that the Associated Press (WP:RSP#Associated Press), The Guardian (WP:RSP#The Guardian), The New York Times (WP:RSP#The New York Times), and The Intercept (WP:RSP#The Intercept) are reliable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Implementing RfC consensus

Please make the following changes to the "ACORN videos (2009)" section, per the consensus reached in the above RfC:

1. Remove the unverifiable sentence: "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."
2. Remove the unverifiable part of the following sentence, which I have labeled in bold: "On March 5, 2013, O'Keefe agreed to pay $100,000 to former California ACORN employee Juan Carlos Vera for deliberately misrepresenting Mr. Vera's actions, and acknowledged in the settlement that at the time he published his video he was unaware that Vera had notified the police about the incident."
3. In the next sentence, change the unverifiable language - "The settlement contained the following apology:" - to the neutral "The settlement stated:".

Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

#1 and #2 done. #3 is verifiable to [4] ("the settlement requires an 11-word apology"). Regards SoWhy 09:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Project Veritas logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

New Content for Article History

Project Veritas has released another report about alleged election fraud in Bexar County, Texas to be updated into the Article's history.

NEWS4 San Antonio - Allegations of election fraud scheme surface after undercover video released Tito151 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)