Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

NYT source

Possible source:

• Goldman, Adam; Mazzetti, Mark (13 May 2021). "Activists and Ex-Spy Said to Have Plotted to Discredit Trump 'Enemies' in Government". The New York Times.

The operations against the F.B.I., run by the conservative group Project Veritas, were conducted from a large home in the Georgetown section of Washington that rented for $10,000 per month. Female undercover operatives arranged dates with the F.B.I. employees with the aim of secretly recording them making disparaging comments about Mr. Trump....

Dropping this here as a reminder to myself, or for someone to read and possibly incorporate if appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Deceptively edited video

Why is there no reference to the video themselves? If there was deceptive editing the consumer could verify this for themselves rather than relying on others that may or may not be trust worthy? What is better than actual video evidence. In any court of law video evidence would be more credible than a verbal account of the evidence, even when made by a "reliable source". Yes I realize this isn't a court but the quality standards for truth should over lap. Also not taken into account is coordinated defamation of a person. When people and groups of people know how to game the system, then people are going to do those things. Wiki isn't an opinion piece yet it makes statements which then references an opinion article (which is described in the rules as to how and why something would be kept up that shows negstivety towards something). ViolentG (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinated defamation of a person - You mean like Juan Carlos Vera, the ACORN employee who was defamed by Project Veritas' false insinuation that he supported or condoned human trafficking, when instead he immediately reported the matter to the police? Yes, that's coordinated defamation of a person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The policy on primary sources states that "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". Per the high-quality academic sources cited in this article, Project Veritas does not meet that requirement. The organization's website is already linked in the article in case readers want to see its content. — Newslinger talk 02:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Which source cited is an opinion piece? 2605:B100:D14:B6F7:1175:D621:C213:DC67 (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Because unless you can access the full unedited videos, including before and after you can't know if they were deceptively edited or not. But what RS can do is talk to both sides, look at other evidence and analyze it. We do not have the resources to do that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

On top of that, we are not allowed to do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

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.

---

The "purpose" of Project Veritas needs to be changed from "Disinformation" to "Whistleblowing." Even if there indeed were an example of incorrect reporting from Project Veritas, all it would require is one truthful example of factual malpractice for it to be considered legitimate whistleblowing. According to Oxford, Language disinformation is defined as "false information which is intended to mislead." Oxford also defines whistleblowing as "a person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity." So, again Project Veritas intended to inform on individuals and the executives of those organizations. While the information may persuade particular populations in the United States, it does not change the intent and information brought to light from this information. Wikipedia failing to recognize this distinct difference hurts employees' right to whistleblow as well as not allowing American citizens to be adequately informed and make the decision on what is factual. Scottybanker (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you even read what he wrote? It was very clear he wrote in the form "change x to Y" 2605:B100:12A:C5EC:B8BE:6618:59AE:5586 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Scottybanker, I agree that they should change their purpose from disinformation to whistleblowing. They could start by investigating Roger Stone's involvement in the insurrection. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Seconded this is absolutely true. The label "disinformation" requires an assumption about intent which has yet to be proved. 2605:B100:12A:C5EC:B8BE:6618:59AE:5586 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

2605:B100:12A:C5EC:B8BE:6618:59AE:5586, other than on the many occasions when it's been proved. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Only occasions that have shown mistakes. But intent has never been shown. That is done only in bad faith. 2605:B100:12A:C5EC:7528:A26A:9B75:A532 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length. Consensus was this is what their purpose is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see the many discussions about this in the talk page archives, and avoid comments that only repeat past discussions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Scottybanker: Please don't change the edit request template back to "answered=no". The template is only for alerting editors that there is an uncontroversial change that needs to be made, which this clearly is not. If you are seeking to invite outside editors to contribute to this discussion, WP:NPOVN would be the way to do that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2021 (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.

Change "Far-right" to "Conservative"

The attempt to associate Project Veritas, which means "Project Truth", with the far-right is absurd. To most people, far-right means Nazi, and PV is nothing close to Nazis (who were against truth). Such a description of PV is frankly Orwellian, and it's disgusting that Wikipedia is participating is this re-writing of reality.

PV can best be described as conservative, it's the most accurate. But really, PV has no political alignment, because they are not a political group. We don't call CNN left-wing, because they do news (arguably), not politics. PV does not do politics, they do News.

The sources that call PV "far-right" are the ones who are upset with PV explain their practices. So there is an obvious conflict of interest here that MUST be addressed! We do not source meat factories to describe animal rights groups that expose their practices! That would be absurd!

This article is of particular importance because NYT has cited it in their lawsuit against PV. Writing about PV in this article in this way will undoubtedly affect the trial. I implore the admins to stop stonewalling and preventing discussion. If they were really correct, they would not have to lock the article AND THE TALK PAGE! 2605:B100:12A:C5EC:F993:8E49:9268:3589 (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

See the thread above. Nothing will have changed in less than 12 hours.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

While conservative and far-right are close to being synonyms, they are not yet, so this stays as far-right, per sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that sources are systematically biased against PV, as I wrote above.

We don't cite meat factories to describe animal rights groups. That would be absurd and Orwellian. 2605:B100:12A:C5EC:7528:A26A:9B75:A532 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

No we cite RS, a factory is never an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course they are not RS because they are biased and have their own interests. The factory example is an analogy to what is happening here. You are using the people who PV blows the whistle on as RS to describe PV. Don't you see the problem? 2605:B100:12A:C5EC:2909:19B1:642D:3E6B (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sources that value honesty, tend not to like dishonest grifters. That's just the way it is. See also reality has a well-known liberal bias. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

See the FAQ #4. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

OK let's try an experiment, which sources do we use that characterise PV as far-right have been the subject of PV "exposes"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You want to change an article. You have been told to make that change- you need WP:RS to support your change. Now- like a quarterback is part of a football team- the far right is part of the right. So- quoting sources that say "Tom Brady is a football player" does not mean he is not also a quarterback. You [b] must [/b]find a source that says "Tom Brady is not a quarterback" Until you do so- your arguments are pointless. And- once you find that source- you must then prove that 1 source outweighs the dozen + sources that do call PV far right. So you have two steps here.

Also- far right does NOT equal nazi to most people. Maybe to you- but to most people Nazi is its own category altogether. Far right is uber-conservative, prone to conspiracy theories, and tend to believe Trump and the GOP can do no wrong (my summary- not the official one). So calling PV far-right is not accusing them of mass genocide- so... yeah. Provide your RS that says they are not Far Right... or WP:DROPTHESTICK.Nightenbelle (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are the sources compiled in cite note 37, descriptions of PV as far right or alt-right. Most of these are reported articles, not opinion articles. And they cover a wide range of ideological leanings.

• The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism
• The Daily Dot
• Columbia Journalism Review
• Philadelphia Inquirer
• Forbes
• USA Today
• CNBC
• Yahoo News
• Al Jazeera
• The Independent
• News.com.au (A Rupert Murdoch News Corp outlet)
• The Intercept
• Time
• The Hill

H/T to the editor(s) who did the work to compile this set of references. It was not a trivial amount of work. Anybody who writes PV does not do politics, they do News is probably talking through their hat. -- M.boli (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

M.boli, only if they are sitting on it at the time, but I take your point... Guy (help! - typo?) 23:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

So a lot that have no COI as they have never been stung by PV.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

2021 CNN expose videos

Shouldn't these be added to the article? Also, PV has added a new legal arm to its activities that should be mentioned. [1]

See above re CNN, and we will wait for third party coverage in reliable independent sources before adding their new area of grift. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I was going to point out we have already discussed this, but that bit about the legal arm is moe interesting.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, it will be interesting to see what happens when their victims start applying to them for funding to sue PV for the lies they tell. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:18, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

That music video is really something. Right now I'm only seeing Washington Times and Fox News reporting on it, perhaps more RS will come sometime soon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, it's ironic that a Trump cultist would release a song denouncing oligarchy. Between the Koch / Adelson axis on the one side and Putin's money on the other, there is no time in American history where the influence of foreign and domestic oligarchs has been more powerful. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Since you like Wikilawyering so much may I point out that you're violating WP:NOTAFORUM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:b100:10a:b96c:fc8e:53af:e933:a230 (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Valid point, can we not soap and thus undermine our credibility?Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Mr O'Keefe, who says Project Veritas has never lost a lawsuit.... (from the Washington Times link). Would that be technically true because of suits they settled rather than lost? -- M.boli (talk) 17:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe not [[2]], so it is a case of when they win its PV and when they lose its O'Keefe, just corporate-speak?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen that statement made in a handful of places, usually quoting O'Keefe. I think he bases it on either the fact that lawsuits have been against him or other PV individuals rather than against the organization, and/or he and Project Veritas have settled lawsuits rather than go to trial. For example, O'Keefe paid a $100,000 settlement and issued an apology over the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, and another PV member paid $50,000; Project Veritas also paid a 5-figure settlement in 2010 over the Abbie Boudreau incident. Other litigation that I know of are:

• Democracy Partners' $1 million lawsuit against Project Veritas: Last I saw on this was an announcement in March 2020 that it would go to trial, after a judge denied PV's motion for summary judgment
• Project Veritas' lawsuit against the New York Times: Last I saw on this was a judge denying the NYT's motion to dismiss the lawsuit in March 2021. At least one publication described that as a "big win" for Veritas, which I think some less careful readers misread as Project Veritas won the lawsuit.
• Project Veritas' lawsuit against CNN: Only just filed last month
• Project Veritas' lawsuit against Twitter: Only just filed last month

I'm sure there's more. While it may be technically correct to state that PV has never "lost a lawsuit", have they ever had a legal outcome that was at all in their favor? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

They had plenty of legal victories, but it appears you just don't want to do the research. Here is a good place to start. Then, you can find the court cases on systems like these NY State Unified Court System. Since some of you appear to work here, I encourage you to consult these ressources and download copies of the Court's judgements. -> Are there any ways to integrate them? Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The website of PV is a WP:PRIMARY and opinionated source for that kind of stuff... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Caretorepeatunderoath: Thank you for the link, that is helpful!

Regarding the rest of your comment: Since some of you appear to work here You would be mistaken. We are all volunteer editors. While there are people who work for the Wikimedia Foundation in roles like software development, fundraising, etc., they do not employ people to edit.

Are there any ways to integrate them? We would need secondary, reliable sources describing the court cases to establish that they are noteworthy enough to include in the article. Project Veritas cannot be used as a source about itself for things like this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The short answer seems to be: PV has won victories in legal actions, but you can't depend on PV to fairly describe its own victories. I picked one from their list, Teter v. PV. PV won a directed verdict in a libel case. Mostly the judge decided that Teter had not sufficiently proved actual malice. The PV description of this win managed to a) repeat parts of its incorrect video story, b) imply that other side had admitted to it in court, c) quote the judge but it wasn't from the judgement, d) post highlighted parts of its own filings in such a way as to seem they were part of the judge's ruling. When you see the actual ruling it is clear PV won big. But it seems to be partly a failing on the part of the plaintiffs. Also PV is pretty good at juxtaposing and implying rather than baldly stating accusations, reading the judge's final order it seems to be much of what got them off the hook in this case. -- M.boli (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed similar discrepancies between their descriptions of the suits and how they appear to have actually worked out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that Project Veritas Manufactures New Video Deception is a Dog Bites Man story. Not newsworthy. The coverage of the 2021 video is mostly about Twitter suspension for inauthentic behavior. The video was added to the article, thoroughly hashed over in the talk, and quite properly removed. However TV sitcom articles will often contain a bulleted list of episodes. Maybe it would make sense to add a section List of PV episodes in the same spirit? -- M.boli (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsure we should have such a list, as this is not a sitcom, and many of these videos have been criticized. It is best just to limit us to a few notable examples.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

This page needs to be edited for accuracy. Project Veritas is not a far-right activist group. In fact, Project Veritas has no publicly-announced political party affiliation; its objective is exposing media bias and cover-ups in reporting. Furthermore, they do not deceptively edit video content to trap journalists. The sources cited in this article are sources which Project Veritas has exposed as untrustworthy or biased; therefore this article seems more like a retaliatory hit piece from the Post or NYT, rather than an objective, centrist piece about the operations of Project Veritas. 2A05:4F44:C1F:9800:D086:3965:B384:766F (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: As explained multiple times above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel that the dirty tricks right-wing propagandists of PV would be insulted if Wikipedia were to discredit their work in the manner you suggest. "Not far-right activist group," "exposing media bias and cover-ups," really that's dishonoring their hard work. -- M.boli (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021

Needs to be listed as fact, there is no disinformation to it. You are now being seen as disinformation for going along with the left view on this. 71.91.178.37 (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Please see the many previous conversations about this same thing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2021

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.

---

Page is opinion and not factual. Needs to be fixed or removed. 206.166.240.181 (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

And edit requests needs to be specific not vague.Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Agree the entire lead needs to be reworked. 2605:B100:138:7BD9:D53A:2ACD:9ADE:B670 (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Please persuade the subject to be a source of reliable information, and we will happily change it to reflect that. But not until reliable independent sources reflect it. Right now the consensus of RS is that they are grifters. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:54, 11 May 2021 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2021 (2)

Stating that Project Veritas propagates misinformation is intentionally ambiguous and misleading. It’s not a statement of fact as a wiki should be. This is not an op-ed, it’s a wiki entry and should therefore be limited to factual information. An example of a notable and relevant fact in this instance would be that Project Veritas has never lost a defamation lawsuit.

Additionally there are misleading facts within the entry such as mentioning that the Trump foundation donated around 30k to Project Veritas. This is hardly a notable donation. The organization accepts millions in donations every year, 30k is hardly enough to be used to attempt to lead a reader that Project Veritas is being influenced by the former President.

This entry is heavily biased and the perspective is nowhere close to neutral or balanced. It’s honestly disheartening for what should be a neutral open source of important information be tainted in such a way. 2601:40A:8002:1180:6DAA:2519:5B24:34A5 (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN expose not in article

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.

---

PV exposed CNN yet there is not mention in the article. Exposing CNN is a significant hit to CNN's reputability and is worthy of a mention on this page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:138:7BD9:FC6D:D666:80BF:3E5D (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

See all the talk page posts about this above.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Also note some of the (many) discussions about including this in the page have been archived at Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 4. I believe Talk:Project_Veritas/Archive 4#Expose CNN was the earliest, then just scroll down. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2021 (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.

Purpose: Disinformation

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.

---

The proponents of including "disinformation" in the purpose field have still not responded to the main objection, which is that not a single reliable source says that the purpose of Project Veritas is "disinformation." All of the sources currently cited on the page either refer to one specific action taken by Project Veritas (the 2020 Minnesota videos) or to a description of the organization as a "disinformation outfit" with no assertion that "disinformation" is PV's purpose.

The definition of disinformation is highly specific, referring to propaganda and falsehoods spread by enemy governments. This is not accurate to PV, unless it is alluding that PV spreads Russian propaganda, which is most definitely false, and not back by any RS.

"Disinformation outfit" was used to characterize the methods and actions of the organization, not its purpose - which has variously been described in RS as "to discredit mainstream media outlets and left-wing groups" (see source)

Alternatively, there are lots of RS that talk about what PV "tries to" accomplish, broadly, through its actions, and that could be acceptable for purpose (unlike "right-wing disinformation outfit"). Here are several examples:

"Project Veritas is a conservative group that tries to undermine the mainstream media through undercover stings." ([3])

"Project Veritas is an organization that tries to discredit the news media and liberal groups through undercover 'sting' operations." (Today)

"Phillips appears to work with Project Veritas, an organization that uses deceptive tactics and secretly records conversations in an effort to embarrass members of the mainstream media and left-leaning groups." (Post)

"Project Veritas, the guerrilla group that tries to undermine news outlets like CNN and The Washington Post" (York Times)

"Project Veritas, a conservative organization that tries to set up sting operations on a variety of groups in attempts to expose perceived bias" (News)

Any of those examples would be fine in place of disinformation. As I've said, there are no RS that say - either directly or via synonyms/paraphrasing - that PV's purpose is disinformation. 2605:B100:114:5456:9444:C10A:E326:E9BE (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic but during talk page discussions Type field in infobox and "Purpose: Disinformation?" in December 2020 and January 2021 most participating legitimate editors seemed to support this addition. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As said above this had been lengthly discussed, more than once.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2021 (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.

Lead

The opening paragraph is filled with opinionated loaded terms about project veritas. They are not "far-right" and labeling them such takes away from the meaning of far-right. A organization that exposes fake news is not comparable to Mussolini. Also, project veritas has never lost a lawsuit, but I don't see that in the opener. Please remove the smear term "far-right" in the lead. Maybe he can have a "reactions" section where we can discuss their critics calling them far-right instead of using that as an objective fact when it's just opinion. 2605:B100:108:FA5A:3CC8:A806:9723:5BCF (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

See all there talk page comments above and in the archive about this, there really is nothing new to say.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The possibility that PV is trolling Wikipedia should be considered. The repetitiveness of the troll-ish comments makes me think the authors are fishing. The point wouldn't be to change the article, the point would be to collect responses that might be fodder for another deceptive PV release. PV attacks the credibility of organizations that the far-right dislikes. The far-right dislikes Wikipedia. -- M.boli (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, the classic reductio ad Mussolinium. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

Change "disinformation" to "information" "Disinformation" means false, or Not true. Which is not the case when credible sources are also listed. 2603:7000:E06:9798:C89:D8EB:E0B6:E8D9 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 14:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Informal request

Should further edit requests of the above kind (see also the archives) be summarily deleted? This is not unprecedented, see for example Talk:Ayurveda where there is a big notice that "if you have come here to object to the use of the words "quackery" or "pseudoscience" in this article, your comment will be removed without reply if it does not give a policy-based reason why these terms are incorrect." This would be justifiable both to avoid WP:IDHT disruption and per DFTT. What do you think? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a good suggestion. I've added a similar warning to this talk page's editnotice. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

In the project veritas page it reads that they use in trapment to obtain information but on the entrapment Wikipedia page it says that is law-enforcement or agents of the state only. 73.56.32.65 (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 04:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Far-right

This is clearly not going anywhere, editors unhappy with the descriptors can peruse the archives and come up with novel arguments before making these posts. 15 (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I’m curious. By what objective criteria is a group deemed far-right by Wikipedia. Is there a list? Is there also a list of criteria for what qualifies a group as far-left. Are any groups described as far-left? Nicmart (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC) @Nicmart: Please refer to the FAQ at the top of the page. Any such descriptor (far-right, far-left, etc.) is used when reliable sources widely use the term for a group, which they do. We do not develop a set of criteria for what qualifies as far-right or far-left and then try to determine if a group's views fit the criteria—that would be original research, and is a task we leave to reliable sources. As for your last question, yes, there are groups described as far-left. A quick search turns up Communist Party USA, Redneck Revolt, Wonkette, BAMN, etc. Feel free to peruse for yourself; I used the search string "is an American far-left" to find articles where it is similarly prominent in the lead, but you could remove "American" or otherwise adjust the search query, or alternatively look at Category:Far-left politics in the United States, Category:Far-left politics by country, or subcategories and similar categories. Hope this helps. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 11:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC) The above explanation by wikipedia is not sufficient, as it does not account for significant bias in this loaded term. "Far Right" is a subjective term, and each and every article used to support said accusation is criticizing a conservative politicians. Not a single reference explains why or how the organization fits this description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachem131 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Please see the FAQ, namely questions 2 and 3. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Please see wikipedia's core principles, namely: "Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies." "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." The article should clearly state Project Veritas is a conservative activists group sometimes referred to as far-right... or something similar. Far Right is not an objective statement and shouldn't be presented as such unless explained/defined by a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachem131 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Political alignments are normally stated simply, as in this article, if there is not substantial disagreement among reliable sources as to the group's alignment. If you have any contradictory reliable sources, please feel free to supply them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC) There are dozens of reliable sources that refer to it merely as a "conservative activist group" or "right wing activist group" etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachem131 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Far-right groups are both right-wing and conservative, so that is both unsurprising and not contradictory. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Conservative and "far right" are not interchangeable terms, that is false. You are clearly violating the core principles as stated by wikipedia: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic... This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachem131 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC) I did not write that they were "interchangeable". I wrote that sources describing a group as "conservative" do not contradict the sources that describe it as "far-right", because far-right groups are, by definition, conservative and right-wing. I would invite you to read the many conversations on this exact topic in this talk page history; I personally have no interest in repeating them. You might start with Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 5#Change "Far-right" to "Conservative", but there are plenty others. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Conservative and Far-Right are distinctive terms that do invalidate each other. But that is not necessarily relevant since the core values state: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias..." this means not using loaded, biased terms when a more neutral term is applicable and represented by a large number of reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachem131 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Please sign your posts by including ~~~~ at the end so I don't have to keep doing it for you. I'll leave a note with further instructions on your talk page. Please peruse the archives and review past discussions on this. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC) WP:NPOV means "neutral according to the best sources", not "neutral according to the minority opinion". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC) "neutral according to the best sources" means not using loaded, biased terms when a more neutral term is applicable and represented by a large number of reliable sources. That is the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachem131 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC) References

See Talk:Project_Veritas/Archive_4#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_16_April_2021. If you don't like that PV is described by most sources as far-right, that's not Wikipedia's problem. "Neutral according to the best sources" means "using the same language as them". Now you can either A) accept that consensus is against you and stop beating the poor dead horse or you can B) continue ignoring us, and assume the consequences of your disruptive dead-horse beating. We're an encyclopedia, which means we are not a far-right apologia website and that we are not censored. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Minor Edit: punctuation; noun/verb number agreement (as previously used)

Correction to [History]paragraph 2 beginning "In 2017..."

ORIGINAL
Rather than uncritically publish a story that accused Republican candidate Moore of impregnating a teenager, The Washington Post critically examined the story that they were presented with, checked the source, assessed her credibility and ultimately found that there was no merit to her claims, and that instead Project Veritas were trying to dupe The Washington Post.
PROPOSED
Rather than uncritically publish a story that accused Republican candidate Moore of impregnating a teenager, The Washington Post critically examined the story that they were presented with, checked the source, assessed her credibility
, <insert>
and ultimately found that there was no merit to her claims, and that instead Project Veritas
were <delete>
was <insert>
trying to dupe The Washington Post.
________________________________________________
...submitted by Elevedevie (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the detailed and clear description. -- M.boli (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

P.S.: You can get the more formal-looking edit request with this templage: {{edit extended-protected|Project Veritas}} where Project Veritas is the page you are targeting for your edit request. But not using that template is fine. -- M.boli (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The Amy Rorbach hot mic video

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2021

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

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

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

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

Project Veritas vs NYTimes

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

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

I believe sources on this been posted here before. It's been going on for a while. [4] There are various sources reporting the NY Supreme Court ruling in favor of Project Veritas on Friday, but probably none you'll like. [5] Pkeets (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• We don't base our coverage of a topic on primary sources (court documents), nor do we do speculation about what the outcome of a lawsuit may be, so this is all very dangerously close to being an off-topic WP:NOTFORUM discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Pkeets: You would do well to remember Dennis Brown's advice from the April arbitration enforcement conversation about your conduct: "You need to be careful in how you question sources. Really, the proper place is generally WP:RSN, but they aren't going to kick out CNN, you have to be realistic. You would do good to pick your battles, and then make sure you don't actually battle when you raise the issue, but continue to be respectful and provide solid reasoning, with links. Questioning sources that are generally considered reliable, can be irritating to people; it seems a waste of their time. That isn't a policy violation by itself if done from time to time. If you do so continuously, in a way that inteferes with normal article editing, then that is a violation of WP:DE, and you WILL be sanctioned, without question."
  The discussion of whether the NYT or other generally reliable sources that Project Veritas has targeted with its various "exposés" can be used as sources here has been asked and answered so many times that it's included in the FAQ (#4). Your argument that this has somehow changed solely because the case has moved forward to depositions, which itself is a statement you've only been able to source to New Tang Dynasty Television (RSP entry) who themselves are sourcing statements directly to Project Veritas, is a far cry from "solid reasoning". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Ya know, I don't usually comment on things in Wikipedia, but this sounds dangerously like threats to suppress free speech and dissent about this organization. What Pkeets posted looks like an ordinary update recommendation to me. So your immediate response it to bring up conduct arbitration and tell them to "be careful"? How will this look to potential new editors in Wikipedia? Sooner2020 (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I linked to the arbitration enforcement request, where you (and anyone else) can review the history to see that what looks to you to be a single "ordinary update recommendation" is a part of a pattern of disruptive behavior. As for "suppressing free speech and dissent about this organization", please see WP:FREESPEECH. We are an encyclopedia, not a platform for personal opinions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Pkeets record of contributions and list of Barnstars, they look like a good editor, the kind of person Wikipedia needs. I don't see any pattern of disruptive behavior over most of their history and there's no ban currently in effect. I'm not going to get into an argument about this and get you to threatening me, but this looks like bullying behavior. Pease out. Sooner2020 (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to the above, when (and if) PV win then PV may have shown the NYT was in the wrong. But that would still not mean we are unless we were the sole source for the NYT. But filing a case and winning it are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

My objective is only to address the comment "this sounds dangerously like threats to suppress free speech and dissent about this organization": You have zero right to free speech on a privately owned website. Zero. You sound rather foolish by saying you do. The 1st Amendment protects you from government interference, not interference on private property, and Wikipedia is a privately held corporation. Btw, I don't see any of this silliness as an attempt to censor anyone, it is all about running a website with sensible rules. You will be much happier here when you accept that you have NO rights on a privately owned website, any privately owned website. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

But isn't it a conflict of interest to cite NYT when describing PV, after PV has exposed them? Not only that but articles being addressed in the lawsuit are being cited on this page. (Not to mention that NYT has cited this Wikipedia page in their lawsuit). And for PV not being a reliable source, remember that they've never lost a lawsuit. 2605:B100:12D:F05C:EC92:5C9C:75D2:5BDB (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

No. Because by that logic, PV could suddenly make any news source ineligible for citation on this page by "exposing them." The "never lost a lawsuit" bit is disingenuous, and just shows us where you're getting your information (PV themselves). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

never lost a lawsuit' but settled at least one case and pled guilty in another. -- M.boli (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

See the FAQ. This has been asked and answered over and over in the archives of this talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

When the time comes to write about the suit against the New York Times, I think a suitable reference could be this article from the Columbia Journalism Review -- M.boli (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Grueskin, Bill (May 18, 2021). "A matter of opinion: Project Veritas, the New York Times, and a bitter defamation suit". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2021-08-18.

That's an opinion piece, so WP:RSEDITORIAL will come into play... GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It is an opinion piece, clearly slugged as such. It is a reported opinion article by a journalism professor, published in a top-tier magazine covering journalism issues. Grueskin interviewed and quotes the parties involved and describes his sources. But at the same time Grueskin also lets us know his opinion on a variety of aspects of the suit. I wouldn't hesitate to cite the article for describing the suit and its history. With the caveat that RSEDITORIAL seems entirely apt: stick to the facts. -- M.boli (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to @Shearonink for organizing and clarifying those long lists of references.

Thank you to @Shearonink: for organizing and clarifying those long lists of references. In addition to making the article more reader-friendly, it helps reinforce the credibility of the article against criticism. -- M.boli (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That's my hope. It's an ongoing project at this point, there are still a few more referencing-definitions for me to deal with here. I just want to make it very plain to the readers, our customers, who happen upon this subject that the editors who have worked on this article have actually and really done their due diligence. Shearonink (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is an opinion piece

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.

---

The use of op-eds as sources, the biased use of language, and the clear hostility of the writing of this article makes it clear that accuracy was not the intention of the most recent version. This article is far from academic and resembles vandalism. I find it ironic that this article is protected from vandalism so that it can appear in its current form.

Due to my own political biases, I can not, in good conscious, edit this article myself; however, it is disturbing that this article has come to look the way it does. An objective third party should rewrite this article if it is to be treated as factual in any way.

Usually, when controversial topics are to be presented in an objective manner, multiple perspectives are taken into account and no one interpretation is treated as if it was given by the arbiter of truth. People need to acknowledge their conflicts of interest to prevent this website from becoming a collection of opinion articles. GigaDerp (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE TrangaBellam (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It bothers me that, in the opening lines, the article asserts that the true purpose of the organization is deception as though they can read James O’Keefe’s mind. How can someone claim to know the reason for someone else’s actions, especially when they are in direct contradiction with the person’s stated reasons? GigaDerp (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Also wp:soap, but please tell us which sources you object to, and which ones you have that offer any counterpoints to what we say.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

THey can look at a person's actions and see if that tallies with what they say. FOr example.

I am not the sort of person who makes typos, such as inserting random capital letters, would you say that is demonstrably false?Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The lede doesn't say the purpose is deception, it says PV is deceptive. It says PV produces deceptive videos, uses secret recordings, and undercover operations. Factual, no mind-reading. Since O'Keefe is the author of these deceptions, it could arguably be malpractice to take his word on what his intentions are. -- M.boli (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not an unbiased article. "Far-Right" is not an objective term. it is a term used to conjure up emotions and to discredit the organization described. While I may be "right-leaning" in my own personal views, all this means is that I am not qualified to right this article. This article needs to be flagged and re-written by a committee of people who will ensure a great objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan.savage511 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Evan, Wikipedia is founded on verifiability (See WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS). This means that Wikipedia uses whichever descriptors are used in reliable sources. In this case, it looks like we have 14 references for “far-right”. Like Slatersteven said above, are there any issues with the sources cited, or are there any reliable sources we’re missing that contradict what’s in this Wikipedia article? Politanvm ^talk 20:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

According to WP:RSEDITORIAL: op-eds are "...rarely reliable for statements of fact.". A lot of claims of Project Veritas being "far right" or "deceptively editing videos" have been retracted. Those that haven't been retracted should be checked to make sure they're not repeating a claim that was retracted. -- Frotz(talk) 22:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. The remark about Project Veritas being "far-right" is entirely opinion and has no factual merit, and there are no factual reportings on Project Veritas to verify that claim It's virtually all op-eds or articles that had to be retracted later because of their mischaracterization. As also stated, op-eds are generally not reliable in the first place. Using the "False balance" premise as reason for the absurd wording of this article is an absurdity unto itself, as none of the objected-to statements are extraordinary. There is zero proof the purpose of Project Veritas is "disinformation". I motion for a more balanced re-write.Crun31 (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Some, but not all, of the sources are op-eds. At a glance, I’m not seeing the retractions. It’s be helpful to go through the sources to find which specific ones have issues. Politanvm ^talk 04:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is the outcome of many months, years even, of intense scrutiny and contentious arm-wrestling. The article didn't spontaneously come into being. Many have had their say and the article's current form reflects consensus. If you have specific content you believe should change, I suggest you specify it here, or just WP:BEBOLD and make revisions. soibangla (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

OK simple request, post here any of the sources we use for "far-right" that have been retracted.Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2021 (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.

Tennessee Star as a source for verifiable statements of fact on Wikipedia

See Nashville Scene article, this 2019 Snopes article/"Hiding in Plain Sight: PAC-Connected Activists Set Up ‘Local News’ Outlets, this 2018 Politico article/"Baby Breitbarts to pop up across the country?", MediaBiasFactCheck report plus The Tennessee Star on Wikipedia.... Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Really an wp:rsn question.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't disagree, just that it has been brought up at the article because of recent coverage. TS has already been discussed in the past at rsn at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 263#The Tennessee Star. Shearonink (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Verifying sources

I'll be going over sources to see where statements of "right wing", "disinformation", "deceptively editing", and the like originated. This will take a long time, but I feel the effort is well worth it. To start off, subscript 3 aggregates twelve distinct sources and seems a major source of potential trouble. I haven't seen that sort of thing at Wikipedia. When did it start? Second, subscript 27 stuck out very prominently as being a citation for USPS employee Richard Hopkins retracting his claim of vote fraud. Shortly after that article was published and repeated elsewhere besides Forbes, Hopkins asserted that he never made such a retraction. This is the sort of thing I will be investigating. -- Frotz(talk) 04:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Bundled multiple sources have long been common, particularly for contentious content that has been challenged. The article now includes "Hopkins publicly denied that he had recanted his allegations." soibangla (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Even better. Hopkins denying his recantation, with reference, was in the original write-up last November. This part of the story was never overlooked on this page. -- M.boli (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/pennsylvania-postal-worker-waffles-on-election-fraud-claim/Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to imply that he continuously denied he had recanted his allegations, anyway. Reports from shortly afterwards (relying on the final report of the investigation and audio recordings of his discussions with investigators) clearly showed he recanted, and all coverage from WP:RSes reflects that - so we ought to say that he recanted in the article voice as an uncontested fact. All such sources also note that he had "no comment" after that point, so my reading is that he initially recanted, then went silent when the recording was released that made it clear that he had done so. --Aquillion (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Or we can say "he recanted his testimony, then changed his mind claiming that they “They were grilling the hell out of me. … I feel like I just got played.” despite saying (in the interview) he was comfortable participating".Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you talking about his interview with Veritas or his interview with the postal investigator? Also, I'm not finding much corroboration of Hopkins having no comment or anything at all to say about the USPS Inspector General's report from March 2021. If Alice is grilling Bob and managing to get under his skin, I think it very unlikely that Bob is completely honest when answering "yes" to Alice's question of "Are you comfortable?". This effect should be obvious to anyone who has observed bullying or been a victim of bullying. This article should not state the recantation is an uncontested fact, particularly given that many of the same Reliable Sources have themselves had to make retractions concerning Project Veritas. -- Frotz(talk) 03:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I am talking about what an RS has said. the rest of you comment is wp:or or wp:synthesis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Frotz, I'm not saying you're wrong, but please would you show examples of how many of the same Reliable Sources have themselves had to make retractions concerning Project Veritas? I see that in 2017 O'Keefe characterized as a "retraction" what was actually a tiny correction, namely that a WaPo reporter incorrectly wrote that PV said a CNN producer was based in Atlanta rather than in Atlanta, where CNN is headquartered.[6][7] I also see PV has a "retractions" page, but the example I just cited makes me skeptical they are actually retractions. Is that the source of your assertion? soibangla (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Category: anti-islam sentiment

Hi RandomCanadian you reverted my deletion of the category: anti-islam sentiment with the question: “why do we have a category anti-islam political parties“? A) this doesn’t seem to be a reason for reverting at all, b) it doesn’t address the problem: namely that per the categories own description, we are not supposed to file people, groups or institutions under it. So, I would like to ask you to self-revert or otherwise we could start addressing the actual problem here: that the RFC from 2011 I linked in my edit doesn’t reflect Wikipedia consensus anymore. What would you like? Mvbaron (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mvbaron: If the 2011 RfC doesn't reflect the existing community practice, then there's no reason for you to go ahead enforcing it. The question I ask is a rhetorical one: obviously, "political parties" are "people, groups or institutions", and well, a 2011 RfC (which is a fait bit of time ago) doesn't hold too much weight if it is at odds with this... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

UNless it has been overturned it still stands. MAybe we need a new RFC?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

+1 I would like that, do you think it's a good idea? and where would I even propose such an RFC? Mvbaron (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

well the problem is twofold: all those categories (anti-something) DO have either a big banner or a written notice that scream at me not to categorise people, groups and institutions under it and, second, a large number of categories (e.g. anti-semitism) do in fact NOT group people, groups etc under it. (so it seems to be at least somewhat practice?) There seems to be a rather big dissonance. Do you think we should remove all those banners from those categories then? Mvbaron (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I ping the editor who added categories on August 9, Sarah Carvalho. Can you say here what justifies your edit? How does the category meet WP:CATDEF requirement that anti-Islam be a defining characteristic? I see mentions of Muslims in the article but that was seemingly part of an act. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you have nailed it. I see no evidence that PV fits the definition. -- M.boli (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality

Just came here and noticed something. The start of this article goes immediately into language that is designed to discredit Project Veritas. You don't get 2 sentences in before the lead goes to opinions regarding the veracity of their news reports. By comparison, here is CNN:

"The Cable News Network (CNN) is a multinational news-based pay television channel headquartered in Atlanta, United States.[3][4][5] It is owned by CNN Worldwide, a unit of the WarnerMedia News & Sports division of AT&T's WarnerMedia.[6] It was founded in 1980 by American media proprietor Ted Turner and Reese Schonfeld as a 24-hour cable news channel.[7][8][9] Upon its launch in 1980, CNN was the first television channel to provide 24-hour news coverage,[10] and was the first all-news television channel in the United States.[11]

As of September 2018, CNN has 90.1 million television households as subscribers (97.7% of households with cable) in the United States.[12] According to Nielsen, in June 2021 CNN ranked third in viewership among cable news networks, behind Fox News and MSNBC, averaging 580,000 viewers throughout the day, down 49% from a year earlier, amid sharp declines in viewers across all cable news networks.[13] CNN ranks 14th among all basic cable networks.[14][15]

The network is known for its dramatic live coverage of breaking news, some of which has drawn criticism as overly sensationalistic, and for its efforts to be nonpartisan, which have led to accusations of false balance.[21]"

It takes 3 paragraphs before you come to information regarding criticism of CNN. Granted, I think that's where it should be, about 3 paragraphs into the lead, because CNN (regardless of your opinion of them) is more than their criticism. There isn't a problem with listing the criticism for PV in the lead (the lead summarizes the article), but the fact that you cannot go more than 1 sentence before the page immediately starts into negative viewpoints, with not a single neutral/positive statement (outside of the first sentence) shows that this page is in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:LEAD. You may have an FAQ that argues against this, but it is undeniable that this page is being singled out compared to every other mainstream media page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe that is because PV has been very widely criticized by RS, and we go with what RS considers important.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Here is why coverage (about medical matters) like this https://www.techarp.com/science/project-veritas-pfizer-nick-karl/ and their own law suits https://padailypost.com/2021/10/21/conservative-news-organization-sues-stanford/ .Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

PV is reliably sourced as a far-right activist group. Is CNN comparably characterized by reliable sources, or only by...far-right activist groups? soibangla (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

... this page is being singled out compared to every other mainstream media page. Is PV "mainstream media?" Also PV is hardly "singled out" by having an accurate lede sentence. -- M.boli (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why does it matter which is a mainstream media? The same standard should apply. BenW (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The article is very charged and biased. The whole thing should be rewritten to be more neutral. There is nothing wrong with reporting on consequences or on claims people make about them, as long as those claims are made like "so and so accused PV of disinformation". However taking a position on if it is or isn't disinformation in the article itself is biased. BenW (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. We give due weight to differing positions based upon their prevalence and credence in reliable sources. Reliable sources describe Project Veritas as disinformation, and therefore so will we. The end. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Basically, Veritas are an organization devoted to slandering others. We should not pretend anything they say has a factual basis. Dimadick (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the number of sources that have said it, as opposed to the number of sources that say they do not mislead and misrepresent.Slatersteven (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

And the quality of those sources. Invariably, most of the sources which/who defend PV are unreliable sources. That means that due weight considerations tip the scale and our bias for RS is revealed by content that is mostly unfavorable to PV. That's how it's supposed to be. -- Valjean (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I decided to take it as read that the sources have to pass wp:rs. It really is time people started reading our FAQ before posting here.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A ‘political spying operation’

Interesting:

• Opinion: Judge rules that opponents may call Project Veritas a ‘political spying operation’ in ongoing case

Valjean (talk) 02:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure we can use this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

We definitely can't use an opinion piece. If some other news outlets report on it, we might be able to reference it, but I'd still be hesitant to say it in Wikipedia's voice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No one is suggesting wikivoice. Opinions can be used. Just attribute properly and don't describe opinions as facts. -- Valjean (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not every opinion is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. If this is from an ongoing legal case, then maybe this will become, in due time, something significant. Or maybe not. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NORUSH both apply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely right. As I wrote, it's interesting. -- Valjean (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

That WaPo article Opinion: Judge Rules ... brings up two small items that maybe could improve the article.

• a) Project Veritas Action is a 501(c)(4) political organization, PV is a 501(c)(3). I think this article conflates the two. It only briefly mentions PVA as a separate entity . Conflating the two seems natural because they are both run by the same O'Keefe producing and disseminating the same stuff. To the best of my understanding PVA releases and promotes the videos that PV manufactures. The two organizations are distinct for tax purposes: PV is a tax-deductible non-profit which should not be engaging in political activity, while contributions to PVA are not deductible and it is permitted to engage in political activity.
• b) O'Keefe has written two books on his PV activities, viz: Breakthrough and American Pravda. Neither of these books are so much as mentioned here. I'm guessing they may contain material which could be used in this article. Note: both books are listed in the O'Keefe article, where only Pravda is actually referenced in one only place.

I'm thinking there are opportunities for refining this article. -- M.boli (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The legal distinction between the 501(c)(3) and the (c)(4) doesn't seem to have much of a practical impact, does it? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It does not affect the thrust of the article, I'm just being a pedantic Wikipedia editor.

• C3s are charities, they cannot engage in partisan political activity or lobby Congress. (Some C3s just skirt the law and deny it is partisan politics.)
• C4s are "social welfare organizations" which can can engage in lobbying, and were liberated by the Citizens United decision to engage in partisan politics. Also C4s don't have to disclose donors. Much of the dark money in US politics is funneled through C4s. (C3s can sometimes get around donor reporting requirements by using the donor-advised fund dodge, as PV does.)

Pairs of C3 + C4 organizations have become common. This article barely mentions the C4 branch of the organizational tree, in the Funding and organization section, without saying it is a C4 or what it does. Also there is no indication about C4 funding. But funding for PV is only sparsely covered in this article anyway. See the ACLU lede section for an example of how Wikipedia can write this C3+C4 arrangement up. It could stay in the current section. -- M.boli (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Timeline

How can Project Veritas have produced videos on ACORN in 2009 when it was founded in 2010? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

O'Keefe and others who would go on to found Veritas made their fame through their deceptive ACORN videos. It was that incident which led them to form Project Veritas. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This should be made clear in the article then (the history just says it was founded in 2010 then skips to 2016) and sentences like "The organization produced deceptively edited videos targeting the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now..." should be rewritten. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Deceptive Edit

The first article cited on the deceptive edit claim (The Goss, Brian Michael (March 12, 2018). "Veritable Flak Mill".) does not mention deceptive edits. I would remove citation but the article is locked, even though I am a registered user and logged in. datagod (talk) 🍁 15:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That citation includes multiple other sources, not just Goss. The reference to Choi specifically includes the phrase "footage that has been deceptively edited". — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've requested that article via interlibrary loan. If in fact the article does not support the deceptive editing claim, I'll edit this article accordingly. I'll report back when I receive the article, which could take a week or more. -- M.boli (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I do have access. The Goss et al article broadly discusses PV's deceptive editing practices several times, and at one point uses the exact words: [PV engaged in] a blatant deception through editing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. The power of Wikipedia crowd-sourcing! From the abstract of the article, the author was clear that the Acorn videos made false claims. But I didn't have that one detail about deceptive editing. (Also, it looks like the article could be an interesting read.) -- M.boli (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The citation includes other sources, yes. I should have said I would remove the Goss article from the list of articles. It is not afterall an article, but a link to a summary. A purchase is required to get to the full article. Is this acceptable to Wikipedia? I have a bad feeling about that. datagod (talk) 🍁 04:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

It is both acceptable and quite common: WP:PAYWALL. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

As GorillaWarfare points out, it is acceptable for sources to be behind a paywall, or even offline-only. As long as someone can access the work, that's sufficient. So nothing that's so out-of-print & rare that it's virtually impossible to get a copy, but being behind a paywall or only available in print is fine. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Lets also add, and in the EU you can't access certain US sources, does that mean they should be removed as I can't verify them? How about a book I do not own? You not having access to it dos not mean its not an RS. But you can ask for a quote if you are unsure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The Brian Goss article also discussed PV's 2014 bogus allegations against a voter registration drive in Texas, a lacuna in this Wikipedia list of PV activities. So now we have remedied that. -- M.boli (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead Formatting Issue?

Is there currently a formatting problem with the Lead? It looks like a couple of citations got converted into a bulleted list that got stuck into the middle of a sentence of the main text. I didn’t want to “fix” this if it’s not actually a mistake—especially in the Lead of a high-traffic article on a contentious subject. If this is an error, I’m happy to fix it, or someone else certainly can.Thanksforhelping (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If you're referring to cite #3, yeah, it's a bulleted list because there's so many citations which describe PV as spreading disinformation. Rather than having multiple different cites, they're just all bulleted together for that particular citation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Logo

Is the logo supposed to look like that? Bogdan6222 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it is what their logo looks like, so yes.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Far-Right?

What information suggests that this organization is “far-right?” -Stiabhna (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#cite_note-far-right-17 soibangla (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

So, a book tells you that it’s far-right? -Stiabhna (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Among the thirteen other sources in that cite group, yes. This is addressed in the FAQ at the top of the page, by the way. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Sorry if I sounded rude. Does Wikipedia allow conservatives? I am very conservative in real life, so I was just wondering. Thanks. -Stiabhna (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia welcomes people of all political orientations. The same policies and guidelines apply to all editors. — Newslinger talk 14:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely none Tachyon (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Apart form the RS we list?Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've just added Virginia Law Review, so the article now cites an academic publication about disinformation, a law review, a journalism review, and 12 other reliable news publications for this descriptor. The cited sources are not an exhaustive listing of the available sources. — Newslinger talk 13:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"I am very conservative in real life" Per Wikipedia:No personal attacks, you are not allowed to use "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality" Just a reminder, as we already had problems with Neo-Nazi would-be editors. Dimadick (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Far right?

But Jacobin isn't "far-left"? Funny how that works. Articles like this are exactly why I quit donating to Wikipedia years ago, and never will again.

PV is not far-right (laughably the first source even calls them "alt-right") and a bunch of leftist journalists, who have had their friends targeted, repeating an opinion over and over doesn't make it a fact. They have deceptively edited things in the past, just like the NYT has published fiction by Jason Blair as fact and pushed out Bennett for publishing a mainstream opinion by a national politician, yet I don't need to read the NYT Wiki to know that the lede doesn't say "The NYT is a far-left organization publishing fantasy and plagiarism masquerading as journalism." Because that's an untrue statement - just like the ones in this lede. Wikipedia is a joke. Edit away kiddos, "your truth" is right behind that "delete" button! Jbtvt (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. Since you are using a mobile device, you can do this by tapping the "About this page" link immediately underneath "Talk:Project Veritas". — Newslinger talk 08:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)