This is a biased article

This is an opinion based article. It actively attacks Project Veritas throughout and contains opinions, perversions of the truth, and straight up lies. It goes as far as pinning Project Veritas as a right wing disinformation campaign. This ignores actions taken by Project Veritas against Republicans and Republican candidates in the past and even in recent months. It contains no quotations from Project Veritas or James O'Keefe and actively contradicts rebuttals and responses they have made in the past at the accusations presented here. These accusations aren't even presented as such, instead being presented as absolute fact. On a website designed to contain facts and only facts, this presentation of Project Veritas is ignorant at best and downright intentional defamation at worst.

This article also conveniently aligns with the position of the New York Times and their lawyers in Project Veritas's upcoming law suit against them. Their lawyers even quoted from the article as evidence in their case. I can't help but believe this is why the general public is not allowed to edit this article while much more important articles are allowed to be edited by anyone. This behavior by Wikipedia to prevent Project Veritas from being viewed in an unbiased light is disgusting.

I call for this article to be opened, significantly revamped, or outright removed if Wikipedia can not see to it that the facts and only the facts be presented. Political opinions or not, this article is absolutely unacceptable and everyone should be able to get reliable information from it, as that is the way it should be in all Wikipedia articles. JoIsAGod (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Sorry that you disagree with the reliable sources cited here. If you have reliable sources which aren't considered in this article and should be, please feel free to present them here. Or if you think something in this article isn't supported by reliable sources, please state specifically what you believe is not sourced. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but facts famously don't care about your feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lol sorry champ but Media Matters and Joe Walsh are not reliable sources. SteelHuszar (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there is something that is *only* sourced to Media Matters, I would agree that we should probably find a better source to back it up, or remove it. Which section in particular are you referring to? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went and looked. There is no single statement or section that is only sourced to Media Matters.
  • It is cited as a source together with a Oxford University Press publication and the New York Times in the infobox as sources for PV's purpose as being disinformation.
  • Media Matters plus the Associated Press, New Republic, Huffington Post, Salon, New Zealand Herald, Foreign Policy.Com, Forbes Magazine, USA Today, and CNBC are cited as sources for defining PV as a "far right" activist group in the first sentence of the lead section. Shearonink (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So it's just being used as a backup source, then. Essentially harmless, but I wouldn't even object to removing it, it's not a particularly high-quality source. And doing so would change the article not a jot. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced both citations of Media Matters for America (RSP entry) with higher-quality sources. I've also removed the "US–Mexico border-crossing (2014)" section as undue weight, since the incident received little media attention and resulted in no significant consequences. The removed section contained the article's only citation of Joan Walsh of Salon (RSP entry). Although neither of these removed citations are considered generally unreliable, the complaint on the sourcing has been resolved. — Newslinger talk 10:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project Veritas by nature investigates the media and the use of media opinion pieces as fact after Project Veritas investigates them is a horrendous oversight. JoIsAGod (talk) 05:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way it works on Wikipedia. By foundational policy, our articles are based on material published in reliable sources. If you want to change whether a source is considered reliable or not, you may open a discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard and seek to create a new consensus. But your mere declarations that because Project Veritas purportedly "investigates the media," we must reject all other reliable sources... well, that's just not how it works here. Sorry. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the sources, they are infact consistently opinion pieces on Project Veritas and even other random subjects written by left wing news organizations that Project Veritas has had cases against. The New York Times, which Project Veritas are currently taking to court for defamation, is used as a source several times. This is like having Putin write the Wikipedia article for the US. JoIsAGod (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That Project Veritas has filed a lawsuit is of literally no consequence here. Anyone can file a lawsuit over anything. Has Project Veritas won a lawsuit against The New York Times? No? Then their lawsuit is largely immaterial to this article. It might be worth a mention, but it's not going to change how we treat the NYT here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article cites high-quality academic sources, including Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts, published by Oxford University Press, for some of the statements you are objecting to. The conclusions from the Network Propaganda report were echoed by reliable news sources. On Wikipedia, neutrality entails "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". As a disinformation operation, Project Veritas is not a reliable source and its claims deserve minimal to no weight unless republished by reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If PV wins its court case you might have a point, until it does the NYT is a wp:rs on this topic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absolutely shameful article that is real discredit to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.180.221 (talk) 15:33, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any concrete suggestions based upon what wP:rs say?Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is why Wikipedia is not a reliable source. PV is far right? What has PV said that espouses "fascism and Nazism . . . neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableDave (talk • contribs) 17:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources claim, without evidence, that it is far-right. None of them point to any of the beliefs above or statements in line with them. It's just people repeating a familiar talking point. PV even went after Bernie Sanders for what they believed to be potential Nazis tactics. I'm not a big fan of PV, but this is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableDave (talk • contribs) 17:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PV is not a person, it is an organization.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.

They are RS because they are assumed to check.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more than opinion. Like asking your adversary for an unbiased, reliable biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableDave (talk • contribs) 19:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but do you have any RS that say they are not far right? Or are you just offering THEIR opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The far-right descriptor is a factual claim, not an opinion, and your argument about an "adversary" was rejected in a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 69 § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus?. — Newslinger talk 10:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that PV is a fascist, neo-nazis organization. They are making a claim, they don't have evidence. Anyone making this claim must back it up with evidence, not those refuting it, the onerous is on the individual making the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReliableDave (talk • contribs) 19:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not claim that Project Veritas is "fascist" or "neo-Nazi". But see the following, for which there is plenty of evidence already cited in the article:
  • Tumber, Howard; Waisbord, Silvio (March 24, 2021). The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-34678-7. Retrieved 19 March 2021 – via Google Books. False information can make movements defend the accuracy of their own claims and materials because of doubt sowed by countermovements and governments (Tufekci 2017). For instance, Project Veritas, an alt-right group, has a track record of attacking movements through misleading editing of videos and through fabricated 'sting' operations (Benkler et al. 2018).
Recall that the alt-right is a subset of the far right. — Newslinger talk 10:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they're so right they caught and published on video a Republican Senator attempting to break the law? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34MMArMNktc). See the Washington Post article : https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/04/10/james-okeefe-is-at-it-again-in-wisconsin-against-a-republican/ if you only care about RS. Would it be possible to add this in content in 2014 (hole between 2012 and 2016)? Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be much coverage of the Mike Ellis incident. I found this while looking for more:

When I ask [Project Veritas member Robert] Halderman, he says [Project Veritas] won't exclusively be targeting Democrats. This is hard to believe. Project Veritas has made little effort to ever damage Republicans. The one example its leaders cite—a takedown of Wisconsin Senate President Mike Ellis—had the hallmarks of a contracted kill. The year before Ellis was caught on video discussing setting up an illegal political action committee, Project Veritas received $50,000 from Eric O’Keefe. He is no relation to James, but he is the director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth—a longtime nemesis of Ellis. It wasn’t hard for Madison insiders to put two and two together, even though O’Keefe insists, “There’s no for-sale sign on my door.”

Alberta, Tim (May–June 2018). "James O'Keefe Can't Get No Respect". Politico. Retrieved 26 March 2021.

— Newslinger talk 20:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting article, I like how they discussed PV's future projects "Halderman says that going mainstream is long overdue. “We want to do more projects that are not political,” he says. “We think there’s a lot out there that needs to be exposed that isn’t left or right, or conservative or liberal, it’s just wrong.”" which their network of Big Tech whistleblowers seems to accomplish. Seriously, Politoco's claims look like conspiracy theories, it's not because someone benefits from an action that he orchestrated it. Also, I'd like to underline : Eric (not James) O'Keefe is a Libertarian, not left or right. Either : he didn't do it for money -> PV would not be far-right OR he did it for money and betrayed the right -> not far-right. Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your commentary is original research, and cannot be cited in the article. The far-right descriptor is amply supported by these 14 reliable sources, including the high-quality academic source (Routledge) I quoted above. — Newslinger talk 22:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well PV saying they want to get away from politics was in the Politico article, a reliable source, and was a direct quote from Project Veritas. Or were you making reference to where I used a catch-22? <- sorry :( A lie repeated, no matter how many times, does not make it true (see this Star Trek episode where Picard is told that there are five lights repeateadly when there are in fact four lights : Chain_of_Command_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)). Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In "The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism", here is the source used to claim PV is alt-right : Benkler et al. (2018) titled "Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election". The latter did not use the words alt-right, but rather "right-wing disinformation outfit" and that was inaccurate as they tried to make it as if PV wanted fake stories published (following the Washington Post story) whereas they wanted to expose media bias. Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Wikipedia, reliable sources generally do not have a verifiability policy and are allowed to include original research. The verifiability policy only applies to Wikipedia articles (e.g. the Project Veritas article), not to the content of any cited reliable sources. The policy against original research on Wikipedia precludes your description of Project Veritas's unsuccessful sting of The Washington Post from being cited in this article, but allows for the descriptions found in reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 03:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the postal worker : he has been pressured by feds. He recorded the occurrence which I invite you to listen to (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkNkQ2nDQfc) and he said on camera that he stands by his initial claims (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibU5KVFCg4Y) but you completely ignored this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caretorepeatunderoath (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Project Veritas YouTube (RSP entry) channel is not a reliable source, especially for claims related to living persons. — Newslinger talk 20:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove source 52 and all its content (27,37, 49, 50 and 51) which you use to promote the idea that PV spreads conspiracy theories. Name one and we'll debunk your claim.

27 : "The far-right conspiracy theory-driven group Project Veritas is offering rewards of $25,000 for tips relating to election fraud in Pennsylvania. " -> Voter fraud is not a conspiracy, it exists for real. Offering a reward/compensation for the risks someone has to take is not illegal. Also, they provide no evidence proving PV is a conspiracy theory group.

37 : "O’Keefe’s outing as a duplicitous purveyor of fake news – and an incompetent one at that" : The goal of PV was not to spread a fake story, but rather to expose Washington Post's bias. Also there is no mention of "conspiracy theory" in this article.

49 : " Right-wing conspiracy theories are spread by homegrown US outfits such as Project Veritas[..] and Infowars" -> Weird to put those two in the same category as they report mostly on different subjects and Veritas is a not-for-profit organism. Also, the only conspiracy theory in question would be that Trump lost because of widespread voter fraud. Yet, that should not stop Project Veritas from questioning ILLEGAL practices and getting results : https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/texas-woman-arrested-voter-fraud-charges. This is as ridiculous as making the problem being people talking about fraud instead of the fraud itself. I'd like to add that this is a book (full of opinions) review and it appears those are passages from the book. Hardly a good source for a Wikipedia article.

50 : "In a similar cycle, the Fox News host Sean Hannity and conservative publications magnified the reach of a deceptive video released last month by Project Veritas, a group run by the conservative activist James O’Keefe. The video claimed without named sources or verifiable evidence that the campaign for Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, was collecting ballots illegally" -> First, this had nothing to do with the Presidential Race. Second, having 300 ballots in the car was illegal at this time, 3 was the limit and the man in the video (Liban Mohamed) cleary bragged about money and ballots. It's not because it is not in English that it does not pertain to reality (https://www.projectveritas.com/news/ilhan-omar-connected-cash-for-ballots-voter-fraud-scheme-corrupts-elections/). Third, this is based on Maggie Hastor's hit piece which has been the first case since 1965 where NYT were refused to dismiss https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20518694-order_denying_motion_to_dismiss. The judge concluded "The facts submitted by Veritas could indicate more than standard, garden variety media bias and support a plausible inference of actual malice".

51 : "Project Veritas is a right-wing conspiracy theory website that critics say relies on doctored videos and aggressive, videotaped altercations to promote radical ideas and often baseless conspiracy theories in an attempt to discredit those they oppose." Still not one conspiracy. If you want to keep claiming here on Wikipedia that something is a conspiracy theory website at least tell me what PV is stating that is patently false and based on suppositions. This article is based on claims by Business Insider here : https://www.businessinsider.com/james-okeefe-project-veritas-sting-fails-2017-11 which do not include any mention of "conspiracy theory" Also, this didn't age well as they defended the American Federation of Teachers (covered up violence on students), the LOSING SIDE of the suit. The whole article is a compilation of O'Keefe's mistakes, not conspiracy theories. However, there is a mention of the Open Society, a target of conspiracy theories.

Nonetheless, O'Keefe was investigating its interference in foreign politics where it funds organizations for political and financial gains. If reporters cannot report on targets of "conspiracies", investigative journalism would be seriously impaired. An example of this phenomenon is ABC's anchor Amy Robach knowing about Epstein's Island in 2015, many years before it became public, but was denied to report on it (exposed thanks to Project Veritas).

In short, PV is not about "baseless conspiracy theories", it has sources coming to them and them reaching out to future sources. Undercover journalism is all about finding evidence instead of simply theorizing. It is quite the opposite of baseless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caretorepeatunderoath (talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Caretorepeatunderoath: Name one and we'll debunk your claim. Who is "we"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven : I hope this claim is not based on circular sourcing like when the New York Times admitted in court having based themselves on Wikipedia, and then you cite them...

@GorillaWarfare : "We" were NOT Project Veritas, but rather the concerned users of Wikipedia trying to end the bias here. Unfortunately, we don't work for Wikipedia, so we don't have time to compensate for your bias alone, we have to work together to make this article acceptable by the community. I can prove to you I do not work for PV via personal messages if you're afraid of that. I sincerely appreciate your concern for integrity.Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As we do not only cite the NYT that is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My point was conspiracy theories should be removed from Project Veritas the same way it was erroneously present on James O'Keefe's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_O%27Keefe) : "O'Keefe is a self described reform Muckraker. As for the claims of being a conspiracy theorist, this needs a reliable source to be cited, if true. Take a close look at the two sources that are bundled together at the end of the lead line - neither one supports the assertion that O'Keefe is a conspiracy theorist. At all. That's troubling for wikipedia that the claim exists on a locked page, with citations that don't support the assertion. [...] Good catch. Neither source classified him as a conspiracy theorist. The first called him a journalist and the second one called him an activist. Quite disturbing this was allowed to stand, given WP:BLP needs caution. The RfC above didn't arrive at any meaningful conclusion other than there could or should be another description besides "activist", but it's unacceptable to classify him as something there isn't a source for. I found one source that calls him a conspiracy theorist, but Forbes contributors aren't considered reliable sources WP:FORBESCON. [...])"Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What we do on another article has no impact here, We judge each article by how RS describe it (even the NYT). Nor do we judge RS by what others think, we judge them by what wPrsn or wp:rsp says.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Caretorepeatunderoath, you are making it look like Jrockets participated in this conversation. Please format your comment to clarify that this is not the case (e.g. by using Template:Talk quote inline) and link to the original comment/diff. Caius G. (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done : removed confusing part of citation.Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are now 7 reliable sources that amply confirm that Project Veritas has propagated conspiracy theories in its videos and operations. I've removed two and added four; the cited sources are all verified with quotes in the citations. — Newslinger talk 22:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
51: RS/PS: "Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated." It is still the best article from those 4 since it comes from a private detective and an anonymous source. Only problem is the article looks like a hit piece w/ personnal vendetta from an ex-employee.

PV are not into "conspiracy theories" like saying 911 was staged, 4th dimensional aliens working with the Nazis, etc. These are absolutely unappealing to them. For many, when you label an organisation as such, it's what is implied and it would be misleading to keep doing so. Their only work that would seem to apparent itself to conspiracy theories is about voter fraud, but they never claimed the overall result to be different from what happened. A lot of their work is about preserving electoral integrity which they did with success -> laws being changed citing them. I almost saved you a lot of work : James O'Keefe said the word conspiracy here : https://www.npr.org/2016/10/19/498587397/sting-video-purports-to-show-democrats-describing-how-to-commit-voter-fraud, but it's about Democrat Party's sub-organizations doing illegal practices to win the 2016 election, a real conspiracy, not theories.

52: Politfact said "Some states do allow ballots postmarked on Nov. 3 to be counted if they arrive in election offices after Nov. 3. Ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 in Pennsylvania, for example, can be received by Nov. 6 and still be counted. "(https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/nov/05/allegations-usps-election-fraud-michigan-dont-hold/) The practice described by the USPS worker(backdating from the 4th to the 3rd), Richard Hopkins, would have affected the outcome. He still stands by his original statement, as he states in his video which I posted earlier : (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibU5KVFCg4Y).

53: Sahan journal is not in the RS.

54: Didn't age well 1 : "Cannot prove voter fraud" -> led to an actual arrestation of someone responsible of "at least 7000 ballots". 2 : Many countries banned the Open Society (which tried to interfere in their politics) after this article.

The only theory Project Veritas often mentions is Carl Jung's theory of the shadow Shadow_(psychology).Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently cites 7 reliable sources supporting the conspiracy theory descriptor, and you have not provided any reliable sources that contradict them. Nobody claimed that Project Veritas is "saying 911 was staged, 4th dimensional aliens working with the Nazis, etc" – that is an instance of the straw man fallacy. Sources do not need to be listed on perennial sources list to be considered reliable; see WP:RSPMISSING. Again, your commentary is original research and cannot be cited into the article. As Wikipedia is not an outlet for promotion, what Project Veritas says about itself is superseded by how independent reliable sources describe Project Veritas. — Newslinger talk 03:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias is what it is. Still no mention of this : https://texasscorecard.com/state/texas-arrests-ballot-chaser-for-multiple-election-fraud-felonies/. Nor that Richard Hopkins was pressured to retract and still publicly stands by his first allegations -> The false affidavit used by "Fact Checkers" signed by Mr. Hopkins is invalid because he signed "no coercion of any kind has been used against me" at the beginning of the interrogation instead of at the end. Also, nobody did a section on their Wall of Shame which has now 336 entries of retractions. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/mar/21/court-refuses-to-dismiss-project-veritas-lawsuit-a/" and their 7-0 record in Court... Plus, Court documents from these should be included in the sources. Thank you for trying your best, but I guess we're going to have to wait until the end of the lawsuit to stop Penrose_stairs claims about Project Veritas. Ciao 'till then! Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 05:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot do " a section" based upon one line, but we could say "Mr. O’Keefe claimes that Veritas “has a wall of shame that contains over 330 retractions, corrections and clarifications from media outlets on its “Wall of Shame,”".Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Absolutely horrible and biased article. How can PV be called a far right wing group that espouses misinformation when they simply present & expose undercover internal conference calls and videos imside major news corporations literally admitting to putting out propaganda and biased reporting. See the latest undercover PV reporting of Charles Chester, CNNs technical director, admitting more that once that CNN practices propaganda. Joseph722 (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia editors don't take this article down or at least site this as biased and in need of major corrections, I will stop all my donations to wikipedia, this is a disgrace. Joseph722 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project Veritas has a documented track record of deceptive and shady practices, cited in the article, and are also a right-wing group, again cited in the article. There are a multitude of reasons, and reading the talk page would prevent us from running in circles. Wikipedia does not work the way you think it does—the article will remain up and in its current state, unless you have specific changes (backed by reliable sources). SWinxy (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We go with what RS say, if they are biased so are we, take it up with them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lecture, you cannot site op-ed pieces which are explicitly opinions as sources. Otherwise we can go back a forth with op-eds and accomplish nothing. PV literally shows videos and audio recordings fully substantiating their claims. For evidence of corroboration, see the invasion of Privacy lawsuits filed by CNN which admit to the authenticity of the videos and audios, but claim they were illegally obtained. I'll site links to both items in a later post. They may have a piltical agenda, but they are proving all media does, just that some of the big media outlets deny that they do. That is not far-right nor disinformation, which are very strong and inappropriate terms. Joseph722 (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph722, we go by what reliable sources say. Which source used is an op-ed? Even if the videos are "authentic", as supposedly claimed by a lawsuit (which is not a reliable source), that doesn't make them less far-right or their content less disinformation.
You are wasting your time arguing about this, just provide reliable sources (and please read the policy page), nobody cares about your nonsensical threats ([1]) or how you would describe what PV does ([2]). Caius G. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And a broken clock is right twice a day, just not lying sometimes does not mean they do not lie most of the time.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your original interpretation of primary sources is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. The far-right and disinformation descriptors are amply supported by reliable secondary sources in Special:Permalink/1014483629 § cite note-far-right-37 and Special:Permalink/1014483629 § cite note-disinformation-14, respectively, none of which are op-eds. — Newslinger talk 13:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional article citing factual investigative reporting from PV: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/apr/13/charles-chester-cnn-staffer-credits-network-bootin/ Article citing CNN claims that PV exposure of audio recordings could be illegal: https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2020/12/03/james-okeefe-cnn-recording-law/ Its up to the viewer/readers to determine the veracity of the video/articles and how they substantiate PVs claims, not Wikipedia contributors.

At a minimum, the assertions that PV is right wing and/or a source of disinformation is deeply contested and should be noted. Also those sources that accuse PV of such extreme characterizations are in conflict of interest since they are often the target if PVs investigative reporting. Joseph722 (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assertions that someone is right-wing are always contested, so they do not need to be noted.
And by your reasoning, all I have to do if I want the Wikipedia article about me to be free from criticism is: target those who criticize me. Then, according to you, they cannot be quoted because they have a "conflict of interest". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it deeply contested, by whom?Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A subject does not get to pick and choose the sources cited in the Wikipedia article about the subject by criticizing the sources it doesn't like. Your "conflict of interest" argument was rejected in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 69 § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus? — Newslinger talk 14:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note WP:RSP#The Washington Times. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia article is extremely biased! Where is the objectivity? FFCharlieP (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, neutrality entails "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 article does so. If you have located reliable sources that provide additional information, feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And read wp:sps before you answer.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting correction in History section

((request edit)) has been deprecated. Please change this template call to one of the following:

If you simply need to ask for help in making an edit, please change the template to ((help me)). In the second paragraph of the History section, please change "O'Keefe issued an apology" to "O'Keefe included this statement in the settlement agreement: ‘O'Keefe regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family’ consistent with the cited sources and per the consensus reached several months ago at Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 1#RfC on verifiability in ACORN section. Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done. Changed "an apology" to "a statement of regret" in Special:Diff/1012755039. The level of detail about the statement in the requested text constitutes undue weight, but the language of the article has been amended to be verifiable to the cited sources. — Newslinger talk 03:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Project Veritas vs. New York Times

Suggest review of material in this article taken from the New York Times in light of the referenced defamation suit. A judge this week refused to dismiss Project Veritas suit against the NYT, meaning they will proceed to a discovery phase. Pkeets (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could see the argument had they won a defamation case on the basis of the NYT publishing specific false information, but that they've filed one does not seem that compelling. Is there a specific statement sourced to the NYT that you are concerned with in particular? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Anyone can sue anyone, so this "review" would be utterly meaningless and a waste of editors's time. If YOU have a specific issue, with specific evidence that it's actually an issue, with any New York Times coverage -- other than "Project Veritas doesn't like it" -- bring it. Otherwise, no. --Calton | Talk 04:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bias is a contentious issue, so I'm not going to do the work to fix your article. PV filed in October. Suits against the NYT have been historically dismissed, but this one was ruled sufficient to meet the plaintiff's burden of proof on the Motion to Dismiss. If Wikipedia maintains the objectionable material in this article after the ruling, then it may also be liable. I'd recommend a revision. Pkeets (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand how the legal system works? In a motion to dismiss, the court is required to assume that the plaintiff's factual claims and allegations are all true. Many, many cases survive a motion to dismiss but are found wanting at trial by a judge or jury, as the case may be. Surviving a pretrial motion to dismiss is the bare minimum legal standard of plausibility, not a verdict. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
so I'm not going to do the work to fix your article
Nope, you have it 100% backward. This is grade-school-level stuff: you made the claim, so it's you who has to back it up. Got something concrete? Bring it. Otherwise, we're not wasting our time.
If Wikipedia maintains the objectionable material in this article after the ruling, then it may also be liable
Not even CLOSE to being true. Clumsy pseudo-clever attempts at legal intimidation don't work here: been there, done that, have a closet full of t-shirts. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pkeets, Wikipedia and its editors CANNOT be held liable. Even if the statements were defamatory, Barrett v. Rosenthal protects those who republish libel on the internet, even when they know it to be false. Only the originator of the libel can be sued. -- Valjean (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LIBEL. Pkeets (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor makes their own libelous claims here, they can be held liable. OTOH, if they are documenting that RS state that libelous claims have been made, and in that process quote the libelous claims cited in the RS, the editor has not made a libelous statement, and neither has the RS. They have just documented its existence. Do you see the difference? -- Valjean (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any coverage of this lawsuit in reliable secondary sources? This article is quite long, and a "review of material" is a vague suggestion; a more specific request would be helpful. — Newslinger talk 05:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expect NYT will settle to avoid the discovery phase, which would require sworn depositions and allow PV access to their internal records and communications. Presumably they have already removed the questionable material from their articles. Pkeets (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If The New York Times does end up retracting any claims, then this article should be amended to exclude the retracted claims. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expect NYT will settle to avoid the discovery phase
Really. And you know this...how?
Presumably they have already removed the questionable material from their articles
Presumably you can provide a breath of a hint of a suggestion of this presumption.
In short, Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, not what your fantasy of what you would like them to say. So bring on "the questionable material". --Calton | Talk 08:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More on this today. It looks like the judge's decision on malice called out the process of injecting opinion into news articles and representing it as fact. To avoid potentially libelous material, that suggests source articles should be evaluated in the future for this failing. Pkeets (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A decision has already been made? Wasn't the rejection of the motion to dismiss just the other day? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The case is still pending, and the only recent coverage of the case is in unreliable sources such as RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), The Epoch Times (RSP entry), The Post Millennial (RSP entry), and Zero Hedge (RSP entry). Until reliable sources cover the lawsuit (which would allow us to cover it in the "History" section or a new "Litigation" section) or The New York Times retracts any claims already incorporated into the article (which would require us to modify the article to exclude the retracted claims), no action is warranted. — Newslinger talk 21:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Court not a reliable source? Jham1985 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, court documents, along with all other public records, are a classic primary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out the Times used Wikipedia as a source for their article. Pkeets (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you've got that wrong, at least if you're repeating the talking point used by O'Keefe and a handful of rightwing publications (ex. [3]). The NYT referred to Wikipedia in their argument to dismiss the case; I haven't seen anything about them using Wikipedia as a source for articles they've published. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "everybody says it" defense? Suggest the NYTimes reliability rating also needs a review. Pkeets (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSN is thataway, knock yourself out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the court is the personification of RS. They are the ultimate reputable publisher.2601:46:C801:B1F0:B5C8:C837:C88B:680A (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not in line with Wikipedia policy, I'm afraid, though perhaps you're just expressing your personal opinion here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is 100percent in line with WP. I'm afraid, though perhaps you're just an uniformed administrator. Primary sources are allowed based on reputation and no entity has a higher reputation than the court.2601:46:C801:B1F0:B5C8:C837:C88B:680A (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Describing GorillaWarfare as "uniformed"? (a typo for uninformed, I assume?) *makes popcorn* dis gon be gud. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think I'm pretty familiar with policy by now. Enough to know it directly contradicts you: "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." (WP:RSPRIMARY) While reputable, primary sources can be used, we use them quite sparingly and with extreme caution. And we do not, as the above editor was suggesting, incorporate information about court cases into articles sourced solely to the court case; we require secondary coverage to determine that something is worth including. WP:PRIMARY has more detail. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

The [3] citation for the proposition that PV is a "far-right" group does not support that assertion. AP says PV is a "right-wing activist" group, not far-right. The article references far-right groups on social media, but does not label PV as one. ReliableDave (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The third citation is as follows:
  • Tumber, Howard; Waisbord, Silvio (March 24, 2021). The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-34678-7. Retrieved 19 March 2021 – via Google Books. False information can make movements defend the accuracy of their own claims and materials because of doubt sowed by countermovements and governments (Tufekci 2017). For instance, Project Veritas, an alt-right group, has a track record of attacking movements through misleading editing of videos and through fabricated 'sting' operations (Benkler et al. 2018).
Note that the alt-right is a subset of the far right. — Newslinger talk 04:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I see that the third citation (labeled [24], not [3]) in the citation bundle adjacent to the far-right descriptor is the Associated Press article. It's true that the AP article is not clear on whether its use of the far-right descriptor specifically refers to Project Veritas. I've minus Removed it from the bundle in Special:Diff/1013537839. Thanks for suggesting this. — Newslinger talk 04:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this locked?

The first sentence of this article is wrong. They are not a far right anything. They have said this multiple times and have forced publications to retract or correct themselves when describing Project Veritas this way. IC89 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We describe subjects how they are described in reliable sources, not how they describe themselves. Please see other conversations about this on this talk page, where it has been discussed at length. As for why the page is locked, it has been the target of significant disruptive editing and so was protected under the American politics discretionary sanctions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have RS contesting they are far-right (or even saying they have successfully sued over it) please provide them.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. Since you are using a mobile device, you can access the FAQ by tapping the gray "About this page" link under "Talk:Project Veritas" at the top. — Newslinger talk 05:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

This article is biased and should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:57A4:410:E98D:C118:B03F:D8B1 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. — Newslinger talk 13:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HOw?Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few more corrections

  1. In the History section, please correct the paragraph beginning "O'Keefe has been barred from fundraising." First, if you look at the cited Washington Post article, you will see that the only state from which O'Keefe was personally barred from fundraising for Project Veritas was Florida. Regarding the other states, which was current as of that writing, the article says: "The charity has previously been sanctioned or denied a license to seek donations in Utah, Mississippi, Wisconsin and Maine." This is no longer accurate for Wisconsin and Maine. In addition, in May 2020 the state of Florida removed O'Keefe's fundraising restriction on the basis of 10 years having passed, which is Florida's standard.
  2. I know the question of "purpose = disinformation" has been discussed at length, but no one here has adequately responded to my comment back in January, where I cited five reliable sources that refer to Project Veritas's purpose directly, rather than obliquely as in the source that refers to PV as a "right-wing disinformation outfit." In addition, as you can see from this news article from earlier this year, a San Antonio campaign worker was arrested on charges of election fraud, illegal voting, unlawfully assisting people voting by mail and unlawfully possessing an official ballot - all as a result of a Project Veritas undercover video from the previous fall. That should be proof enough that PV's purpose is not disinformation but exposing fraud, and in that particular case, criminal activity. Just this week, Project Veritas released photos provided by an insider showing the horrible conditions in which people are being caged at the immigration border facility in Donna, Texas, which has been covered extensively by the media. Twitter even admitted it mistakenly banned the release. https://nypost.com/2021/03/24/twitter-censoring-detention-center-photos-at-border-was-a-mistake/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=message_app #In the "Minnesota videos (2020)" section, there is a sentence that reads "Ballot harvesting is legal in Minnesota, and there was no limit to such activities from late July 2020 to early September 2020." This sentence is based on a version of this Snopes article that was later corrected after we reached out to them. The current, corrected version of the Snopes article now reads: "But ballot collection — sometimes referred to as 'ballot harvesting' — is legal in Minnesota. As of this writing, a third party can collect mail-in ballots and deliver them to election officials on behalf of up to three voters. Between late July and early September 2020, there were no limits on how many absentee ballots an agent, or third party, could collect and deliver." Please update the sentence here on Wikipedia to align with this clarification.

Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— Newslinger talk 23:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Significant problem with sources

The sources in this article are mainly the same ones that PV rightfully exposes/ wrongfully attackes. As a result, PV is described as disinformation, or otherwise incorrect (because they were defending themselves.) If a guy X was murdered, and his brother, guy Y was a judge, would you let guy Y preside over the case? No, that would be ridiculous. Guy Y would be more likely to be biased than any regular judge. I have no idea how to fix this, or even if it can be fixed, but I just wanted to point it out. NPOV Enthusiast (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the section(s) above, particularly #Project Veritas vs. New York Times, where this has been discussed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then go here wp:rsn and argue these sources are not wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021

Please review this entire wiki. It is filled with disinformation and personal opinion “sources” that are not verifiable. 2605:B100:710:33DE:C4B7:4F19:CAF5:4981 (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 04:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021 (2)

Some of the information given about project veritas on this page is Not true. You claim they are a far right organisation, I don't know what constitutes far right to the runners of Wikipedia but that is clearly not true. You also claim in the description they post videos that have been cut and edited to be deceptive, most, if not all of what PJ post is unedited and that is very clear to see which is why they are so popular. This in turn makes you look deceptive and misleading. Please stop bending to the mob and do your research, wikis once reliable name is being dragged through the mud here. Always remember, GO WOKE GO BROKE!! 78.147.133.88 (talk) 07:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Caius G. (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expose CNN

So one of CNN executives admitted on video they are propaganda and has been seen by hundreds of thousands of people. Yet no mention here yet? That's kinda big. I would say it is notable and reliable information, being that it has been seen by soon to be millions of people, and came directly from the guys mouth on video.Airpeka (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories