Jump to content

Talk:Project Veritas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HandThatFeeds (talk | contribs) at 16:06, 13 April 2024 (Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

Change the subheading "PBS lawyer video" to "PBS lawyer video (2021)" for the sake of consistency with other subheadings in the "Notable video recordings" section.

Also, change the first sentence below said subheading to this: "In January 2021, a lawyer for PBS resigned after Project Veritas released a video of him expressing happiness over COVID-19 spikes in red states, suggesting Republicans submit their children to re-education camps, and comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler."

All the info mentioned above is covered in the AP article cited, and the video's content was the reason why said lawyer was fired, so I see little reason not to include such details. If you deem the wikilinks unnecessary or you would like to rephrase the statement, I don't mind as long as the core info is clearly conveyed. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's certainly a good example of Project Veritas bad behavior. But he was a contracts lawyer having nothing to do with PBS content. As such, I don't see any need for additional detail about his conversation in a bar unrelated in PBS function. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done: Added the year. I'll let someone else decide if the other changes are noncontroversial or not. PianoDan (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no Decline remainder per objection by Objective3000. —Sirdog (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024

Remove "far-right."

Stating that Project Veritas is far-right is an ideological editorial opinion. Making this statement does not add one single thing to the article. Stating there are "sources" is like saying "someone said so." So what, there are equal sources that consider them to be centrist or better yet very reliable. There is no need to attached an ideological editorial claim unless Wiki wants to admit that in fact it is simply a far left organization and propaganda outlet for the democrat party and leftist extremists. Things like this have made Wikipedia a complete joke as a source for anything true. Bruceami (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Please present a reliable source that refers to PV as "centrist". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stating there are "sources" is like saying "someone said so."
Then you're going to have a problem with all of Wikipedia. You might want to look for another website, one which allows people to make up whatever they want with no sources at all. I suggest starting a blog. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the label is associated with white supremacy, I'd say the burden of proof should be a bit higher than: some people who disagree with them politically, said so. A good proof would be that their proven actions fit the label. Nothing stated on the wiki page even claim they did anything that would fit it. So this claim only feed the cycle of dubious sources where a news media make a false, labelous or contentious statement that is than repeated by another, than picked by wiki than more source use wiki has their proof of the statement.
It's clearly not a centrist organization like Bruceami claimed, but most people label them right wing, which would be the fair label. Their action fit that label since their main actions were to try to: discredit planned parenthood (anti-abortion actions), discredit some left wing media personality and outlet, and present Twitter has being unfair to the right. Nothing about racial supremacy, advocacy for a more authoritarian governement or actions that would be deemed ultra-nationalistic.
Here are the first news articles talking about project veritas, all calling them right wing or conservative, not far right or fascist:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68776262
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/us/politics/project-veritas-ashley-biden-diary.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/09/woman-who-stole-ashley-biden-diary-sentenced-to-jail.html
This kind of label is an example why more and more people on the right find wikipedia to be ideologically captured by the left and unreliable on anything that is slightly political. 207.253.51.202 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how it works, to contest a label a source has to say it is incorrect, not just not use it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of label is an example why more and more people on the right find wikipedia to be ideologically captured by the left and unreliable on anything that is slightly political.
We really don't care what they think. Those people will not be happy unless Wikipedia becomes Conservapedia, and we're not going to bend our rules just to make them happy. We care more about being factual than about appeasing extremists.
It's also telling that being factual & using reliable sources is "leftist", while conservatives balk at using any source to the left of Breitbart. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]