Talk:Project Veritas
Frequently asked questions To view an explanation, click the [show] link to the right of a question. Q1: Why does this article describe Project Veritas negatively?
A1: Wikipedia's aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources say; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as 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 means that if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative. Since most reliable sources describe Project Veritas negatively, this article also describes Project Veritas negatively. Q2: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is far-right?
A2: The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. Over a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas as a far-right organization. Please see these references for details. Q3: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is an "activist group"?
A3: The "activist" descriptor is based on many multiple independent and reliable sources. These sources describe Project Veritas as an activist organization or a group of activists. Please see these references for details. Q4: Why does this article say that Project Veritas edited videos "deceptively"?
A4: The "deceptive" phrasing is cited to many multiple high-quality reliable sources. More than a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas editing its videos in a "deceptive", "misleading", or "manipulative" manner. Please see these references for details. Q5: But what if the sources are biased?
A5: Reliable sources are, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources, not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you have reliable sources that express contrary points of view or refute any statements in this article, please feel free to discuss them here. If you are unsure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Sources or search the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if its reliability has been discussed in the past. Q6: Shouldn't this article avoid using as sources media outlets against which Project Veritas has published exposés?
A6: Some editors have made the argument that, because Project Veritas has targeted various news outlets (such as The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR) in its operations, those news outlets should be considered unreliable with respect to Project Veritas due to conflict of interest. A 2020 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability found that disqualification of sources based on alleged conflicts of interest such as this did not have community consensus. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Veritas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Decline remainder per objection by Objective3000. —Sirdog (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
- Not done: Please present a reliable source that refers to PV as "centrist". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- B-Class Hudson Valley articles
- Mid-importance Hudson Valley articles
- WikiProject Hudson Valley articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Media articles
- Low-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- Low-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions