Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Maggie Astor sources Need Removal

Her New York Times article has been deemed defamatory and should no longer be used as a source. https://casetext.com/case/project-veritas-v-ny-times-co Belregard (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Belregard The case cited made no such finding. It just denied a request for dismissal and ordered court proceedings to go forward. —C.Fred (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"It just denied a request for dismissal and ordered court proceedings to go forward" - I guess you're right. I thought I had heard about the court case having ended, and thought after skimming it that it was the verdict, but apparently not. You can dismiss this statement then. Belregard (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, the question of it being defamatory would not mean we automatically delete the content. Because we follow what RS say, we would document the issue by citing a RS that said a court ruled the content was defamatory, but we would not delete it. Of course that also depends on whether the subject, in this case Project Veritas, was a private (much protection) or public (very little protection) figure. It is neither, and gets no protection from what RS say. The subject can sue the originator of a defamatory claim, but not anyone who quotes them on the internet. We are often required by WP:BLP policy to document defamatory content about public figures when multiple RS cover the issue. Censorship and whitewashing is not allowed here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing defamatory statements is not censorship nor is it whitewashing. Secondly, Project Veritas is a private organization, not "neither". Thirdly, regardless of Project Veritas in particular, WP:LBL states that "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory," and if a court, in any case, has deemed content defamatory, it cannot be used on this website, and Wikipedia would instead state in a separate section that it had been ruled as defamation, changing the context and content of it entirely. Belregard (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2023

Uses biased language 110.148.154.130 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2023 (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. Cannolis (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 February 2023

Project veritas is not a far right group and does not deceptively edit their videos. They show their video clips in their entirety so that there is no doubt as to the context. They are an undercover journalist group. That's it 2600:1012:B1AB:B7F5:9BC:346A:78E9:8446 (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Widley covered already on the talk page, bring something new. Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia page is incredibly biased

Any highlight video is edited. PV has released full-length videos. This has to be the most biased Wikipedia article I have seen - I don't mind a liberal leaning view, but this presents opinions as facts. Wow. 98.101.207.150 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not useful to say opinions are presented as facts without providing an example. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Bias

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.

---

This page is super biased and should be taken down or rewritten from a neutral viewpoint. 70.241.150.35 (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Care to list what is wrong? Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I have to agree. I appreciate the hard work of Wikipedia editors, and I neither know nor care about PV and their politics, but I was a bit shocked at the intro to the article (particularly the 2nd and 3rd sentences). It reads like a judgement by a person on the "other side", unlike Wikipedia's usual style of presenting the facts and allegations.

For instance, compare the Wikipedia intros for two actual terrorist groups, known for thousands of deaths. The intro for Boko Haram says nothing about their killings beyond calling them "militant". The intro for the Taliban says they "have been criticized for" oppressing women, etc, not that they *do*. It seems more grace is being extended to actual terrorists here. In summary, I think the wording of the intro for PV comes off as "These are bad people!" rather than "These are people who claim to do x, and here's what has been said/found out about what they do."

I hope that makes sense. Again, appreciate the work. 91.89.57.2 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:WHATABOUTX applies... Shearonink (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not call PV a terrorist group, so what has what we call terrorist groups got to do with it? Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

An interesting point. The short description of Boko Haram (which appears before the lede and in some search results) says it is terrorist, the 2nd paragraph (right after the lede) said so and went into more detail about the brutality. But the lede paragraph really ought to say what the topic is notable for and it didn't. I moved one sentence, with references, from the 2nd paragraph up to the 2nd sentence of the lede. -- M.boli (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia quotes RS for everything. The 2nd sentence in the article as you mentioned, clearly says that Project Veritas stands against Mainstream Media (RS), and it's easy to imagine how the RS would depict it ("deceptive"). EVEN IF we assume that RS is biased towards Veritas and wiki inherits that bias, it would NOT be wiki's problem. It's a battle for perceived reliability and Veritas clearly failed. Sofeshue (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The IP editor mentioned a problem in the Boko Haram article. So as a matter of better encyclopedia style, I fixed up the Boko Haram article by moving one of their main notabilities into the lede paragraph. That was not related to this article. -- M.boli (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The most biased part is that it states "Deceptively edited videos". They have released full length videos. I can understand CRITICISM of PV claiming that they produce "Deceptively edited videos", but it is downright misleading to state it as fact. I have yet to see any proof of deceptive editing. I have seen news outlets on both sides produce "Deceptively edited videos"- why don't I see that on their pages? 98.101.207.150 (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Splicing into a video a man dressed as a pimp is more than deceptive editing. This is a fact. Wikipedia would not use news outlets that use such practices. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying in their wikipedia pages. I can think of many videos on both CNN and Fox News that could be consider deceptively edited. The pimp video was way early in the career of PV and what's the fact? What part of that is deceptively edited? Please tell me. 98.101.207.150 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for your statements or are you just soapboxing? We have several RS saying that PV doctored videos and made misleading edits. Andre🚐 23:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I do have RS - what does wikipedia consider a RS? My point is equal amount of people would disagree. I don't doubt RS on the left have that view. 98.101.207.150 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Repeat - I do have a reliable source. 98.101.207.150 (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Um, ok what is it? Refer to WP:RSP Andre🚐 00:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I do have RS - what does wikipedia consider a RS? You are contradicting yourself. You do not know what it is, but still claim to have it. And "I have one" without saying what it is a very transparent bluff nobody here will fall for. See WP:NOTSTUPID. Stop it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the page is super-biased, but it does rely heavily on sources that are non-neutral in an unbalanced proportion, though given the subject matter it's difficult to find sources that are truly neutral (note that academic sources cannot de facto be considered neutral unless the sociopolitical leanings of the authors balance out). PV's methodology most strongly strikes me as what would be characterized as gotcha journalism (defined as "interviewing methods that appear designed to entrap interviewees into making statements that are damaging or discreditable to their cause, character, integrity, or reputation") that caters to anti-establishment narratives and social conservatives as a demographic. PV itself, as far as I'm aware, has not directly advocated for truly far-right initiatives (for reference, "far-right" by definition is actually, in opposition to identity politics, totalitarian socialism, and Communism on the far left, closer to anarchy or minimalism in government, and though they also tend to be reactionary with regards to social policy, reactionary positions do not themselves define the right on the political spectrum).Ecthelion83 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

RS do not have to be neutral, if you can find any RS that actually say they are not far-right please produce them. By the way it can be gotcha journalism, and still have an agenda.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha journalism by definition is, in short, the interviewing of a target subject with the agenda/ulterior motive of discrediting the subject or otherwise displaying the target in a negative light. Agenda is implied in the definition.Ecthelion83 (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

True, but as we do not say "agenda" we say actiivism its also irrelvent, you do not have to be an activist to be a shoddy journalist who just uses gotchas to make up for lack of sources or work ethic. Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of describing "the truth". We are supposed to describe what is "verifiable" to our sources. We don't decide what "the truth" is. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

My two cents:

• Short description of Gotcha journalism: Form of journalism. Which emphatically isn't Project Veritas. For example if PV paid its sources we wouldn't call it checkbook journalism.
• The term "far right" is more of a problem, in my mind. The wikilinked-article Far-right politics describes far-right as fascism or similar. The section describing far-right politics in the U.S. describes KKK, Christian Identity, neo-Nazis, etc. I can see how this might not be an accurate description of PV. Even if some reliable sources use the term "far right" I think there is a disconnect, it may not have the same meaning as the wikilinked-article with that name.

In brief: I think we can't add gotcha journalism, but the existing far right might worth replacing with some other right-wing descriptor. -- M.boli (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

"Far-right politics, also referred to as the extreme right or right-wing extremism, are political beliefs and actions further to the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of being radically conservative, ultra-nationalist, and authoritarian, as well as having nativist ideologies and tendencies". They seem to fit much of this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The most verifiable description is the one most succinctly and effectively produced in our RSes, and many many of our RSes say some combination or version of Far-right activists. far more than describe elements or words of "gotcha journalism" — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

But then the second paragraph of the lede section of far-right politics expands on the first paragraph which @Slatersteven quoted, viz:

Historically, "far-right politics" has been used to describe the experiences of fascism, Nazism, and Falangism. Contemporary definitions now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views.

The third graph is more of the same.

As I noted, the section on far-right in the U.S. is all about the fascist, white supremacist, and related movements. The see-also link is to Fascism in the United States.

I agree that there are many reliable sources describing PV as "far right". And editors have done a great job of assembling the bundled list! But I haven't noticed sources that group PV in with all that other fascist / white-supremacist / christian identity / etc. So maybe the term "far right" is OK because there are many sources, but we should remove the wiki-link? -- M.boli (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem is we have to go by what RS say, otherwise we have to decide whose OR we accept. Why is my OR opinion of what they really are any lesser than yours or anyone else's. This is why we have wp:s and wp:v so we do not get into "well my personal opinion is more correct than yours. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I am agreeing with you about going by what RS say. RS say "far right". They don't say "fascist" etc. and mostly they don't describe PV doing that kind thing. So it seems to me a good editing decision is to keep the term "far-right" but not wiki-link to the article which equates that term with fascism. M.boli (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It does not, as it also includes many many other positions, not just fascism. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Source review for descriptions of PV

"Far-right" or "right-wing"

"Among the early Groundswell participants ... James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, a right-wing group that has used deception and hidden cameras to try to buttress claims of voter fraud." New York Times "Also writing in support of Villarreal are Project Veritas, the far-right group founded by James O'Keefe" Reason "Rittenhouse’s interviewer, Cassandra Spencer—a former Facebook employee who went to Project Veritas, a far-right group whose employees often go undercover to discredit liberal organizations, with evidence she believes proves anti-right bias at the company" Texas Monthly "The video was secretly recorded by Project Veritas, a far-right group that seeks to shame or discredit left-leaning groups and mainstream media organizations." WBEZ "Police officials couldn’t say whether the threat Monday referenced the viral video published by the far-right group Project Veritas last week." WBEZ "Trump singled out for praise James O’Keefe, the right-wing activist whose Project Veritas organization once tried to plant a false story in The Washington Post." Associated Press "Earlier this week, the right-wing organization Project Veritas released two undercover videos capturing Matthew Rosenberg, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for The New York Times, making a number of disparaging comments about his colleagues and the news media writ large." CNN "Multiple figures associated with Project Veritas, the hard-right propaganda group that engages in sting operations, attended the NYYRC gala." SPLC "The guest in question, Matthew Tyrmand, is a director of Project Veritas, a rightwing group which attempts to use sting operations to embarrass and intimidate American journalists." The Guardian "According to New York’s Andrew Rice, James O’Keefe, the founder and guiding light of the right-wing sting group Project Veritas, has gone on paid leave and could be ousted as the group’s leader by its board, which is set to meet tomorrow." Columbia Journalism Review "For instance, she also tweeted a link to the controversial right-wing Project Veritas YouTube video on ‘Democrats rigging the election.’ The Veritas project is known to be linked to the entourage of Trump" Scholarly Journal: Social Sciences "In total, the network of far-right groups referred to in this study includes over 900 channels, including references to personal accounts of users, organizations, and figures, such as Project Veritas, Breitbart News, and the Canadian far-right provocateur Faith Goldy." Scholarly Journal: Canadian Journal of Communication "These dog-whistle videos, borderline content, and partisan discourse, produced and shared by groups and accounts such as Project Veritas, Russel Brand, and other less well-known YouTubers play a large part in the vaccination discourse on Gab." Scholarly Journal: Social Media + Society

"Conservative"

"The man on the other end of the phone worked for Project Veritas, a conservative group that had become a favorite of President Donald J. Trump, according to interviews with people familiar with the sequence of events" New York Times "James O’Keefe, the founder and chairman of Project Veritas, has taken a paid leave from the conservative nonprofit media organization as its board considers whether to remove him from his leadership position" New York Magazine "Cassandra Spencer, a Defiance Press publishing manager who previously worked for the conservative activist group Project Veritas, is also set to appear at the rally." Houston Chronicle "New York state judge on Friday ordered the New York Times to return internal documents to the conservative activist group Project Veritas, a restriction the newspaper said violates decades of First Amendment protections." Reuters "The Greenwich Republican ecosystem is such that James O’Keefe, the founder of the conservative activist group Project Veritas, is practically a local celebrity." New York Times "Project Veritas, a conservative activist group known for spreading misinformation, recently published a concealed-camera videoopens in a new tab or window allegedly showing a Pfizer employee describing the company's COVID-19 vaccine research efforts" MedPage Today "The conservative activist group Project Veritas said Wednesday that the Justice Department had secretly obtained from Apple and Google personal information about its staffers as part of an investigation into how the organization received a diary purported to belong to President Joe Biden’s daughter." Associated Press "Two Florida residents have pleaded guilty in a scheme to peddle a diary and other items belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter to the conservative group Project Veritas for $40,000, prosecutors said Thursday." PBS "The conservative activist James O'Keefe and his nonprofit Project Veritas have sprung sting operations on many media organizations, including NPR. In 2011, after one such scheme, NPR pushed out our CEO and also our top fundraiser. These operations often involve undercover videos edited in misleading ways." NPR "The FBI searched the home of James O’Keefe, the founder of conservative outfit Project Veritas, on Saturday as part of its investigation into the possible theft of a diary belonging to Ashley Biden, President Biden’s daughter" CNBC "Groups like Oath Keepers pounced on information provided by Project Veritas—a conservative activist group known for conducting manipulative video stings of progressive organizations—that allegedly documented organized attempts by Democrats to rig the election" Scholarly Book: Oath Keepers by Sam Jackson published by Columbia University Press (p. 26,58) "Conservative operatives have utilized digital media for making social and cultural change. For instance, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe has performed what he has called “undercover journalism,” in which he deployed “gotcha” tactics stylized as investigative journalism aimed at discrediting organizations and individuals associated with the Democratic Party" Scholarly Journal: Communication & Democracy

"Activist"

"Cassandra Spencer, a Defiance Press publishing manager who previously worked for the conservative activist group Project Veritas, is also set to appear at the rally." Houston Chronicle "Trump singled out for praise James O’Keefe, the right-wing activist whose Project Veritas organization once tried to plant a false story in The Washington Post." Associated Press "New York state judge on Friday ordered the New York Times to return internal documents to the conservative activist group Project Veritas, a restriction the newspaper said violates decades of First Amendment protections." Reuters "The Greenwich Republican ecosystem is such that James O’Keefe, the founder of the conservative activist group Project Veritas, is practically a local celebrity." New York Times "Project Veritas, a conservative activist group known for spreading misinformation, recently published a concealed-camera videoopens in a new tab or window allegedly showing a Pfizer employee describing the company's COVID-19 vaccine research efforts" MedPage Today "The conservative activist James O'Keefe and his nonprofit Project Veritas have sprung sting operations on many media organizations, including NPR. In 2011, after one such scheme, NPR pushed out our CEO and also our top fundraiser. These operations often involve undercover videos edited in misleading ways." NPR "The same misleading label can be found via searching for James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, who is positively labelled as “American activist”. Veritas is known for releasing audio and video recordings that contain false information designed to discredit academic, political, and service organisations" Scholarly Journal: M/C – A Journal of Media and Culture "Groups like Oath Keepers pounced on information provided by Project Veritas—a conservative activist group known for conducting manipulative video stings of progressive organizations—that allegedly documented organized attempts by Democrats to rig the election" Scholarly Book: Oath Keepers by Sam Jackson published by Columbia University Press (p. 26,58)

"Gotcha journalism"

"Project Veritas — the "gotcha” group whose controversial undercover tactics have made it a polarizing and politically charged lightning rod — has struck again." Salt Lake Tribune (Opinion) "So, is Project Veritas “real journalism” as Mr. O’Keefe suggests, or is it simply a predatory exercise whose methods and practices are justified if they result in some level of confirmation of a political position. Time will tell what effect this form of “gotcha” journalism will have on our political discourse" CT Examiner "I feel awful for a journalist like Wright, who has two decades of national and international award-winning experience bulk-erased by a hidden camera gotcha" Poynter "Conservative operatives have utilized digital media for making social and cultural change. For instance, Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe has performed what he has called “undercover journalism,” in which he deployed “gotcha” tactics stylized as investigative journalism aimed at discrediting organizations and individuals associated with the Democratic Party" Scholarly Journal: Communication & Democracy

Other
"involved operatives from Project Veritas, the undercover-video group led by James O’Keefe. Ginni Thomas has given O’Keefe an Impact Award, too" The New Yorker "he latest ‘gotcha’ videos from conservative provocateur James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action have some shocking claims that, if they are true, would indicate Democrats are playing dirty to get Hillary Clinton elected." TIME

My assessment of this source review is that both "conservative" and "right-wing" are fair descriptors, leaning slightly towards "right-wing" given that "conservative" usually also includes this descriptor. And that "activist" is a far more verifiable descriptor than any kind of "journalism" which is heavily underrepresented in our sources and in outlets generally considered less-reliable. Anyone should feel free to add sources to the above source review, but keep a consistent style. I will remove any which are not considered RSes per WP:RSP.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems pretty conclusive, I concur with Shibbolethink. Andre🚐 16:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

So we do have sources for activists as well? Slatersteven (talk)

Just added scholarly sources as well, these by and large support the terms used by news organizations in similar proportions. @Slatersteven see above, I added a box exclusively for that term. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That was more for emphasis, as there is a discussion on my talk page about just this claim. So it was more rhetorical. Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Considering wp:newsorg, the majority of references being used as RS in this characterization of PV are not basing their characterization on known definitions or fact-based details; as such I do not believe them to be RS in this context. I should add that several of the academic references themselves either provide no support or rely on news media for the same characterization. I also feel that the majority of sources refer to PV as an outlet or media outlet rather than an activist group.Ecthelion83 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I also feel that the majority of sources refer to PV as an outlet or media outlet rather than an activist group
What sources are you referring to when you make this statement? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm looking at your list, as well as the references cited in the page for the specific characterization. I'll count again, but currently I count 17 instances of "group" or "outlet" or "outfit"; 7 instances in which James O'Keefe, but not PV, is called an "activist"; and 10 instances in which PV is called an "activist group."Ecthelion83 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Just going by the source review you posted, and ruling out overlaps (some articles/statements appear in multiple sections), I have the following count:

"group, media organization, sting group, operatives," etc. without the term activism or activist = 20 distinct references (2 each from the New York Times and WBEZ, and 1 each from Reason, Texas Monthly, CNN, SPLC, the Guardian, Columbia Journal Review, Canadian Journal of Communication, Journal of Social Media + Society, New York Magazine, MedPage Today, PBS, CNBC, the New Yorker, Salt Lake Tribune, Communication & Democracy, and Reuters).

referring to James O'Keefe, not PV, as an activist = 4 references (1 each from the Associated Press, Journal of Social Sciences, NPR, and M/C Journal of Media and Culture).

including the term "activist" = 6 distinct references (1 each from the Houston Chronicle, Reuters, the New York Times, MedPage Today, the Associated Press, and the book Oath Keepers published by the Columbia University Press). Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Now counting the sources in the page's references for the far-right characterization:

"group, webside, outlet, media outlet, nonprofit organization," etc. without the term activism or activist = 11 distinct references (1 each from the Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism, the Virginia Law Review, Columbia Journalism review, the Daily Dot, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Forbes - which calls PV a "conspiracy theory-driven group," USA Today, The Intercept, CNBC, The Guardian - which calls PV an "entrapment-based media enterprise," and Al Jazeera).

references to PV as an activist group = 3 distinct references (1 each from CNN, Time, and The Independent). Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Typically we don't compare the absence of a term to the presence of it. But rather the negation of a term to the presence of it. AKA, what adjectives do places use that are NOT "activist" when modifying "group".

It appears, from the source review and the page's sources, that "activist group" is the most common of any adjective when describing Project Veritas or its members. I would direct you to WP:1AM to see what the next steps are when consensus is not in your corner. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually it appears that "conservative" or "right-wing" is by far the most common modifier. "Activist group" has 6 distinct references in your source review (5 of which are repeated in the page's references for the activist characterization).

The Guardian has once instance calling PV an "entrapment-based media enterprise"; Forbes has one instance calling PV a "conspiracy theory-driven group"; there are at least 2 references calling PV a media group; both NPR and Virginia Law Review have called PV a non-profit group or enterprise; the Daily Dot calls it an outlet; and so on. Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

My contention with the use of the term "activist" or "activist group" is that this describes groups with which PV is associated, possibly even its founder James O'Keefe, but the organization itself does not seem to participate directly in activities that would construe sociopolitical activism.

I also disagree that the consensus favors "activist" or "activist group." 6 references versus at least as many references that use other non-political modifiers hardly constitutes a consensus. Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

From WP:1AM: Your chance of success goes down every time you repeat an argument that you have posted before. A common error in this sort of situation is to keep arguing the same points that have already failed to convince anyone. You may be sure that your argument is without flaw, and that everyone else simply has to agree, but the fact remains that you have to convince the other editors. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't a case of WP:WRONGFULCONSENSUS? Ecthelion83 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If you think it is, you should follow the WP:1AM suggestion, and do one of the following: 1) wait to see if others who come to the discussion agree with you, 2) raise the issue at WP:NPOVN, or 3) start a neutrally-worded WP:RFC.

You should, though, be aware, that starting multiple RFCs in contentious areas, or repeating many arguments when others clearly disagree, etc. can all be a component of WP:BLUDGEONing and tendentious editing. So take care to keep it neutrally worded and follow the procedures set forth in WP:RFC such as making sure that it's even necessary. I personally do not think one would be helpful here, as we already have a pretty clear consensus that "right-wing" and "activist" are the most common descriptors in the sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

And to cite WP:1AM: "This is for those on the other side. You and several other editors have been working on a page, making sure that everything is sourced and has a neutral point of view, but there is one lone holdout that does not agree, and it really looks like nothing you say will change their mind....[T]ry to figure out why you are – or think you are – in a situation that almost never happens. Figure out what is going on. Ask a third party to look into it if needed." Ecthelion83 (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

When you reference WP:WRONGFULCONSENSUS, you should be prepared to describe which policy or guideline is being violated as this is a fundamental part of that essay. It isn't simply a consensus you disagree with or that you think misreads the evidence. That's called "not getting what you want" and it happens all the time on Wikipedia. Most of us just move on when it does. Some decide to raise the issue to a noticeboard. Very few decide to start an RFC.

So please describe which? Where is a guideline being violated in the formation of the above consensus? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

A few things. First, I am withdrawing my argument, for the rationales I posted below in another response. Second, I admit that I misunderstood which consensus was being discussed (I believed that you were referring to source/reference consensus rather than editor consensus, and I erroneously believed that WP:WRONGFULCONSENSUS, having never used it before, was in reference to inappropriate/imbalanced use of references to give an impression of source consensus).

You'll have to forgive me for my ignorance (it seems my argumentative nature may have given you and others the impression that I was acting in bad faith or making tendentious edits); much of my very sporadic editing over the past 16 years has been concerned with accuracy and attention to detail (e.g. are we using defined terms appropriately as befits an encyclopedic source, grammar/mechanics, spelling, punctuation, and whatnot), and as a result I have far less experience/familiarity with certain aspects of editing than other editors. It has been my experience, however, that the use of incorrect details, improperly-defined terms, and inappropriate usage are sometimes used to mask malicious editing or make inaccurate, incorrect, and/or inappropriate suggestions or implications, hence my perhaps excessively dogged persistence. Thank you, by the way, for getting me to think about my positions.Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This needs closing now, it is a time sink and the user is not going to get their way, this way. If they want to start a wp:rfc that is their choice, I suggest they read that very carefully before doing so, Slatersteven (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That won't be necessary, as I am conceding the points and withdrawing my argument. Thank you for getting me to think about my positions.

However, lest someone get the mistaken impression that I was somehow browbeaten into this and is tempted to run with my earlier line of argument, let me disabuse them of such notions and elaborate why I reached this conclusion.

1. I will first address the point on defining PV's activities as activism or not, as that is the simpler of the two. It occurred to me that PV's means of obtaining surreptitious or otherwise unauthorized audiovisual footage of personnel of target organizations has similarities to such types of footage being obtained by other groups that are unequivocally considered to be activist groups (e.g. certain animal rights groups sneaking in cameras into food processing facilities where such recording devices are unauthorized and/or interviewing individuals employed in related agricultural industries with or without their knowledge/consent and in violation of the terms of their employment), i.e. not gotcha journalism, as a news report or exposition is not being composed to put the footage in context (and the editing/adulteration of said footage does raise some questions as to its validity as reporting). As such, I now believe that the characterization of PV as activism has merit.

2. The far-right characterization, as you noted earlier, is a little stickier. There is no question that a proportion of PV's viewer/reader base (and at least some of its personnel) is associated with or has at least expressed opinions affiliated with organizations/personalities whose positions/expressed ideologies can be characterized as right-wing or far-right. There is also no question that PV caters its media content and messaging towards socially-conservative/anti-establishment positions/narratives. It occurred to me that PV itself, however, does not neatly fit into a conservative-liberal political spectrum, insofar as political positions/ideologies tend to encompass social in addition to economic policy positions (and to a much lesser extent foreign policy positions): to my knowledge PV has not discussed economic or foreign policy issues and therefore cannot even be called populist (i.e. socially conservative/borderline reactionary as well as economically liberal). As such, until PV fully elaborates on its own policy positions to more accurately reflect its position on the political spectrum, any sociopolitical characterization of PV is necessarily one by association, and I now believe that popular media sources and other references (e.g. academic sources) cannot be faulted for this (though I do believe that news/media sources still need to be considered under the context of wp:newsorg).Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree the phrase "deceptively edited videos" should be removed. It is more opinion than fact based. B1blazin (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS disagree with you. RS win. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2023 (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.

Borat for the right-wing

I think the dilemma with covering Project Veritas video releases is that fundamentally they are entertainment. O'Keefe and his band of confidence tricksters bamboozle some schlubs, catch them saying a few possibly inappropriate remarks, then produce an entertaining video. It is Borat for right-wingers.

The amount of meaningful output -- newsworthy misdoings for example -- is small. The median PV release has zero newsworthy content.

The recent video of a drug company person is a good example. If something of import was revealed, then the legitimate news media will report on it. So far, nada. It seems a pretty good bet that PV has not uncovered unethical conduct by the drug company.

Nevertheless, it seems to me be reasonable to mention the video in Wikipedia as part of the encyclopedia of PV's activities. In the same way an article on a TV show might list all the episodes.

But keep in mind we don't want to give credence to what are quite possibly misleading or false allegations. We should not describe the content of the video here in Wikipedia in any detail, based simply on PV's say-so. -- M.boli (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

But unless covered by RS we will not be able to write about it, as we will rely on unreliable sources for any content. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that Borat was never presented as a serious report where as PV portrays itself as such. One is an admittedly vicious satire, the other is malicious propaganda. 2601:18F:107F:8C30:BC6F:265C:C696:3D1E (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Andre🚐 16:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel it is unfair to declare something that has yet to be confirmed as Malicious propaganda. B1blazin (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

We're not here to be "fair," we're here to create encyclopedic articles based on reliable, third-party sources. And those sources agree that PV is in the business of creating deceptive propaganda. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean "not confirmed"? It seems to me it has been, as RS say it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove Bias Depiction

It appears the general consensus (which Wikipedia relies on) is that this page contains a biased narrative. In so I feel wikipedia should fix the page to represent a more neutral aspect. I feel it is their obligation to do so or it is breaking its own founding principles. Thank you. B1blazin (talk) 02:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears the general consensus (which Wikipedia relies on) is that this page contains a biased narrative

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page.

Additionally, it is fairly useless to state general opinions like this without specific examples. Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There is? Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think this comment is accurate, there is no consensus that the page is biased, just drive-by new editors and anonymous editors complaining about it without evidence Andre🚐 16:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

None of whom ever actually make cognitive arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

O'Keefe removed from PV

Reportedly, James O'Keefe resigned from Project Veritas after complaints about his use of funds.

In a statement posted Monday night responding to O’Keefe’s video, Project Veritas’s board claimed it was legally required to call a board meeting after it discovered O’Keefe committing what it described as “financial malfeasance.”

— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

HAs this been verified by other RS? Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

He posted the video himself, and PV posted a response. But yeah, Daily Beast isn't the best source.

Associated Press

Washington Post

NYT

Politico

CNN

Looks like it's well covered. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Pfizer gain of function video

Veritas' recent video of the Phizer executive, Jordan Walker, saying that the company is exploring using gain of function of the COVID-19 virus to develop future vaccines has gotten 16 million views on Twitter in just two days and may become their biggest video of all time. Senator Rubio's reaction to it: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/1/rubio-sends-letter-to-pfizer-ceo-on-alleged-gain-of-function-research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.156.124 (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

So, we need RS to cover it to include it. Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we all take a minute to bask in this though? This is probably the most productive IP comment in months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The biggest sources (Washington Post, New York Times, Associated Press, Reuters, etc.) seem to be ignoring it, at least for now. Here are some other sources. I'm not arguing for including, or not including, this information this in the article. I just wanted to cite these sources. The print version of Newsweek was considered very reliable for many decades. I'm not sure if the online-only version has the same level of reliability, but I'm including it here just in case.

https://www.newsweek.com/project-veritas-covid-mutations-pfizer-fact-check-1776845

https://www.themainewire.com/2023/01/pfizer-director-of-research-spills-virus-vaccine-secrets-in-project-veritas-undercover-video/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/weightloss/project-veritas-video-purports-to-show-pfizer-exec-discussing-covid-mutations/vi-AA16ME9P

https://fox11online.com/news/nation-world/gallery/undercover-video-allegedly-shows-pfizer-exec-suspects-covid-resulted-from-virus-mutations-in-wuhan-coronavirus-jordon-trishton-walker-project-veritas?photo=1

https://www.theblaze.com/news/pfizer-directed-evolution-mutation-covid-project-veritas

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Modern Newsweek is a train wreck. See WP:NEWSWEEK. - MrOllie (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it in the article already? Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The MSN link is just aggregated from https://straightarrownews.com/, which doesn't look particularly great. There's also Maine Wire, which at least looks better than StarightArrowNews. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The Hill (newspaper) and CNN India have covered it on videos posted to their YouTube channels. [1] [2]. That's interesting that CNN in India covered it but not in the US. That's probably a story in itself. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It's been corroborated by screenshots and you can email the guy and add him on IM services via his pfizer.com email (which I won't post here but is trivially easy to find.) Cite that as a source but failure to include it is a failure on the part of Wikipedia. 76.104.16.248 (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

No, we will continue to follow the rules: WP:RS and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how to do this (had a quick peek at a help page) but The Australian has an article/opinion piece regarding the incident at: Date disaster exposes big pharma, big tech, media | The Australian. 103.104.165.173 (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Opinion piece is not WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Depending on a number of factors they most certainly are, Comrade. The opinion piece in question is authored by a reputable journalist in the main national newspaper in Australia and certainly meet the requirements from what I read regarding reputable sources. Forever alive, brother. 103.104.165.173 (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

What is the purpose of using the loaded term Comrade? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Just the way I roll, hombre. 103.104.165.173 (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The Australian article is paywalled. What does it say? Is it a reported article? Or is it simply repeating and commenting on information from PV? -- M.boli (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

From my friend, chatGPT, who summarized the article into 60ish words: "A Pfizer executive was caught on a date boasting that his employer may be mutating dangerous viruses for profit. He later claimed he was lying to impress his date. The video caused a stir on social media and attracted over 40 million impressions on Twitter. Pfizer issued a response but did not confirm or deny the executive's employment. The US media generally ignored the story, and big tech removed references to the executive's background. The episode potentially highlights the power of pharmaceutical giants and the influence of big tech in deciding what's permissible, particularly in the US media. The executive may face severe consequences for the rest of his life"... Not a bad little summary to be honest. 103.104.165.173 (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I am beyond dubious.

• chatGPT doesn't have any training data after 2021. It could not have commented with any specificity or accuracy on the 2023 PV Pfizer video.
• I tried several chatGPT queries involving PV. Interestingly, it always said that PV's assertions were disputed or unproven.
• Furthermore, I could get it to describe PV investigations which never happened.

-- M.boli (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the ambiguity. The above text was just a chatGPT of the paywalled article i.e. I literally pasted the whole thing in and said please summarize in 60 words. My comment was that the summary is a succinct and accurate. I'm not sure of any other way to use the article as a source as it is paywalled. How is this usually handled? 103.104.165.173 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please do not use chatGPT to "summarize" sources here. That is totally useless for our purposes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's basically rumor-mongering. Someone said something, then said the opposite, so, maybe this, maybe that. Some people are interested, but most are not. Not good enough for a serious encyclopedia like this. Try Conservapedia, they don't have any standards and will probably lap it up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're the one showing a quite blatant bias here. There was a source provided that by Wikipedia's standards would deem the Pfizer incident notable. Having a little tantrum and labelling the article "rumour mongering" kind of your true colours. The article wasn't even passing judgement on the video, rather it was a commentary on the video's impact, the American media landscape and pharmaceutical companies influence on said landscape. Kind of notable I would argue. 2001:8003:3098:200:2477:8A30:F489:BC81 (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

that by Wikipedia's standards would deem the Pfizer incident notable Bullshit. You were already told that opinion pieces are bad sources. You (or another IP user) claimed that The opinion piece in question is authored by a reputable journalist [..] and certainly meet the requirements from what I read regarding reputable sources. You do not say where you read that, and you are not convincing. The rest of your posting is also bullshit. As I said, go somewhere else to put your conspiracy theories and propaganda. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Please calm down, ranting will get you nowhere. I was the other ip address, I should have pointed that out from home. Opinion pieces are not "bad sources" and "bull****" as per Wikipedia's policies and can be used in multiple circumstances, one example: "The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true)". Also I'm not sure why you're getting all riled up about me posting conspiracy theories? I couldn't give two hoots about PV, I just came to read about it when someone at work showed me a video. Anyway from what I read most of PV is conspiracy theories so by your logic the "notable incidents"

As far as the journalist is concerned you can look up his wiki page and the reliable sources page for the newspaper "The Australian".

I've realized over the past few days that I'm way out of my depth regarding how to use wikipedia from an editing, talk page perspective. Again, my apologies but I had no idea it would be so contentious so depending on the outcome here I may invest some time into learning about edits, etiquette etc. 103.104.165.173 (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I missed abit mid post, should have read: "Anyway from what I read most of PV is conspiracy theories so by your logic the "notable incidents" should be entirely blank." 103.104.165.173 (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

My reply was perfectly calm, and trying to act superior and condescending by telling me to "calm down" and calling my reply a "tantrum" or a "rant" will get you nowhere.

Misrepresenting what I wrote is also counterproductive. I did not say that opinion pieces are bullshit, I said that what you said was bullshit (you were trying to sell an opinion piece as a reliable source, hinting that policy was on your side but not actually quoting which policy and by what reasoning).

in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate I searched Wikipedia for that phrase, and it is indeed in a guideline: WP:NEWSORG. Actually quoting that is much better than just hinting. But on the same page, you will find WP:RSOPINION, which states Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces [..] are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.. So, at most we can write that the author of that opinion piece, whoever he or she may be, is of the opinion that there is a notable rumor. That is far too weak to include. Please do not argue without justification that this is one of the rare cases where an opinion piece is reliable for statements of fact.

I'm way out of my depth regarding how to use wikipedia from an editing, talk page perspective. Well, you are getting better at it. Again, my apologies but I had no idea it would be so contentious Sorry for being abrasive, but especially on the Talk pages of articles about dishonest outlets, we get lots of traffic by people who either work for those outlets or have been bamboozled by them and are convinced that if Wikipedia and the outlet disagree, it must be Wikipedia that is wrong. They are forced to use bad reasoning because there are no good reasons for false positions. Refuting the same bad reasoning again and again... well, it takes its toll. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The machine-generated summary of the opinion article illustrates the problem. We perhaps could use it to cite the fact that PV released a video, the target was somebody from Pfizer, it received a zillion views before being taken down by Youtube. Pfizer denied allegations, and we have other sources for that. But the authors opinions on the power of pharmaceutical giants, influence of big tech, etc., are useless. And the summary mentioned no actual reportage on Pfizer outside repeating what PV claims. It would be wrong to simply repeat PV allegations here. I think the article's utility could at most support the bare facts above. -- M.boli (talk) 14:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Are the bare facts being reported covered in a major, reputable newspaper not sufficient for in incident being deemed notable? I would argue it is. We're not arguing the accuracy of PV's claims here, just that it was notable. They could do a similar video on the moon being made of cheese for that matter and it still be notable. 103.104.165.173 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Some interesting aspects of this story:

• Fox News also hasn't covered the story, apart from Tucker Carlson [3]. Fox is more likely to cover stories of interest to conservatives, and it hasn't covered this. Why? I think we know the answer to that. It also lends credence to the theory that Fox is controlled opposition.
• If Phizer really was going to do gain of function development of the virus, Veritas may have saved millions of lives by putting a stop to it. As Jordan Walker said in the video, there was a risk of the mutated virus escaping from the Phizer lab as it did from the Wuhan lab. If true, Veritas deserves a Pulitzer prize.
• The left, including liberal journalism, used to be the leading political movement involved in skeptical inquiry into the motives and actions of large corporations. Republicans were always being accused of bing in the pockets of corporate interest. Now, at least with Big Pharma, the leftist establishment is doing its best to defend and prop them up. Why? 108.18.156.124 (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

YouTube has deleted Jordan Walker video from its site and restricted the Veritas channel so they can't upload more videos. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not have to do anything (in fact we should not) RS have to. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Your comments here are appreciated; please know that WP:NOTFORUM comments aren't too widely appreciated. Stay focused on the sources--of which there may not be many yet. This story will be a good test of reliable sources' impartialness. SmolBrane (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Who will judge if they pass the test? Is the judge more competent to judge it than professional journalists and editors? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but sometimes it gets caught in the machinery when journalism slacks off. Hopefully public opinion, wiki and journalists can all assess the evidence fairly and come to something like a consensus. They are all fallible and wiki is collaborative. It's an ongoing process. SmolBrane (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears reliable sources have. Public opinion and wikis are not reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a little early for past-tense here. SmolBrane (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

One month later and reliable sources have still yet to cover this "story" and James has been removed from the company. Saxones288 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Snopes RS

I can see that Snopes have now done some work on this "Pfizer video", which is probably the first decent WP:RS/P covering it, so it should probably now be added (using the Snopes RS as the referenced content). Snopes usefully confirms/clarifies facts about the meeting, and the participants, which would be good to chronicle for readers. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

A lot of ifs and questions, even about the existence of this person. Snopes does not come to a conclusion. PolitiFact rates this false [4] The AP reports: “Experts: Pfizer tests on COVID vaccines, treatment in line with industry standards.”[5] If there is truth to this, let us wait for info from the major RS, which have not said much of anything. If they had adequate evidence; they would have raced it into print. WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2023

I think the phrase deceptively edited videos should immediately be removed they have wine every suit in this regard brought against them and you are peddling in misinformation . 166.181.251.23 (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

• won

166.181.251.23 (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done There are many multiple reliable sources which describe PV this way. See Q4 of the FAQ at the top of this page. Wikipedia is not a courtroom, and we repeat what our sources say, not what our subjects would like them to say. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

they have wine [sic] every suit in this regard brought against them Hmm. In reality: Jury Rules Against Project Veritas in Lawsuit, NYT, Sep 22, 2022 – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

In respect to "we repeat what other sources say", that isn't entirely true. The history of this article shows a concerted effort to remove any non-disparaging sources and to present as unquestioned the negative sources. It's an example of the left-wing bias on Wikipedia (and I am left-wing).

BBX118 14:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

OK give us one RS that contest they do not deceptively edit videos. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Or show us any "non-disparaging sources" that have been removed that should be put back in. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

You say they are "deceptively" edited but the videos are videos... not deception. This is misleading and reflective of YOUR bias. Do you want to be honest or partisan. Unethical. Wrong. 47.152.0.36 (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

If you think that videos cannot be deceptively edited, then you know nothing about video editing or deception. Cullen328 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done PV deceptively edits videos, as noted by reliable sources, which changes their meaning. Here's a great example from a different source of how deceptive edits to videos change their meaning. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Just deleted trolling

That was just trolling/ranting, not a serious attempt to improve the article. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

List of spies and infiltrators

It occurs to me that it would be helpful to have a list of notable spies and infiltrators caught in the act working for or relaying information to Project Veritas. NBC News has some discussion about Garrett O’Boyle today.[6] Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

Please remove the words "deceptively edited" in the first sentence. There is no evidence of deceptive editing on their part. People say what they say, video captures it all. I feel like "deceptively edited" is a snide remark. It casts a pallor on the rest of he article, shows some bias. If you must use that term, please place it further down in the article. PeterGhunn (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It appears that "deceptively edited" is extremely well-sourced, and the sources do use that exact wording. Tollens (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Should it be noted PV admitted improper editing?

In 2020 Project Veritas released a statement titled 'Project Veritas Improperly Edited NPR Video' where they admit that: 'It was a mistake to make those edits in the first NPR investigation release' but claim it was done without malice. It's a primary source but may be worth a mention in the NPR reception segment? Resequent (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer if we had a secondary source, but it does sound like a fact worth including here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Same here, We can say "they admitted it", but I would rather we had third-party sources. Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

But we should add it to the FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

In this press release PV admits to nothing. It says there were two cases of bad editing, which they also imply shouldn't have fooled anybody. They do not modify their accusations or conclusions. So it is merely more hooey from PV. Absent a reliable secondary source describing this non-admission admission, leave it out. -- M.boli (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Should we object to the obvious characterisation of any self-described media source as subjective? Wouldn't a better way to describe same as what it claims to be rather than Wikipedia being the arbiter of what is or isn't for instance "right" or "left" wing? An example would be OV itself. It's exposing of convesations with Pfizer, an obviously mainstream establishment, would negate the statement thst PV is "right" wing, wouldn't it? Also, the previous comment about "hooey" from PV cannot be seen other than extreme bias and prejudice and does no favours to Wikipedia in it's presumed attempt at neutrality. 208.105.177.3 (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of what is right or left. It uses reliable sources.

2. Self-descriptions are clearly not neutral and frankly meaningless. Unless you want, for example, to state that Trump knows more about ISIS than the generals, more about courts than any human on Earth, more about trade, renewable energy, taxes, debt, money, infrastructure, construction, tech, drones, than anyone.[7].

3. A talk page is not an article. The word "hooey" as a description in WikiVoice would not be used in an article. It shows no bias to be used on a talk page when appropriate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The GOP are right wing they are part of the mainstream establishment, so I have no idea why being part of the "mainstream establishment, would negate the statement thst PV is "right" wing". Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia stating left or right as well as deceptive? Why? That’s bizarre. They have gone after the truth on both sides. 2600:4040:AEC0:9C00:7D22:6D25:F8DD:1D96 (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

As O3000 mentioned, Wikipedia follows what the best available sources say and describes the article subject as they do. MrOllie (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Bankrupt

Some updating is needed. Here are a few sources:

• August 8, 2022 Ex-Project Veritas Employees Offer Harsh Portrait of the Conservative Group
• August 19, 2023 Layoffs Gut Project Veritas: 'What the F*ck Happened Here?'
• August 22, 2023 Project Veritas' post-O'Keefe CEO guts staff, potentially marking final chapter in the group's chaotic history
• September 8, 2023 'We're Bankrupt': Leaked Meeting Reveals Project Veritas On Verge of Collapse

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like better sources. Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

They may exist. These are good enough for this type of content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Or we wait until its not a leak, and they declare bankruptcy. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure. We can do that. Let's keep our eyes open and continue to collect sources here. Since we're dealing with a very fringe topic, we are allowed to use less than the best sourcing (see WP:PARITY). We can use watchdog groups and other sources that specialize in fringe topics. We don't have to stick to legacy media like WaPo and NYT. All the sources above are perfectly fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

Change dates of operation from 2010 to 2023

Source https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/new-project-veritas-suspends-all-operations-amid-devastating-layoffs-and-fundraising-struggles/ar-AA1h1s6o HPkw (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Already done by Isi96 in Special:Diff/1176344601. Thanks for submitting this. — Newslinger talk 08:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic arguments about the article subject & Wikipedia standards. Closing per WP:FORUM. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's unfortunate that the author of this article is guilty of exactly what they say Project Veritas is guilty of, i.e., deception. Who defines what is a reliable source? Clearly, the author selectively chose sources that would describe Project Veritas negatively. There is absolutely no objectivity in this article; therefore, it is useless. Having read only the first paragraph, I could tell there would be no point in reading the rest of the article. This is happening way too often with Wikipedia making this resource less and less valuable. Gregory McCoy (talk) 06:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Examples of reliable sources include the sources cited in this article, particularly the ones in the first paragraph that you read. Examples of questionable sources include Project Veritas, as it has a reputation for producing deceptively edited videos that misrepresent the subject matter. I invite you to read this Wikipedia article in its entirety to gain a better understanding of Project Veritas. — Newslinger talk 06:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Do you have long form videos to prove that project veritas videos are deceptively edited? Or are you just accusing them of it because you don't agree with the comment. Your "reliable" sources are all far left propaganda. As are you. Good move block8ng editing because you feel like your lie needs protecting. The firat paragraph is dripping with vitriole and looks to be written by an agry child. 50.121.31.101 (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2024 (UTC) No WE do not, but we do not go by what WE say or think, but by what wp:rs does. Also read wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC) To be fair, I am in fact an "agry child" and I love "vitriole," which is of course the most popular brand of vitamin infused pasta. GMGtalk 13:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC) This article cites academic journals and other reliable sources that confirm that Project Veritas's videos are deceptively edited. See Special:Permalink/1189546595 § cite note-deceptive-13 for more information. There is no evidence that any of the reliable sources cited in this article are "far-left propaganda", or that any fact stated in this article is a "lie". — Newslinger talk 02:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC) A far-right disinformation outfit will be covered negatively by legitimate news organisations, so the article won't reflect well on them as a result. That's how it works. Isi96 (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

"We really don't care what they think." Personally, I care. If any Wikipedia article agrees with their worldview, it is a candidate for immediate rewriting or deletion. Dimadick (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

If you don't see how labeling someone has a racist because some reliable sources said they are racist (which his indirectly part of the label of far right) you probably are far from an unbiased arbiter. Imagine it was the other way around and you had enough people on the right editing wikipedia.

"It's also telling that being factual & using reliable sources is "leftist", while conservatives balk at using any source to the left of Breitbart." Now, the irony of that statement is quite strong, when did I say that exactly? My point is that people on the left and the right could find reliable sources that could go both ways (far right or simply ring wing) and therefore we should err on the side of using the less incendiary label, still according to reliable sources.

Focus on my arguments instead of trying to make them up, am I wrong that the actions I talked about are normal right wing position and not far right? Focus on the actions! Those reliable sources, who DO claim they are far right, never claimed they advocated for an ethno state, racial supremacy, an authoritarian government, an authocracy, an economic system that rely on partial control of corporation by the government, the erasure of individual rights... Do I need to carry on? Maybe you don't know what far right his, and it's fine, but you shouldn't argue here then.

The fact is that it's a label they are throwing around because they disagree, with possibly good reasons, on the way Project veritas is doing "journalism" and/or the clear bias way they are doing it. Valid criticism, not far right...

You should probably read the guidelines on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view which is quite an important one. Wikipedia isn't suppose to be a Progressivepedia either. 199.114.232.91 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, someday, lecturing more experienced editors on basic policies will go over well and somehow won't just come off as condescending and counterproductive. Not today, though. If we're listing things that others should probably read, the FAQ at the top of the page also comes to mind. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. It isn't up to you, as an editor, to decide that "right wing" and "far-right" are mutually exclusive, and especially not on this talk page. Sources which say "right wing" do not invalidate those which say "far-right". Obviously, as the names imply, "far right" is a subset of "right-wing".

We are likewise not interested in your personal definition of far-right. Your opinion of which specific positions would qualify this organization as being far-right enough for the label is uninteresting. Since you're apparently already familiar with Wikipedia's policies, you don't need me to explain why. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You've misunderstood NPOV, which isn't surprising from someone pushing a POV. We're done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Currently Active

The Wikipedia page appears to suggest that the Project Veritas platform was shut down in 2023. the platform has been active since at least late Dec 2023 to present. www.projectveritas . com (the platform has been blacklisted by Wikipedia, perhaps that also should be indicated?) Robertjdickey (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

We do, how? Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)