Talk:Project Veritas

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)

Given how they operate I would rather wait till we see third-party analysis of what was actually said by whom and in what context.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Here's Newsweek[1] with a third-party report on one of the videos in their possession. The general assessment seems to be that this expose is a pretty big hit to CNN's credibility. Pkeets (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pkeets: Please note WP:RSP#Newsweek (2013–present). When you are saying "the general assessment" do you mean in that Newsweek source, or among other stuff you're reading? Because I definitely do not get that impression that the Newsweek article is drawing that conclusion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I've read several articles on this today, so that's my take on the "general assessment." See Newsweek third-party report on what Chester said at the link.Pkeets (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You mean have a court hearing where CNN is sued, takes the stand and a jury decides? Sounds good to me. Maybe we should get some class action stuff started.Airpeka (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

No I mean where an RS is given access to the full, unedited, video and then has an analysis of what is in fact actually said in response to what.Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

See Newsweek link here [2] Pkeets (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a, "you show yours and I'll show mine" type thing would be possible... during discovery... in a court of law? Sounds good to me. Maybe Jeff should just sign some checks and we'll write in the zeros. We'll be fair!Airpeka (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

What? OK, lets wait for inclusion when (and if) this has been taken to court.Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Airpeka, what are the multiple RS which document this? Please provide them so we know what you're talking about. For curiosity's sake, please provide the PV source as well. -- Valjean (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Has this been reported in any reliable sources yet? (And no, Project Veritas is not a reliable source.) I don't see it. Saxones288 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

There's none of your "reliable sources" (read: only left wing sources) because project veritas is exposing their far-left agenda. There is a clear conflict of interest.

New York Times is citing this Wikipedia article in their lawsuit. So you are actually influencing actual lawsuits by spreading lies about project veritas here. User:Sal at PV come help your company from slander dude. 2605:B100:D10:5DD6:F5E8:9044:9D5D:4D2C (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

See? You can't even talk here without getting reverted, if you say something local censors don't like. They will just whine about their "reliable sources", which is just an arbitrary demand to make writing non defamatory things about PV and other organizations impossible. And also to make criticism of CNN and other progressive media impossible, since they are those "reliable sources" and of course they won't inform about themselves being exposed for manipulating the public discourse and the election. THese people don't accept a video of CCN leadership saying they manipulated the election, just because PV made it. But would accept it, if CNN reposted it, (since it is about them). And they don't even see this as weird in their doublethink. And now they also erase dissenting people from talk pages to create impression that their opinion is the only existing one. Kinda like when Twitter purged Keefe for that CNN gig.Vojtaruzek (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If you do not want to follow the verifiability policy, which states that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable" and that "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source", then Wikipedia is not a good fit for your contributions. One of these alternative outlets may be a better fit. There are conservative sources that are considered reliable on Wikipedia. However, as a disinformation outlet, Project Veritas is not one of them. — Newslinger talk 03:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

So basically CNN said that Veritas saying CNN lied are lies. Move along, nothing to see here. But when police say they don't think police did anything wrong, we should make an article about it. 2601:602:9200:1310:1566:8AD6:E36B:6609 (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, confirm that Project Veritas has repeatedly propagated disinformation (including fake news) in its videos and operations. See the sources cited in Special:Permalink/1018085423 § cite note-disinformation-14 for details. — Newslinger talk 07:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

CNN is not the only source we use.Slatersteven (talk) 08:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

1- Project Veritas’ purpose is NOT Disinformation. They show videos of people actually talking, unlike our MSM that ask the public to trust “Sources”.

2- Project Veritas is NOT a Far-Right Organization. They actually expose the Right Wing Politicians and news outlets just the same.

3- (Personal attack removed)... you are hurting your image and driving it into the ground. 173.2.161.24 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 01:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has for quite sometime been excellent at creating and using the 'broken feedback loop' method. unfortunately for them this is no longer and invisible hand. Project Veritas Wall of shame shows how successful they have been in their endeavors to expose the lies and falsities of those organisations that they have been stacked up against. Wiki is losing trust by the day here, and now that we have one of the founders explaining this problem within it on Tim Pool, it is obvious for all to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.166.80 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You may be interested in the high-quality academic publications cited in this article. Here is a sample:

Despite seething antipathy toward journalism, Veritas assays to coopt the prestige of the profession and to penetrate its mainstream discourses (as flagged in the epigram). While the status of professional journalism has absorbed blows in recent decades, it retains the greatest reach for news discourse. In this view, Veritas seeks the prize of the mainstream's approval and its vestigial prestige that O'Keefe otherwise dismisses. Hence, "Project Veritas journalist" title cards in its videos tendentiously assert Veritas personnel's qualifications to mainstream specifications. Despite its bids for professional authority, Veritas manifestly defies the letter and the spirit of journalism ethics.

Goss, Brian Michael (March 12, 2018). "Veritable Flak Mill". Journalism Studies. 19 (4): 548–563. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2017.1375388. ISSN 1461-670X. S2CID 149185981.

In November 2017, for example, the right-wing disinformation outfit Project Veritas tried to trip up the Washington Post, offering the Post a fake informant who told the Post that Roy Moore had impregnated her when she was a teenager. The sting operation was intended to undermine the credibility of the Post’s reporting on Roy Moore's alleged pursuit and harassment of teens when he was a 30-something-year-old. Rather than jumping at the opportunity to develop the Moore story, the Washington Post's reporters followed the professional model—checked out the source, assessed her credibility, and ultimately detected and outed the attempt at manipulation. Mainstream media editors and journalists must understand that they are under a sustained attack, sometimes as premeditated and elaborate as this sting, usually more humdrum.

Benkler, Yochai; Faris, Rob; Roberts, Hal (October 2018). "What Can Men Do Against Such Reckless Hate?". Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 358. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-092362-4. OCLC 1045162158. Archived from the original on January 26, 2021. Retrieved January 29, 2021.

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).

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.

An additional example of the growing spread of fake news financed by billionaires is Project Veritas, an organization run by James O'Keefe that specializes in operations against the media (e.g., recently against the Washington Post and the New York Times). According to the Washington Post, relying on documents fielded with the International Revenue Service, Project Veritas received $1.7 million in 2017 from charity associated with the Koch brothers. Furthermore, other contributors to Project Veritas in recent years include Gravitas Maximus LLC, an organization controlled by the Mercer family.

Cagé, Julia (February 11, 2021). "From Philanthropy to Democracy: Rethinking Governance and Funding of High-Quality News in the Digital Age". In Bernholz, Lucy; Landemore, Hélène; Reich, Rob (eds.). Digital Technology and Democratic Theory. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-74860-3. Retrieved 27 March 2021 – via Google Books.

Key is if—and it is a big if—it is possible to verify the truth of the material through supporting documentation, including notes and raw footage, and expert or independent analysis, and the forthrightness of the editing of the report, tape, or transcript. In the end, these considerations, I think, matter more than the impetus for its creation. In the Ron Schiller instance, these standards were not met before the video got wide mainstream play. Although Project Veritas described the footage as "largely the raw video" redacted only in one brief section to ensure the safety of an NPR correspondent overseas, analysis by others (interestingly, the most impressive was done by fellow conservatives at Glenn Beck’s The Blaze) pinpointed instances of highly selective editing of the two-hour hidden camera taping—discrediting it, even though the slanted finesses did not concern the key comments that forced the two Schillers out.

Kroeger, Brooke (August 31, 2012). "Watchdog". Undercover Reporting: The Truth About Deception. Northwestern University Press. pp. 249–254. ISBN 978-0-8101-2619-0. JSTOR j.ctt22727sf.17. Archived from the original on December 6, 2020. Retrieved 7 November 2020 – via JSTOR.

— Newslinger talk 05:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

CNN 2021 expose

Why all the hedging on this video expose? The content has now been reported widely by outlets including Newsweek and ABC News (especially after O'Keefe was suspended by Twitter for posting the videos), and the identity of the CNN employee is also verified. Wikipedia seems to be perfectly fine with posting possibly defamatory statements about other public figures and companies, so I don't understand the reluctance about CNN. Pkeets (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

We are discussing this above.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pkeets: Can you clarify what change you think ought to be made? And if there are "possibly defamatory statements about other public figures" being made somewhere on Wikipedia, I would highly recommend raising your concerns at the relevant talk pages, although I would note that well-sourced but critical statements about a person is not the same as defamation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021 (2)

There are no logical/factual articles that show this group is far right. Just opinion pieces.

They have not restricted the speech of anybody. They also have not been discriminatory to anyone. They do not exhibit any far right tendencies by definition of the term, far right. This is totally illogical.

If a group of my friends get together and call you an apple, that doesn't make you an apple. That's not how that works. SilveradoNomads (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure you posted this in the right article? Do we say they restrict free speech, or that they discriminate??Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

When you call someone or a group far right, you are saying they do far right things. One of the things that the far right does is called oppression. What does oppression do? It impacts your freedom of speech.. here, from wikipedia itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics

"Far-right politics can lead to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, or genocide against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group, nation, state, national religion, dominant culture, or ultraconservative Traditionalist conservatism social institutions.[3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression

"Authoritarian oppression

The word oppress comes from the Latin oppressus, past participle of opprimere, ("to press against",[4] "to squeeze", "to suffocate").[5] Thus, when authoritarian governments use oppression to subjugate the people, they want their citizenry to feel that "pressing down", and to live in fear that if they displease the authorities they will, in a metaphorical sense, be "squeezed" and "suffocated", e.g., thrown in a dank, dark, state prison or summarily executed. Such governments oppress the people using restriction, control, terror, hopelessness, and despair.[b] The tyrant's tools of oppression include, for example, extremely harsh punishments for "unpatriotic" statements; developing a loyal, guileful secret police force; prohibiting freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press; controlling the monetary system and economy; and imprisoning or killing activists or other leaders who might pose a threat to their power.[6][7][8][9][10] "

Matter of fact, have they done any of the above?

You know exactly what we wanted to be edited out, stop being obtuse. They are not far right, edit that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilveradoNomads (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Can, so it is one part of being far-right. We have RS say they are far-right, for a number of reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@SilveradoNomads: Please see Q2 of the FAQ at the top of the page. This has been discussed at great length, and your appeals to original research are not going to change the fact that Wikipedia reflects what is published in reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources, sir.

Those are opinion articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilveradoNomads (talk • contribs) 18:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

According to us they are, if you disagree take it to wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"According to us they are" How far-right of you.

Thanks, I'll check it out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SilveradoNomads (talk • contribs) 19:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021 (3)

I apologise, but this page is wrong. Change right-wing to Right leaning. Change the all around verbiage of the practices of actual journalism, the current framing implies malice and ill-intent. This open the website to lawsuits 209.207.13.95 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we remove the section on the recent CNN videos?

I recently copyedited the section on the CNN videos because it was in pretty rough shape, but the whole time I found myself wondering if I shouldn't just remove it entirely. It's currently based entirely on one article from The Independent (generally reliable; RSP link). Googling around for "project veritas cnn" and similar gives me sources describing PV's recent videos from publications like The New York Post (deprecated, RSP link), Newsweek (not generally reliable, RSP link), Fox News (no consensus on reliability, RSP link), and the Sinclair Broadcasting Group (not at RSP, but a partisan source with surprisingly little discussion at RSN).

There are more usable sources (The Hill [3], New York Times [4]) focusing on the Twitter ban that happened shortly after, but they don't make any mention of the CNN videos.

Including the section on the videos seems like undue weight to me unless there are better sources out there that I'm not seeing. We could potentially keep the section on O'Keefe's Twitter ban, though it might be better suited to his own article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the section should stay, since according to Forbes (RSP entry), O'Keefe also announced a lawsuit against CNN, and the CNN videos are a key part of the background of his announced lawsuit against Twitter. Additionally, there is some coverage in publications including The Hill (RSP entry) on U.S. Representative Matt Gaetz's use of the CNN videos in an advertising campaign to "fight back" against sex trafficking allegations. You're right that there hasn't yet been any in-depth analysis of the CNN video in reliable sources, but in my opinion, the coverage so far suggests that the section is warranted.

I've added the {{current}} template to Project Veritas § CNN recordings (2021) to indicate that the available sources reflect breaking news, and that future coverage (e.g. full analyses of the videos) may be more reliable. — Newslinger talk 06:42, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This seems to be Walsh more than Forbes, —PaleoNeonate – 08:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources may not pay much attention considering the poor reputation and history of previous claims. Assuming that the person was an actual employee, it could have been their own beliefs or claims anyway. If so, may indeed be WP:UNDUE, with WP:NOTNEWS also relevant... This is one more spam incident on private social media leading to an administrative action, followed by reactionary frustration... If someone wants to write about CNN's editorial stance on WP, there are better sources and it belongs on a CNN related article, of course. If preserving a mention, how about a single sentence about the Twitter sanction for spamming a video? There's no need to quote conspiracy theories of inflated COVID-19 stats, for instance. —PaleoNeonate – 08:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Two minds, it has got some coverage, but then also it may be undue. I would err towards not including at till we can at least add CNN's response.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Also can this be merged with the above (large) section about the same topic?Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• I would wait. More up-to-date sources tend to be drastically different in their coverage of most things related to Project Veritas, so WP:NOTNEWS definitely applies here. Speaking of which, we should probably review some of the existing stories (I've already gone over a few) - many of them are written in a breathless breaking-news coverage using sources from the day the relevant incidents happened, whereas more recent coverage tends to be more sparse and cautious, with much more focus on how Veritas obtained the videos and the ways they were manipulated rather than their content (which is often not notable in the long term once the full context is revealed, hence the lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage.) We ought to update our descriptions of these incidents to match that when possible. I'd also suggest reducing any incident that lacks sustained coverage to a more brief summary, trimming extended quotes and the like - we don't really need to cover every single video they got, especially if coverage was brief and the long-term impact mostly related to low-profile individuals who fall under WP:BLP1E. --Aquillion (talk) 20:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  I agree that some of the older sections should be shortened, with breaking news sources replaced with retrospective news sources and high-quality academic sources (when available). — Newslinger talk 01:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me what makes this investigation any different from all the others we do list? -- Kendrick7^talk 18:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Lack of coverage in reliable sources, as I explain above in this section. I see you added two sources; one is the Sinclair Broadcasting Group source I refer to above, the other was The Federalist (generally unreliable at WP:RSP#The Federalist). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure why you just added {{dispute about}}, which is to mark when "The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed." As far as I'm aware there is no issue with factual accuracy, rather whether or not there has been sufficient coverage for a section on this to be added or not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying that no such investigation occured? This seems to have been widely report on in a variety of sources, and I was in the process of adding more. I simply don't believe it's a hoax, so to not include this would be factually inaccurate, especially given the fallout with Twitter which resulted from it. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought I had been pretty clear in my comments above as to why I didn't think it should be included. If I thought PV hadn't published any videos about CNN I would've said so. No, I'm saying there hasn't been much coverage in reliable sources to warrant inclusion. Just because it's verifiable that Project Veritas published videos purportedly showing someone from CNN saying something does not mean a section on this is automatically warranted. I could find you a source verifying that Joe Biden sneezed in October, that doesn't mean we put it in his article, and omitting it does not mean the article is "factually inaccurate".

This seems to have been widely report on in a variety of sources, and I was in the process of adding more. Feel free to present your sources here for discussion. When I looked into it on the 17th there wasn't much in the way of WP:SIGCOV—the reliable sources mentioned O'Keefe's Twitter ban with little mention of CNN, and it seemed only shaky sources (plus one usable source, The Independent) were describing the CNN videos in any detail. Perhaps that's changed? But The Federalist certainly wasn't a promising start. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not an "investigation" to catfish a low-level non-editorial employee on Tinder and get them to (boastfully? drunkenly?) say a bunch of things in a restaurant that you then edit into an out-of-context supercut. An actual investigation would include efforts to corroborate that person's statements and determine whether or not any of it was actually true. But that wouldn't get PV a bunch of donations, would it? Perhaps there's a reason that mainstream sources are widely ignoring this. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Bias in article introduction

Project veritas isnt far right. That sources that are used to support this claim does not provide an political or historical based arguments why it is far right. Far right refers to believing in racial supremacy ideas and that does not characterise Project veritas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerchasúr (talk • contribs) 13:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. Over a dozen independent reliable sources describe Project Veritas as a far-right organization. Please see these references for details. Far-right politics is not limited to "racial supremacy ideas". — Newslinger talk 13:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

They are biased sources. Every aspect of far rightism that isnt racial or about ethnic supremacy exists in other political ideologies (eg. political-coporate cabals, personality cults, mitaristarism, anti communism, extreme nationalism). None of the sources list why it is far right. None of the sources list any of those features.

The sources include: Daily Dot left leaning https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-dot/ US Today left leaning https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/usa-today-2/ Philipdepia inquirer left leaning https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/philadelphia-inquirer/ Columbia Journliams review left leaning https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/columbia-journalism-review/

Lots and lots of bias. Bottom line is that Project veritas isnt far right. They are standard conservatives. Aerchasúr (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You are correct. They are conservative. To say they are far right is clear bias, which is normal for wikipedia. Concerning journalism, politics, academia... to be conservative at all to a leftist means you are far right, simply because they are so far left. The individual editors camping out on this page cannot see their bias. Think Allegory of the Cave.Airpeka (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) is not considered a reliable source for political bias, as it is self-published by a non-expert. You've also ignored many of the cited sources, including a high-quality academic source published by Routledge, The New Zealand Herald, Forbes (RSP entry), and News.com.au. Biased sources are not automatically unreliable; even far-right sources have the potential to be reliable if they have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. (Project Veritas does not.) Your political analysis is original research and cannot be cited in the article. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I find MB/FC can be useful in talk page discussions, though you're absolutely correct it shouldn't be used as a source. But I agree with the gist of your reply, which is that biased sources are not automatically unreliable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

USA Today (the dictionary definition of mainstream media), the Philly Inquirer (a major metro daily), and CJR (basically the most respected media criticism publication in America) are "left-leaning"? Get outta here with that shit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aerchasúr: I find it interesting that you've cherrypicked four of fourteen sources to demonstrate that this descriptor is based on left-leaning sources, conveniently ignoring the centrist and right-leaning publications in that cite group:

• New Zealand Herald MB/FC: "Least Biased based on story selection that very slightly favors the right.")
• Forbes: MB/FC: "Right-Center biased based on story selection that favors the right and the political affiliation of its ownership."
• News.com.au: MBFC: "News.com.au Right-Center Biased based on story selection that slightly favors the right"

Furthermore, you've failed to mention that three of these four sources you've named as "left-leaning" (USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer, CJR) are quite centrist, and classified by MBFC as "left-center", not "left".

There is no requirement that sources be centrist, or represent publications throughout the spectrum of political bias, but that is precisely what is happening with the sources used for "far-right". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Your argument doesnt take into account that it violates NPOV and NPOS. I could easily cite many sources that describe it otherwise. It possibly contrevences WP:RS. UNreliable sources doesnt change truth Aerchasúr (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The cited sources are reliable. If you see an unreliable source cited, feel free to point it out. If you find reliable sources that claim that Project Veritas is not far-right, feel free to share them. Currently, the article cites 14 reliable sources based in 5 different countries for the far-right descriptor, making it the majority description that is neutrally presented in the article. — Newslinger talk 15:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV is about properly representing reliable sources, not about avoiding criticism, —PaleoNeonate – 03:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You have alleged the propagation of misinformation.Can this be reliably cited. With the exception of 2010 when there was a settlement I don't see anything but a bunch of he said she said. Further, allegations of deceptive video editing is a common practice. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, & PBS all engage in this practice. For example if the democrats propose a bill & republicans then hold a 30 minute press conference of concise well thought out reasons for their opposition the mainstream media will give overview of a democratic plan then they will play a clip of the republican press conference which is nearly muted with the commentator only saying that republicans oppose what sounds like good legislation ostensibly giving equal time to both sides. The TV program "What Would You Do" used highly edited video of people who did not know they were being recorded. I'm sure ABC covered themselves by having unwitting participants sign a release but the thing is the they did not know in advance so were not given ample time to consider how this might push a certain narrative, if the video then misrepresented their viewpoint they would probably see no way to correct this, also they could have easily been led led to react a certain way by ABC's manipulation. These are also far left media organizations but have not been deemed so as they vilify the right & condone the left. My citations are based on easily observable phenomenon.Haddi Nuff (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Haddi Nuff (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Haddi Nuff: Please review WP:OR for an explainer of why "My citations are based on easily observable phenomenon." is not sufficient. for all of this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

See Special:Permalink/1018297887 § cite note-disinformation-14 for the disinformation descriptor and Special:Permalink/1018297887 § cite note-conspiracy theories-56 for the conspiracy theories descriptor. These descriptors are verifiable to reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 15:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read all of the threads above and add something new.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Which citations? —PaleoNeonate – 04:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

The fact that Wikipedia is supporting propaganda and portrays an organisation that exposes corruption as being far right and then putting restrictions on editing is outrageous. I have donated to Wikipedia in the past when I’ve received these emails begging for funds for their continued operations. I thought that Wikipedia served a purpose by providing factual and unbiased information available for free to the masses. That is no longer the case. I will never donate to Wikipedia again. You lost the whole purpose and foundation of what you stand for. Shame. 2603:7000:8C00:2462:8DD9:1533:E261:DED9 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit requests must be made in a “Change X to Y” format. Your complaint is not a request. Ferkjl (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@2603:7000:8C00:2462:8DD9:1533:E261:DED9: You are totally right. Not only is this article incredible biased and false in political science terms but it is filled with WP violations. The editors seem to think wp:idontlikeit doesn't exist.Aerchasúr (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The fact that you personally disagree with the reliable sources cited in this article ("I don't like it") is not a substitute for reliable sourcing. — Newslinger talk 00:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Misleading statements about Project Veritas's coverage

In the introduction section of the page it is mentioned that Project Veritas covers conspiracy theories[56]. It cites Project veritas's offer of payment for tip of on recent election fraud. It also cites a list of other sources that vaguely state Project Veritas is a conspiracy theory outfit. Not a single example of promoting conspiracy theories is cited. This statement violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. It has to be removed. Aerchasúr (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Citing examples of conspiracy theories in the Wikipedia article as "proof" of PV being a conspiracy theory outfit would be original research. It's actually perfectly fine if the source don't mention any examples. That they call PV a conspiracy theory outfit is sufficient for us to describe it as such. Why does it violated NPOV? 15 (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound condescending, but would you mind reading WP:NPOV and WP:OR and tell us which parts of these policies are actually contravened by the article? You keep referencing NPOV and OR, but every user disagreeing with your view should make you pause and consider your understanding of policy. Best, 15 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The sources have to be reliable and authoritative. I have read the policies. The only reason we can call voter fraud allegations 'conspiracy theories' is because journalists have looked into so it is not rational to use it as evidence as conspiracy theorism. That part of the article is clearly an editorialisation by someone who is not trying to be neutral. Will add more detail. It is kind of amusing articles about progressive groups use the language of the group discussed but articles of non progressive groups use the language of critics. C'est la Wiki bias! Aerchasúr (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This article cites reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources written by subject-matter experts in journalism. Whether you personally disagree with these sources is not relevant. 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 support your desired changes, feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 00:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:FIXBIAS may be relevant, —PaleoNeonate – 04:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

This page is extremely biased and not based in real fact. Someone has edited this page full of opinion and that is not what Wikipedia should be. It should be strictly unbiased and fact-based.Anonymous Meme God (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Nothing done since no specific change requested, also please see previous discussions, —PaleoNeonate – 04:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Newslinger talk 04:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Fairness in labeling

Allegations of deceptive video editing is a common practice. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, & PBS all engage in this practice. There has been tremendous coverage of the border crisis by conservative media. Many state governors, sheriffs, & U.S. senators have given press conferences inviting every major news organization. For over a month CBS & ABC did not report this which shows clearly that since the takeover of the current administration the illegal border crossing have substantially increased. Later, there was only scant reporting of these facts. There are many major domestic concerns which ABC, NBC, & CBS either did not report, under reported, or reported much later than they were made apparent. These are also far left media organizations but have not been deemed so as they vilify the right & condone the left. A reasonable person who is given all sides would likely conclude that though P.V. may be conservative, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, & PBS equally progressive.Haddi Nuff (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

If you have issues with how we describe oher media take it up there. RS have said this about PV, so we do. And can you please read all the above threads (and the FAQ), you have added nothing new.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That argument is a false dilemma and it's also irrelevant to this article. Additionally, Sharyl Attkisson is not a subject-matter expert on politics. According to Attkisson's self-published media bias chart, Attkisson claims that the Columbia Journalism Review is about as left-leaning as Daily Kos (RSP entry), and that The American Conservative (RSP entry) is farther to the right than InfoWars (RSP entry); both claims bear no resemblance to reality. That is why reliable sources, and not Sharyl Attkisson, are cited for the content in this article. — Newslinger talk 15:33, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that Sharyl Attkisson a 35 year veteran & published author is an unsuitable reference. I would argue that this is being mischaracterized as a political question rather than a journalistic one. That is to say that if we name Project Veritas a far right wing (which is a subjective term) group whose purpose is misinformation which employs video manipulation it would logically follow then that we would also, if we are being fair, call ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, & PBS far left groups whose purpose is misinformation which employs video manipulation as they clearly are keeping a narrative. They are not given this purpose or method but I am not asking on this page that we reclassify these media outlets. I suspect that attempting to do that on each networks proper page I would be directed back here but I digress. I am simply pointing out that there are inconsistencies in the treatment of these organizations in opposition to PV. I would ask you to reconsider.Haddi Nuff (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Haddi Nuff (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You have been answered above, asking the same question again will not get a different answer.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

being a veteran does not make someone a reliable source. 2605:B100:D19:4C3:590F:653F:1070:1762 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

They mean "veteran reporter".Slatersteven (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Deceptively edited video

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

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

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

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