Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

Copyright violation removed. See https://ballotpedia.org/Project_Veritas#Background for the original content. — Newslinger talk 06:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.72.225.105 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source(s), please? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 20:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The suggested wording is too promotional to use, especially since it omits context about Project Veritas's track record that is present in the high-quality academic sources cited in the article. — Newslinger talk 01:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, these two paragraphs are copied and pasted from the "Background" section of the Ballotpedia article on Project Veritas. This is a copyright violation, and I have removed it. — Newslinger talk 06:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Type field in infobox

Hello, I work for Project Veritas and would like to request a correction to the "type" field in the infobox. According to the infobox's documentation at TemplatedInfobox organization, this field is meant to describe the legal entity type of the organization (non profit, governmental, etc.), not to serve as a description of the organization's purpose or activities. Please correct the field to "501(c)(3) nonprofit" to accurately reflect the organization type. Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

that is not how I read it. NOw there maybe an argument for ngo.Slatersteven (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the type is Non-governmental organization the legal status is 501(c)(3) and the purpose is disinformation. Something like this:

Project Veritas/Archive 3

Type	NGO
Legal status	501(c)(3)
Purpose	disinformation

Vexations (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that works.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have added the "type" and "status" fields to reflect that PV is a 501(c)3, per Sal at PV's request and Vexations' suggested solution, and retained the previous text in the "purpose" field. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi GorillaWarfare. Thank you for fixing the issue with the "type" field. However, we've run into a similar problem with the "purpose" field. When talking about an organization, "purpose" refers to the central goal of an organization or the reason for which it was founded. Just because a book written by a few scholars uses a throwaway pejorative to refer to Project Veritas ("In November 2017, for example, the right-wing disinformation outfit Project Veritas tried..."), this in no way means that "disinformation" is the purpose of the organization according to this source. And I have not found any other source that makes such an extraordinary claim either.

If you are concerned that removing the "purpose" field would prevent readers from learning about Project Veritas's supposed "disinformation" (an allegation that, obviously, Project Veritas takes strong issue with), be assured that the term is used prominently in the "Minnesota videos (2020)" section.

Finally, if you look again at the documentation at Template:Infobox organization, the examples provided for the "purpose" field are broad, concise and neutral: humanitarian, activism, peacekeeping. "Far-right provocateur and disinformation group" doesn't exactly fit the model. I can think of more appropriate possibilities for "purpose," e.g., journalism, education (which is PV's official IRS designation - see here) or even activism. But seeing as most articles with this infobox don't even use the "purpose" field, including this article until a few days ago, I think we are all best served by just removing it.

I appreciate your civility and open-mindedness in interacting with editors like me, as there is ample room for cynicism here. I hope I can return the favor. Thanks again, Sal at PV (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It's patently ridiculous to claim that an organization whose entire modus operandi is producing falsely edited videos, often obtained through fraudulent, unethical and even illegal means (noting that the founder is a convicted felon who tried to install an illegal wiretap into a United States Senator's office), has a purpose of anything but disinformation.

Further, the sources are very clear.

1. Project Veritas is "a great example of what a coordinated disinformation campaign looks like" (New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/politics/project-veritas-ilhan-omar.html)
2. [1] "In November 2017, for example, the right-wing disinformation outfit Project Veritas tried to trip up the Washington Post..." - not a "throwaway pejorative", as you falsely claim, but a rather complete analysis on page 357-358 of the tactics used by propaganda groups such as PV attempt to goad journalistic entities, and a specific example of how the Washington Post resisted PV's disinformation effort by employing professional process.

Given that you are an employee of PV, which IS a disinformation group, I think it is right that any reader seeing your posts consider Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)(comments by this sock puppet on this talk page are struck per wp:talko)

@Sal at PV: The original edit request was fairly uncontroversial and there were no objections, so I was happy to implement it. This subsequent request I won't implement without a solid consensus to remove the field. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I understand the reluctance to take out the "purpose" field without consensus, but it seems to me that the WP:BURDEN of proof to demonstrate verifiability should be on those who wish to add "disinformation" to the infobox. As I wrote above, none of the sources listed say that the purpose of Project Veritas is disinformation. The New York Times article quotes researchers who called a specific video a "disinformation effort," not referring to Project Veritas as an organization. (Contrary to the atrocious - and syntactically nonsensical - misrepresentation above by IHateAccounts: Project Veritas is "a great example of what a coordinated disinformation campaign looks like") The same is true of the Media Matters source - it does not use "disinformation" to refer to the organization, but to one particular video. (Though in any case it should go without saying that Media Matters should not be used here, as it is established at WP:RSP as a "biased or opinionated source.") And the Network Propaganda book that refers to PV as a "right-wing disinformation outfit" also says nothing about the organization's "purpose" - only what the authors believe is an appropriate characterization of PV in light of its tactics.

As the assertion's verifiability is challenged, the default should be to remove the content until the burden of demonstrating verifiability is satisfied by a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. And that does not include IHA's appeal to ridicule fallacy that it's "patently ridiculous" to claim that PV "has a purpose of anything but disinformation" - Wikipedia should be better than that. Sal at PV (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The "purpose" field is not intended for critic's opinions about an organization. I agree that the word "disinformation" does not belong there. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

PV started out as a propaganda group, with fraud and faked editing their Modus operandi, from their first videos. Every time the full story comes out, their frauds fall apart. That they send a paid employee to WP:POVPUSH here is humorous, but nothing more. The wording has three high-quality sources, satisfying WP:RS and WP:V, and is 100% accurate; everything thus far argued by "Sal At PV" falls into Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies territory and should probably be taken with an entire salt lick. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with all of the above, even its name is dishonest. However, it might be fairer to say "propaganda".Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The proponents of including "disinformation" in the purpose field have still not responded to my main objection above, which is that not a single reliable source says that the purpose of Project Veritas is "disinformation." As I elaborated on above, the three sources currently cited either refer to one specific action taken by Project Veritas (the 2020 Minnesota videos) or to a description of the organization as a "disinformation outfit" with no assertion that "disinformation" is PV's purpose.

As a side note, WP:MANDY refers to avoiding false balance in an article, not as IHA appears to be misapplying it: "Don't listen to anything Sal at PV says, since he works for Project Veritas." Sal at PV (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well actually yes "disinformation outfit" means that is their purpose, its what they are there for. (note the post I replied to has now been deleted).Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That's also a gross misunderstanding of WP:MANDY. White supremacists and neo-nazis do not often admit to being white supremacists and neo-nazis; likewise, propaganda organizations do not often admit openly to being propaganda organizations. Thus when Sal makes claims that this particular organization's purpose (despite its history of blatant fraud, dishonest and deceptive editing of video and audio, false claims, and manufacturing propaganda and disinformation) is not propaganda or disinformation... "well he would say that, wouldn't he?" The essay itself even notes, "Company Y has been successfully prosecuted for fraud. We don't need to say that the company denies wrongdoing." IHateAccounts (talk) 17:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that descriptions in reliable sources like "Coordinated Disinformation Campaign" and "right-wing disinformation outfit" can be summarised as "purpose:disinformation". To insist that we need to have three sources that say, in exactly these words: "The purpose of Project Veritas is disinformation" is not a legitimate claim; it's just obstruction. Paraphrasing is an essential aspect of encyclopaedic editing. It has been done correctly here. Vexations (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: First, as I've said above, the phrase "coordinated disinformation campaign" was not used as a description of Project Veritas; it was used as a description of the 2020 Minnesota videos, which were produced by Project Veritas. It makes absolutely no sense to call an organization a "campaign," which means (quoting Wiktionary) "a series of operations undertaken to achieve a set goal."

Second, it is false to say that "right-wing disinformation outfit" can be summarised as "purpose:disinformation". That is not an accurate paraphrasing at all. "Disinformation outfit" was used to characterize the methods and actions of the organization, not its purpose - which has variously been described in RS as "to discredit mainstream media outlets and left-wing groups" (source) or more broadly "the destruction of the liberal media" (source). And furthermore, for such a controversial statement like calling an organization's purpose "disinformation," yes, you should have at least one source that says it outright rather than vaguely hinting at it. Sal at PV (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Sal at PV, Let me get this straight. You'd like us to change purpose to "the destruction of the liberal media"? when the source says it is the unstated mission. And you represent Project Veritas? Is that correct? Vexations (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok this is getting nonsensical.

1. "the phrase "coordinated disinformation campaign" was not used as a description of Project Veritas; it was used as a description of the 2020 Minnesota videos, which were produced by Project Veritas" Attempting to use an example of PV's organizing a specific disinformation campaign to claim the organization's purpose is not creating and disseminating disinformation? That's just... wow.
2. VOA News, under the trump administration, is no longer trustworthy... but even if it was, this story does not say "to discredit mainstream media outlets and left-wing groups" is the "purpose" of PV. It uses the phrasing "a New York organization that targets and tries to discredit..."
3. Likewise, the New Republic article does not say the "purpose" of PV but rather uses the words "unstated mission", in the context of analyzing O'Keefe's seemingly personal grudge against reputable news organizations that haven't fallen for his scams and credulously reported his disinformation. "O’Keefe is treated as a clown by self-respecting journalists for good reason. He built his career on manipulative videos that fed into fantastical right-wing narratives, particularly surrounding race and abortion. These videos would then be posted online—Andrew Breitbart was an early booster—fueling right-wing outrage for weeks."

The facts remain pretty overwhelming. Project Veritas has had numerous targets over the years - voting rights advocacy organizations such as ACORN, United States Senators, reporters that O'Keefe has a personal grudge against such as Abbie Boudreau, women's health organizations such as Planned Parenthood - and sometimes they have just plain been producing nonsensical alt-right/racist/xenophobic propaganda, such as the "Bin Laden Mask River Crossing" incident. It would be impossible to say that PV's "purpose" was the destruction of any one of these individual entities, though their actions do often seem motivated in part by the personal animus and bigotry of O'Keefe and his employees.

The purpose of PV is, quite simply, the production of right-wing disinformation that can be disseminated and amplified by various right-wing media outlets, outfits that lack journalistic integrity and are willing to repeat propaganda credulously. Its purpose is to be a right-wing disinformation outfit [2], as such. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ...and the humorous essay WP:DEADHORSE is starting to seem to apply.

• HuffPost states that Project Veritas is a "fraudulent far-right propaganda outlet".
• A Fox TV station states that "The lack of verifiable evidence, allegations of misrepresentation and entrapment, and coordination with conservative causes, has been part of Project Veritas’ method of operation."
• The Tucson Daily Star/Tucson.com says Project Veritas is "a right-wing group known for undercover stings and deceptive videos".

Those are just a few examples, I am certain I could find many more sources that use words such as or related to any and all of the following: fraud, deception, propaganda, deceptively-edited videos, bribery, lawsuits filed against Project Veritas and its employees for libel/trespassing,Veritas' own lawsuits throw out of court, and so on. All of those descriptors of Project Veritas actions collectively according to editorial consensus have been taken to mean words including disinformation and it seems to me and the overwhelming number of editors commenting on this page that we are fine with that descriptor.

WP could say, according to WP:IRS, that Project Veritas' purpose is "fraud/deception". But I digress...I really came here to say that for an editor to insist that Wikipedia must use the exact wording that sources use is a mis-reading of WP guidelines and basically carefully-couched POV-pushing. The present editorial consensus is that the purpose parameter of this article's infobox be delineated as Far-right provocateur/disinformation but I'd be happy to adjust it to something that would include "fraud/fraudulent" & "deception/deceptive" & "propaganda" if that becomes the editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we can also go to WP:RS dictionaries and other WP:RS sources here, to determine if "disinformation" is an appropriate synonym representing the various WP:RS:

1. "false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth" - Merriam-Webster [3]
2. "false information spread in order to deceive people" - Cambridge [4]
3. "deliberately misleading or biased information; manipulated narrative or facts; propaganda" - Dictionary.com [5]
4. "False information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda..." - Oxford [6]
5. "false information that is intended to make people believe something that is not true" - MacMillan [7]
6. "Dictionaries typically define "disinformation" as the dissemination of deliberately false information" - NPR [8]
7. "When false information is knowingly shared to cause harm" - Wardle, C. and Derakshan, H. in Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making (2017).[9]

It looks like this is exactly what Project Veritas exists for; to create and disseminate false information in order to cause harm to their myriad targets. In other words, disinformation. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vexations: Purpose should be removed (the status quo until a few weeks ago) or replaced with something that is actually supported by RS. I have no special liking for the overwrought "destruction of the liberal media," but at least it's there in the RS as PV's mission (a rough synonym of "purpose"), unlike "disinformation."

@IHateAccounts: You are still confusing actions/methods with purpose. It doesn't matter how many sources you find that say that PV purveys disinformation. None of those sources make the claim that it is PV's purpose. And what's more, It looks like this is exactly what Project Veritas exists for is classic WP:OR - and the dictionary definition you apparently need to look up is "purpose," not "disinformation."

@Shearonink: Same comment as I made to IHA: You are confusing "method of operation" (as it says in the Fox 9 source you cited) with purpose. They are not the same thing. Nor are they synonyms or paraphrases of each other. For a Wikipedia editor to determine an organization's purpose based on sources that talk about its methods is WP:OR.

I've been accused of pushing POV here, but the truth is that I'm the only one arguing dispassionately based on Wikipedia policies (with the exception of Spiffy sperry), and it seems to me that the POV push is precisely in the opposite direction. Perhaps cooler heads can be found at WP:NPOVN. Sal at PV (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps so. If you think that a NPOVN report is needed, well, that's why Wikipedia has noticeboards and processes to discuss issues that might arise between editors about content. Have at it. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"I've been accused of pushing POV here, but the truth is that I'm the only one arguing dispassionately based on Wikipedia policies" - I believe this claim falls into a pattern known as DARVO. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Sal at PV, since you seem to speak for PV, perhaps you clarify what PV's view of its purpose is. You want the field removed, but not because the organization doesn't have one. There is broad consensus that we don't care what an organization says about itself, only what independent, reliable sources say.

Is there independent, reliable source that states the purpose in a way that satisfies our needs for NPOV and reliability that PV agrees with? Does such a source exist? Vexations (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

We can resolve this dispute by using the methods parameter in Template:Infobox organization. Project Veritas uses disinformation as one of its methods. — Newslinger talk 23:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: I don't know that this will really resolve anything, because I suspect there will still be people trying to get a "purpose" instantiated. Plus, review of numerous sources shows that a primary purpose of PV is the production of disinformation. This remains true whether the produced disinformation is then used to attack specific people (such as a senator), or organizations (ACORN, Planned Parenthood, etc) or merely spread around in right-wing media circles for other reasons (such as the "Osama Mask River Crossing" incident used to bolster xenophobia and racist/islamophobic bigotry). IHateAccounts (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Focus?

• Comment. {only here because I monitor IHA's contributions} I will be honest, I always assumed |purpose= was meant for things like a mission statement (as in like an organization's reason for being in their own words). I think that's how most people would logically think that is what purpose means. According to their website, their mission is to Investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparent society. For me, it would seem their main purpose (out of that) is to primarily just investigate corruption.
  However, we could just swap purpose with focus. We might do that for a few different reasons, but my primary motivation is to just separate what this organisation may say about itself versus what it does in practice. I am going to do try that and see if I get any objections. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  MJL, I guarantee that there will be objections if you do that. It would be better to get consensus for your proposal here first. WRT to only here because I monitor IHA's contributions I have something to say to you about that too, but I'll do that on your talk page. Vexations (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Vexations, MJL's user page lists IHateAccounts as their adoptee, so I don't think there is a behavioral issue here. As for which parameter to use, I don't have a strong opinion either way as long as the infobox is not altered to materially change what the article is saying. — Newslinger talk 22:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, I missed that. Struck. Vexations (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

lol that was an awkward misunderstanding.
@Vexations: Do you object to the proposed change or did you just revert on procedural grounds? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Getting back to topic, I believe the discussions on this page, and the sourcing, show that WP:MANDY and WP:ABOUTSELF prohibitions on unduly self-serving claims apply very strongly to "according to their website" with regard to a group such as PV whose primary purpose is the creation of disinformation. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: Okay, but we could also just as easily say their primary focus is those things is my point. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• That is an interesting point that has wider implications than just this article. If that were really what the |purpose= is for, it should not be named "purpose" because it would mean we would agree in Wikipedia's voice with what organizations say about their purpose. Template:Infobox organization says, Organization's purpose or focus (humanitarian, activism, peacekeeping, …), so that does not help. Should we start a discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox organization? The people there should know more. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  @Hob Gadling: I thought about that, but I figured it might be easier to sidestep that issue by using |focus=. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Vexations: PV's view of its purpose is what it says in its mission statement. But I accept that PV's mission statement doesn't interest you, and it has never been my goal to push that language. Instead, we should acknowledge that the purpose field is an optional field in Infobox organization, and should be removed in the absence of verifiable information to put there.

Alternatively, there are lots of RS that talk about what PV "tries to" accomplish, broadly, through its actions, and that could be acceptable for purpose (unlike "right-wing disinformation outfit"). Here are several examples:

• "Project Veritas is a conservative group that tries to undermine the mainstream media through undercover stings." (Salon)
• "Project Veritas is an organization that tries to discredit the news media and liberal groups through undercover 'sting' operations." (USA Today)
• "Phillips appears to work with Project Veritas, an organization that uses deceptive tactics and secretly records conversations in an effort to embarrass members of the mainstream media and left-leaning groups." (Washington Post)
• "Project Veritas, the guerrilla group that tries to undermine news outlets like CNN and The Washington Post" (New York Times)
• "Project Veritas, a conservative organization that tries to set up sting operations on a variety of groups in attempts to expose perceived bias" (ABC News)

Any of those examples would be fine in place of disinformation. As I've said, there are no RS that say - either directly or via synonyms/paraphrasing - that PV's purpose is disinformation.

@Newslinger: I don't understand the fixation on shoehorning "disinformation" into the infobox no matter what. The "coordinated disinformation campaign" quote is already in the article, in the "Minnesota videos (2020)" section, and it is a stretch to say that RS present "disinformation" as a "key fact" about PV, which is the standard set forth in MOS:INFOBOX. That notwithstanding, the specific objections I raised above to using "disinformation" in the purpose field do not apply to the methods field, as you suggest. I would only insist that the methods field also include PV's actual well-documented methods, i.e., undercover journalism, sting operations and secret recordings.

@MJL: I appreciate your good-faith effort to find a workable solution here. But "focus" doesn't work either, as you won't find any RS saying that "disinformation" is PV's focus. To say that it is one of PV's "methods" might be supported by RS, as Newslinger suggested, but focus is no more supported by RS than purpose. Sal at PV (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sal at PV: "PV's view of its purpose is what it says in its mission statement." - "Well they would say that, wouldn't they?" WP:ABOUTSELF policy is clear here, as a disinformation project, PV's claims fall into the category of "unduly self-serving" and carry no WP:WEIGHT compared to the clear preponderance of coverage in reliable sources.

Likewise, to the dishonest argument "we should acknowledge that the purpose field is an optional field in Infobox organization, and should be removed in the absence of verifiable information to put there"? Whitewashing the article is a no-go, and plenty of WP:RS have already been provided in this regard previously, with the sourcing linked in the infobox as well.

On the other hand, I think it's important we reflect descriptions such as "discredited right-wing attack group" and O'Keefe, the group's leader, as "a duplicitous purveyor of fake news – and an incompetent one at that."[10] IHateAccounts (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sal at PV: I get you are in a difficult spot here because Wikipedia treats mainstream media as the only reliable sources, and your organization is pretty much dedicated to exposing and antagonizing said media. However, those are the rules, and we really can't make exceptions to them for a single article. To respond to your sources:

Extended content

A woman who made up a false story about her relationship with disgraced Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore... Post reporters revealed her deception as part of a plot orchestrated by [Project Veritas]. Salon Using video — which is often selectively edited — Project Veritas claims to expose media bias and hidden left-wing agendas. [emphasis added] USA Today [James O'Keefe and Project Veritas specialize] in undercover audio recordings or videos that seek to reveal supposed dishonesty or corruption, usually by Democrats or organizations perceived to be liberal. [O'Keefe's] critics say his methods are deceitful and that his group peddles disinformation. Bloomberg A deceptive video released on Sunday by the conservative activist James O'Keefe... was probably part of a coordinated disinformation effort, according to researchers at Stanford University and the University of Washington. [emphasis added] New York Times The Daily Beast reports that Boyland also had a history of promoting anti-vaxxer and coronavirus conspiracy theories, along with far-right disinformation from Project Veritas, online. [emphasis added] The Cut citing The Daily Beast Project Veritas is known for its sting operations aimed at such groups, which have prompted allegations that it has published deceptively edited videos. New York Times Project Veritas, which has a long and documented history of failed sting operations, and also of releasing deceptively edited and out of context videos... The Wrap ...editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented The Blaze quoted by NPR Project Veritas and its leader, James O'Keefe, have gained a measure of fame in right-wing media circles for their sting operations, entrapment tactics, and deceptively edited videos. Sahan Journal A Pattern of Disinformation The lack of verifiable evidence, allegations of misrepresentation and entrapment, and coordination with conservative causes, has been part of Project Veritas’ method of operation. [emphasis added] Fox 9 The purpose of Diamond Dog [an operation by Project Veritas], as one source close to the organization put it, is "literally to get Trump reelected." [emphasis added] The New Republic Project Veritas has attracted skepticism for its tactics in the past, including selective editing and undercover reporting. USA Today Project Veritas has a long history of running sting video operations that feature dishonest editing of their subjects. For example, a recent video by the group accusing Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar of voter fraud was found to be a "coordinated disinformation campaign," according to researchers. Maine Beacon

My conclusions is that I think there is definitely enough sources to justify including disinformation as a method of operation. Is there enough to justify including it as a focus/purpose? I would like to see some more evidence of that, but I don't doubt it's out there (ping: IHateAccounts). I just couldn't find enough of it.
Note. There also seems to be no objection to keeping Far-right provocateur as a purpose. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sal at PV: I asked if there were any independent, reliable source that states the purpose in a way that satisfies our needs for NPOV and reliability that PV agrees with? You referred to your mission statement, which isn't quite the same as purpose. However, your own website, at https://www.projectveritas.com/about/ does state: Our purpose is to elicit truth. So, my question stands, are there any sources that we can use that also say that? Vexations (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The term "disinformation" describes a key aspect of Project Veritas's operations, which is why there is strong support for keeping it in the infobox. This is corroborated by multiple reliable sources, including but not limited to the ones MJL listed and the ones currently cited in the infobox. Removing the term would effectively whitewash the article, and negatively impact the quality of the article. Project Veritas also does other things, as your quotes show, but they are in addition to the organization's use of disinformation as a strategy. The fact that Project Veritas is opposed to credible news sources and left-leaning groups does not negate the fact that Project Veritas performs disinformation. — Newslinger talk 00:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Edited: — Newslinger talk 02:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the WP:RS sourcing indicates that PV doesn't "perform" but rather "produces" disinformation. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be more semantically accurate. — Newslinger talk 00:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

So Horrendously Biased

The "article" is a joke, and it reads as though it was spat out by a bitter intern at Jacobin (which is to say, any intern at Jacobin). In the first section where it insists that the organization is "far-right", it does not properly explain any kind of policy positions or viewpoints which would actually make them "far right" (though I suppose having any kind of negative view of abortion is considered "far right" to the brain trust here at Wikipedia dot com).

This laughable article goes on to cite the "far right" label using illustrious sources like the openly left-wing Huffington Post, a bitter "NeverTrumper" who answers to the name Joe Walsh (who ran against Trump and is therefor the furthest possible thing from a neutral party, if your contention is that Project Veritas is a close Trump ally), and the hilariously slanted Media Matters(!!!) - run by longtime Clinton family associate and all-around political hack, David Brock. Seriously, why don't you just cut to the chase next time and ask People's World (which mysteriously has not been labeled as "far left" on Wikipedia dot com) or The Palmer Report for their take on this? At least then you'd be laying your cards on the table.

As a matter of fact, let's hear it, mods. Since Wikipedia dot com loves using the "far right" label against anyone to the right of John McCain, and since you're all too cowardly to allow the peons to edit this tedious little screed of an article for accuracy, why don't you open up and tell us what qualifies as "too far left" to you?

I don't care if you label this as "unproductive" or whatever. This inescapable bias doesn't fool anyone who's actually paying attention. Maybe you clowns can try suing me for defamation or something. SteelHuszar (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the "openly left-wing Huffington Post" is a reliable source, just as the openly right-wing (or conservative, if you prefer) Wall Street Journal is also a reliable source. Sources are not required to be unbiased.

Why would anyone sue you? Nothing you're saying is actionably defamatory - it's all expression of your opinion. Try taking it down a notch if you want to collaboratively improve the article. If you want to grandstand and play the martyr, well, have fun with that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Currently, only 1 of the 200+ citations in this article is of HuffPost. HuffPost (RSP entry) staff writers are not considered generally unreliable, and the HuffPost citation is also supplemented by a Snopes (RSP entry) citation, so there is no action needed here. This article does not contain any citations of Joe Walsh. There was previously a citation of Joan Walsh, a different person, but that citation was part of the "US–Mexico border-crossing (2014)" section that I had removed as undue weight. The term far-right has a specific meaning in political science, and this descriptor is adequately supported by nine reliable sources, including the Columbia Journalism Review and the Associated Press (RSP entry). The article currently does not cite Media Matters for America (RSP entry), a situational source. There is nothing actionable in this complaint. — Newslinger talk 12:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I second this. This article must be opened or the bias of Wikipedia is proven once again. It's unacceptable not only to let this stand but prevent it from being changed. JoIsAGod (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Or you can make a valid argument here as to what needs changing based upon more than "YOU ARE BIASED". Also read wp:not.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@JoIsAGod: While page protection may limit who can directly edit the page, no one is ever prevented from introducing changes to a page through edit requests on the talk page. However, like any direct change to the article, such suggested changes must comply with policy and include reliable sources. If you have such a suggestion, please see Wikipedia:Edit requests for instructions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's obvious that both JoIsAGod and Steel Huszar, who have 6 edits and 3 edits respectively Steel Huszar having been created on the 27th, the day both editors arrived here, are here because of a Project Veritas article about their lawsuit - dated the day before they edited here. Doug Weller talk 10:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we not comment on users here, not only is it a de-rail it makes it harder to tell others not to do it as well.Slatersteven (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

“Purpose: disinformation”?

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.

---

Whoever wrote this needs to take a hard look at him-/herself. This is a postulate with no reasoning which makes it a non-argument. Unless you have a direct quote from the founder, that their purpose is to spread disinformation, then this should be corrected. I think that the founder of PV thinks he is telling the truth, wether or not that is so, this wiki page is in fact spreading disinformation by saying ‘their purpose is to spread disinformation’.

The reason for this is that it insinuates that they have ill intent, which is not proven. And so it is inaccurate and opinionated. RhetoricianOfOurTime (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)— RhetoricianOfOurTime (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please see #Type field in infobox. However, Wikipedia describes what reliable sources say about a subject, not what those subjects say about themselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@RhetoricianOfOurTime: I see that your account was created for the sole purpose of making this complaint. Had you read the discussions above, you would see that this has already discussed in great detail, and the consensus is not with you. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

HEy, "reliable media" say that. Of course, it's the same media that PV sometimes whistleblows about, so someone without the right, progressive mindset, might think it is delibarate propaganda, but that would be silly. Nothing to see here, citizen, move along or get banned like I did for trying to add info about a PV leak. Wikipedia was basically hijacked by people who believe it should be used to slander certain people and sites, which is why they will dogpile you and brag about consensus, like they did with me, so, shame. Apparently, the "neutral truth" is now decided by a select group of elite users who can get others banned as they wish. Vojtaruzek (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The verifiability policy states that "verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source" and that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." If you disagree with the verifiability policy, your contributions may be a better fit for an alternative outlet. — Newslinger talk 05:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Your "verifiability" is apparently based on selecting certain outlets (the list I was provided), which were arbitrarily selected as "truthful" based on their ideological alignment (and other things that have nothing to do with truth), because you pretend they are 100% truthful and you automatically refuse anything else, regardless of what or how they say it. So don't try to accuse me of "not liking verifiability", please. This is extremely evident with PV, because it exists to uncover bias in media, social networks etc. So the same media, whose practices get uncovered by PV (their or their friend's or big tech) are actually those, who these Wikipedia rulers consider to be most reliable to talk about PV. For example, the second article on the "disinformation" in infosheet, that is just pure slander and empty repeating of the mantra "PV is far right" Vojtaruzek (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for your accusation that Wikipedia's verifiability standards are "based on selecting certain outlets (the list I was provided), which were arbitrarily selected as "truthful" based on their ideological alignment". (The verifiability standards are public, and you can read them.) Otherwise, you're just making accusations backed on nothing but your opinions and preconceptions. Bias is not defined as "everything that I don't agree with". Cf. WP:GOI. Saxones288 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2021 (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.

The fact that someone checked this discussion as being “closed” just proves the point and gives one the real reason why Wikipedia cannot be used as a valid source in any form of academic article or paper.

I created this account because I usually see flaws on Wikipedia pages, but rarely do I see targeted rhetoric. As a rhetorician I had to dissect the claim you made. Since you say it is written because it comes from a reliable source it amazes me that there’s no citation to the source making the claim that their purpose is to spread disinformation.

Secondly I’d like to arrest the claim that the sources in this case are reliable, since many of the sources are of other media sites. So there is a conflict of interest, since PV leak stuff about the press like the footage of ABC News’ Amy Robach admitting to know about Jeffery Epstein’s molestation before the world knew.

A conflict of interest should warrant a serious amount of source criticism, but this looks like everything was believed. RhetoricianOfOurTime (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare and just because there was a consensus that the earth was flat in 500 A.D. did not make it so.

Consensus is valid when talking about science, yet when it is a matter of opinions. And no this topos was not argued. Interesting that you did not attack the argument but rather tried to attack my credibility just because I claimed some rhetorical agency due to a serious error in this Wikipedia page. An argument stands alone wether or not it is from a week-old account or a 14 year-old account. Again I don’t have the highest expectations from Wiki, but this was too much. How about you try to go for the argument instead of citing another echo chamber on this topic?

RhetoricianOfOurTime (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The high-quality academic source is cited in the article (emphasis added):

It is certainly possible to resist these attacks without particularly supporting one side over the other. 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, Harold (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.

Wikipedia content is governed by policies and guidelines, not rhetoric. If you disagree with the policy on consensus, the verifiability policy, and the reliable sources guideline, your contributions may be a better fit for an alternative outlet. — Newslinger talk 05:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger On the contrary everything written in this world has a rhetorical value to some degree, and to believe that the guidelines are not made up by people with certain ideas and agendas is to lie. And if Wikipedia guidelines allow citations from sources where it simply labels PV to stand alone that is intellectually dishonest. And it still does not answer the huge fallacy of the “purpose: disinformation”.

Project Veritas literally means “Truth Project”, which would mean that the organizations own purpose it to discover the truth. That being said it is highly valid to problematize their ‘truth-findings’ as being true. But saying that their ‘purpose is to disinform’ is to lie, because it is not other people than the organization itself that can determine its own purpose no matter how good or bad that organization is to achieve that purpose. This wiki-article makes it sound like they are sitting with horns and tridents laughing because their purpose is to deliberately spread disinformation. And if you cannot see this point, then you’re a part of the problem. RhetoricianOfOurTime (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on the available evidence cited throughout the article, the name "Project Veritas" is a misnomer, just like the "Ministry of Truth". Your interpretation of the name "Project Veritas" is original research, which cannot be used in Wikipedia articles. Available reliable sources confirm that Project Veritas has repeatedly engaged in the intentional propagation of disinformation ("false or misleading information that is spread deliberately to deceive") as a key goal of its operations; there is no indication that Project Veritas's propagation of disinformation was accidental. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not uncited rhetoric. As I mentioned before, if you disagree with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, your contributions may be a better fit for an alternative outlet. — Newslinger talk 06:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation of the name is the literal translation from Latin to English. It is not original. You’d have to give some data that explains how they “repeatedly engaged in the intentional *propagation* of disinformation” And no, some guy labeling them as propaganda is not evidence for them actually being a propaganda based platform.

Nobody talked about *uncited* rhetoric. But I see what rhetorical device you used there. The labeling is apparently the gold standard on this site. Maybe I will leave this site, since the reasonable requests are not taken seriously. Do the guidelines really say that labels are considered true if they come from a guy who wrote a book, but didn’t back up his own labeling ?

I am surprised the way you throw “based on reliable sources” around considering that Wikipedia is not a reliable source by its own admission: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source RhetoricianOfOurTime (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

And NK calls itself democratic, is it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source is to prevent people from using Wikipedia articles as sources for other Wikipedia articles. If they did, one would have to trace the information back to the original reliable source via several articles. You are misusing the page for arguing something it has nothing to do with. "Reliable source" has a clear meaning within Wikipedia.

You are also misusing this whole page with the way you are arguing. The point of WP:OR is that your train of thought, the train of thought of a random person on the internet, does not matter. Instead, we use what published sources say - but only those who have a good track record.

People have tried to explain the rules to you here. You are under the misapprehension that this is a discussion between you and others about how the article should look like, but actually, it is people trying to get you to read, understand, and adhere to the rules, and you not getting it.

We will not bend the rules for you. You need to read the rules people linked here, such as WP:OR. Also, you should read the essays people linked here, such as WP:GOI. And do not just read them, take them seriously. If you do not want to, go somewhere else where you like the rules. That is all there is to it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling

When I, a random person on the internet, have the ability to join this site and thus have a say, and there is a “discussion” section, then I would assume that it is because Wikipedia invites people to participate in a dialogue about the article which we have all read. Or am I incorrect in this assumption? If I am, then why the heck am I allowed rhetorical agency in a community that clearly ignores the normal parts of a discussion.

I still haven’t gotten a proper answer to why it is considered to be true that PV’s “purpose is to spread disinformation”, just because a guy labeled them as being so in his book, without arguing why.

I looked up the book, and read the entire part where it is mentioned, and he speculates that PV tried to stingray Washington Post, but this has not been confirmed, which makes the source unreliable for this labeling.

@Slatersteven PV is not a country. And if you’re trying to equate the two, please do some thinking before. North Korea’s *purpose* might be to spread democracy (I don’t know if it is), we can agree that they’re doing a terrible job, if that is their purpose. Saying that someone’s purpose is to spread disinformation is an attempt to “mind read”, because you determine your own purpose. Others can determine wether or not you live up to that purpose, and that is completely fair to do, and of course it is not possible for some to be truthful all the way, every news site has to retract at some point.

All I am saying is that this line “Purpose: disinformation” is incorrect because there is no proof that they willfully and to the core fight to disinform people. However if they repeatedly DO disinform people, then say that instead. Speculating people’s motives is up there among ghost hunting. RhetoricianOfOurTime (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

My point was lost of things (and people) call themselves something all the time, that does not mean its true. |Just because their name is "truth" does not mean they tell it (it that that is their purpose). We have an RS saying their purpose is to spread disinformation, do you have an RS that contest this?Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The "guy" is three Harvard University researchers, Yochai Benkler, Rob Faris, and Hal Roberts, all of whom are subject-matter experts. "His book" is Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics, a peer-reviewed academic publication from Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society with 499 academic citations. And finally, the source gives an example of Project Veritas's disinformation in the same paragraph in which it identifies Project Veritas as a "disinformation outfit".

Your assertion that "this has not been confirmed" is not supported by the relevant facts, since The Washington Post won the 2018 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting in part for uncovering Project Veritas's disinformation operation. High-quality academic sources, such as Network Propaganda, are generally the most reliable sources. We don't need to prove that the individuals at Project Veritas "willfully and to the core fight to disinform people". We only need to show reliable sourcing that identifies Project Veritas as a disinformation operation, and the currently cited sources have done so. Unless you have reliable sources of a similar stature claiming that Project Veritas is not a disinformation operation, your complaint is inadequately supported by reliable sources and warrants no action. — Newslinger talk 13:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Far-right provocateur

Hi Vexations, I saw that you removed the words "Far-right provocateur" from the purpose parameter in the infobox in Special:Diff/1004812942, and wanted to have a discussion on this before we determine what the parameter should be. In the meantime, I reverted the edit in Special:Diff/1004813622, mostly because many of the removed sources are being reused in other parts of the article. Project Veritas's purpose as a provocateur (an entity "who commits or who acts to entice another person to commit an illegal or rash act or falsely implicate them in partaking in an illegal act, so as to ruin the reputation or entice legal action against the target or a group they belong to or are perceived to belong to") does not appear to have been contested so far in the talk page discussions, so is there some issue with the sourcing or some other problem that justifies its removal? — Newslinger talk 15:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger, edit conflict, see below Vexations (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

far-right and provocateur as values for purpose parameter in infobox

My edit to remove far right and provocateur from the infobox, with the edit summary "rm far-right provocateur from purpose field in infobox, as neither are purposes, add funders param with DonorTrust" was reverted with "Please discuss on talk page". This section is that discussion. My argument for removal of far-right is that far-right is not a purpose. Its is possibly a correct description of the organization's political beliefs or those of it's founder, but that is not a field that the template has.

Provocateur is incorrect for two reasons: 1) A provocateur is one who provokes, provocation may be a purpose, but provocateur is not. 2) Provocateur is used in the sense of "undercover agent who incites suspected persons to partake in or commit criminal acts" (as evidenced by the fact that it is linked to Agent provocateur). We have no sources that say that PV incites people to commit crimes. the only mention of agent provocateur is in https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/03/james-okeefe-regrets-any-pain-to-acorn-worker-.html where it is attributed to "some journalists". AP calls the far-right social media provocateurs in https://apnews.com/article/6bffba9456e5419190a5478117b30607. The other sources cited in support do not mention provocateur. Provocation in the sense of "triggering the libs" is possibly a purpose of PV that is supported by reliable sources, and describes the organization's purpose better than disinformation but if so, that should be stated much more clearly. Vexations (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, we can assume they know what a word means.Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I think I've just shown that the sources don't say that. We're citing source that don't even mention the term. Vexations (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Also, if a term is ambiguous, as provocateur is, we need to make it clear how we use it. Example: If we use "inflammable", we ought to make it clear that we mean "easily set on fire" and not "fireproof". Vexations (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Source one is discusing trumps "applauding far-right social media provocateurs", one of which is (mentioned the in the source) as "James O’Keefe, the right-wing activist whose Project Veritas...", the other indeed only mentions some journalists saying it. What with the others as well its enough for me.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, would you agree to removing the sources cited to provocateur that do not mention the term or variations of it like provoke or provocation? Would you also agree to removing the link to Agent provocateur? Vexations (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As the two examples you have given do seem to me to say it, I would want to see you provide the source that does not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

But it is an odd word to use, I would prefer provocation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Provocateur is cited to a group citation, currently [10]. That group is also used to cite entrapment, twice. It comprises:

1. https://www.poynter.org/ethics-trust/2018/the-washington-post-won-a-pulitzer-for-fighting-%C2%93fake-news%C2%94-with-facts/
2. https://www.wilsonquarterly.com/quarterly/the-disinformation-age/how-fake-news-changed-the-new-york-times-and-didnt/
3. https://apnews.com/article/6bffba9456e5419190a5478117b30607
4. https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/03/james-okeefe-regrets-any-pain-to-acorn-worker-.html
5. https://www.dailydot.com/debug/james-okeefe-bernie-sanders/
6. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/jul/26/what-is-shadow-banning-conservatives-twitter-trump
7. https://www.texasobserver.org/james-okeefe-southern-methodist-university-fake-news-washington-post/

The Wilson Quarterly writes: "That has been clear in the recent work of anti-journalism provocateur James O’Keefe".The AP writes: "President Donald Trump used a White House conference Thursday to applaud far-right social media provocateurs even as he conceded that some of them are extreme in their views". The latimes writes: "But some journalists blasted O'Keefe for underhanded tactics and acting as an agent provocateur rather than as a reporter". Provocateur or related terms are not mentioned by pointer, dailydot, theguardian and texasobserver, so I would like to remove those sources, even if we decide to keep provocateur or provocation as a value for purpose. Vexations (talk) 16:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, remove the ones that do not contain the word.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I've thought about it and agree with the removal, since Entrapment is already mentioned in the methods parameter. The agent provocateur description is, I believe, intended to convey that Project Veritas goads its targets to perform negatively perceived actions or make negatively perceived statements that they otherwise would not have done on their own. I'm not sure if provocation (i.e. "upsetting political liberals") is a key part of Project Veritas's strategy or purpose. — Newslinger talk 15:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

MMMM, maybe move provocateur to the methods and remove entrapment, as it seems to me that is more accusate.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with either one being mentioned, but the sources for provocateur tend to be associated with O'Keefe as an individual, while the ones for entrapment tend to be associated with Project Veritas as an organization. — Newslinger talk 16:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Newslinger, I agree that entrapment is more accurate than provocation and is best listed under methods. The New Yorker: "O’Keefe’s signature method is to entrap targets into breaking the law", and ""The signature O’Keefe method is to try to entrap his subjects into breaking the law—a strategy that most political operatives consider a step too far." [11] New York Magazine: "But this larger conceptual problem with O’Keefe’s enterprise creates a secondary problem, which is that the people who are dumb enough to believe these conspiracy theories are not generally smart enough to carry out a competent entrapment scheme." [12] Vexations (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Just noting there are a few other sections on this talk page about the "purpose" (and similar) parameter in the infobox that may be worth reading, as there has been quite a lot of discussion on it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, the purpose is a recurring topic, but I'm trying to limit this discussion to the far-right and provocateur values purpose only because that was the scope of my edit to remove them. Vexations (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of relevant past discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Mockup

Project Veritas/Archive 3

Purpose	Disinformation
Methods	Undercover operations Hidden cameras Entrapment Video manipulation

Here is a mockup of the new purpose and existing methods fields, not including the citations. Are we ready to implement this? — Newslinger talk 10:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

 Implemented in Special:Diff/1005500311. — Newslinger talk 00:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Far-right descriptor

It is inappropriate and potentially libelous to describe Project Veritas as "far-right." Consider Wikipedia's own description ofFar-right politics:

"Far-right politics, also referred to as the extreme right or right-wing extremism, are politics further on the right of the left–right political spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of anti-communist, authoritarian, ultranationalist, and nativist ideologies and tendencies.

Historically used to describe the experiences of fascism and Nazism, today far-right politics includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, or reactionary views.

Far-right politics can lead to oppression, political violence, forced assimilation, ethnic cleansing, and 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 traditional social institutions."

Through all of its actions, Project Veritas has shown itself to be on the "standard political right," if intentionally provocative. While being provocative may be a necessary condition for being on the far-right, it is not a sufficient condition. Far-right politics describes a set of ideas, principles, and figures that significantly diverge from the mainstream conservative elements in any society. Project Veritas does not diverge in its views from the vast majority of Republican voters, most of whom are not on the far-right. It is not a far-right position to be opposed to abortion or to support Donald Trump. The online far-right platforms mentioned in the Far-right politics article, Stormfront and Iron March, are neo-Nazi forums, rightly called far-right for their extremist beliefs. There is nothing in the Far-right politics article that is consistent with the assertion that Project Veritas is a far-right organization on par with avowedly neo-Nazi and white supremacist platforms.

The use of a term by various media sources does not make it accurate, especially when those sources, such as the ten cited, have a vested interest in opposing Project Veritas's political objectives. It is inappropriate to use far-right to describe any disfavorable conservative sources. It is irresponsible and disrespectful to those who suffered under Nazi rule to broaden to Nazism or far-right politics to accommodate run-of-the-mill conservative organizations. If we hold to the sweeping precedent set by this article, we might soon see Turning Point USA branded as a neo-fascist terrorist outfit or PragerU called a pro-Nazi disinformation platform.

It would be far more appropriate to say that "commentators have described Project Veritas as a far-right organization." That would significantly reduce the legal and factual liability posed by describing the organization outright as "far-right." EWBlyden 85 (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If reliable sources describe Project Veritas as far right, so too do we. Unless reliable sources contradict this term, there is no reason for us to introduce doubt around it. As for the idea that "the sources... have a vested interest in opposing Project Veritas's political objectives", that has been suggested on this talk page before, but there has not been consensus that there is an issue with using any of those ten sources on this page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

and to add, "potentially libelous" potentially violates wp:threat.Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The far-right descriptor is amply supported by the wording used in the 10 cited reliable sources, and the cited sources are not an exhaustive list. Your "vested interest" argument is unconvincing: according to Goss (2018), Project Veritas is "seething antipathy toward journalism", but the fact that Project Veritas is anti-journalism does not mean that we will discard journalistic sources as having a "vested interest". A variant of your argument was also rejected via RfC in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 69 § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus?. As an aside, the political commentary in your comment is incomplete, because far-right politics also encompasses Trumpism (a far-right ideology) and the alt-right, both of which are associated with the U.S. Republican Party. — Newslinger talk 19:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added a new high-quality academic source that supports the far-right descriptor:

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

Tumber, Howard; Waisbord, Silvio (March 24, 2021). The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-34678-7. Retrieved 15 February 2021 – via Google Books.

Recall that the alt-right is a subset of the far right. If there is a critical mass of sources that describe Project Veritas as alt-right, I would also support using alt-right as a descriptor in addition to far-right. — Newslinger talk 19:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Associated Press: PBS lawyer resigns after being caught in Veritas sting

I think this should be added to the article, because it may be the first time that someone who works for the mainstream media has quit their job after being exposed in a Project Vertias video. In this particular example, no one has argued that the video is fake, or that Project Veritas is not a legitimate source. It seems that PBS is admitting that Project Veritas is a reliable source.

Original: https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-entertainment-coronavirus-pandemic-8f586d687ab332777a7a059457ff818e

Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20210112223710/https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-entertainment-coronavirus-pandemic-8f586d687ab332777a7a059457ff818e

JokesThrew (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Coverage is rather sparse, since most of the articles are syndicated copies of the Associated Press article. However, PBS did publish a response. — Newslinger talk 05:45, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that "PBS is admitting that Project Veritas is a reliable source" is not true, because PBS stated in its response that Project Veritas had incorrectly described the former employee as "principal counsel" when he was actually a "mid-level staff attorney". It's also incorrect to label this as "the first time that someone who works for the mainstream media has quit their job", since the article already describes other instance in which people – including individuals in more prominent positions than "mid-level staff attorney" – have resigned or been terminated.

There is a small amount of reliable source coverage on this PBS incident, which may warrant inclusion in the form of a shorter description. Ideally, the "Content" section of this article should be restructured with chronological subsections, so that notable but less significant videos can be included without needing to create a new subsection. — Newslinger talk 12:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we can mention this, but we need to be careful as to wording, as it is not clear what he in fact was.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

ABC News affiliate says someone was arrested for allegedly committing a crime that was filmed by Project Veritas

I think this should be included, because this is the first time that someone has ever been arrested over a Project Vertias video, and it shows that the police consider it to be a legitimate form of evidence.

Original: https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/01/13/texas-ag-san-antonio-woman-in-project-veritas-video-arrested-on-election-related-charges/

Archive: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-5h77VU7IQYJ:https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2021/01/13/texas-ag-san-antonio-woman-in-project-veritas-video-arrested-on-election-related-charges/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

JokesThrew (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The San Antonio Express-News offers more context. — Newslinger talk 05:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

It is worth noting that your conclusions in this section and above (that PBS thinks PV is a reliable source and that law enforcement consider their videos to be legitimate evidence) are WP:OR and cannot be added to the article. It also is not apparent from that KSAT source that the arrest was based solely (or at all) on PV's videos. I can't see the San Antonio Express-News source because of a paywall to see if it more directly ties the two. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the cited high-quality academic sources, which agree that Project Veritas is a disinformation operation with a reputation for deceptive editing, take precedence for the article's description of Project Veritas's reliability. — Newslinger talk 06:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

​The San Antonio Express-News article loads for me in private browsing. For other sites, you may also be interested in the Bypass Paywalls browser extension for Firefox, Chrome, and Edge. — Newslinger talk 15:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I still see the paywall on private browsing. Thanks for the tip about the extension, I use it on my other computer but apparently don't have it installed on this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

That must be annoying. Here is an archive from the Wayback Machine. — Newslinger talk 16:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, that works for me. I see the article doesn't explicitly say the footage they reviewed was from PV, but it seems likely it was. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

So? They also use mobile phone footage, that does not make "barry form down the pub" reliable, just that one video (assuming it is used in court, and a conviction is obtained).Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

A major issue that needs correction is the false reference to Project Veritas as a "Far-Right" organization. The person reading this and the person who created the article is falsely implying that an organization that works to expose hypocrisy and corruption in major corporations has the intent to support far-right groups. There is absolutely no verifiable evidence of this and Project Veritas is in fact doing everything lawfully with no lawsuits lost. The author of the most recent Project Veritas page is equally responsible for creating disinformation by creating a biased article and setting it to protect. Deltanaux (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Declined. No clear and specific description of the requested change. Vexations (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

“Purpose: Far-right provocateur and disinformation“

That is blatantly false:

Project Veritas’s purpose is to expose fraud in organizations. They have not printed any disinformation, they have won all court cases pertaining to them. They have over 330 current retractions printed from articles spreading disinformation about them (https://www.projectveritas.com/wall-of-shame-retracto/)

According to the ballotpedia article (https://ballotpedia.org/Project_Veritas) they clearly refer to project veritable as: a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that investigates politicians and private institutions for perceived corrupt practices using undercover journalists and what the organization calls guerilla reporting. The organization was founded by James O'Keefe, III and has a related 501(c)(4) organization, Project Veritas Action Fund.

They do not “use entrapment to generate negative publicity for its targets,” and has not “propagated disinformation.” Confronts journalism is used commonly by every major news outlet. 148.75.194.242 (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, not original research. Grayfell (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 3#“Purpose: disinformation”? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

21 February 2021

This is not far right...so many times I’ve stopped reading your stuff because of the misinformation you spread. Some of your stuff is spot on when calling out misinformation but with this group you’re dead wrong. 2600:1005:B066:81CA:6DC4:B261:E06A:4490 (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read all of the threads above, the answer is not going to change until the points already made have been addressed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 11:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Project Veritas is NOT a far right or disinformation group. They exist purely to stop disinformation. Wikipedia has been corrupted to follow "woke" ideology and no longer stands for what it used to claim was a network for regular people to learn and teach and correct. I am absolutely disgusted. 70.114.152.201 (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

See the related responses above and in the archive.Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you want to change. no ref too– robertsky (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2021 (2)

Remove false claim that Project Veritas is #1 “far right “ (unless Wikipedia wishes to associate TRUTH with only the “far-right”; #2 remove false and libelous claim that Project Veritas is “produces deceptively edited videos “. This claim is 100% false. ; remove false and libelous claim that Project Veritas “Purpose “ is “far-right provocateur and disinformation “. Your statement and characterization are blatantly ignorant, false and libelous 2603:8001:4446:F600:9DF1:1A20:8B68:EFC4 (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

See above.Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is a biased article

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

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

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

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Sorry that you disagree with the reliable sources cited here. If you have reliable sources which aren't considered in this article and should be, please feel free to present them here. Or if you think something in this article isn't supported by reliable sources, please state specifically what you believe is not sourced. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but facts famously don't care about your feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Lol sorry champ but Media Matters and Joe Walsh are not reliable sources. SteelHuszar (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is something that is *only* sourced to Media Matters, I would agree that we should probably find a better source to back it up, or remove it. Which section in particular are you referring to? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I went and looked. There is no single statement or section that is only sourced to Media Matters.

• It is cited as a source together with a Oxford University Press publication and the New York Times in the infobox as sources for PV's purpose as being disinformation.
• Media Matters plus the Associated Press, New Republic, Huffington Post, Salon, New Zealand Herald, Foreign Policy.Com, Forbes Magazine, USA Today, and CNBC are cited as sources for defining PV as a "far right" activist group in the first sentence of the lead section. Shearonink (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So it's just being used as a backup source, then. Essentially harmless, but I wouldn't even object to removing it, it's not a particularly high-quality source. And doing so would change the article not a jot. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I've replaced both citations of Media Matters for America (RSP entry) with higher-quality sources. I've also removed the "US–Mexico border-crossing (2014)" section as undue weight, since the incident received little media attention and resulted in no significant consequences. The removed section contained the article's only citation of Joan Walsh of Salon (RSP entry). Although neither of these removed citations are considered generally unreliable, the complaint on the sourcing has been resolved. — Newslinger talk 10:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

That Project Veritas has filed a lawsuit is of literally no consequence here. Anyone can file a lawsuit over anything. Has Project Veritas won a lawsuit against The New York Times? No? Then their lawsuit is largely immaterial to this article. It might be worth a mention, but it's not going to change how we treat the NYT here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This article cites high-quality academic sources, including Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts, published by Oxford University Press, for some of the statements you are objecting to. The conclusions from the Network Propaganda report were echoed by reliable news sources. On Wikipedia, neutrality entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". As a disinformation operation, Project Veritas is not a reliable source and its claims deserve minimal to no weight unless republished by reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 01:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If PV wins its court case you might have a point, until it does the NYT is a wp:rs on this topic.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed.

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

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

Maybe, but do you have any RS that say they are not far right? Or are you just offering THEIR opinion?Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The far-right descriptor is a factual claim, not an opinion, and your argument about an "adversary" was rejected in a request for comment at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 69 § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus?. — Newslinger talk 10:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

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

The article does not claim that Project Veritas is "fascist" or "neo-Nazi". But see the following, for which there is plenty of evidence already cited in the article:

• Tumber, Howard; Waisbord, Silvio (March 24, 2021). The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-34678-7. Retrieved 19 March 2021 – via Google Books. False information can make movements defend the accuracy of their own claims and materials because of doubt sowed by countermovements and governments (Tufekci 2017). For instance, Project Veritas, an alt-right group, has a track record of attacking movements through misleading editing of videos and through fabricated 'sting' operations (Benkler et al. 2018).

Recall that the alt-right is a subset of the far right. — Newslinger talk 10:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, they're so right they caught and published on video a Republican Senator attempting to break the law? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34MMArMNktc). See the Washington Post article : https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/04/10/james-okeefe-is-at-it-again-in-wisconsin-against-a-republican/ if you only care about RS. Would it be possible to add this in content in 2014 (hole between 2012 and 2016)? Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be much coverage of the Mike Ellis incident. I found this while looking for more:

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

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

— Newslinger talk 20:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting article, I like how they discussed PV's future projects "Halderman says that going mainstream is long overdue. “We want to do more projects that are not political,” he says. “We think there’s a lot out there that needs to be exposed that isn’t left or right, or conservative or liberal, it’s just wrong.”" which their network of Big Tech whistleblowers seems to accomplish. Seriously, Politoco's claims look like conspiracy theories, it's not because someone benefits from an action that he orchestrated it. Also, I'd like to underline : Eric (not James) O'Keefe is a Libertarian, not left or right. Either : he didn't do it for money -> PV would not be far-right OR he did it for money and betrayed the right -> not far-right. Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Your commentary is original research, and cannot be cited in the article. The far-right descriptor is amply supported by these 14 reliable sources, including the high-quality academic source (Routledge) I quoted above. — Newslinger talk 22:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well PV saying they want to get away from politics was in the Politico article, a reliable source, and was a direct quote from Project Veritas. Or were you making reference to where I used a catch-22? <- sorry :( A lie repeated, no matter how many times, does not make it true (see this Star Trek episode where Picard is told that there are five lights repeateadly when there are in fact four lights : Chain_of_Command_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)). Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

In "The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism", here is the source used to claim PV is alt-right : Benkler et al. (2018) titled "Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election". The latter did not use the words alt-right, but rather "right-wing disinformation outfit" and that was inaccurate as they tried to make it as if PV wanted fake stories published (following the Washington Post story) whereas they wanted to expose media bias. Caretorepeatunderoath (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Unlike Wikipedia, reliable sources generally do not have a verifiability policy and are allowed to include original research. The verifiability policy only applies to Wikipedia articles (e.g. the Project Veritas article), not to the content of any cited reliable sources. The policy against original research on Wikipedia precludes your description of Project Veritas's unsuccessful sting of The Washington Post from being cited in this article, but allows for the descriptions found in reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 03:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Caretorepeatunderoath: Name one and we'll debunk your claim. Who is "we"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

What we do on another article has no impact here, We judge each article by how RS describe it (even the NYT). Nor do we judge RS by what others think, we judge them by what wPrsn or wp:rsp says.Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Caretorepeatunderoath, you are making it look like Jrockets participated in this conversation. Please format your comment to clarify that this is not the case (e.g. by using Template:Talk quote inline) and link to the original comment/diff. Caius G. (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

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

There are now 7 reliable sources that amply confirm that Project Veritas has propagated conspiracy theories in its videos and operations. I've removed two and added four; the cited sources are all verified with quotes in the citations. — Newslinger talk 22:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

51: RS/PS: "Most editors consider The New Republic biased or opinionated." It is still the best article from those 4 since it comes from a private detective and an anonymous source. Only problem is the article looks like a hit piece w/ personnal vendetta from an ex-employee.

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

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

53: Sahan journal is not in the RS.

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

Project Veritas has a documented track record of deceptive and shady practices, cited in the article, and are also a right-wing group, again cited in the article. There are a multitude of reasons, and reading the talk page would prevent us from running in circles. Wikipedia does not work the way you think it does—the article will remain up and in its current state, unless you have specific changes (backed by reliable sources). SWinxy (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

We go with what RS say, if they are biased so are we, take it up with them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Joseph722, we go by what reliable sources say. Which source used is an op-ed? Even if the videos are "authentic", as supposedly claimed by a lawsuit (which is not a reliable source), that doesn't make them less far-right or their content less disinformation.

You are wasting your time arguing about this, just provide reliable sources (and please read the policy page), nobody cares about your nonsensical threats ([13]) or how you would describe what PV does ([14]). Caius G. (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

And a broken clock is right twice a day, just not lying sometimes does not mean they do not lie most of the time.Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Your original interpretation of primary sources is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia articles. The far-right and disinformation descriptors are amply supported by reliable secondary sources in Special:Permalink/1014483629 § cite note-far-right-37 and Special:Permalink/1014483629 § cite note-disinformation-14, respectively, none of which are op-eds. — Newslinger talk 13:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Assertions that someone is right-wing are always contested, so they do not need to be noted.

And by your reasoning, all I have to do if I want the Wikipedia article about me to be free from criticism is: target those who criticize me. Then, according to you, they cannot be quoted because they have a "conflict of interest". --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it deeply contested, by whom?Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

A subject does not get to pick and choose the sources cited in the Wikipedia article about the subject by criticizing the sources it doesn't like. Your "conflict of interest" argument was rejected in Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 69 § Does Footnote 9 still have consensus? — Newslinger talk 14:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note WP:RSP#The Washington Times. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

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

On Wikipedia, neutrality entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". This article does so. If you have located reliable sources that provide additional information, feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 15:42, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

And read wp:sps before you answer.Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)