Talk:Project Veritas
Frequently asked questions To view an explanation, click the [show] link to the right of a question. Q1: Why does this article describe Project Veritas negatively?
A1: Wikipedia's aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources say; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This means that if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative. Since most reliable sources describe Project Veritas negatively, this article also describes Project Veritas negatively. Q2: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is far-right?
A2: The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. Over a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas as a far-right organization. Please see these references for details. Q3: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is an "activist group"?
A3: The "activist" descriptor is based on many multiple independent and reliable sources. These sources describe Project Veritas as an activist organization or a group of activists. Please see these references for details. Q4: Why does this article say that Project Veritas edited videos "deceptively"?
A4: The "deceptive" phrasing is cited to many multiple high-quality reliable sources. More than a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas editing its videos in a "deceptive", "misleading", or "manipulative" manner. Please see these references for details. Q5: But what if the sources are biased?
A5: Reliable sources are, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources, not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you have reliable sources that express contrary points of view or refute any statements in this article, please feel free to discuss them here. If you are unsure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Sources or search the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if its reliability has been discussed in the past. Q6: Shouldn't this article avoid using as sources media outlets against which Project Veritas has published exposés?
A6: Some editors have made the argument that, because Project Veritas has targeted various news outlets (such as The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR) in its operations, those news outlets should be considered unreliable with respect to Project Veritas due to conflict of interest. A 2020 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability found that disqualification of sources based on alleged conflicts of interest such as this did not have community consensus. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Veritas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE. |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace "In January 2021, a lawyer for PBS resigned after Project Veritas released a video of him." with "Michael Beller, a former PBS lawyer, was recorded in a Project Veritas video making controversial statements about the 2020 U.S. presidential election and the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to his resignation from PBS."
Explanation:
Under Deceptive video recordings, every sub header explains who was recorded and what the potential issue was except the PBS lawyer video (2021) sub header. This one, though sourced to AP, Current, and PBS articles, fails to establish the Wikipedia:Notability for inclusion and lacks Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as explained in the FAQ on this TP as it currently stands. As per the rest of the tone of this article, the name of the lawyer in question should be added and a short, neutral summary of what happened that lead to his resignation.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:30AA:55DF:4E2C:8345 (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- wp:n apples to article creation, not content. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unclear why the lawyer should be named. It wasn't a notable person, I don't see that leaving the name out is a problem of notability or neutrality. The targets of PV's stings are only sometimes named in these pages,
every sub header explains who was recorded
is simply false. Arguably fewer of them should be named. But I agree it is usual that the general nature of the controversial remarks would be mentioned. I'll take a crack at it. -- M.boli (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- B-Class Hudson Valley articles
- Mid-importance Hudson Valley articles
- WikiProject Hudson Valley articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Media articles
- Low-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative views articles
- Low-importance Alternative views articles
- WikiProject Alternative views articles
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions