Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Requesting correction in History section

In the second paragraph of the History section, please change "O'Keefe issued an apology" to "O'Keefe included this statement in the settlement agreement: ‘O'Keefe regrets any pain suffered by Mr. Vera or his family’ consistent with the cited sources and per the consensus reached several months ago at Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 1#RfC on verifiability in ACORN section. Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done. Changed "an apology" to "a statement of regret" in Special:Diff/1012755039. The level of detail about the statement in the requested text constitutes undue weight, but the language of the article has been amended to be verifiable to the cited sources. — Newslinger talk 03:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Project Veritas vs. New York Times

Suggest review of material in this article taken from the New York Times in light of the referenced defamation suit. A judge this week refused to dismiss Project Veritas suit against the NYT, meaning they will proceed to a discovery phase. Pkeets (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I could see the argument had they won a defamation case on the basis of the NYT publishing specific false information, but that they've filed one does not seem that compelling. Is there a specific statement sourced to the NYT that you are concerned with in particular? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anyone can sue anyone, so this "review" would be utterly meaningless and a waste of editors's time. If YOU have a specific issue, with specific evidence that it's actually an issue, with any New York Times coverage -- other than "Project Veritas doesn't like it" -- bring it. Otherwise, no. --Calton | Talk 04:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Bias is a contentious issue, so I'm not going to do the work to fix your article. PV filed in October. Suits against the NYT have been historically dismissed, but this one was ruled sufficient to meet the plaintiff's burden of proof on the Motion to Dismiss. If Wikipedia maintains the objectionable material in this article after the ruling, then it may also be liable. I'd recommend a revision. Pkeets (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you understand how the legal system works? In a motion to dismiss, the court is required to assume that the plaintiff's factual claims and allegations are all true. Many, many cases survive a motion to dismiss but are found wanting at trial by a judge or jury, as the case may be. Surviving a pretrial motion to dismiss is the bare minimum legal standard of plausibility, not a verdict. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

so I'm not going to do the work to fix your article

Nope, you have it 100% backward. This is grade-school-level stuff: you made the claim, so it's you who has to back it up. Got something concrete? Bring it. Otherwise, we're not wasting our time.

If Wikipedia maintains the objectionable material in this article after the ruling, then it may also be liable

Not even CLOSE to being true. Clumsy pseudo-clever attempts at legal intimidation don't work here: been there, done that, have a closet full of t-shirts. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Pkeets, Wikipedia and its editors CANNOT be held liable. Even if the statements were defamatory, Barrett v. Rosenthal protects those who republish libel on the internet, even when they know it to be false. Only the originator of the libel can be sued. -- Valjean (talk) 07:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:LIBEL. Pkeets (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If an editor makes their own libelous claims here, they can be held liable. OTOH, if they are documenting that RS state that libelous claims have been made, and in that process quote the libelous claims cited in the RS, the editor has not made a libelous statement, and neither has the RS. They have just documented its existence. Do you see the difference? -- Valjean (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there any coverage of this lawsuit in reliable secondary sources? This article is quite long, and a "review of material" is a vague suggestion; a more specific request would be helpful. — Newslinger talk 05:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I expect NYT will settle to avoid the discovery phase, which would require sworn depositions and allow PV access to their internal records and communications. Presumably they have already removed the questionable material from their articles. Pkeets (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

If The New York Times does end up retracting any claims, then this article should be amended to exclude the retracted claims. — Newslinger talk 07:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I expect NYT will settle to avoid the discovery phase

Really. And you know this...how?

Presumably they have already removed the questionable material from their articles

Presumably you can provide a breath of a hint of a suggestion of this presumption.

In short, Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, not what your fantasy of what you would like them to say. So bring on "the questionable material". --Calton | Talk 08:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

More on this today. It looks like the judge's decision on malice called out the process of injecting opinion into news articles and representing it as fact. To avoid potentially libelous material, that suggests source articles should be evaluated in the future for this failing. Pkeets (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A decision has already been made? Wasn't the rejection of the motion to dismiss just the other day? GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The case is still pending, and the only recent coverage of the case is in unreliable sources such as RT (Russia Today) (RSP entry), The Epoch Times (RSP entry), The Post Millennial (RSP entry), and Zero Hedge (RSP entry). Until reliable sources cover the lawsuit (which would allow us to cover it in the "History" section or a new "Litigation" section) or The New York Times retracts any claims already incorporated into the article (which would require us to modify the article to exclude the retracted claims), no action is warranted. — Newslinger talk 21:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Is the Court not a reliable source? Jham1985 (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

No, court documents, along with all other public records, are a classic primary source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Turns out the Times used Wikipedia as a source for their article. Pkeets (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I believe you've got that wrong, at least if you're repeating the talking point used by O'Keefe and a handful of rightwing publications (ex. [1]). The NYT referred to Wikipedia in their argument to dismiss the case; I haven't seen anything about them using Wikipedia as a source for articles they've published. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The "everybody says it" defense? Suggest the NYTimes reliability rating also needs a review. Pkeets (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN is thataway, knock yourself out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the court is the personification of RS. They are the ultimate reputable publisher.2601:46:C801:B1F0:B5C8:C837:C88B:680A (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That is not in line with Wikipedia policy, I'm afraid, though perhaps you're just expressing your personal opinion here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It is 100percent in line with WP. I'm afraid, though perhaps you're just an uniformed administrator. Primary sources are allowed based on reputation and no entity has a higher reputation than the court.2601:46:C801:B1F0:B5C8:C837:C88B:680A (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Describing GorillaWarfare as "uniformed"? (a typo for uninformed, I assume?) *makes popcorn* dis gon be gud. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I'm pretty familiar with policy by now. Enough to know it directly contradicts you: "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." (WP:RSPRIMARY) While reputable, primary sources can be used, we use them quite sparingly and with extreme caution. And we do not, as the above editor was suggesting, incorporate information about court cases into articles sourced solely to the court case; we require secondary coverage to determine that something is worth including. WP:PRIMARY has more detail. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

The [3] citation for the proposition that PV is a "far-right" group does not support that assertion. AP says PV is a "right-wing activist" group, not far-right. The article references far-right groups on social media, but does not label PV as one. ReliableDave (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The third citation is as follows:

• 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).

Note that the alt-right is a subset of the far right. — Newslinger talk 04:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I see that the third citation (labeled [24], not [3]) in the citation bundle adjacent to the far-right descriptor is the Associated Press article. It's true that the AP article is not clear on whether its use of the far-right descriptor specifically refers to Project Veritas. I've  Removed it from the bundle in Special:Diff/1013537839. Thanks for suggesting this. — Newslinger talk 04:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is this locked?

The first sentence of this article is wrong. They are not a far right anything. They have said this multiple times and have forced publications to retract or correct themselves when describing Project Veritas this way. IC89 (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

We describe subjects how they are described in reliable sources, not how they describe themselves. Please see other conversations about this on this talk page, where it has been discussed at length. As for why the page is locked, it has been the target of significant disruptive editing and so was protected under the American politics discretionary sanctions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you have RS contesting they are far-right (or even saying they have successfully sued over it) please provide them.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. Since you are using a mobile device, you can access the FAQ by tapping the gray "About this page" link under "Talk:Project Veritas" at the top. — Newslinger talk 05:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

This article is biased and should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:57A4:410:E98D:C118:B03F:D8B1 (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see the FAQ at the top of the page. — Newslinger talk 13:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

HOw?Slatersteven (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

A few more corrections

1. In the History section, please correct the paragraph beginning "O'Keefe has been barred from fundraising." First, if you look at the cited Washington Post article, you will see that the only state from which O'Keefe was personally barred from fundraising for Project Veritas was Florida. Regarding the other states, which was current as of that writing, the article says: "The charity has previously been sanctioned or denied a license to seek donations in Utah, Mississippi, Wisconsin and Maine." This is no longer accurate for Wisconsin and Maine. In addition, in May 2020 the state of Florida removed O'Keefe's fundraising restriction on the basis of 10 years having passed, which is Florida's standard.
2. I know the question of "purpose = disinformation" has been discussed at length, but no one here has adequately responded to my comment back in January, where I cited five reliable sources that refer to Project Veritas's purpose directly, rather than obliquely as in the source that refers to PV as a "right-wing disinformation outfit." In addition, as you can see from this news article from earlier this year, a San Antonio campaign worker was arrested on charges of election fraud, illegal voting, unlawfully assisting people voting by mail and unlawfully possessing an official ballot - all as a result of a Project Veritas undercover video from the previous fall. That should be proof enough that PV's purpose is not disinformation but exposing fraud, and in that particular case, criminal activity. Just this week, Project Veritas released photos provided by an insider showing the horrible conditions in which people are being caged at the immigration border facility in Donna, Texas, which has been covered extensively by the media. Twitter even admitted it mistakenly banned the release. https://nypost.com/2021/03/24/twitter-censoring-detention-center-photos-at-border-was-a-mistake/?utm_campaign=iphone_nyp&utm_source=message_app #In the "Minnesota videos (2020)" section, there is a sentence that reads "Ballot harvesting is legal in Minnesota, and there was no limit to such activities from late July 2020 to early September 2020." This sentence is based on a version of this Snopes article that was later corrected after we reached out to them. The current, corrected version of the Snopes article now reads: "But ballot collection — sometimes referred to as 'ballot harvesting' — is legal in Minnesota. As of this writing, a third party can collect mail-in ballots and deliver them to election officials on behalf of up to three voters. Between late July and early September 2020, there were no limits on how many absentee ballots an agent, or third party, could collect and deliver." Please update the sentence here on Wikipedia to align with this clarification.

Thank you, Sal at PV (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

• • Sorry but none of those really say that is is their purpose, for example, the WP also goes on to say ". Using video — which is often selectively edited — Project Veritas claims to expose media bias and hidden left-wing agendas. " which can be said to be disinformation *as in depiction). Now I agree (to a degree) that their purpose is to use deception to try and discredit liberal organizations, and their method is disinformation. Your post source talks about "deception" as well.Slatersteven (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
• Response below:
  1.  Partly done: Changed "has been" (present perfect continuous tense) to "had been" (past perfect progressive tense) in Special:Diff/1014228109.
  2.  Not done: Please see the cited sources at Special:Permalink/1013911007 § cite note-disinformation-13 and the consensus at Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 3 § “Purpose: disinformation”?. In particular, see the following high-quality academic source:

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

     As a counterpoint to your election example, see Project Veritas § Minnesota videos (2020), which elaborates on a $10,000 bribe that was offered to a person who Project Veritas used (by creating deceptively edited videos) to promote false claims of election fraud. See also all of the other instances in which Project Veritas had propagated disinformation, detailed throughout the entire Project Veritas article. By the way, neither the New York Post (RSP entry) nor Twitter (RSP entry) is a reliable source.

  3.  Partly done. Replaced "no limit to such activities" to "no limit on collecting absentee ballots in Minnesota" in Special:Diff/1014236095.

— Newslinger talk 23:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Significant problem with sources

The sources in this article are mainly the same ones that PV rightfully exposes/ wrongfully attackes. As a result, PV is described as disinformation, or otherwise incorrect (because they were defending themselves.) If a guy X was murdered, and his brother, guy Y was a judge, would you let guy Y preside over the case? No, that would be ridiculous. Guy Y would be more likely to be biased than any regular judge. I have no idea how to fix this, or even if it can be fixed, but I just wanted to point it out. NPOV Enthusiast (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

See the section(s) above, particularly #Project Veritas vs. New York Times, where this has been discussed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Then go here wp:rsn and argue these sources are not wp:rs.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2021

Please review this entire wiki. It is filled with disinformation and personal opinion “sources” that are not verifiable. 2605:B100:710:33DE:C4B7:4F19:CAF5:4981 (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 04:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021 (2)

This article is extremely biased. In no world other than liberal fantasy land can project veritas be thought of as far-right. Veritas means truth!

There's is a conflict of interest because project veritas and Wikipedia's "reliable sources" have an antagonistic relationship. PV shows in many cases that they should not be considered reliable.

This is the equivalent of asking someone to be an impartial judge in a case you're launching against him!

The changes that need to be made:

Remove the biased descriptions of PV, such as "far-right" "disinformation" (which is supposed to refer to foreign propaganda).

PV is not deceptive or a producer of disinformation. They have never lost a court case. 2605:B100:D11:FF5:BCE1:CCF2:408E:8ED4 (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: All of your arguments have been presented and rejected in prior discussions. Please see the talk page archives for details. Here is a brief summary:

• The name of an organization is not a reliable source for the organization's activities; such an interpretation would be original research, which is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. High-quality academic sources confirm that Project Veritas is a purveyor of disinformation. Based on the available evidence cited throughout the article, the name "Project Veritas" is a misnomer, just like the "Ministry of Truth".
• 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?
• The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. Over a dozen independent reliable sources describe Project Veritas as a far-right organization. Please see these references for details.
• Disinformation is not limited to "foreign propaganda". Reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, confirm that Project Veritas has repeatedly propagated disinformation (including fake news) in its videos and operations. See the sources cited in Special:Permalink/1018085423 § cite note-disinformation-14 for details.
• Your legal claim is not fully representative of Project Veritas's legal history. As stated in the article, Project Veritas "associates paid a total of $150,000 in settlements to an ACORN employee who sued for defamation" and "O'Keefe had been barred from fundraising for Project Veritas in Florida, Maine, Mississippi, Utah, and Wisconsin, partly because of his federal criminal record for entering a federal building under fraudulent pretenses and partly because Project Veritas has repeatedly failed to properly disclose O'Keefe's criminal convictions in applications for nonprofit status."

— Newslinger talk 09:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

The information on Project veritas is a complete lie, it should be changed immediately so as not to support on side or the other. Shame on all whom have labeled this project veritas to be “deceptive” you cannot say that what they do isn’t in the interest of showing the truth to the public, right or left this is wrong. 2601:681:501:9640:3CB9:7162:2235:52DC (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I would recommend reading the FAQ, and really any of the talk page sections above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Far-right_politics

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

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Oppression

"Authoritarian oppression

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

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

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

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

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

Those are not reliable sources, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expose CNN

So one of CNN executives admitted on video they are propaganda and has been seen by hundreds of thousands of people. Yet no mention here yet? That's kinda big. I would say it is notable and reliable information, being that it has been seen by soon to be millions of people, and came directly from the guys mouth on video.Airpeka (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Here's Newsweek[2] with a third-party report on one of the videos in their possession. The general assessment seems to be that this expose is a pretty big hit to CNN's credibility. Pkeets (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

See Newsweek link here [3] Pkeets (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN 2021 expose

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

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

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

Misleading statements about Project Veritas's coverage

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

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

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

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

This article cites reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources written by subject-matter experts in journalism. Whether you personally disagree with these sources is not relevant. On Wikipedia, neutrality entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". This article does so. If you have located reliable sources that support your desired changes, feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 00:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

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

Fairness in labeling

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

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

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

Additionally, Attkisson's claims of suppression must be viewed in the context of her own status as a highly criticised antivaxer and proponent of medical pseudoscience. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

References

Should we remove the section on the recent CNN videos?

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

There are more usable sources (The Hill [4], New York Times [5]) focusing on the Twitter ban that happened shortly after, but they don't make any mention of the CNN videos.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good, I believe we are all in agreement that this is not a hoax. I'll re-add the material with additional sourcing soon. In the future, when you are unhappy about the quality of sources being used in support of otherwise encyclopedia information, try adding the {{fact}} tag as is explained in the main WP:Editing Policy instead of removing whole sections of articles. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: It was perfectly appropriate for Slatersteven to remove the section, given multiple editors agreeing here that there wasn't significant coverage in RS. I would suggest presenting your sources here and your proposed text for discussion, rather than (once again) reverting against the general consensus.

Could you also explain why you've re-added the {{dispute about}} tag? I removed it because you never explained why you were using a tag that is meant for usage when "The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed", which as I said above does not appear to apply here, and you've re-added it still without explaining that.

Regarding I believe we are all in agreement that this is not a hoax: I think everyone is in agreement that Project Veritas published some videos about CNN, which is a verifiable fact. But I know I'm certainly not sure that what is shown in the videos is not manipulated or misleading, particularly given PV's history, and RS appear to be hedging as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

In any case, @GorillaWarfare:, my main reliable source on this story, The Hill, seems to have retracted their coverage on this topic.[6] So it's a moot point, as I agree the remaining available sources aren't particularly compelling. -- Kendrick7^talk 22:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

If there's a sourcing issue, controversial material is not typically left in articles with citation tags. As for "what makes this investigation any different", that's precisely an issue, since it's not typical journalism and reliable sources are also expected to mention this... I don't really see a consensus above on what should be included, so I also recommend posting sources and suggestions here. —PaleoNeonate – 04:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: While your change from {{dispute about}} to {{update}} is at least better, I still think the tag should probably be removed. So far it seems the article doesn't need to be updated, and the invitation to "update this article to reflect recent events" may well lead someone to re-add the section without consensus. Especially now that the talk page has been semi-protected, I think it's safe to assume that people know to go to the talk page if they want to discuss something. We could archive some of the resolved conversations here to make it clearer that this one is still active, if that's your concern. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind if the template is removed, since there is currently no consensus to include a new section about the CNN videos using the sources available at this time.​ — Newslinger talk 21:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A big "needs to be updated" banner seems a needless distraction at best in this case. XOR'easter (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

• Removed per the above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False information can make movements defend the accuracy of their own claims and materials because of doubt sowed by countermovements and governments (Tufekci 2017). For instance, Project Veritas, an alt-right group, has a track record of attacking movements through misleading editing of videos and through fabricated 'sting' operations (Benkler et al. 2018).

Tumber, Howard; Waisbord, Silvio (March 24, 2021). The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-34678-7. Retrieved 19 March 2021 – via Google Books.

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

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

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

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

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

Bias in article introduction

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.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully this doesn’t start and editing war with @User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof who has either wrongly or decided to disingenuously interpret what I said to mean that newspapers need a source to their claims that events happened. Also, he just ignores me. I told him this is not what I said or meant. Also should be noted that @User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof should refrain from using foul language as it can't create animosity making the thread unproductive, so don't write: "get out of here with that s**t", as it's not helpful, just demeaning.

I explained opinionated statements need a reason, didn’t talk about events. If a newspaper says, “this man is bad,” and gives no reason, we’re all accept that it’s a poor and inappropriate article for a Wikipedia citation, (obviously we’re not talking about historical well-known figures.)

You could find endless sources say "right-wing". Check for yourself: [link https://www.google.com/search?q=%22project+veritas%22+%22conservative%22&sxsrf=ALeKk00PZd6TDe_RK1T_OLoCccNvIR7g-g:1620040514024&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1ofCasa3wAhXO3mEKHTtZAe8Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1800&bih=1042 link]

[link https://www.google.com/search?q=%22project+veritas%22+%22right+wing%22&biw=1800&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk02sSt6es19JIEY5z2rCZu61XR9nFw%3A1620042208689&ei=4OGPYPjOKZj6wAOSkoTQAg&oq=%22project+veritas%22+%22right+wing%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...0.0.0.54223.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0._nYMZMuJIAw link]

So why do we accept these sources as correct in accusing PV of being "far-right", when many other reliable sources say "right-wing"?

Also I can find academic sources, (people with a Ph.D), therefore reliable, that say “right-wing” or “conservative”. In fact I can’t find one that says far-right. They are often analysis of alt-right groups and yet still none of them call PV alt-right or far-right.

“Groups like the Oath Keepers pounced on information provided by Project Veritas, a conservative activist group known for conducting manipulative video stings of progressive organizations…” p. 12 - https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=etd

“For instance, she [Brittany Pettibone] also tweeted a link to the controversial right-wing Project Veritas YouTube video on ‘Democrats rigging the election.’ The Veritas project is known to be linked to the entourage of Trump.” p.6

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342680182_Metapolitical_New_Right_Influencers_The_Case_of_Brittany_Pettibone

“Veritas is a right-wing flak mill that, using media, has set out to professionally damage people and organizations across almost a decade.”

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1375388

“It was the work of Project Veritas, a group of conservative provocateurs that for a decade has run sting operations to embarrass left-leaning groups and seek evidence of political bias among top media organizations … ”

https://www.pacificariptide.com/files/a-history-of-the-trump-war-on-media-t...virus-could-stop.pdf

This article that goes in-depth with O’Keefe, and he doesn't discover a secret far-right activist.

“But many hours of rare conversations with O’Keefe, and with his friends and associates, suggest that an evolution is being debated. That Project Veritas could steer away from partisan causes and adopt the identity of an apolitical watchdog. That maybe, just maybe, its leader is open to reinvention—and redemption.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/04/james-okeefe-undercover-sting-profile-feature-2018-218015

“The conservative activist organization Project Veritas was suspended from Twitter on Thursday for violating platform rules.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/11/project-veritas-suspended-twitter-468748

Mikeymikemikey (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You must drop “far-right” for the integrity of Wikipedia.

The sources are not sourced by academic standards. They merely say “far-right” in passing, (which I will quote ALL below), as a smear, they do not explain why PV is far-right. Do we live in a bubble? Surely people know media outlets smear political rivals. Fox News calls CNN communists, does that make them communists?

Left bias or not, if zero articles explain WHY or even source an article that explains WHY PV are far-right, then it is not a source, even if they are considered reputable.

A source for a political analysis is not: source says X, its: source says X BECAUSE … but for Wikipedia you don’t need to write the because part, and some people, -cough: PaleoNeonate- are abusing this.

If you can tell me WHY PV are far-right and point to the source, then we have something to cite the article with. If you can't say WHY with a source, remove it.

Generally Newspaper articles should be used only for evidence of events, as all newspapers are highly politically biased, do not use them for political analysis. Find an academic source, or use what PV claim to be, or don’t write anything at all.

So, that said, I reviewed all articles cited and quoted ALL mentions of PV as far-right (it's just one time in most articles) to point out how none give support to the "far-right" claim, in fact most copy and paste the same words from each other, most of the time just changing it very slightly, one doesn't say far-right at all:

Mikeymikemikey (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Mikeymikemikey, so sources that say it might one day stop being a right wing grift-o-rama, are somehow indications that it's not far-right? Not seeing it, sorry. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

“Trump has boosted far-right outlets with a loose relationship to truth, like Breitbart and One America News, into household names. Another such outlet, Project Veritas … ”

- The best journalism of 2020: Covering Trump - Columbia Journalism Review (cjr.org)

"far-right" is just said in passing, no support for the claim.

“For instance, Project Veritas, an alt-right group, has a track record of attacking movements through misleading editing of videos and through fabricated 'sting' operations (Benkler et al. 2018)”

- Tumber, Howard; Waisbord, Silvio (March 24, 2021). The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-34678-7

"alt-right" is just said in passing, no support for the claim. Only supports claim for disinformation.

“The far-right troll finally drops his big video.” “O’Keefe is the head of Project Veritas, a far-right outlet that uses misleading edits and various forms of entrapment to try and catch Democrats, liberals …”

- James O'Keefe Claims Bernie Sanders Will Throw Trump Fans in Gulags (dailydot.com)

"far-right" is just said in passing, no support for the claim. The source also changes to "right-wing" at times in the article, treating them as synonymous, meaning they don't know the difference.

“He rejects the mainstream media as covering up for Democrats and refers to posts on far-right websites like Project Veritas.”

- Pennsylvania Trump supporters travel to Washington to protest Biden Electoral College certification (inquirer.com)

"Far-right" said in passing again, no support is given to the claim.

“His claims were publicised by Project Veritas, a far-right activist group, with founder James O'Keefe desribing [sic] him as "an American hero.”

-https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/us-postal-worker-reportedly-completely-recanted-claims-of-vote-tampering-but-hits-back-saying-thats-not-what-happened/HPWD6IMMXGNGYJVLARSWKPUEFQ/ A publication with many typos, suggests its poorly edited, and again, just says it in passing. Not evidence.

“The far-right conspiracy theory-driven group Project Veritas is offering rewards of $25,000 for tips relating to election fraud in Pennsylvania.”

- Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Offering Up To $1 Million For Evidence Of Voter Fraud (forbes.com)

Again "far-right" claim not supported.

“Donald Trump, have given vast sums of money to conservative causes and partly funded the far-right Project Veritas, which tries to secretly record and smear journalists, nonprofits [sic] and other targets.”

- Climate Point: Climate change disrupts life on the Hopi Reservation (usatoday.com)

Again "far-right" claim not supported.

“James O'Keefe, founder of far-right group Project Veritas, and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who wore a gas mask on the House floor in March while voting on Covid relief legislation.”

- New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy slams New York Young Republican Club for hosting large, maskless gala in Jersey City amid Covid surge (archive.org)

Gas masks are not evidence of being far-right, so again no evidence or argument here.

“James O’Keefe, founder of conservative activist group Project Veritas.”

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-first-public-appearance-since-182233692.html

This one doesn’t say far-right, it labels them correctly

“Jewish American journalist and far-right” “self-proclaimed “proud Islamophobe”, who has been banned from several major social media platforms and ridesharing apps because of her racist and anti-Muslim speech.” “She previously worked undercover for Project Veritas, a far-right organisation known for targeting leftists and anti-fascists.”

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/31/us-house-race-to-watch-lois-frankel-vs-laura-loomer

This one comes the closest to an attempt to make the argument, claiming that an individual who worked for PV is “far-right”. However, Aljazeera is basically state media run by a deeply far-right Islamic nation, Qatar, (Apostasy and blasphemy is a crime) and is highlighted a Jew who has protests against Islamists. Hopefully Wikipedia isn’t in that much of a bubble to know what’s going on here.

Either way still not evidence of PV being far-right, but that this woman is possiblely far-right, but says nothing about her view on policies, as dislike of religion is not far-right itself. Please see page about far-right ideologies

“Project Veritas is a far-right activist group, which says it uses undercover techniques to reveal so-called liberal bias and corruption.”

- AOC embroiled in fresh Twitter row with Marco Rubio over PPP loans | The Independent

No support for the claim again.

"His claims were publicised by Project Veritas, a far-right activist group, with founder James O’Keefe describing him as “an American hero” while Donald Trump himself hailed Mr Hopkins as a 'brave patriot'."

- https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/us-election-trump-supporters-plan-huge-protests-over-fraud-claims/news-story/7b707f224a038f9315210084ace8a74f

Is Mr Hopkins a confirmed Nazi? If not, then again, no support for "far-right" claim.

“Project Veritas, a controversial far-right media group known for “sting” operations against its political opponents and the publication of selectively edited videos.”

- Prosecutors Withheld Evidence That Could Exonerate J20 Inauguration Protesters, Judge Rules (theintercept.com)

Said in passing, no evidence for the claim.

“Project Veritas, the far-right activist group founded by James O’Keefe”

https://time.com/5947561/pinterest-gender-discrimination-racism/

Again, another unsupported generic smear.

“The ad includes footage by the far-right activist group Project Veritas that shows a man identified as a CNN employee talking about news coverage of Gaetz, Politico reported.”

- Matt Gaetz makes six-figure ad buy targeting CNN amid sex trafficking allegations | TheHill

Said in passing, no evidence for the claim. Mikeymikemikey (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I can find sources that do not say the "sea is wet", that does not mean they are saying it's not wet. You need sources that say its not far-right.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this a serious argument? Why do you assume they are "far-right" Why is that the assumed political position. Because you don't like them? This is like a Christian who tells an atheist they must find evidence that their God does not exist, yet they are the ones who claim he does exist. The affirmative claim needs support, not the disbelief in the affirmative claim. PV has attacked a lot of the reliable sources, so, I think we can accept they have a conflict of interest, and far-right is meant as a smear.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't assume they are far-right, RS say they are, so we need RS saying they are not if we are to challenge that claim. It's called policy, as in wp:v and wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, who is RS? The thread said the sources are reliable, ergo, its true. But other reliable sources define them differently. Is it policy to pick the most defaming one? Also, none of the sources actually explain what is far-right about Project Veritas. What extremist nativist policies do they hold? Why do we say Far-right in the introduction, but literally nothing in the rest of the article depicts them as Far-right activists.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No, but "conservative" does not exclude "far-right" like " "liberal" would. However you point about our content is valid, we have no real discussion of their politics, and in that regard you are correct. The lede is a summary of OUR article, not a summary of other peoples. This I think we need a section on their political outlook.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you serious? Those bold-faced lines are the quotes. I give up. No one can have conversation with people being this pedantic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeymikemikey (talk • contribs) 12:23, May 3, 2021 (UTC)

Mikeymikemikey, seriously, you have under 50 edits. I suggest you spend more time around less controversial topics until you've worked out how Wikipedia works. This article is a minefield, with loads of drive-by nutters, and not a great place for a new editor to learn their craft. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Well it's blatantly obvious they're not far-right. If "experienced" editors can't actually understand these aren't proper sources because of the content not the source itself, then what's the point? It's so obtuse they think an author just dropping an "far-right" bomb is evidence, how do you approach such erroneous form of writing? What would it take to convince these people to cite articles correctly?Mikeymikemikey (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Our role isn't that of a jury. We don't need to figure out whether there's evidence or not (that would be WP:OR - original research). We simply report what other sources say. The overwhelming majority of WP:RS (reliable sources), including sources which are WP:SCHOLARSHIP (therefore, the preferred kind of sources to write an encyclopedia article) say that this is a "far-right" group. We write that - that's how WP:NPOV works. If you don't like it, that is entirely irrelevant and we care about that about as much as John Bercow cared about a the views of a Mr Stuart here.... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop, if it was so blatantly obvious you would not be getting the pushback you are. We also don’t do WP:ORGINALRESEARCH, even when it is blatantly obvious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No its not blatantly obvious, to be that you would need...but then you have been told this, you have been pointed to wp:or and wp:v.Slatersteven (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Mikeymikemikey Hang in there my friend. Lots of bad faith editors around here. Nweil (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to be a jury whoever wrote that IS being the jury. Whoever wrote "far-right" in has decided that PV are far-right, and has decided to cite articles that say "far-right" over the mountain of others who do not say "far-right". I'm asking people to understand what a source is according everyone who has attended school. This why it's obvious to me it's wrong. How are people dominating what gets sourced, when they don't know what an appropriate source is.

None of the articles are about PV or O'Keefe's political views, it's merely used as an adjective. I can't follow the citations and know why they are "far-right", I can't read down and follow any citations below to know why they are "far-right". Hence, the editors have chosen to be a jury and say they are far-right, here are some sources that mention PV as "far-right". It's so blatantly dishonest.

But response has been wikilawyering, WP:LAWYER and attempt of enforcing a wikipedia bureaucracy WP:BURO. I'm not going pathetically do this as if it has weight.

The honest question is, what are PV's far-right views? Where is a reliable source telling us about these views? Do people know what "far-right" means? The PV wiki-article doesn't include anything about being "far-right" ergo how is it relevant to the article? If someone answers again with some wikilawyering and wiki-bureaucracy, then I think we can accept there is no evidence PV are "far-right".

However, if you do find a source that outlines PV's far-right views, then that should replace all of the citations on that list, because none of them right now are appropriate evidence.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Mikeymikemikey, I think I see your error. The fact that the Overton Window in the US is now so far tot he right that people seriously accuse Joe Biden of socialism, is a problem, but it's not a problem we're going to contribute to. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to remove the "far-right" wording, you cannot simply use sources that do not say PV is far-right. (For example, Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems is one of those sources. It does not help you.) Instead, you need sources which say PV is not far-right. That is blatantly obvious to anybody who knows how to think. This is not bureaucracy or Wikilawyering, it is exactly the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. First editor looks at reliable source. First editor adds information from there to the article. Second editor does not like it, says there are other sources which do not contain that information. First editor cites rules. First editor wins. Second editor whines. Third editor makes personal attack. Second editor continues whining for long enough and gets banned for disruption. Third editor continues making personal attacks for long enough, gets banned for personal attacks. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"The fact that the Overton Window in the US is now so far to the right that people seriously accuse Joe Biden of socialism ..."

I don't think your opinion of the political climate of US politics is relevant nor does it have any bearing on the definition of far-right.

"If you want to remove the "far-right" wording, you cannot simply use sources that do not say PV is far-right"

I did NOT say this, this is a strawman. I said other reliable sources say "conservative" and "right-wing", these do not mean far-right. It seems you think it's synonymous, but it categorically is not. If you think they're the same, then I don't know why you would be here. What does it matter to you if it's all the same? But if you do think they're different, then I ask, if just as many sources says x and the others say Y, how do you come to the conclusion of choosing X or Y? What is wikipedia's policy?

I would say, point out the discrepancy. That would be an acceptable compromise. Clearly based on how some editors, like Slatersteven, are impatiently trying to shut me down, shows many have expressed grievances before. So, it is contentious. But is it contentious to academics? I don't think academics have debated it or even would right now, but they are defining PV differently.

Other issue is none of the sources outline the groups political beliefs. Is it not strange the founder, James O'Keefe, is described as conservative, and yet his company is described as far-right. Where is the logic? It's like saying Hilter is conservative but the NAZI party is far-right.

BTW, you didn't do the bureaucracy or Wikilawyering, so I wasn't referring to you.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I did NOT say this, this is a strawman You literally said has decided to cite articles that say "far-right" over the mountain of others who do not say "far-right", so it is not a strawman. Also, you have already been told that "conservative" and "far-right" are not mutually exclusive. Go away, you lost. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Its been closed, drop it now.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALL I get it, you disagree, you don't have to read. Go wikilawyer someone else.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to respond to the "strawman" lie. Now I will stop feeding him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:07, 5 May 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.

New Zealand Herald

I saw someone above claiming we were using NZ Herald which piqued my interest. A quick check confirmed I was right. We were using this article [7]. The problem is this isn't a NZ Herald article. It may appear on the NZ Herald site but you can see from the byline it's just a republished news.com.au article. Do take care when citing the NZ Herald on international stuff as a lot of their articles are from some other paper like news.com.au, or Daily Telegraph or Daily Mail. Sometimes Washington Post or IIRC NY Times although these are generally their premium content i.e. subscriber only. Mostly this is in the byline but very occasionally in the past I have come across content where this isn't made clear. (Generally the author is listed and it's obvious to anyone familiar with NZ Herald that this wasn't written for them but you need to search to work out where it came from.) If you want to cite such content IMO it would be better to just cite the original news.com.au or whatever article but if you did want to use NZ Herald you probably should make it clear where it originates e.g. news.com.au via New Zealand Herald. I see 2 sources in the article have this problem, I've left them be for now but removed the use of NZ Herald for the far-right part as we already cite news.com.au and although it's a different article I don't think it's useful to cite the same source twice. [8] Nil Einne (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Funnily enough although not particularly surprising, the world sidebar for me is a great example of this. It has 5 articles. First Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 left 'false trails' before disappearing news.com.au, second Earlier diabetes onset could raise dementia risk New York Times which is premium content, third Australian Serial killer <snipped> new life as <snipped>, allegedly made threats against victim's family news.com.au, fourth Global vaccine crisis sends ominous signal for fighting climate change New York Times again premium content, fifth Mum wants 3-year-old daughter exhumed after she was buried with dad who murdered her looks like NZ Herald but it's really just a minor rewrite of this [9] or something (there are many different tabloid versions of that story). I've never been certain if this means some NZ Herald staff or contractor actually re-wrote this or maybe more likely whoever they're buying it from provide an internationalised etc version maybe also different versions based on length. Nil Einne (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually I used a different computer without a broken keyboard so fixed the problem [10] (it was only one more, I counted the first one twice by accident). I did confirm the replacement ref supported the first quote. The second quote I hit a snag. Neither the NZ Herald nor the original news.com.au make it clear it's one long quote. NYC Observer doesn't mention it at all. news.com.au and NZ Herald both say '“People don’t realise certain neighbourhoods in particular, they bus people around to vote,” Mr Schulkin says in the video, released by Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe. “They put them in a bus and go poll site to poll site.”' so whether it's one long statement or there was something in between is fairly unclear. I'm not going to listen to the video since it's irrelevant, we need a non primary source and I looked and couldn't find any which make it as one long quote. So I reworded the article so we no longer suggest it's one long quote. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)