Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Darrell West Brookings Institute citation

The citation to an essay by Darrell West titled Why secret video recordings are damaging for democracy was removed from its web site by the Brookings Institution, the same month as it was posted. The citation is currently number 14 in this article. The citation template goes to an archive.org copy, here is the original URL: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2021/07/07/why-secret-video-recordings-are-damaging-for-democracy/. As you can see, it redirects to a statement the article was taken down and "Brookings has determined that the article will not be republished."

It is cited in two places. Since the article was retracted, I think the citation should be removed, along with the one sentence which quotes it. -- M.boli (talk) 12:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, isn't that peculiar. Can we consider it "retracted" if they have not said as much? Because on the web of course, stuff often gets lost in a web site reorganization, and that does not necessarily mean it was "retracted". Does Brookings generally just remove stuff without a word, or do they have a practice of saying why they remove or correct things... I don't know. Le Marteau (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Well as they say they will never put it back up it is reasonable to assume they chose to take it down. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, my bad, I missed that. I would therefore have no issue with removing said sentence. Le Marteau (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a RS, but does comment on the removal. -- Valjean (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That is interesting! I thought the essay in question was a decent summary of that aspect of Project Veritas activities, and it led off with the similar Greenpeace activity. But ultimately it was just an opinion posted to a blog, expressing the author's view that these gotcha-recordings do not advance the civic discource. There wasn't any news reporting there, no social science research, no expert analysis. So probably it wasn't a great source to be relying on. Taking down an essay which didn't mention that it was defending Brookings' donors seems like an honest thing to do.-- M.boli (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Purpose: Disinformation? Really?

I'm pretty sure one of Wikipedia's polices is to remain "unbiased" and "neutral". Falsely stating their purpose as "disinformation" is not only blatantly biased, but is also laughably wrong. The leader of Project Veritas, James O'Keefe, has been sued hundreds of times by people he's exposed. He has yet to lose one. Putting false information about Project Veritas based off of what MSNBC tells you, such as accusing them of video manipulation (with no evidence, might I add) and claiming their purpose is "to spread misinformation" is the definition of biased JeffTheToaster (talk) 16:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Its what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed all the sources in the bundle, but I'm AGF that they support "disinformation". I am not seeing enough to support "disinformation" as the purpose of the group, though I support using the bundle as a citation for the mention in the lead prose. I scanned through the archives and see this has been discussed before. I don't feel like investing energy in starting a new discussion, but count me in favor of removal from the infobox. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I recall discussions (I came down on the side of "its their tactic, not their purpose"), and consent was what we have now. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

That's what I see as well. I don't plan on changing it without a new consensus, but I think they got it wrong. 'Nuff said. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

They have been described as such by multiple WP:RS. Your argument that is it "laughably wrong" to describe Project Veritas in this way is not objective original research. See: WP:NOR. Saxones288 (talk) 06:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

All they do is go undercover, secretly record powerful figures and put it on the internet. They dont even edit anything most of the time, its usually just raw footage. That's literally contrary to what one would call "disinformation — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffTheToaster (talk • contribs) 12:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Its a shame that RS have pointed out how none of that is true. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Disinformation: 12 sources [1]

Deceptively edited: 13 sources [2]

WP:RS contradicts your claim. Saxones288 (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

It is an entire organization devoted to libel and propaganda. What the American courts say is irrelevant. Dimadick (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

He's settled at least twice. That's a good way of avoiding losing in court. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Deceptively edit videos https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/politics/project-veritas-ilhan-omar.html https://www.businessinsider.com/james-okeefe-project-veritas-sting-fails-2017-11?r=US&IR=T#hollywood-film-director-josh-fox-secretly-records-okeefe-operatives-while-they-attempt-to-swindle-him-4

Deeply misleading https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/6/27/18760463/project-veritas-youtube-sting-james-okeefe

Pedaling false story https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/29/project-veritas-how-fake-news-prize-went-to-rightwing-group-beloved-by-trump

There are more of the same. Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, @Slatersteven! References to two PV disinformation projects that are not yet covered in this Wikipedia page: the attack on Josh Fox and on the Michigan teachers' union. -- M.boli (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Deprecated Source: I did not add one

My most recent edit was flagged as adding a deprecated source. It added a paragraph on the 2014 Josh Fox video. None of the three sources that I inserted seem to be in the deprecated list: Alternet, Salon, Daily Beast. I suspect the problem is among text from parts of the page that I didn't edit. -- M.boli (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

How was it flagged, and by whom? Alternet isn't a good source, and the others can be used, usually with attribution, on a case by case basis. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

In the edit history "use of deprecated (unreliable) source" is one of the tags that the system inserts at the end of the edit summary. Until this moment I believed the software was looking at the WP:Deprecated list, where none of the three appear. But now I think it must be the WP:RSP reliable/perennial sources list. Where Alternet is indeed flagged as unreliable and the other two are as you say. I included the Alternet source because Daily Beast can be hard to access without paying, the other two references could suffice. When an edit on my watchlist shows this tag, I occasionally look at the edit to see if it seems plausible. Which is why I figured to add a talk-comment about this, in case that tag caught somebody's eye. -- M.boli (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

M.boli, my view of the history doesn't provide that information. What skin are you using? Or is it some script you use? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting! That had not occurred to me. When I switched skin to Minerva Nueve none of those tags that the system adds to the edit summary were showing. I've been using Vector Legacy. Vector non-legacy also shows the tags. -- M.boli (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Now I have replaced the Alternet source with another. -- M.boli (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Entrapment in sidebar

In the PV sidebar it says one of their methods is entrapment, however this is impossibly by every definition of entrapment I know since you must be a member of law enforcement to entrap someone, or otherwise must have the legal authority to prosecute them for it (so like the FBI pressuring Flynn to say things they knew were false would be entrapment because they were FBI and wanted to prosecute him, project veritas getting a Google exec to admit they're trying to influence elections can't be entrapment, because PV is not a government agency and cannot prosecute them).

Wikipedia definition of Entrapment: "Entrapment is a practice in which a law enforcement agent or agent of the state induces a person to commit a "crime" that the person would have otherwise been unlikely or unwilling to commit.[1] It "is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer or agent, and the procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion or fraud of the officer or state agent"" https://archive.ph/IDg3r

The Free Dictionary: "(Law) the luring, by a police officer, of a person into committing a crime so that he may be prosecuted for it" https://www.thefreedictionary.com/entrapment

Merriam Webster definition of Entrapment: "the action of luring an individual into committing a crime in order to prosecute the person for it" https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entrapment

Findlaw.com definition: "Entrapment occurs when a government agent persuades or influences you to commit a crime that you otherwise would not have committed." https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/what-is-entrapment/ Haxonek (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

So what's the civilian equivalent? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The primary definition for freedictionary is actually "To catch in or as if in a trap" followed by "To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation". Only then do they list the meaning in the legal/criminal sense. The Wikipedia article goes on to mention other uses, including the "trap" meaning. I'm in favor of keeping it in the infobox but removing the wikilink, as the intro of the article will lead to confusion. My second choice would be to change the link to Entrapment#Etymology and usage. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

What happened to Abbie Boudreau was an unforgivable act of attempted entrapment. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Again, by any legal definition it's not entrapment because they're not law enforcement and they have no ability to entrap people. Also judging from the wikipedia article nobody was trying to get her to do anything illegal.

A lot of RS disagree. Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers Although I think removing the link to the entrapment page would be a good minimum, we really don't need the addition of entrapment at all. "Undercover operation" and "hidden camera" both adequately describe what people want to describe with the word entrapment without suggesting Project Veritas is a legal authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haxonek (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither quite captures the meaning present in the sources, which is that Veritas tries to trick people into illegal or controversial actions while secretly filming them. Being undercover and having a hidden camera are part of that, but not the full picture. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"deceptive and trust-breaking techniques ... applied to trick someone to commit a legal or moral transgression." Routledge Companion to Media and Scandal -- M.boli (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Categories related to Islamophobia

The original insert of categories related to islamophobia was on 14 August 2021 by Sarah Carvalho (who has now "been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts"), Reverted on 24 October 2021 by Mvbaron, Re-inserted 24 October 2021 by RandomCanadian, Reverted 8 July 2022 by Peter Gulutzan, Re-inserted 8 July 2022 by Sumanuil. The earlier discussion was [3] where Mvbaron + Peter Gulutzan + possibly M.boli were dubious about re-insertion, RandomCanadian supported it, Slatersteven commented. The category names are now "Islamophobic publications" and "Islamophobia in the United States". My contentions are: abusive-editor insertions don't deserve much respect, the explanations in the prior talk show what's wrong with them, the majority appears to be against RandomCanadian, and even if (as Sumanuil apparently believes and I don't believe) the consensus wasn't "clear", the onus is on the re-inserter to get consensus. Is there anything new to say? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

In addition, there is nothing in the article that supports inclusion in the "Islamophobic publications" category. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't find anything in the article to support the category. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Islamophobia is prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Muslims as religious, as well as a national, ethnic, or racialized group. -- from category definition. Agree with @Peter Gulutzan and others, the category was applied without evidence. -- M.boli (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok then. It's been explained. Go ahead. I just objected on procedural grounds anyway. Sumanuil. 23:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Sumanuil has self-reverted. Islamophobic publications and Islamophobia in the United States are out. The other categories that Sarah Carvalho inserted -- Fake news websites, Internet properties established in 2010, Websites with far-right material -- remain. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

October 2014 Colorado non-fraud

Regarding my addition to the section on PV's October 2014 failed attempts to suborn election fraud in Colorado.

This article covers PV getting caught by a couple of organizations. I added another paragraph, sourced from a Denver Post article, which mentions a) PV's main effort was related to mail-in ballots, b) PV released a video which showed people appearing to agree with PV operatives' illegal suggestions, and c) PV didn't show that any illegal stuff happened.

The existing Mother Jones reference is congruent with what I added. MJ notes that PV released a video. The article goes on to say "But he [O'Keefe] apparently encountered others with a poor understanding of voting law (or disregard for it) and were happy to offer counsel. Their comments are likely to embarrass Democratic supporters of the Colorado voting reforms, though the video doesn’t show anyone following through by committing voter fraud."

The edit summary on the revert made little sense in context of what was reverted. Perhaps the editor misunderstood the text of the addition. I'm putting the material back, with both references attached this time. I think it fairly represents the incident and is reliably sourced. It doesn't name anybody, it doesn't cast aspersions on any person or organization. If somebody disagrees please discuss it here. -- M.boli (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"PV released a video showing a few individuals agreeing with the illegal activities and offering suggestions.", if your intent was to say "PV released a video appearing to show a few individuals agreeing with the illegal activities and offering suggestions". you left out a word or two.

If you put it back I will revert, as it has been objected to. Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

" PV targeted numerous Democratic campaigns and political organizations to mishandle or fraudlently cast mail-in ballots.", what do they ask them to mishandle it, what is this saying? Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)\

I put "appearing to" when I added the material back. No problem, it is an improvement. But again you reverted. You could have just fixed that in the first place.

Mishandle or fraudulently cast mail-in ballots is my (I believe accurate) summary of the several misdeeds that PV tried to suborn as reported in the Denver Post article. I think that repeating the specifics of PV's unproven insinuations often has the effect of reinforcing the insinuations as if they were true. For the same reason I don't repeat the names of the targeted organizations. Is there a better summary?

Enough! Please self-revert and put the material back. End this useless drama and mindless revert-warring. -- M.boli (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Mishandle or fraudulently cast mail-in ballots" is my (I believe accurate) summary", you are not an RS. Also that does not answer my question, what do you think that sentence says? as (much like the other one) it seems to either be missing a word or punctuation. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It reads like two sentences badly cobbled together into one removing some key context. Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The Denver Post article starts out by noting that Colorado had recently converted to all-mail voting, and this had drawn the attention of PV. The article then describes several instances of PV attempting to suborn illegal behavior, viz:

• "whether people can vote multiple times using ballots sent to people who have moved — for instance, former residents of a college fraternity,"
• finding discarded ballots in trash cans
• taking advantage of vote-by-mail as a way to vote in two states

So I wrote this up as Colorado law had recently been changed in the area of mail-in voting. PV targeted numerous Democratic campaigns and political organizations to mishandle or fraudulently cast mail-in ballots. I agree this is awkward language and should be improved. The rest of the addition notes that PV's video shows some people appearing to agree, but no illegal activity was illustrated. That's from both references. Both sources report what I just described. Anybody who reads about the PV video, or see it, can come here for a reliably-sourced capsule description of what happened. I think repeating PV's allegations in detail has the psychological effect of lending them false credence. -- M.boli (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Does the source say the video appear to show people agreeing? Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is from Denver Post reference. (I ran the paragraphs together for convenience):

But he apparently encountered others with a poor understanding of voting law (or disregard for it) and were happy to offer counsel. Their comments are likely to embarrass Democratic supporters of the Colorado voting reforms, though the video doesn’t show anyone following through by committing voter fraud. O’Keefe’s video purports to show people who work with Greenpeace, Work For Progress-Boulder and state Rep. Joe Salazar’s campaign taking the bait. They were asked whether people can vote multiple times using ballots sent to people who have moved — for instance, former residents of a college fraternity. One campaign worker tells them the best parts of Aurora where they might be most likely to find discarded ballots in trash cans. Another doesn’t seem to understand the problem with an O’Keefe associate suggesting her friends plan to vote by mail in both Colorado and Oregon this year.

Another source, the Colorado Independent, describes much the same scenario, mentioning the same two specific instances. I will add this source to the narrative as it does a better job than the Denver Post describing the video as deceptive.

All this palaver is indeed improving the edit. But I find it strange to be justifying phrase-by-phrase a brief, well sourced and almost anodyne addition to this article. I've done a bunch of editing to this article, I know what the pitfalls are. -- M.boli (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Because (as you yourself admit) it was poorly worded, as such may have conveyed something that was not intended. I can't guess what you intend to say, so have to ask for claffification. Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

References

ACORN

Both sources mention ACRON, so what is the objection? Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The "journalists regret..." statements in the sources do not relate to ACORN.

The sentence needing a source is in the ACORN discussion, and it is: " Several journalists and media outlets have expressed regret for not properly scrutinizing and vetting his work."

But both sources *do not* connect the "regrets" to ACORN. The journalists and media outlets regret not properly and scrutinizing the video. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

scrutinizing the "NPR" video JArthur1984 (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Then the source should have been moved to what they did support, not removed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It was already in the correct section though -- "Journalists Ben Smith, James Poniewozik, and Dave Weigel have expressed regret for giving O'Keefe's NPR videos wider circulation without scrutinizing them for themselves." JArthur1984 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

If the text was supported a CN tag should not have been used then. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not put a CN tag where that source was properly located. The NPR section has stayed the same. The source is proper support for the NPR statement.

But that source does not support the sentence for which it was cited in the ACORN section. So it was in the ACORN section I put citation needed. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

BUt they did support other sntaces that were covrfed by the same tag, so shous have been moved, not removed. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'm not explaining it well. There was no reason to move them, because they are already there, JArthur1984 (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

"and the California probe found the videos had been heavily and selectively edited." http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/09/29/okeefe.cnn.prank/index.html. Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You put a CN tag by the line about how he deceptively edited the videos, which the sources supported. Slatersteven (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

We seem to be crossing wires on two different issues, sorry.

We now have this source issue resolved, but the ACORN "selectively edited" sentence was worded in a way that went beyond what the source supported. For example, it talked about manipulating the chronology (the source said nothing about that). So either that sentence needed to be changed to match the source, or the source needed to be changed. That is what I mentioned in my change note on the history when I restored the tag (which another editor had correctly added). Now we have a citation and it's mostly right (although for reasons I discuss in an earlier comment, I do not think the sentence on that one should be in Wikivoice). But the source issue on that sentence is resolved. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm good with that source for the first citation, we just need to adjust the phrasing accordingly. That was my suggestion on the first citation needed since I reverted to the citation needed -- we either find a source for the sentence as it stands, or bring up the California probe as the source and adjust the sentence accordingly. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/03/08/james-okeefe-pays-100000-to-acorn-employee-he-smeared-conservative-media-yawns/?sh=d56e84114bd4 Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC) https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kc-eDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT357&lpg=PT357&dq=O%27Keefe+selectively+edited+and+manipulated+his+recordings+of+ACORN+employees&source=bl&ots=GbC3OTahei&sig=ACfU3U3CS7ZrL6rdIzjH7NK3P9D8H2lxQQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjow6Dbrc75AhXwnP0HHetPDgUQ6AF6BAgjEAM#v=onepage&q=O'Keefe%20selectively%20edited%20and%20manipulated%20his%20recordings%20of%20ACORN%20employees&f=false

Is this all enough, or do we need more? Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your edit. On the "selectively edited" section. But I do not think we can leave it in Wikivoice. It is a contended statement -- while California AG's office reviewed raw footage and found selective editing, the NYT public editor reviewed the raw footage and found to the contrary. The sentence is currently attributed to O'Keefe himself, which also raises the WP:BLP need to be cautious and which applies to all statements about living people regardless of what article they are in. (I do not believe we can address the BLP concerns by saying "Project Veritas selectively edited..." because I believe this pre-dated Project Veritas.) JArthur1984 (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

the NYT public editor reviewed the raw footage and found to the contrary.

And that cite is literally flagged as an opinion piece, not a news article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It's appropriate although it's an opinion piece. This is the relevant wiki policy on op-ed: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

Here, the NYT Public Editor in fact reviewed the raw footage and came to a conclusion. My edit was not framed in Wikivoice, it attributed the statements directly to the author.

Note also: "When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint."

The NYT is a perennial reliable source, and its public editor is its "ethics watchdog." There's no reason to think his observations would not be reliable. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue is WP:DUE. One person having the opinion Veritas did nothing wrong is outweighed by all the people saying they edited deceptively. Placing this opinion piece in the article is giving undue weight to a fringe minority view. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Further, he stated Veritas did many things wrong. Part of one sentence threw Veritas a bone. All very odd anyhow. If someone told me they were going to slash an annoying neighbor's tires, I'd say "Be careful, it's illegal". That's not giving advice to do it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That's now a different issue than the one you raised, but it's also not undue. First, remember that " a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" (which we can do so here, the NYT public editor).

But this is also why we need to be aware of circular reporting. As far as I could see, only two sources reviewed the raw footage -- the NYT public editor and the state of California AG office. Many secondary sources have cited the AG office, giving an exaggerated impression of weight (and keep in mind, there are other articles citing the NYT public editor as well). That circular reporting does not provide a reason to exclude the NYT analysis. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your point. Are you suggesting that the California Attorney General, the Government Accountability Office, and the NYT are lying? As for the NYT article, it is lengthy and highly critical of PV; basically describing the entire episode as a fraud. Indeed O'Keefe apologized to his victims and paid a hefty judgement. You make it sound like the victims were at fault. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You're not understanding my point, but I don't think that's your fault. I was replying to a different editor, explaining why there was no undue issue. To your suggestion, I don't think either is "lying." In fact, I think the NYT article is great because it goes through the issues fairly -- (1) videos are heavily edited, (2) some parts are out of chronological order, (3) but the worst things ACORN employees are shown saying in the video ... are what the ACORN employees did in fact say. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

That's now a different issue than the one you raised

It's really not. You're citing a single opinion piece, which places undue weight on a minority view. Further, as O3000 points out, you're selectively quoting from it to make it appear as if the source is saying Veritas did nothing wrong, which is even more dubious.

the worst things ACORN employees are shown saying in the video ... are what the ACORN employees did in fact say

Which is exactly the problem with what Veritas did: they took statements out of context to claim they were nefarious. Simply repeating that here is giving more credence to Veritas, which puts us right back at WP:DUE.

I'm starting to lose my AGF here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

No need to include the snippy remark about AGF. Neither of us has persuaded the other, and apparently will not persuade the other, but so be it. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You also raise the GAO investigation, but remember the GAO investigation conclusion is about whether ACORN mishandled federal funds money, which is a different question than how the videos were edited, or whether the ACORN employees said the video shows. JArthur1984 (talk) 21:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not a different question. It was his aim to stop federal funding -- a long term goal of conservatives. It, in fact, resulted in such as it was used as a rationale for cutting these funds. Later overruled in the courts; but not before massive damage. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

The NYT piece is an opinion piece and there's no secondary coverage to indicate that it is particularly significant or offers some sort of unique insight compared to the massive amount of high-quality news coverage available; including it like this would clearly be WP:UNDUE. It's also from 2010 (before the lawsuit and much of the other coverage and analysis, before O'Keefe's apology, etc), which would make it a poor source even if it weren't already an opinion piece. It's twelve years after the fact - if this opinion is significant, there ought to be higher-quality followup to it by now. Also, for everyone following this discussion, note that the exact same text was added to James O'Keefe and similar discussions are happening there. I think we should probably avoid the redundancy between the two articles by limiting the amount of Project Veritas activity on that article - providing only a brief summary and linking here for eg. individual noteworthy incidents. --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion you are bringing up a good point. Regardless of the merits of particular edits in the section, including the ones I propose, there is a broader question of how long the ACORN discussion in this article should be, given that this video predates Project Veritas itself. I’m not sure how to address as I hoped my much smaller edits would not be controversial (and they have not been!), so I’ll defer to others on how to tackle that. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

It is important in this article because PV is an extension of O'Keefe and this provides a better understanding of the genesis of PV. The methodology is the same -- highly edited "sting" videos attempting to discredit organizations in one particular political spectrum. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

NBC News: CT Attorney General Launches Investigation

I think this content should be added to the article.

What do others here think?

NBC Connecticut: CT Attorney General Launches Investigation Into Greenwich School Administrator Seen in Viral Video:

https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/ct-attorney-general-launches-investigation-into-greenwich-school-administrator-seen-in-viral-video/2863993/

Connecticut Mirror: AG Tong opens civil rights investigation of Project Veritas allegations:

https://ctmirror.org/2022/09/01/project-veritas-jeremy-boland-greenwich-ct-investigation-william-tong/

Greenwich Time: CT officials to investigate Greenwich school administrator’s discussion of hiring practices after viral video:

https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/CT-officials-to-investigate-Greenwich-school-17413238.php

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There are so many recordings and incidents covered in the article that we need to consider whether any new recording or incident is prominent enough for inclusion. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, we should not document every single recording or incident in this article. Per the balancing aspects policy, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news." Recordings or incidents should only be considered for inclusion in the article if they result in an unusually significant outcome, or generate an unusually high amount of reliable source coverage in line with the other recordings or incidents presently in the article. — Newslinger talk 06:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The video is not notable. What is notable is the response to the video. First, a public school put its vice principal on leave. And second, the state's Attorney General launched an investigation. It's these two things that are notable. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

As with the above, we can't have every incident. Only those that have some kind of repercusions. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please explain why you think there are no repercusions. A public school put its vice principal on leave. And the state's Attorney General launched an investigation. Please explain how these two things do not constitute repercusions. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

And what was the result, was anyone fired? Did the state find any evidence of wrongdoing? This is wp:blp material, so we can't include accusations of wrongdoing, without also saying what the findings were. When and if we know the outcome then we might be able to include this. Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The articles from the CT Mirror and Greenwich Time seems most thorough. The Mirror seems like a brief blurb. -- Frotz(talk) 19:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You cited the Mirror twice. I think you meant NBC for one of those. Besides, I'm interested in reliability, not length. Are all three sources reliable? SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

My bad. I meant the NBC one. They all seem reliable, but the NBC one doesn't seem to say much more than "This is bad". -- Frotz(talk) 21:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

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

I think this content should be added to the article.

What do others here think?

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

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

ABC News: PBS lawyer resigns after being caught in Veritas sting:

https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/pbs-lawyer-resigns-caught-veritas-sting-75208013

PBS: PBS Addresses Project Veritas Video:

https://www.pbs.org/publiceditor/blogs/pbs-public-editor/pbs-addresses-project-veritas-video/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue it's a bit too WP:RECENT, and wouldn't take a Veritas report as authentic at all. I'm sure the reporter made some stupid comments, but that's Veritas' MO: goad someone into saying a sound bite they can take out of context and blow it up. EDIT: Further to my point, we need folks to actually analyze this and see if it's anything relevant to Veritas, or just another one of their "reports," which wouldn't deserve any emphasis here per WP:DUE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

How, exactly, is a Veritas report not authentic? -- Frotz(talk) 18:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Have you read our article? Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. What is the answer? -- Frotz(talk) 18:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

As they are known to deceptivly edit videos,(in other words, lie) nothing they say can be taken at its word. Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments everyone.

I need to make two clarifications.

First, I'm well aware that Project Veritas is not a reliable sources. That's why I did not post a link to Project Veritas. The sources that I did cite are reliable. It is the content of these reliable sources that I am interested in.

Secondly, the video is not notable. What is notable is the response to the video. A high ranking employee at PBS resigned. That's notable.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Please tell us why Project Veritas is not a reliable source and why its report is not authentic. Is it because they are primary sources? -- Frotz(talk) 21:34, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I fail to see what is encyclopedia-worthy here. The first two references (both are the same AP report) say "a contracts lawyer in PBS’ general counsel office, was recorded offering political opinions in what appeared to be a barroom conversation..." The AP report did not indicate the person was a PBS official, no indication that anybody was speaking or acting on behalf of PBS, no indication that anything related to PBS's course of business was involved. Google-searching, I found no indication the lawyer is a notable person. The response by the PBS public editor was congruent with the AP report: an employee in a non-policy, non-editorial position said some hateful things. The public editor went on to say PBS disapproves of such attitudes, it does not control a person's speech when they are off the job especially if they are not in public-facing positions, and he no longer works for PBS. If the lawyer were by himself a notable person then this report would belong in his Wikipedia article. But he isn't notable, and PBS wasn't implicated, so I'm not seeing significance. -- M.boli (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question: Why is Project Veritas not a reliable source and why is its report not authentic? The AP article clearly states that a PBS lawyer was caught praising rising coronavirus cases and suggested that children of Republicans should be put in reeducation camps. Employment contracts often have a clause that forbids doing things to bring the employer into disrepute, which is exactly what this lawyer did. Contract or not, barroom or not, PBS was well within its rights to fire him over this. -- Frotz(talk) 22:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

To answer "Why is Project Veritas not a reliable source and why is its report not authentic?", as was said above, it's because they deceptively edit their videos. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Or {per wp:rs), they have to have a reputation for fact-checking, and not for making stuff up. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Or more precisely: PV videos are not "made up," what they show in their videos is real recording to the best of my knowledge. The message communicated by the video is the deception. -- M.boli (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this conversation has been diverted. The question at hand is: whether the events surrounding a particular PV video are worthy of mention in Wikipedia. I claim the person at the focus of the video is not notable and he was not representing the organization he happens to work for. If there were significance to this incident, the significance would be reported by reliable sources. Until now it is an unimportant meh! Perhaps another trophy belongs in the PV trophy room: another sucker bagged. That's about it. -- M.boli (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is basically what I attempted to convey earlier. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It’s Not Far-Right

WP:CIR, bad troll is bad Dronebogus (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
There’s no such thing as “far-right,” as there’s only far-left. -HistoryGuy94 (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC) Please see Far-right politics, in particular, Far-right politics § United States. — Newslinger talk 21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Overciting

The lead section of the article is bogged down by dozens of citations, many of which just say the same thing over and over again. The citations need to be trimmed down considerably. I certainly understand the need for attribution, but dozens of citations for one sentence is overkill and makes the article difficult to read comfortably. Why not reduce the number of citations to a few - say, five or six - that sum up the message? Treybien2 (talk) 03:39 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This came about because people keep contesting the basic facts. See the talk page discussion immediately before yours, for example. In response to widespread misconceptions about PV, some editors put together impressive bullet-proof cite bundles. When PV appears in the news, and readers come here to find out about it, they can see that Wikipedia's description of PV is built on a solid well-attested history.

Your edits by the way, replaced single-superscript^[1] cite-bundles with lists^[1][2][3][4] of superscripts. You removed a lot of references and decreased readability. Also note this is a long, high-traffic, heavily-edited article. It seems a little bit bull-in-the-china-shop to glance at it and chop a zillion references without pausing to engage with your fellow editors. -- M.boli (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

See above, this situation exists because people keep i=on insisting "we want sources". Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

^^^ You often say it better than I do. -- M.boli (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Project Veritas is not "far-right"

We already have Template:Round in circles listed at the top, along with FAQs. Raising this point again and again is just bait.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Veritas does not have any political affiliation. All it does it report facts in the ground. That is different from ideology. Did you know Project Veritas has reported on fraud committed by Republican groups? You wouldn't know that because such information is hidden on Wikipedia. Calling them far-right is editorializing and not neutral and violates WP:NOPOV. The only sources for the far-right claim are opinion pieces or articles from NYT which project veritas is currently in a lawsuit again! if that isn't a conflict of interest i don't know what is! If PV does disinformation and deceptive editing, why havent they ever lost a lawsuit before? 2605:B100:D38:75FF:C981:1BC8:7A5E:11D9 (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC) RS say it does, we go by what wp:rs say. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC) PV is a far-right organization is cited to many different sources in this Wikipedia article. This suggestion has been raised on talk page many times, one can read past discussions in the talk page archives. If there are examples of PV targeting "Republican groups" with sufficient significance to include here, they can be included. Perhaps some already are, I haven't examined each one to see. -- M.boli (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC) On Wikipedia, neutrality entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". As stated in the FAQ at the top of this talk page (click the "About this page" link to see it if you are on a mobile device), since a critical mass of reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, describes Project Veritas a far-right organization, this article does so as well. None of the 15 reliable sources in Special:Permalink/1111838278#cite_note-far-right-17 are opinion pieces. As the article explains, Project Veritas members paid $150,000 in settlements in response to a set of defamation lawsuits, and the founder issued a statement of regret. The following describes Project Veritas's targeting of a Republican group: When I ask [Project Veritas member Robert] Halderman, he says [Project Veritas] won't exclusively be targeting Democrats. This is hard to believe. Project Veritas has made little effort to ever damage Republicans. The one example its leaders cite—a takedown of Wisconsin Senate President Mike Ellis—had the hallmarks of a contracted kill. The year before Ellis was caught on video discussing setting up an illegal political action committee, Project Veritas received $50,000 from Eric O’Keefe. He is no relation to James, but he is the director of the Wisconsin Club for Growth—a longtime nemesis of Ellis. It wasn’t hard for Madison insiders to put two and two together, even though O’Keefe insists, “There’s no for-sale sign on my door.” Alberta, Tim (May–June 2018). "James O'Keefe Can't Get No Respect". Politico. Retrieved 26 March 2021. — Newslinger talk 21:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC) And, we say "far-right" not "conservative" unless the Republican party is far right this does not prove that PV is not far-right. Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC) A recent court case they lost https://www.reuters.com/legal/project-veritas-loses-jury-verdict-democratic-consulting-firm-2022-09-23/ Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC) Should we do the same thing as with Talk:Ayurveda: revert every non-policy-based claim that PVINFR? Or is it not bad enough yet for that? --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC) I think I will just say see faq. Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Project Veritas

Wikipedia claims deceptive video editing and misinformation. That is absolutely not true. It is the Agenda and goal of the Left to minimize the actual reason Project Veritas exists. 24.50.150.174 (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

No, wp:rs do, we just repeat what they say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Except the elephant in the room is that the reliable sources list is entirely arbitrary who's only conisistency is the more a source is loyal to the establishment the more reliable its rated. Claiming you're using "reliable sources" just makes it obvious that wiki editors simply choose a source they agree with, claim its reliable, then use said source as a proxy for their own opinions. Not a single source posted in this wiki article actually has been able to prove deceptive video editing and misinformation, not a single source has a verifiable example. 2601:643:300:CE80:0:0:0:6FB9 (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This page is for improving the article. If you have a problem with the way reliability is determined, go instead to the pages where reliability is determined, for example WP:RSP. Of course, you will have to think up better reasons than baseless accusations first. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

PLease read wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

This group does not produce "Disinformation". The produce videos that allow us to hear directly from the source. They deserve a Pulitzer. 2603:8080:6F0D:3E00:4D2F:606A:3257:95D0 (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done As per the template accompanying your "request", This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request... instructions which you have failed to follow. Le Marteau (talk) 04:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"purpose: disinformation"

This article isn't even informative. Complete discredit to the works of PV. 72.229.206.82 (talk) 04:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you have anything specific you would like to see changed in the article, or are you just here to vent? Because if it's the latter, that would be an inappropriate use of this forum, as mentioned at the heading at the top of this page. Please do give it a look and then let us know if you have something constructive to say. Le Marteau (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

We go by what wp:RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought their purpose was propaganda and slander, not disinformation. Aren't they better known for framing innocent people? Dimadick (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, now there you have a point. Yes I would agree their purpose is propaganda and slander, their method is disinformation. But I can also see why the disinformation might be a deliberate policy of muddying the waters. Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No mention of “Wall of Retracto”

Why is there no mention of PV’s Wall of Retracto? These retracto’s are provable occurrences of where the a news media outlet made a statement (or claim) to their audience (whether intentional or not) and were forced to retract their statement because they were discovered by PV to be deceptions. Why isn’t a topic like this broached at all? It is one of the single defining features of the organization that made them grow in popularity early on. 2601:6C4:C181:6060:F592:6278:2552:59DD (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You would need to provide reliable sources discussing this. I can't find any. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of self-promotional claims with obvious spin made by an organization known for spreading misinformation. And your claims that people were "forced" to retract and that these were "deceptions" may constitute slander. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Or to put it another way, a retraction might be "we are sorry we misspelled O'Keefe's name O'Kefe". We need (as said above) RS to discuss this. So we can actually write about it other than "PV has what is called a wall of retraco which it claims are all the retractions made by the news media". Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Unbanned on Twitter

Perhaps it should be mentioned n the second to last paragraph of the History section that the Project Veritas twitter page has since been restored on November 20, 2022 as described here https://www.cbsnews.com/news/twitter-accounts-reinstated-elon-musk-donald-trump-kanye-ye-jordan-peterson-kathy-griffin-andrew-tate/ (I would make an edit myself but I do not have extended confirmed. TømmyHetrick (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for bringing it to our attention. -- M.boli (talk) 00:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

What they "do" and their "purpose" are not the same thing

Firefangledfeathers, I too share your concern. I agree that the infobox should not contain "disinformation" as their "purpose", even though that is what they do. It's grammatically and logically wrong, and it's wrong to write that in the infobox or anywhere in the article as their "purpose". Even the worst purveyors of "disinformation" (with the exception of intelligence agencies whose job it is to create and push what they know is disinformation) do not have it as their "purpose" to push disinformation. They are just doing it as part of their misguided efforts to push their mission/purpose. What they "do" and their "purpose" are two different things. RS justify calling it a disinformation platform, but that is not their purpose. This is one place where their self-description could be used, and that doesn't undermine the fact they are a propaganda outfit that makes deceptively edited videos. Let's not confuse what they do with their purpose. Here are a couple (there are more) links to archived discussions about "disinformation" as the "purpose" in the infobox. Pinging User:Slatersteven, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Newslinger, User:NorthBySouthBaranof, User:Hob Gadling, User:ScottishFinnishRadish, User:JzG, User:Soibangla, User:Objective3000.

• Talk:Project_Veritas/Archive_3#Type_field_in_infobox
• Talk:Project_Veritas/Archive_3#“Purpose:_disinformation”?

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that disinformation is what they do but not necessarily their purpose. It would be best if we had a reliable source saying what their purpose is, but if we don't, we'll have to use their own words. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if we look at the InfoWars About page, it says they sift through the information and expose the underlying intentions. The Mafia also called itself a social club. I don't think we can use a self-description in the infobox. I suggest we use the "methods" parameter instead of "purpose", as that is well established. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes aren't good at nuance or context. How about we just don't have that field? Failing that, the answer is in the lead and sourced. Discredit[ing] mainstream media organizations and progressive groups. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

After reading O3000's contribution, I had that exact thought too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

To address @Hob Gadling's question: O'Keefe for a long time described PV's activities as "citizen journalism", it is easy to find sources for that. But no confidence trickster is going to say their job is deceiving you, it defeats the purpose. I agree with people that leaving purpose out of the infobox might be a good solution. Thanks to @Valjean for reopening the question and finding the archived discussions. -- M.boli (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but O'Keefe is mainly known for lying, so we can't take their word for it. The fact that he repeatedly stated in court that they are "self-evidently" journalists, and the court rejected everything based on that premise, underlines that. They are propagandists, not journalists. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

To be completely accurate, their purpose is propaganda, their method is disinformation. So I agree with O3000. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I can't think of anything we lose by just not using that category in the infobox. So, shall we just delete that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I typed omit it before changing it to methods, so fine by me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The change makes sense to me. Shearonink (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hold on... Did consensus just happen smoothly and painlessly on a contentious article related to American politics?! What wiki am I on? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Shhhhhh... Shearonink (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

LMAO! Miracles happen. Thanks everyone. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This page should be marked as NPOV disputed

"A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."

This is the stand that Wikipedia has long held for bias sources and a fair one at that, but I would like to file a NPOV disputed claim on the grounds that the page on Project Veritas does not meet this standard long held by Wikipedia. On the page for Project Veritas there are 244 sources on this page and all of them are either from news sources the are deemed as left leaning from independent review groups such as Ground News and many of them such as sources like CNN and The New York Times have even been engaged in legal battles before with Project Veritas. The other sources on this page come from independent small and major intuitions who's bias can not clearly be listed or fairly grouped and thus can not solely be used as a non-bias source. Over all I am not requesting that the wording of the article be changed or the sources to this be removed or deemed as "unfair and unfactual" as this is not something that I wish to start a greater augment over, my sole goal in this matter is to make sure that readers of the page may know to take the wording of it with a grain of salt and to do more reading into a subject before making a judgment something that I believe is a perfectly reasonable request. The Pale King 101210 (talk) 22:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You stated: my sole goal in this matter is to make sure that readers of the page may know to take the wording of it with a grain of salt This is a violation of tagging policy. POV Tagging policy includes:

• The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article.
• This template should only be applied to articles that are reasonably believed to lack a neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources, not by its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public.

The article relies on reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

And may I ask who elected you to deicide what is neutral and what is not? The Pale King 101210 (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I made no such claim. If you have an argument with a source, you can take it to WP:RSN. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't care about sources being deemed as "reliable", that has never been my augment. The sources being reliable does not remove the fact that there is not a even distribution of bias sources which directly counters the line "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." There is no "devil's advocate" to this page and thus it is unbalanced and not neutral as it does not meet the "balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." requirements that Wikipedia demands. By this string of logic a bare minimum and all that I'm asking for is that the page is marked as NPOV disputed. The Pale King 101210 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources not cited in this article that should be, you're invited to propose them for addition, or boldly add them. If you can cite no such sources, then there is nothing to fix. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I can not cite "reliable sources" without changing many parts of the article something I lack the know how to do, all that I'm saying is that the lack of even sources is a issue and that we should open debate about the distribution of sources that people may make the augment for more fair citations and a even review of the subject of this page so that it may be deemed as neutral The Pale King 101210 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not required to use "even sources," assuming such a thing even exists. Wikipedia articles are not required to be "neutral," they are required to adopt a neutral point of view, which does not mean "no point of view." Rather, it means fairly representing all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I posit that this article complies with that directive, and that the due weight of reliable sources is reflected here. The burden is on you to demonstrate that there are published, reliable sources not fairly represented here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Many News Groups such as "The New York Post" and "Fox News" both of whom are deemed as "right wing" as well as having "mixed factuality" by groups like Ground News with factuality ratings being the same as those of sourced groups like "The Washington Post" and "CNN". News groups such as "The New York Post" and "Fox News" have overall pro-veritas reviews of there work and the same factuality ratings as other "left leaning" sources and are yet excluded from having there statements in the article were other "Left leaning" sources are. This neutrally leads to the article being overly anit-veritas with no support from sources that are viewed as "factual" while having no higher then other sources in the News business The Pale King 101210 (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

You're invited to make or propose specific and actionable changes to the article which would address your claimed problems. It's not incumbent on other editors to play a game of Twenty Questions to figure out what you think should or shouldn't be changed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This template should be applied as any reasonable person would believe this article lacks a neutral point of view. The fact that many of the sources are considered reliable secondary sources is irrelevant to the fact that there is still an imbalance in the sources used in the article (the sources included are disproportionately those strongly opposed to Project Veritas), and there is also wording in the Wikipedia article that violates the NPOV demanded by Wikipedia's guidelines. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Exactly my point, I'm not trying to change any of the wording nor anything else. To act like this page is neutral is a disrespect to those who come to this site to make up there own mind The Pale King 101210 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• Once gain, these are just claims, often insulting, with no valid basis on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Simply saying the large number of editors involved in this article are not "reasonable" will get you nowhere. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  It does counter Wikipedia policies and guidelines by the fact that the page counters the "balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." requirements that Wikipedia demands. And no one is auguring that the large number of editors involved in this article are not "reasonable" we are auguring that this page dose not meet the NPOV guidelines.

  PS. "often insulting" this has nothing to do with the conversion as I nor Sloppyjoes7 has insulted you please keep your bias out of the conversation in the future. thank you. The Pale King 101210 (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I said absolutely nothing about me being insulted and you have shown no bias. Try to focus on the discussion and not editors. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• I share O3000, Ret.'s view on the inappropriateness of the tag. At the least, I'm not seeing a case for the tag. TPK101210's stated goal would be an abuse of the tag, and there's little point discussing it if there are not actionable proposals for improvement on the table.

  For me, NPOV issues broadly fall into three categories:

  • a viewpoint common in reliable, independent sources is underweighted in the article
  • a view present only in a minority of reliable, independent sources is overweighted
  • the article language is biased compared to the sources being cited or is making claims not present in the sources.

  Do we have any such issues? Can they be fixed boldly, discussed to build consensus, or tagged in-line? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, these issues are present. Some more than others. I went into some of them in detail in the previous content area.

  However, I'd say that those issues are non-comprehensive, as this Wikipedia article reads more like a hit piece than an informational article. I am flatly asserting that no reasonable person could ever possibly believe this article, as currently written, is even close to NPOV. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with you that "disinformation" in the "Purpose" field of the infobox is a POV issue and have said so before. It's worth it to scan the talk page archives for prior discussion and consensus on the matter. Perhaps the consensus has now changed? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  the fact is that it has bias sources from only one side which is at odds with the guidelines on NPOV, it can't have one side only. If you want to made a augment to remove all bias sources to feel the "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." part of the guidelines that is a debate to be made but not the one that I'm trying to make. As it stands I don't see how this page can meet the NPOV requirements The Pale King 101210 (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  If there are reliable sources not cited here that should be, you're invited to boldly add them. As you are a very new user, I would strongly suggest that you review our reliable sourcing guidelines to understand what constitutes a reliable source here. If you have any questions, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard may help. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  The issue is not the reliable sources, it's the distribution of them. Either we need to remove groups like The New York Times and CNN whom independent reviewers such as Ground News view as "left leaning" to fit the "This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether." part of the rules or we need to add groups that independent reviewers view as "Right wing" this is based on the line "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." The Pale King 101210 (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  OK, well, now we've got to the crux of the issue, and you're just not going to be satisfied with the answer. The New York Times and CNN are gold-standard reliable sources on Wikipedia, and if you wish to dispute that status, we're not doing it here - you'll have to open a thread on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and create a new site-wide consensus. We are not obligated to use unreliable sources to "balance" reliable sources - the question is not purported "bias" but rather reliability of their content. That you consider mainstream reliable sources to be "left-leaning" is of no consequence here. Sorry, it just isn't. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  And I'm not calling for the removal of CNN or The Washington post or others, but to wholly use those were other sources when independent revivers put them on the same level as other pro-veritas new sources is most certainly not neutral.

  CORRECTION: I have been mistaking "The new York Times" a highly rated factuality source with "The Washington post" who have a much lower score among many independent reviwers. The Pale King 101210 (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  We're dancing around the issue here. You need to identify specific and actionable changes you believe would improve the article, and cite sources to support them. Then we have something to discuss and form consensus around in either direction. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well the first is it being called "far right" which most if not all of the sources cited are written as option pieces or lack sources themselves from what I have read, I don't have time to go read whole books for one or two lines but the shocking claims and lack of sourcing is at least owed a proper review and the same goes for "deceptively edited videos" claim which even if some sources claim also are written largely as option pieces and the citation list should be reviewed to see which sources make reliable claims and which ones don't. This is just the first things that meant my eye as needing review and I do not plan on going further into the page because it is beyond my skills to do so and also because I never intended to fix the page rather then flag it for NPOV so that people more experienced then me can view it and deiced if it needs editing or not. The Pale King 101210 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  most if not all of the sources cited ... lack sources themselves - well, yeah. Reliable secondary sources do not themselves need to cite sources. How would anything ever be cited if every source itself needed a source? That's an infinite recursion loop. So this isn't a valid or actionable complaint. What sources can you cite which specifically reject the description of PV as "far-right"?

  I don't have time to go read whole books for one or two lines - what, exactly, is it that you think we do here? The work of a Wikipedia editor involves reading sources. If you aren't willing to take the time to read sources, then perhaps you should find something more constructive to do with your time. I don't mean to be obtuse, but complaining about something you openly admit you can't be arsed to read is a pointless waste of everyone's time and will result in zero changes to this article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  This has been addressed countless times in the archives of the Project Veritas Talk page in addition to the explanation included in the header. So much so that the talk page has been locked several times due to a barrage of spam along these lines. As for flag it for NPOV so that people more experienced then me can view it and deiced if it needs editing or not, those experienced people have been editing this page and discussing these issues for the past few years. This sounds much more like a case of Reality has a well known liberal bias than editorial bias. Saxones288 (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Project Veritas is not a disinformation platform/ This should be relabeled as a conservative video publisher

this is a dead thread, attracting vandals to it like flies Dronebogus (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The most definition of disinformation is "Deliberately misleading information announced publicly or leaked by a government or especially by an intelligence agency in order to influence public opinion or the government in another nation.", according to Wordnik. According to this, Project Veritas is not deliberately misleading the public. While they have an alternative perspective, it is confusing to me why Wikipedia would categorize this as a disinformation organization, in line with Russian or Chinese intel. This should be removed, and relabeled as a conservative media outlet. The sources cited for this being a disinformation platform are not making a claim based off independent evidence, and are, more often than not, including Project Veritas in lists of foreign intelligence services, rather than being a domestic organization. Project Veritas, while having posted potentially misleading information, proving that this was deliberate will be extremely difficult, and outside the scope of Wikipedia. Pbs123456789 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC) We follow reliable sources and not the reasoning of Wikipedia users. See WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC) The "reliable sources" are determined by Wikipedia users, and this selection bias is causing the problems with this Wikipedia article. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC) It has been said that there are no sources opposing the current Wikipedia's description of Project Veritas as a "disinformation platform". To try and keep the scope narrow, I'll just focus on a single word in the article: "Disinformation". Per the article, the very "Purpose" of Project Veritas is "Disinformation." This is not only biased, but is biased to a degree that utterly and totally violates the general Wikipedia guideline that "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view." To provide some sources, first, a WP:SELFSOURCE, which is allowed per Wikipedia guidelines: The Project Veritas site itself appears to summarize the purpose of Project Veritas by saying "Project Veritas investigates and exposes corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions to achieve a more ethical and transparent society." (Note, I cannot link this, because as part of Wikipedia's general negative perception of Project Veritas, it bans linking the site.) A second source, WP:LAWSOURCES, which is allowed per Wikipedia guidelines: In this case, the Middle District Of Florida Orlando Division, in an order written by G. Kendall Sharp, Senior United States District Judge, described Project Veritas as sending a "journalist and videographer" to a conference "to investigate corruption in teachers unions". In this instance, Project Veritas is clearly described as having a purpose to "investigate corruption" using undercover means as described in detail throughout the order. (The order itself can be found in PDF form here: https://assets.ctfassets.net/syq3snmxclc9/5ArTPgVAoC8JNjHDLu6xsH/58479b8ba9c6d31f9afc9b74547303d9/Wentz_our_Victory_on_Motion_for_Summary_Judgement.pdf) A third source, WP:SECONDARY, which is allowed per Wikipedia guidelines: The respectable magazine Columbia Journalism Review in one of their articles (https://www.cjr.org/opinion/nytimes-project-veritas-defamation-lawsuit.php) simply described it as a "conservative website", which I find to be a rather unbiased summarized description worthy of Wikipedia. A fourth source, WP:SECONDARY, which is allowed per Wikipedia guidelines: Ballotpedia has a page describing Project Veritas (https://ballotpedia.org/Project_Veritas). It describes Project Veritas saying "Project Veritas is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that investigates politicians and private institutions for perceived corrupt practices using undercover journalists and what the organization calls guerilla reporting." This also appears to be a very precise and accurate description of Project Veritas. Combining these, I think a description along the lines of "investigation" is a far more accurate and supportable description of the "purpose" of Project Veritas. (Note: apologies for any formatting issues, I don't have much time to correct all my formatting.) Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC) To follow up on what Hob Gadling posted: we aren't the ones concluding Veritas is a disinformation campaign. The vast majority of reliable sources are doing that. You may disagree with their assessment, but Wikipedia reflects what the sources say. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC) Please do not insert new comments into the middle of a month-old discussion. If you feel something needs to be corrected, start a new section. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. If the source is saying it is far-right, then that source needs to be removed from the list of "reliable sources". This is basic common sense. I have been to the site, it is not reminiscent of Hitler, neo-Nazis, white supremacists or Mussolini. 92.238.237.65 (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC) wp:or is not allowed, thus what you think can't overturn what a wp:rs thinks. If you want to challenge a source you do so here wp;rsn. Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC) Why are you mentioning something irrelevant? Is this a bot? 92.238.237.65 (talk) 13:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC) You refer to common sense and "I have been to the site, it is not reminiscent of Hitler, neo-Nazis, white supremacists or Mussolini.", in other words your reasech tells you its not far-right, that is wp:or. You also wish to have sources declared non RS, that is something that can only really be done at RSN. I am telling you how to go about what you want to achieve within Wp:policy. Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC) You are correct. This page is, in my opinion, one of the absolute worst on Wikipedia. It is hyperbolic slander against Project Veritas. I have read the sources, and they are largely from the organizations that Project Veritas opposes, and they present factual information (like that they will edit a video for length) and lie about it (say it's "doctored" or something similar). This page needs to be heavily, heavily revised, and the sources gone through to make it more balanced, and eliminate sources that make unfounded accusations. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC) You have not articulated any bias, incorrect info, lies, or unfounded accusations, and have not shown any source to be unreliable. It is not useful to simply make comments like this without evidence. If you are unable to do so; perhaps you should consider that the article is accurate. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC) I am able to do so. My only problem is the sheer amount of time it would take to revamp the article singlehandedly, mainly due to the sheer quantity—not quality—of the claims and sources. I have read through the sources, (at least, those available online). I am well aware of the general problems with them. For example, the book "Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics" is used as a source. This entire book claims to be about propaganda, but for some reason, it is entirely focused on Trump and Fox News. It is entirely one-sided. So, it's biased, but is it reliable? Well, it only mentions Project Veritas once. In that single mention, without evidence, and without elaboration, and without explanation, it calls it a " right-wing disinformation outfit". Why? Why does this book call it a "disinformation" outlet? Well, according to the book itself, "The sting operation [by Project Veritas] 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". That is true. That is factual. And continues by saying the Washington Post "ultimately detected and outed the attempt at manipulation." That is also true. So why does the book, without evidence or reason, call Project Veritas a "disinformation" outlet because of the failed sting? It never explains. It never even attempts to explain how or why this failed sting attempt makes Project Veritas a source of "disinformation." I don't know why this book is considered a reputable source, and I don't know why its claim is considered reputable either, especially considering it provides no evidence whatsoever to back it up. It is simply an opinion found in one line in some book, which provides nothing to back up that opinion. This is one source. The issue, again, is the sheer quantity of bad sources provided in this Wikipedia article. Going through them takes time. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC) I get the feeling that you are not here to edit collaboratively (as indicated by your "singlehandedly", something not allowed here), but are more on a mission to right great wrongs. You need to learn how to vet sources for reliability and bring your views of our "bad sources" into line with why Wikipedia thinks they are not bad. When you've done that, and such a change of mind takes time and re-education, you might be able to edit this type of topic constructively. Until then, considering your attitude toward reliable sources, I suggest you stay away from controversial topics. There are plenty of other topics where you can learn how we roll here. You might start your research on sourcing by hanging around the Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:RSP. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Your feeling is baseless and incorrect. The issue is that, in order to change one word (such as "Purpose: Disinformation" in the summary at the top right), I would have to address every single one of the twelve sources listed. Otherwise, the edit will be reverted. Also, I know how to vet sources for reliability. I know how to edit constructively. I know about controversial topics. I know "how we roll here." I don't appreciate being patronized condescendingly, as you just did. Instead of attacking me, I suggest the topic at hand is addressed. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Then why haven't you addressed the topic yourself if you know how? You provided zero sources. You simply posted a useless rant. We will not take your opinion and refusal to look at all the sources over all these citations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC) To answer your question directly, I have been intending to work on this for many months, but I have been busy. To address your second concern, I have now provided multiple sources and linked them above. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC) OK, we have a start. So you think the book: Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics published by Oxford University Press, is a bad source and won’t look further. The book was written by three people: Yochai Benkler, Berkman Professor of Entrepreneurial Legal Studies, Harvard Law School, and Co-Director, Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University, Robert Faris, Research Director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University, and Hal Roberts Fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University. You are welcome to take this to WP:RSN to dispute that this is not a reliable source. That is one of the 244 citations in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Sloppyjoes7, you may not like what I said, but your existing topic ban (in another topic area) was partially because of the types of misunderstandings you're revealing here. If I saw improvement, I wouldn't have said anything. That makes me wonder if an AP2 topic ban might be necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC) What misunderstandings are you alleging? Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Calling RS "bad sources" is problematic. Something's wrong with that picture, and it's not Wikipedia, its mainstream editors, or the sources used here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Which reliable sources did I call bad sources? Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Your wording could mean nearly all, but it's vague: "The issue, again, is the sheer quantity of bad sources provided in this Wikipedia article. Going through them takes time." Objecting to one or two sources, with evidence they really are "bad sources", is par for the course here, but you place yourself on the side against what we consider RS. Don't leave that impression. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Thank you for clarifying that your position is based on inferences, not on things I actually said. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC) We only have what you write to go on. You are calling the sources used here "bad sources". Without getting specific, your objections do not move us toward any improvement of the article. You need to take a single quote and its source and create a thread about that. Then explain exactly what is wrong with it. Is it really considered an unreliable source here? Does the content misuse the source or is not really backed up by the source? Such concerns are legitimate and would move things forward. Until then, this section is pointless and should be closed. Start a new section if you want to get anything done. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC) No, it shouldn't be closed, as I provided several sources yesterday. Also, not only am I the only one providing sources, but I am the only one who has gone in depth about an existing source and explained some issues with it. By the way, I didn't even finish going over that source, as one of the main problems is poor usage of the source. To be more precise, the book I mentioned earlier calls Project Veritas a "right-wing disinformation outfit", without any explanation. But sure, yes, it is describing it as such. So it could be cited as saying that. But does the source say that its "purpose" is disinformation? No. It does not. It attacks it with critical language, but never actually states that the "purpose" of Project Veritas is disinformation. One can't make larger assumptions about their accusation, as the book only mentions Project Veritas a single time in a tiny portion of the overall book. In that portion, it simply describes the actions of Project Veritas as engaging in a failed "sting" operation to try and expose a newspaper. So, though there is little to go off of, the book appears to describe the goal of Project Veritas as an organization that (at least once) tried an undercover sting operation to expose a newspaper. So, maybe they could be described as having a purpose of exposing organizations. That would be a proper and more correct usage of this source, based on what the source actually says. Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC) The cited source explicitly uses the term "disinformation," so your attempt to suggest that we use a completely different description based upon your personal interpretation of the source is unconvincing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Your argument to dismiss WP:RS because they largely come "from the organizations that Project Veritas opposes" has been addressed countless times in the archives of this page. Your arguments are original research, which is not allowed as per WP:NOR, unless you can find RS which also show issues with particular articles about Project Veritas. You also argue that the article is not balanced, however invoking this does not hold up either, because there are virtually no RS on the side of Project Veritas here, and they certainly are not "reputable sources" which are "relatively equal in prominence" as per WP:BALANCE. In fact, giving Project Veritas "equal weight" here would be at odds with WP:UNDUE. Saxones288 (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC) This discussion appears pointless. I don't see any argument against the sources, no argument why their use is invalid, or any new sources. Looks like we are just expected to rewrite the article based upon this editor's opinion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC) The Network Propaganda book, which is cited in the lede of this article, supports the lede of this article. The authors briefly mention Project Veritas, describing an (unsuccessful) undercover operation to discredit the Washtington Post reporting on a Republican candidate. Which is entirely congruent with the lede sentences of the Wikipedia article, viz undercover operations ... to discredit mainstream media organizations.... Also note that these are academics who study the production and propagation and network effects of disinformation. Which is right there in the book title. At that time they all worked at one of the world's premier centers for the study of same. So if they off-handedly label PV a disinformation outfit it carries some weight, even if that isn't described in the book. At most the complaint is that this particular reference backs up the the rest of the lede more strongly than it backs up the point about disinformation. -- M.boli (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC) It should be noted that many (most?) of the Reputable Sources that describe Project Veritas as "conservative" and/or a "disinformation platform" have been forced to retract such statements as untrue. -- Frotz(talk) 05:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC) There are twelve separate sources cited for the description of PV as "disinformation." You will, of course, be able to provide evidence that "many (most?)" of those sources have retracted that description, correct? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)