Talk:Project Veritas

Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation, click the [show] link to the right of a question.

Q1: Why does this article describe Project Veritas negatively?

A1: Wikipedia's aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources say; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This means that if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative. Since most reliable sources describe Project Veritas negatively, this article also describes Project Veritas negatively.

Q2: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is far-right?

A2: The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. Over a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas as a far-right organization. Please see these references for details.

Q3: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is an "activist group"?

A3: The "activist" descriptor is based on many multiple independent and reliable sources. These sources describe Project Veritas as an activist organization or a group of activists. Please see these references for details.

Q4: Why does this article say that Project Veritas edited videos "deceptively"?

A4: The "deceptive" phrasing is cited to many multiple high-quality reliable sources. More than a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas editing its videos in a "deceptive", "misleading", or "manipulative" manner. Please see these references for details.

Q5: But what if the sources are biased?

A5: Reliable sources are, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources, not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you have reliable sources that express contrary points of view or refute any statements in this article, please feel free to discuss them here. If you are unsure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Sources or search the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if its reliability has been discussed in the past.

Q6: Shouldn't this article avoid using as sources media outlets against which Project Veritas has published exposés?

A6: Some editors have made the argument that, because Project Veritas has targeted various news outlets (such as The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR) in its operations, those news outlets should be considered unreliable with respect to Project Veritas due to conflict of interest. A 2020 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability found that disqualification of sources based on alleged conflicts of interest such as this did not have community consensus.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Veritas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7: 21 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

New York (state): Hudson Valley Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Hudson Valley (assessed as Mid-importance).

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Mackay Radio
Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Sal at PV (talk · contribs) has been paid by Project Veritas on their behalf.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the subheading "PBS lawyer video" to "PBS lawyer video (2021)" for the sake of consistency with other subheadings in the "Notable video recordings" section.

Also, change the first sentence below said subheading to this: "In January 2021, a lawyer for PBS resigned after Project Veritas released a video of him expressing happiness over COVID-19 spikes in red states, suggesting Republicans submit their children to re-education camps, and comparing Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler."

All the info mentioned above is covered in the AP article cited, and the video's content was the reason why said lawyer was fired, so I see little reason not to include such details. If you deem the wikilinks unnecessary or you would like to rephrase the statement, I don't mind as long as the core info is clearly conveyed. ZionniThePeruser (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's certainly a good example of Project Veritas bad behavior. But he was a contracts lawyer having nothing to do with PBS content. As such, I don't see any need for additional detail about his conversation in a bar unrelated in PBS function. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: Added the year. I'll let someone else decide if the other changes are noncontroversial or not. PianoDan (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline remainder per objection by Objective3000. —Sirdog (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2024[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "far-right."

Stating that Project Veritas is far-right is an ideological editorial opinion. Making this statement does not add one single thing to the article. Stating there are "sources" is like saying "someone said so." So what, there are equal sources that consider them to be centrist or better yet very reliable. There is no need to attached an ideological editorial claim unless Wiki wants to admit that in fact it is simply a far left organization and propaganda outlet for the democrat party and leftist extremists. Things like this have made Wikipedia a complete joke as a source for anything true. Bruceami (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please present a reliable source that refers to PV as "centrist". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stating there are "sources" is like saying "someone said so."

Then you're going to have a problem with all of Wikipedia. You might want to look for another website, one which allows people to make up whatever they want with no sources at all. I suggest starting a blog. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the label is associated with white supremacy, I'd say the burden of proof should be a bit higher than: some people who disagree with them politically, said so. A good proof would be that their proven actions fit the label. Nothing stated on the wiki page even claim they did anything that would fit it. So this claim only feed the cycle of dubious sources where a news media make a false, labelous or contentious statement that is than repeated by another, than picked by wiki than more source use wiki has their proof of the statement.

It's clearly not a centrist organization like Bruceami claimed, but most people label them right wing, which would be the fair label. Their action fit that label since their main actions were to try to: discredit planned parenthood (anti-abortion actions), discredit some left wing media personality and outlet, and present Twitter has being unfair to the right. Nothing about racial supremacy, advocacy for a more authoritarian governement or actions that would be deemed ultra-nationalistic.

Here are the first news articles talking about project veritas, all calling them right wing or conservative, not far right or fascist:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68776262

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/09/us/politics/project-veritas-ashley-biden-diary.html

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/09/woman-who-stole-ashley-biden-diary-sentenced-to-jail.html

This kind of label is an example why more and more people on the right find wikipedia to be ideologically captured by the left and unreliable on anything that is slightly political. 207.253.51.202 (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how it works, to contest a label a source has to say it is incorrect, not just not use it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of label is an example why more and more people on the right find wikipedia to be ideologically captured by the left and unreliable on anything that is slightly political.

We really don't care what they think. Those people will not be happy unless Wikipedia becomes Conservapedia, and we're not going to bend our rules just to make them happy. We care more about being factual than about appeasing extremists.

It's also telling that being factual & using reliable sources is "leftist", while conservatives balk at using any source to the left of Breitbart. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"We really don't care what they think." Personally, I care. If any Wikipedia article agrees with their worldview, it is a candidate for immediate rewriting or deletion. Dimadick (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see how labeling someone has a racist because some reliable sources said they are racist (which his indirectly part of the label of far right) you probably are far from an unbiased arbiter. Imagine it was the other way around and you had enough people on the right editing wikipedia.

"It's also telling that being factual & using reliable sources is "leftist", while conservatives balk at using any source to the left of Breitbart." Now, the irony of that statement is quite strong, when did I say that exactly? My point is that people on the left and the right could find reliable sources that could go both ways (far right or simply ring wing) and therefore we should err on the side of using the less incendiary label, still according to reliable sources.

Focus on my arguments instead of trying to make them up, am I wrong that the actions I talked about are normal right wing position and not far right? Focus on the actions! Those reliable sources, who DO claim they are far right, never claimed they advocated for an ethno state, racial supremacy, an authoritarian government, an authocracy, an economic system that rely on partial control of corporation by the government, the erasure of individual rights... Do I need to carry on? Maybe you don't know what far right his, and it's fine, but you shouldn't argue here then.

The fact is that it's a label they are throwing around because they disagree, with possibly good reasons, on the way Project veritas is doing "journalism" and/or the clear bias way they are doing it. Valid criticism, not far right...

You should probably read the guidelines on Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view which is quite an important one. Wikipedia isn't suppose to be a Progressivepedia either. 199.114.232.91 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, someday, lecturing more experienced editors on basic policies will go over well and somehow won't just come off as condescending and counterproductive. Not today, though. If we're listing things that others should probably read, the FAQ at the top of the page also comes to mind. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. It isn't up to you, as an editor, to decide that "right wing" and "far-right" are mutually exclusive, and especially not on this talk page. Sources which say "right wing" do not invalidate those which say "far-right". Obviously, as the names imply, "far right" is a subset of "right-wing".

We are likewise not interested in your personal definition of far-right. Your opinion of which specific positions would qualify this organization as being far-right enough for the label is uninteresting. Since you're apparently already familiar with Wikipedia's policies, you don't need me to explain why. Grayfell (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood NPOV, which isn't surprising from someone pushing a POV. We're done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]