Talk:Project Veritas
Appearance
Frequently asked questions To view an explanation, click the [show] link to the right of a question. Q1: Why does this article describe Project Veritas negatively?
A1: Wikipedia's aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources say; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This means that if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative. Since most reliable sources describe Project Veritas negatively, this article also describes Project Veritas negatively. Q2: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is far-right?
A2: The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. Over a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas as a far-right organization. Please see these references for details. Q3: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is an "activist group"?
A3: The "activist" descriptor is based on many multiple independent and reliable sources. These sources describe Project Veritas as an activist organization or a group of activists. Please see these references for details. Q4: Why does this article say that Project Veritas edited videos "deceptively"?
A4: The "deceptive" phrasing is cited to many multiple high-quality reliable sources. More than a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas editing its videos in a "deceptive", "misleading", or "manipulative" manner. Please see these references for details. Q5: But what if the sources are biased?
A5: Reliable sources are, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources, not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you have reliable sources that express contrary points of view or refute any statements in this article, please feel free to discuss them here. If you are unsure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Sources or search the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if its reliability has been discussed in the past. Q6: Shouldn't this article avoid using as sources media outlets against which Project Veritas has published exposés?
A6: Some editors have made the argument that, because Project Veritas has targeted various news outlets (such as The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR) in its operations, those news outlets should be considered unreliable with respect to Project Veritas due to conflict of interest. A 2020 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability found that disqualification of sources based on alleged conflicts of interest such as this did not have community consensus. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to abortion, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Project Veritas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 21 days |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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. |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2024[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The contents of the Ashley Biden diary have been confirmed by Ashley Biden. Joe did have inappropriate showers with her daighter. Sources: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-diary-claims/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ashley-biden-leaked-diary-accusation/ Marcell.Lovas93 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Isi96 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I see no need to change anything in the text based on this. I hope you are not suggesting that we actually include material from an illegally obtained diary. I also suggest that you delete your comment about showers. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see where we say anything abo ut its veracity, so I am unsure why we need to include this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Isi96 & Objective3000 & Slatersteven. - Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- I can't see where we say anything abo ut its veracity, so I am unsure why we need to include this. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class organization articles
- Low-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class New York (state) articles
- Low-importance New York (state) articles
- B-Class Hudson Valley articles
- Mid-importance Hudson Valley articles
- WikiProject Hudson Valley articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class Media articles
- Low-importance Media articles
- WikiProject Media articles
- B-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- B-Class Alternative Views articles
- Low-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- Talk pages of subject pages with paid contributions