Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 2

Deceptively edited
The lead section of this article states that "The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups." This sentence is formulated in a wildly inappropriate way. It suggests that all or most of Project Veritas's videos are "deceptively edited" as a matter of undisputed fact. In truth, most of Project Veritas's videos have never been criticized for being deceptively edited. Just to go through the list of videos discussed in this article, the New Jersey Teachers' Union video from 2010 was never, to my knowledge, criticized in reliable sources for being deceptively edited. Neither were the Medicaid videos (2011), the New Hampshire primary video (2012), the Patrick Moran video (2012), the US-Mexico border-crossing video (2014), the New York City elections official video (2016) or the New Jersey Teachers Unions Officials video (2018).

Even in the cases most widely criticized in reliable sources for allegedly involving deceptive editing, such as the 2009 ACORN videos and the 2011 NPR video, this contention was not undisputed. This very article quotes a piece by Clark Hoyt, then the public editor of the New York Times, stating that while the ACORN videos were "heavily edited," "the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context." Similarly, referring to the 2011 NPR video, Mona Charen of National Review wrote that "James O'Keefe's editing of the Ron Shiller NPR video was not 'selective and deceptive.'" (Not to mention the fact that the whole notion that the videos were "deceptively edited" is an empty and unsubstantiated media trope, no matter how many "reliable" sources repeat it. But that is not the focus of my argument here.) This is not to argue that Wikipedia should not present the "deceptive editing" narrative as the mainstream view of media commentators. But Wikipedia should not pretend that this is an uncontested position, or that the position that PV's videos are not necessarily deceptive is a "fringe view."

In view of this, I would rewrite the sentence as follows: "The group is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, some of which have been widely criticized for being deceptively edited."

This version does not erase the fact that "deceptively edited" is the mainstream view in reliable sources, despite Project Veritas's strong objections to that view. But it also acknowledges that this criticism has only been levied at some of PV's videos and not most of them, and that the criticism was perhaps wide but not monolithic to the point where it makes sense to present the criticism as an undisputed fact. Sal at PV (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

New Jersey Teachers' Union video, what one of the sources we use says "manipulates interviewees and takes comments out of context to prove a biased point.", yes that read to me like it fits with "deceptively edited videos ".Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * You are referring to this article from nj.com. It's supremely ironic that you are taking this very quote out of context to make a point! If you actually read the article, the full quote is: "Some see it [the NJ teachers' union video] as a videotaped intrusion, a trumped-up attack produced by a self-styled muckraker [O'Keefe] who manipulates interviewees and takes comments out of context to prove a biased point. Others see it as hard proof that the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s largest teacher’s union, couldn't care less about putting students first and see their jobs as lifetime sinecures, as its critics claim." The criticism in the first sentence is directed at O'Keefe broadly, not at the video in question, which the article did not criticize of deceptive editing (except in citing the statement from the teachers' union spokesman, who is obviously not an impartial party in the matter).


 * The NJ teachers' union video, like most Project Veritas videos, were not called "deceptively edited" by any reliable sources. So it is ludicrous for Wikipedia to make it seem as though "deceptive editing" is what Project Veritas is known for. Sal at PV (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well they certainly aren’t known for honesty or transparency... I’m not seeing the issue with the current wording of the lead. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This should be very simple, so I will break it down for you. There is no basis for saying that Project Veritas is "known for producing deceptively edited videos." The group is known for producing videos. A small number of those videos were criticized (wrongly, O'Keefe and others contend) for being deceptively edited. That is precisely what Wikipedia should say in the intro, contrary to the current language. Sal at PV (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The LA Times source literally describes it as Project Veritas, a conservative organization known for deceptively edited hidden-camera videos. The Verge describes most of O'Keefe's work (in the context of Project Veritas, lumping the latest one in with it), saying that "Like most of O’Keefe’s work, it's deceptively edited and doesn’t add up to much"  The other sources that provide a summary of what it's famous for say fundamentally the same things.  This is not surprising, since the videos that made them famous (that is, their most notable videos) were certainly deceptively edited and have been widely-covered as such.  Regardless of how you personally feel about their reputation, such deceptively editing videos are what they are famous for - saying that they have released videos that were not deceptively edited doesn't matter; we rely on secondary sources to assess their overall reputation, not on your personal feelings about the subject.  Otherwise you end up with an argument that reads along the lines of "yes, your honor, but look at all the women I didn't stab!" --Aquillion (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I find this article deceptively edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.122.101 (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IN what way?Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah the bias of wikipedia editors is on pretty full display these days, given the extensive debunking of the opener to this article as seen above, followed by someone essentially saying "Yeah well the source that was accused says it didn't do it and we source the source that says it didn't so checkmate deal with it it's just your personal feelings that are in the way." It's pretty blatant at this point. 131.93.106.225 (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's already been explained in great detail above by Sal at PV to you. Your lack of acknowledgment is disingenuous. 131.93.106.225 (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the wording in "The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups." should be changed. The initial suggestion of rephrasing offered is adequate and generous, but truthfully the term "deceptively" should really be removed entirely as it is opinionated and does not reflect objectivity or fact. The NY Times article, in addition to every other source cited as support (as far as I can see), is opinionated in the very same manner. I'm certainly not here to defend Project Veritas, and nor do I support them or necessarily agree with them in any way, but purely in the interest of objectivity, the term should be removed if any direct evidence (that it is not itself opinion) cannot be cited to support it. Wikipedia should not be a forum for promoting opinions or ideologies of any kind. I cannot see the harm in removing/rephrasing it (nor can I see how any opposition to this suggestion is not ideologically based either, for that matter). What exactly is the problem with removing it or rephrasing it? It really seems to me that there is an expressed interest to defend a certain viewpoint (judging by the replies), intentionally or not. I urge those involved to put aside any feelings or opinion on this matter and demonstrate an expressed interest and dedication to facts instead. FactRacket (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)FactRacket — FactRacket (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to make determinations around things like whether an organization deceptively edits their videos. Your argument appears to be that the cited sources agree that Project Veritas deceptively edits their videos, and you disagree with that, and so they're all opinionated and erroneous. However, Wikipedia goes by how reliable sources (such as The New York Times) describe subjects, not how individual editors do. The harm in removing the descriptor is that reliable sources identify this as a defining feature of Project Veritas, and omitting it would be omitting a key detail about how they operate. As a similar example, we could certainly describe InfoWars in its lead paragraph only as "an American website owned by Alex Jones", but we don't, because that would be omitting defining details about the site. As for your claim that there is seems to be an "expressed interest to defend a certain viewpoint", I would absolutely agree with that, though not in the direction you are seeing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources are cited as being unbiased. According to MediaBiasFactCheck, the New York Times, which you cited, is a left-biased source with several failed fact checks in its op-ed section.  The op-ed section of NYT is where the claim that PV commits deceptive editing is found.  As I'm reading, the section you point to (the Reliable Sources description) states that if an unbiased entry cannot be sourced, then it should not be included.  NYT's editorial section is not unbiased by any measure, so by Wikipedia's own standards, such a claim should not be used. 131.93.106.225 (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was responding to FactRacket's mention of the NYT. Either way, there are seven sources following the "deceptively edited" sentence, none of which are an NYT opinion piece. You are misquoting the reliable sources policy, which states, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * MediaBiasFactCheck is an amateur operation and useless as an indicator of bias. Doug Weller  talk 15:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Well the collective sources and entire wording of this page is biased! I'm just an average person whom looks up things on Wikipedia every now and then. I don't live in a large city and don't write about things daily like the editors here do. And I can completely see bias with ANY article on Wikipedia written about every single page that has to do with any involvement of human activity. That fact that a 'normal' can come to this conclusion and not the brilliant editors is quite revealing about the dire need to look into how things are done here. I certainly can't come to Wikipedia to learn about people or things that people are doing. It IS impossible to get an unbiased report of record. All anyone has to do is visit the retractions on the PV site and wonder what has happened to this organization. Now I can only use Wikipedia to check on technical facts. (I doubt it will be like that much longer) But I will do as much as I can to link to this talk page and a handful of verifiable fact base sources to read before finally landing here to see this unfair treatment of select pages. Because it looks like someone's enemy wrote this page. What if America's enemy wrote our laws? Or a KKK member was editing the wiki page for MLK? Because that is the feeling you have after reading these 'opinionated sources' that basically link back to articles that had to be retracted. Why would anyone want to donate to a foundation that handles things in this manner? That is the next question I'm gonna ask people after I show them this talk page of a system that's clearly broken and cannot be factually correct when it comes to people. Wiki Overlords I implore you, please allow this page to be approved against real facts! The hatefulness is so evident on this subject that no one trust's Wikipedia anymore. It's not just opinion. Osama Bin Laden's page reads like he was full of accomplishment and is light hearted. Then reading the PV wiki you would think they perversely assaulted the Devil. If raising these issues forfeits my account so be it. The very first time I tried to contribute to Wikipedia by tagging photos with subjects (which the app initiatived, I did not) I was flagged for vandalism by a page maintainer that had taken the photo.. I don't understand how PV can't maintenance their own truth? Seems biased, but what do I know. I hope one day our overlords can see what they are doing. God bless. RecurringIntensity 03:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recurringintensity (talk • contribs)
 * The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, no real encyclopedia allows the subjects of an article to maintain the article. That would clearly add biase.  Doug Weller  talk 15:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As a source for the claim that Project Veritas "deceptively edited videos" is an article WRITTEN BY NPR claiming the NPR expose is misleading. The intro to this article is so biased its hilarious really. It would be simple enough to just change it to say "and is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, which those groups claim are deceptively edited and promote conspiracy theories." Sandman9083 (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "deceptively edited" is sourced to far more than just NPR. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes its sourced to the media organizations and left leaning groups which Project Veritas seeks to expose. Its pretty clear that my rewording would be less biased because it simply makes that clear. Sandman9083 (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Journalism Studies is neither a media organization nor a left-leaning group and Bloomberg is pretty centrist. Saying this characterization is solely from "media organizations and left-leaning groups" who have been subjects of Project Veritas' work would be inaccurate. That said, I understand your concerns about the NPR source given it's discussing a sting against NPR; as such I've swapped it out a CBS Local one, another decidely centrist publication. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have access the the actual text of the Journalism Studies article where the author characterizes PV as producing deceptively edited videos? Their abstract labels them a 'flak mill' which intends to damage its targets, but does the article actually make the claim of disceptive editing? Also, my rewording wouldn't be solely from the individual groups specifically targeted by PV, but referring media organizations and left leaning groups as a whole. It should definitely be noted that the groups making the 'deceptively edited' claim overwhelmingly fall into the categories of groups targeted by PV. Leaving wording with such subjective judgement calls in the lede otherwise feels biased and conflicted. Do you have a suggestion on an alternative way to word this such that the concerns are addressed? Also, I appreciate the effort in swapping the NPR link, but I dont see where CBS Miami actually says PV makes deceptively edited videos. They article says "selectively" edited, which is much more neutral than this lede. Sandman9083 (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Except it's not overwhelming; three of the sources there don't fit that descriptor. And yes, the Journalism Studies article does make the claim of "blatant deception through editing" against Project Veritas. Attributing the descriptor in-text the way you're suggesting is implying there is disagreement among sources that to my knowledge does not exist. As for your objection to "selective", "selectively edited" and "deceptively edited" are generally understood to be the same; if the word "selective" was being applied literally, that would just be a synonym for "edited". Please read this article's talk page archives—you're revisiting a discussion that has been had repeatedly, and unless there is some new sourcing contradicting the claim that PV deceptively edits its videos, I doubt you'll get very far. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3 of the sources? All of them except the Journalism studies article are definitely media organizations. Can you paste the excerpt from the Journalism Studies article making the "blatant deception through editing" claim, please? Also, if you think selective and deceptive are the same, you wouldn't mind changing the lede to selective then? And if this issue keeps getting brought up, perhaps its because there is obviously biased and conflicted information in the lede that should be addressed. Sandman9083 (talk) 05:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3 of them are not left-leaning; 1 is not a media source. Claiming that an argument being repeatedly brought up is evidence of its legitimacy is a common and never particularly fruitful technique—it is common for the same thing to be repeatedly brought up on pages (often by new editors who don't understand or haven't read our WP:NPOV policy) and then peter out as editors explain the reasoning. However you are of course free to begin an RfC if you would like to change the wording (and I do think that kind of formal consensus would be needed here, given how often this has been discussed and not changed.)
 * Sure, here are some quotes:
 * (ellipses in this third quote are in the source, not introduced by me)
 * There are more, but hopefully that's sufficient to convince you that the source adequately supports the claim; I'm trying not to butt up against over-quoting a copyrighted source that I don't believe is freely available anywhere.
 * I have to sign off for the night now, but I've got this page on my watchlist in case you do decide to create an RfC. The instructions are at the page I linked; hopefully you'll find them straightforward. If you do decide to start an RfC, I would recommend specifically explaining how you think the current wording doesn't meet WP:NPOV, and also explaining how your proposed wording does not violate WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. I haven't seen any reliable sources saying that the description of PV's editing as "deceptive" is an opinion held only (or even primarily) by left-wing and/or media sources. Furthermore, it would imply that that view is contested by non-media or right-leaning reliable publications, which I also haven't really seen—though if I'm wrong there, presenting such sourcing at the RfC would be wise. Hope this helps. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote, it looks like the source fits fine. I think the problem here is that groups which dont think the PV videos are misleading would simply report the content of the videos, and it would be odd for them to explicitly say that they dont think its misleading... but simply reporting on the content of the report with no caveat would often imply that the source mentioning it does not think its materially misleading. So the only groups actually talking about misleading or not are the ones who think its misleading. So for that reason it looks very biased to label PV as a whole something as subjective as "deceptively edited", as if its an undisputed fact, when non-liberal media sources often do not report them as such and the reports have in fact resulted in people being fired/resigning for exposed misconduct. 'Deceptive' or 'misleading' is often such a subjective cop out, in a similar way that you can almost always label arguments (especially political arguments) you disagree with as "lacking context" simply because they didn't rebute, minimize, or deflect from their own argument to the extent that you would have. Not to mention the conflict involved in the majority of these sources belonging to the category of organizations that PV targets.
 * NPOV states "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources" So like I said, it seems more appropriate to attribute the deceptively edited claim in the text. Even if that just means something like "and is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, which have been described by the communications professor Brian Goss and media organizations as sometimes being deceptively edited." Sandman9083 (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quote, it looks like the source fits fine. I think the problem here is that groups which dont think the PV videos are misleading would simply report the content of the videos, and it would be odd for them to explicitly say that they dont think its misleading... but simply reporting on the content of the report with no caveat would often imply that the source mentioning it does not think its materially misleading. So the only groups actually talking about misleading or not are the ones who think its misleading. So for that reason it looks very biased to label PV as a whole something as subjective as "deceptively edited", as if its an undisputed fact, when non-liberal media sources often do not report them as such and the reports have in fact resulted in people being fired/resigning for exposed misconduct. 'Deceptive' or 'misleading' is often such a subjective cop out, in a similar way that you can almost always label arguments (especially political arguments) you disagree with as "lacking context" simply because they didn't rebute, minimize, or deflect from their own argument to the extent that you would have. Not to mention the conflict involved in the majority of these sources belonging to the category of organizations that PV targets.
 * NPOV states "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources" So like I said, it seems more appropriate to attribute the deceptively edited claim in the text. Even if that just means something like "and is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, which have been described by the communications professor Brian Goss and media organizations as sometimes being deceptively edited." Sandman9083 (talk) 05:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020
You have described this group as 'far-right' which is completely untrue, you are trying to compare this group to nazis for political purposes which is despicable. Changing it to right-wing would be much more representative

are Rycu01 (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia mirrors what the reliable sources says. They seem to agree that it is "far-right". &thinsp;Darth&thinsp; Flappy   &laquo;Talk&raquo;  15:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From what i've seen, it actually seems more common for a RS to label them as 'right-wing' rather than 'far-right'Sandman9083 (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Fact vs opinion of "deceptively edited" statement
When I started the rfc above I thought it would be fairly uncontentious to describe the "deceptively" descriptor as an opinion statement, regardless of how well sourced or widespread that opinion is. It appears, however, that many editors believe the deceptiveness of a video edit to be a matter of fact rather than an opinion, so we need to take a step back. I find this claim bizarre, since whether or not an edit is deceptive would depend on how people react and what their beliefs are after seeing the video, which is inherently subjective. Also, in researching this issue, I found that the New York Times has actually been sued for labeling PV videos as deceptive. In their response, the NYT actually explicitly said "whether or not a video is ‘deceptive’ is plainly opinion and not actionable by law,” (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/30/project-veritas-sues-new-york-times-over-dishonest/). So I'm very interested in hearing the rational of those that claim that the deceptiveness of an edited video is a black and white matter of fact rather than a opinionated judgment. Its a well known phenonenon that people often confuse opinions that they agree with, with facts, but I'm hoping that we can move beyond that kind of bias and look at this objectively.Sandman9083 (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my edit summary reverting your improper close of the RfC above, "if you want to discuss a different topic, create a new RfC". But you've already posed this question several times and received answers from a whole bunch of people (at a glance, myself, Aquillon, Slatersteven, Hob Gadling, Dimadick, and Ahrtoodeetoo have all addressed this). I don't think this discussion needs to be rehashed all over again, and certainly not separately. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We can discuss it here can't we? While many people have claimed its a fact, no one has actually provided any rationale to support that claim. I came across the lawsuit and NYT statement clearly showing a RS clarifying that its an opinion, and thought that thats information that people should see if we're trying to actually arrive at the truth of the matter, rather than just have a vote to get our way. Also, I'm not sure closing the rfc would necessarily be improper, but if you'd like to leave it open, by all means do so. Sandman9083 (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are cases in which it can be okay to withdraw an RfC, but since this is such a perennial topic on this talk page I think it would be valuable to let the RfC run its course and get a definitive close that other editors can refer back to. I'm certainly not going to stop you from putting your questions about opinion vs. fact in a new section, but since many editors have explicitly addressed them above I doubt they'll wish to rehash them down here. Your decision, though. As for the opinion vs fact thing, I think it's not a particularly useful focus—when there is consensus among sources on a view or a fact that can be contested, we publish the mainstream view without caveats. See WP:RS/AC for an example of this in policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How is whether something is an opinion or a fact not a useful focus when deciding when to use wiki voice, when WP:WIKIVOICE says "opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc."? I don't see anything in WP:RS/AC that gives any kind of permission to state an opinion in wikivoice. The section seems to just be saying that if you want to claim something has academic consensus, you need a source saying that it has academic consensus, and shouldnt synthesize that determination on consensus yourself (and so even if academic consensus was relevant, I'm not sure theres actually academic consensus on this issue, especially given the recency of the issue, and that within the month RS have explicitly defined the view as an opinion rather than an objective fact). Your claim "when there is consensus among sources on a view or a fact that can be contested, we publish the mainstream view without caveats." seems to be in direct contradiction to WP:WIKIVOICE, which specifically says that such views should be described as widespread views, rather than present them without caveat in wikivoice, which would incorrectly give the impression of fact. Sandman9083 (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I did not mean to imply there is academic consensus here—I don't know if there's enough academic coverage of PV to determine any consensus at all. It's just an example I had at hand in policy that clarifies that mainstream viewpoints are treated in such a way.
 * "PV's videos are deceptively edited" is the same kind of statement as other statements you'll often see unattributed in articles due to widely-held consensus among sourcing—others that come to mind that I've seen recently are "Trump reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic" (Donald Trump), "After his resignation, he was issued a controversial pardon..." (Richard Nixon), and "Her most influential work..." (Marjory Stoneman Douglas). If the statement we were describing was something like "Project Veritas' videos are evil" or similar, I would agree that it's an opinion, but an observation like falls on the "fact" end of the spectrum for me (and it is a spectrum on where we should attribute something as opinion vs. present it as fact—I do see your side of the argument despite disagreeing with it). GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The other examples you gave just seem to show theres a widespread failure to live up to our own policies in many articles on wikipedia, rather than justification for this particular example of policy violation. Its not a matter of personal or even popular view what is fact vs opinion here...we have a RS source who made the statement explicitly clarifying that this is an opinion. Unless there is a RS of similar weight explicitly contradicting that, I dont see why the matter of fact or opinion is controversial at all. And WP:WIKIVOICE is very clear on how to treat opinions, including those that are mainstream/widespread, so I dont see why there should be such intense resistance to using the proper voice as laid out in the policy. Sandman9083 (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Two of those are FAs and one is a heavily edited article. The examples are certainly not meant to overrule policy—WP:OTHERCONTENT, after all—but rather to show that I think we as a Wikipedia community tend to take a rather different view of what is "opinion" than you are; that is, to refer to a statement is widely contested and/or quite value-laden. I hope this is explaining my point a little more clearly, because I feel like I haven't gotten it across well here—it's been a long day and I'm overdue for bed. Perhaps tomorrow I'll be a bit more articulate :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would the personal views of a majority of wikipedia editors overrule a RS that directly contradicts them? That seems contradictory to everything wikipedia is supposed to be about. When a RS explicitly tells you that something they've written is an opinion, and many wikipedia editors disagree, that just tells me that wikipedia often has a problem with misrepresenting opinions as if they were facts, and it needs to be discussed rather than ironically blow the fact vs opinion issue off as if it were a matter of opinion with no true answer. The NEW YORK TIMES has explicitly stated that its an opinion. It doesnt get anymore clear than that. Also, I went to the "Trump reacted slowly" discussion on the Trump page, and it looks like even there the current view is that the wording isn't appropriate for wikipedia and should be attributed in the text as a widespread view as policy says, rather than presented as if it were a fact. That gives me hope that issues like this can in fact be resolved. Sandman9083 (talk) 05:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That RS does not say it is an opinion. It said that a lawyer said it was an opinion. A lawyer's job is to say things that convince people of a predefined position; those things do not need to be correlated with truth in any way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * is correct. This is a factual claim. Reliable sources, including academic sources, confirm that Project Veritas's videos were deceptively edited, i.e. they were produced to mislead viewers. —  Newslinger  talk   10:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No he's not. Just because multiple RS say something doesnt make it a fact. RS also state opinions, which the NYT's legal team has confirmed that this is. "they were produced to mislead viewers" depends on intent. How is the intention of someone a fact, especially when the person denies it? Even in a court of law, intent in a crime depends on the opinion of the court, and the opinion of the jury, and while it can be supported by facts, remains a a well supported opinion formed by their best efforts to synthesize the evidence presented. Facts are provable by science, a human's intentions are not. You guys really are grasping at straws when the NYT legal team says while representing the NYT that something the NYT wrote is an opinion, and you deny it with no counter-evidence besides claiming that you personally think its a fact and that lawyers lie. Its absurd and disappointing really that wiki editors and administrators are willing to go to these lengths to deny objective reality in order to get the result they want. I'd like to make this a formal complaint, how would you suggest that we proceed?Sandman9083 (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Although you could try beginning a discussion on this at WP:NPOVN, some might consider it forum-shopping given there's an active RfC on the subject. Regarding the discussion of NYT lawyers, Hob Gadling and Newslinger are correct. NYT is a reliable source because of the editorial standards and reputation for fact checking as it relates to their publications; we have made no such evaluation of lawsuits on behalf of the NYT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The rfc is pretty off topic, with most responses saying that the claim should remain because multiple RS state it. However, I'm not seeking to remove the claim, simply change the voice to comply with WP:WIKIVOICE. And when I tried to get people to address the opinion vs fact issue in the rfc and to support their position with evidence, you accused me of bludgeoning. So maybe a different venue is appropriate. As for the lawyer issue, if a RS needs lawyers to lie in order to defend their articles, that would inherently display a lack of reliability of the source, and its not up for you to question the RS's reliability when it has already been determined. Wikipedia needs a lot of help if its editors really have this hard a time deciphering facts from opinions, even when a RS's legal team, speaking on behalf of the RS, explicitly says which it is.Sandman9083 (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If you want to start a discussion at WP:NPOVN, be my guest. I'm not sure what your reply about questioning the NYT's reliability is about—it seems to be you doing that ("would inherently display a lack of reliability of the source"), and misunderstanding that legislation filed on behalf of the NYT is not the same reliability-wise as publications under their editorial control. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * you should read Mandy Rice-Davies Applies and Verifiability. Wikipedia is definitively not required to take as gospel the "unduly self-serving or exceptional" claims of individuals or groups such as Project Veritas, especially when the WP:WEIGHT of the Reliable sources evidence is vastly contrary to such claims. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That this is an opinion isn't a claim by PV, this is a claim by the NYT as reported by the Washington Times, so I'm not sure what your point is exactly.Sandman9083 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't legislation...legislation refers to laws, this is legal correspondence of the NYT's own in house legal department stating their own company's position that the term is an opinion. The NYT does have control over the information being presented, and if their own in house legal correspondence contains lies about their articles that they don't support, they should address that. 's claim that lawyers have no obligation to present the truth is incorrect, as they can be disbarred for knowingly making false statements, however they can't prevent their client from stating lies, although as RS, you should assume the RS is not lying about their own position unless you had strong evidence to the contrary. All I've seen however, is the personal opinion of wikipedia editors. Sandman9083 (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, legal correspondence. It's still not an RS, nor does a lawyer's actions on behalf of the NYT affect their editorial practices. I feel like this is veering off topic a bit now that we're getting into hypotheticals about lawyers being disbarred for "lying" that a factual statement is an opinion when making a case for their client. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not some random lawyer, its an in house legal department which is in fact part of the NYT itself. If the NYT is a RS, their own legal department making clarifications about their own articles should be considered reliable because its coming from the same entity. You still haven't addressed the issue that no one has presented any counter evidence except for their own person opinion, which should have no weight when its contradicted by the NYT. I still dont understand why there would be so much resistance to simply not using wikivoice....if a reliable source is making legal claims that something is an opinion...perhaps you shouldn't present it as if it were a fact? Presenting opinions about the supposed 'intent of people making videos and the reactions people have after watching a video' as if they were facts cheapens all the actual facts that Wikipedia has to offer, and left unaddressed, its really a disgrace to the whole project. Sandman9083 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was some random lawyer. But the NYT is a RS because of their editorial process, which is not applied to legal correspondence. As for the rest of your comment, I've already answered this several times including in the RfC above. I have no interest in going in circles on this particular point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in going in circles, we can look at policy. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS suggests to me that a RS's in house legal department making clarifications about the nature of their own content would be a reliable source in the context of the content in question. Can you think of a better source for whether or not something an RS said is an opinion or a fact, than a RS's own in house legal dept explicitly answering that, given that the issue of fact vs opinion is a significant aspect of law?Sandman9083 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an incorrect application of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. The correct application is to recognize that although The New York Times is generally reliable, statements made by its legal counsel (not its journalists) are unreliable because they are similar to press releases and "lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest", as described in the questionable sources policy. It is fruitless to use a questionable source to attempt to discredit high-quality academic sources. Since the consensus of factual coverage in reliable sources, including academic sources and news coverage, is that Project Veritas edited videos to mislead its viewers, that is a factual claim, and not an opinion. The vast majority of editors on this talk page have found your arguments unconvincing, and your best course of action would be to – as you say – "take a step back", respect the consensus here, and refrain from bludgeoning the process any further. —  Newslinger   talk   01:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. I believe you're using a incorrect application of reliable sourcing standards. This source is not being used as a source for article content, its being used as a source to prove a point of contention in a talk page about whether or not something is fact or an opinion. Ill ask again since you didn't address it...do you have a more reliable source for wether or not a statement is a fact or opinion than the in-house legal team of the company which produced the statement? If not, why do you think your unsubstantiated claim that this is an opinion holds any weight as to determining the reality of the situation? That you claim there is 'consensus' here is only due to prolific editors and admins camping on this page and shooing along anyone that comes here that disagrees with them. This ridiculous and shameful display of bias and rejection of reality that has been shown here is only more evidence that the co-founder of wikipedia's claim that NPOV is dead on wikipedia. "Of course, Wikipedians are unlikely to make any such change; they live in a fantasy world of their own making." https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Sandman9083 (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is shooing anyone along. There is a whole RfC open just a section above where any editor can leave their argument for or against the wording, and those arguments are not removed except in rare circumstances (sockpuppets evading a ban, etc.; none have been removed from this one). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mean in this one rfc (which are usually frequented by the 'regulars' who keep notifications active for them). I'm talking about the history of this talk page in general. Its clear people show up regularly with valid issues about the neutrality of this page, and the people camping on this page brush them off without actually addressing the issue. Sandman9083 (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is certainly one view on it. Another is that people show up here often with complaints based on common misunderstandings of our neutrality policy, and are rightfully appraised of the actual policy. However, if you truly believe there is some sort of "camping" or "ridiculous and shameful display of bias and rejection of reality" happening here, you are more than welcome to request even more outside eyes on this page via any of our many resources, including WP:NPOVN and/or WP:RfC. You've already done so once above, so I know you're familiar with how to go about it, though you do have to prepare yourself for the fact that when you request uninvolved editors' opinions, it may not go how you expect it to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The 'vote' actually went about how I thought it would, as the bias seems to be common site-wide on wikipedia. What has been disappointing has been these people's inability to address to the actual issue at question, and the inability to make a substantive argument supporting their position. I may get some time to make a NPOV complaint, but unfortunately I don't believe the people responding there will actually have any ability to determine fact from opinion either. I would like to see someone actually make a real argument with sources supporting that view though, rather than the unsubstantive blanket denials I've seen so far. Sandman9083 (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly an interesting choice to decide that the outcome of a discussion in which uninvolved editors were asked for their thoughts was based on each editor who opined flouting policy to support the inclusion of biased wording, rather than on your view of policy being out of alignment. The fact that you seem to be anticipating the same at NPOVN should perhaps clue you in... But I certainly invite you to try it. More outside input from experienced Wikipedians is never a bad thing. There is a saying, which I will adjust slightly to be less rude and more on-topic: "If you run into a biased editor in the morning, you ran into a biased editor. If you run into biased editors all day, you're the biased editor." GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it interesting? Its actually pretty common for people to incorrectly view as facts, opinions that they agree with. What IS interesting to me is that despite the best source we have...the RS's own legal dept, directly declaring the statement an opinion, wikipedia editors refuse to address with a contrary and more reliable source and seem to believe that simply their personal opinion on the matter holds more weight....this type of behavior just leads to wikipedia straying further and further from objective reality. Also, your quote is cute, but it all depends on the room you're in, doesnt it? If Bernie Sanders was living in Cuba, he might think he's somewhat right-wing, because its a leftwing place. Similarly, wikipedia editors are not reflective of the world at large, and the community here may in fact share some similar flaws. Sandman9083 (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just food for thought. I look forward to any eventual NPOVN discussion, should you decide to start one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, the situation is this: Sandman has found a (to him) convincing explanation why he has lost (everyone else on Wikipedia is biased), and the rest of us is happy too. Are we done? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I have an Idea
The page for Discord, the messaging program, induces information related to its popular use among white supremacists. It does not mention this in the lead. I think the best way to prevent edit warring and arguments is to remove "deceptively edited" from the lead and instead have a section dedicated to criticism of PV. The current structure describes a list of situations PV was involved in. Even if the consensus is to keep "deceptively edited", We should include a criticism section. That way readers know how Veritas deceptively edited videos and how they supported conspiracy theories.

108.2.147.207 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CRITS, we normally avoid criticism sections. I would add that the proportion of RS discussing white supremacy on Discord appears to be considerably smaller than that discussing deceptive editing from PV; my guess is it makes sense for Discord not to have that in the lead as a result, though I have not edited that article personally or evaluated the sources in depth. I have no objections to adding detail around how PV edited videos, etc., but it should be worked into the article rather than separated into a criticism section IMO. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just read Criticism and I do not think one would be appropiate. If PV edits videos and takes them out of context, then that is a fact and not really criticism at all.

108.2.147.207 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As with the above, we should not really have criticism sections, and enough RS have said they are dishonest for us to say it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC regarding wording and attribution of "deceptively edited" statement in lede
Would it help the neutrality of the article to change the wording of the "deceptive" statement to include an attribution as a widespread opinion rather than present it is a fact from Wikipedia's voice? Something like: "and is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, some of which have been widely described as being deceptively edited." Sandman9083 (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:WIKIVOICE states "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil.""Based on this guideline, its clear the neutrality of the article would be improved by attributing such a judgmental statement in the text. Sandman9083 (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. We have enough reliable sources saying that it is so, and no reliable sources contradicting them. Therefore, downplaying this information by calling it an "opinion" would be deceptive editing. We don't do that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The perception of whether editing decisions in a recorded video of this nature is 'deceptive' or not seems to me the epitome of a subjective opinion. You're literally making a judgment call about the conclusions people might or might not reach after watching a film, and how fully a subset reflects on the nature of the whole. For example, in watching the NPR video, I dont get the impression that the comment in question is in direct response to the previous narration, but rather the film had moved on and at that point was just showing the mood of the interaction. Whether something is an opinion or not has nothing to do with whether it should be "downplayed" or not, just as the example in NPOV about the statement "genocide is an evil action" being an opinion has nothing to do with how important the subject matter is or how many sources agree. Opinions do not become facts just because a multitude of sources shares the opinion.
 * As for no reliable sources contradicting, I mentioned this earlier on the talk page. Sources that didn't view it as deceptive would simply report on the content of the report with no caveat. Only those that viewed it as deceptive would explicitly say whether they thought it was deceptive or not. Sandman9083 (talk) 07:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * this is not a legitimate RfC. Didn't you read how you are supposed to set one out? In a neutral fashion? Doug Weller  talk 09:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the word "clearly" and phrased it as a question. Sandman9083 (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding. You cannot present the argument for your proposed change at all in your description.  You cannot describe it as a "claim" (which implicitly dismisses it.)  You cannot cite specific policy to make an argument.  All of that you can put further down, in your own comment, but you can't put it in the description (since that gives it greater weight than everyone else's opinions by framing the question on your terms and beliefs about policy.)  An appropriate RFC would say something like Should the part of the lead that says that Project Veritas is "known for producing deceptively edited videos" be attributed? Something like: "and is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, some of which have been described as being deceptively edited." And that's it.  You can't say much more than that in a valid RFC. --Aquillion (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved the NPOV content below. Sandman9083 (talk) 09:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't the proper way to word an RFC - see WP:RFC. RFCs are required to be neutrally-worded (ie. suggest a specific change for people to weigh in on); you're not allowed to present your argument for your proposed change in the RFC's description.  Anyway, with that said I strenuously disagree with your suggestion.  The sources cited here are not opinion pieces; they're high-quality WP:RSes appropriate to use for statements of fact.  Per WP:NPOV it is inappropriate to present facts as opinions simply because some editors dispute them.  Likewise, saying "well, the sources describe this as fact, but I personally think it's an opinion because the sources are making a judgment call" is not an objection grounded in policy - interpretation and analysis is the entire purpose of WP:RSes; when that interpretation and analysis is widely-presented as fact and not widely disputed, we are required to do so as well. Finally, your argument that "well, people who disagree wouldn't dispute it" is wrong on two counts.  First, no reliable source has, as a generally rule, accepted Project Veritas' videos at face value since shortly after their initial efforts (after they had gained a reputation), so the sources you're implying at don't exist even by your relaxed standard, ie. there simply aren't any decent-quality WP:RSes usable for American politics that generally report on them without caveat.  Second, since they are widely-described as deceptively-edited, or words to that effect, it is reasonable to assume that sources that disagree would take issue with that common descriptor. No such reliable sources, as far as I can tell, exist. --Aquillion (talk) 09:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the world clearly and changed it to a question. To your first point, whether or not an article as a whole is labeled as an opinion piece or is suitable as a reference for facts, doesnt address whether this particular statement would be a fact or an opinion. Also, the sources do not explicitly claim that their specific assertion of deceptive editing is a fact rather than an opinion. They might present it as if their opinion is true, as you might think that your opinion that genocide is evil is true, but its still an opinion because its based on subjectivity. Editing anything in art and media to include only a subset of something else and claiming that it still captures the essence is always inherently subjective unless you were trying to claim that it wasn't edited at all. Lastly, its clear that some reliable sources do in fact report on PV without caveat: https://www.foxnews.com/media/project-veritass-alleged-cnn-whistleblower-says-network-is-pumping-out-propaganda. It wouldn't make sense for a source to get into trying to defend PV against vague accusations of being deceptive every time they come out with a report, they would simply report the content as you see in my link rather than distract from the issue with ad hominem. And even the ones that do provide a caveat often do so in the sense of simply pointing out that many feel its deceptive, rather than pass an opinion on the merits of that claim themselves. Saying that the videos are edited would be verifiable as a fact, but labeling it as being deceptively edited jumps into the realm of opinion. Sandman9083 (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Massively non neutrally worded RFC that tells us what is right and wrong, it needs to be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I had already moved my opinion on the matter out of the RFC well before you commented. What else is it that you you have an issue with? Was it the word "claim"? I've replaced it with "statement", so let me know if you have any other concerns. Sandman9083 (talk) 10:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you "break" signature is in a quote box.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No, I do not agree with the new text. For a start has any RS denied they deceptively edit videos?Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said earlier: "As for no reliable sources contradicting, I mentioned this earlier on the talk page. Sources that didn't view it as deceptive would simply report on the content of the report with no caveat. Only those that viewed it as deceptive would explicitly say whether they thought it was deceptive or not." For example, here's a source that reports on the subject matter without any caveat about it supposedly being misleading: https://www.foxnews.com/media/project-veritass-alleged-cnn-whistleblower-says-network-is-pumping-out-propaganda Sandman9083 (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * NPOV "which means 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." if a view is not "published by reliable sources on a topic" we cannot assume it is. The Sea is wet even if we can find sources that do not say the sea is wet .Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well we're not mentioning in the article that some sources claim PV isn't deceptive. I agree that the view that the edits are deceptive is a widespread opinion, which is why I dont object to it being in the lede. But its still an opinion, and as WP:WIKIVOICE states, should therefore be attributed in the text.Sandman9083 (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That will be because no RS have claimed PV isn't deceptive, not saying something is not the same as saying it is not true.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And we're not claiming in the article that a RS claimed PV isn't deceptive, so whats the problem? The issue of attributing in the text is an issue of whether the statement is a fact or opinion, not an issue of whether or not you can find a RS explictly refuting that statement. Sandman9083 (talk) 11:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As RS have said its a fact, and no RS have said it is not, its a fact by our definition.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which RS explicitly said that its a fact? Not every statement a RS makes is a statement of fact. RS also make statements of opinion. A fact would be something verifiable, such as "The video was edited." On the other hand, saying that "The video was deceptively edited." clearly moves you into the subjective realm of opinion, even if its a popular opinion.Sandman9083 (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I have had my say, and there is no more to add.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * well you could at least support your claim that "As RS have said its a fact". As I haven't seen that as being true, only statements made. Theres no explicit assertion that the "deceptive edit" claims are fact or ultimately opinions (which they clearly are based on the subjective nature of how well a subset of something created in art to express an idea represents the essence of the whole experience in question). A fact would be something verifiable, such as "The video was edited." On the other hand, saying that "The video was deceptively edited." clearly moves you into the subjective realm of opinion, even if its a popular opinion. Sandman9083 (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's really very simple. RS say "A". No RS say "not A". So, we write "A". We do not write "RS has the opinion A". You have no leg to stand on, only quibbling about words. Your opinion that A is a "judgmental statement" is irrelevant. This is the status of the discussion. You will keep talking for days, or weeks, but everybody will tell you the same, and the status will stay the same, and the article will stay the same. Instead of repeating yourself 870 times, with essentially the same answer, please just write "times 870" and the people you answer will also write "times 870", and we will be finished with this. Saves a lot of time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "We do not write "RS has the opinion A" Why not? Whether something is an opinion or a fact is in fact relevant to how the information should be presented, as WP:WIKIVOICE clearly says. You dont have to explicitly point out that its an opinion in the text, but it should in fact be attributed in the text as something that has been claimed or is a widespread view, rather than pretend that its a conclusive fact. Are you really telling me that you dont see a difference in the verifiability of a statement like, "The video has been edited", and "the video has been edited deceptively"? This is a textbook case of a fact vs an opinion, and despite your dismissal, no one has actually even stooped to trying to defend such a nonsense claim because its pretty clear after you've had more than a passing consideration of the matter. Sandman9083 (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Multiple, high-qualify sources are clear that the group produces deceptively edited videos. That's not a statement that needs in-text attribution. So Slatersteven and Hob Gadling above are entirely correct. Neutralitytalk 17:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you disagree with WP:WIKIVOICE and claim that opinions don't need to be attributed in the text as long as they're popular and well sourced opinions? Sandman9083 (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain existing wording, per my comments at . It is widely agreed upon in reliable sources (which include both academia and news media, and include centrist publications as well as left-leaning ones) that Project Veritas deceptively edits its videos. No reliable sources contradicting this descriptor have been produced, and the absence of such a descriptor is not a legitimate argument against including it presenting it as the mainstream view. Attributing the statement in-text, as we do with fringe or otherwise non-mainstream points of view, implies the existence of contradictory viewpoints, and that isn't supported by sourcing.I would also add that this is a poorly-formed RfC. The initial question is asking whether we should include in-text attribution, but the proposed wording does not include such attribution. Rather, the proposed wording is suggesting changing "[Project Veritas] is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations, left-leaning groups, and debunked conspiracy theories" to "[Project Veritas] is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, some of which have been described as being deceptively edited"–so, removing that PV creates videos about debunked conspiracy theories, saying that they are known for producing videos about these groups rather than for producing deceptively edited videos about these groups, and caveating the deceptive editing clause with "some of which have been described as", but not adding in-text attribution anywhere. I would strongly suggest clarifying which change you are hoping to see as a result of this RfC, because those are two separate things. For the record, I oppose all of these proposed changes, but if you make the RfC more clear it will make it easier for me to respond to whichever suggestion(s) you are specifically proposing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "the absence of such a descriptor is not a legitimate argument against including it." I'm not suggesting to remove the claim, im suggesting to attribute it in the text. "Attributing the statement in-text, as we do with fringe or otherwise non-mainstream points of view, implies the existence of contradictory viewpoints, and that isn't supported by sourcing." It doesnt imply anything about how fringe the viewpoint is in fact the alternative viewpoint is not even presented in the article, it simply implies that the view is in fact an opinion, and WP:WIKIVOICE is very clear that opinions should be attributed in the text. And as for the specific wording, my example does include an attribution, its simply presented implicitly as being widespread. The wording I used in my RFC is "and is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, some of which have been described as being deceptively edited." But if you have ideas for different wording, feel free to share. Even change it to "widely described" if you want. Or are you disagree with WP:WIKIVOICE and feel its fine to present opinions that are unattributed in the text, as has been done in this article? I'll note that the issue of "debunked conspiracy theories" is a separate issue and could simply be separated into a following sentence. Sandman9083 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted my comment for clarity. Yes, attributing the descriptor in-text absolutely does imply the existence of competing viewpoints. WP:NPOV requires us to "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and presenting the mainstream view without caveats when it is uncontested is standard practice. Even when there are contested viewpoints on things, we still present the mainstream view unequivocally: this is why we write that "the Earth is round" and not "[X, Y, and Z] describe the Earth as round" even though there are people who assert the Earth is flat. In this case, where there is no evidence of a competing viewpoint, the argument to treat the viewpoint as mainstream is even easier.What you are describing as in-text attribution is not in-text attribution. Per WP:INTEXT, In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. You are not attributing claims to the source, you are adding wording to imply that the view is not the mainstream view. In-text attribution would be changing the wording to something like According to researchers publishing in Journalism Studies, The Guardian, Bloomberg News, The Verge, Snopes, Time, and CBS Miami, Project Veritas is known for producing deceptively edited videos... (I imagine you can see from this unwieldy wording why we avoid in-text attribution for mainstream views.)I should probably also note that replying to every opposing comment in an RfC or other discussion, particularly doing so to repeat the same argument, is generally frowned upon: Don't bludgeon the process. You have expressed your opinions and arguments, let others rebut them or not as they see fit, and let the closer of the RfC determine whether policy concerns have been properly addressed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify then. I'm talking about attributing it as a widespread view in the text of the article, as described in WP:NPOV: " Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." I though my example in the rfc had made that clear, but I'm glad to clarify. Also, the reason you would write the earth is round in wikivoice is because thats accepted as an issue of fact rather than of opinion, not because of the relative weight of the disagreements involved. "You are not attributing claims to the source, you are adding wording to imply that the view is not the mainstream view." This is a curious belief from you, because the example I gave you above "and is known for producing videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups, some of which have been widely described as being deceptively edited." is explicitly stating that this IS the mainstream view, since a counterargument isn't even presented to that opinion. I'm responding to each comment because almost all the replies here so far are from editors who've edited this page in the past, yet dont seem to understand that this is an issue of opinion vs fact, not the relative weight of that opinion.Sandman9083 (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why I recommended you reword your proposal, because describing that as "in-text attribution" is using a much different definition of "in-text attribution" as is usually used on Wikipedia.Regarding all of these replies, it may be worth considering that perhaps, instead of the scenario where multiple extremely experienced Wikipedians fundamentally misunderstand a core Wikipedia policy, there is a possibility that it is you who does not understand the policy properly. It is widely described as fact that PV deceptively edits its videos, a statement which has gone uncontested in RS as far as I've seen. Flat earthers also claim that the fact that the earth is round as an opinion; that does not make it so. I should probably also add that being really convinced that you're right is not generally accepted as an excuse for WP:BLUDGEONING. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to reword that if it will help you. Your suggestion about me misunderstanding might carry some weight if even one of you would explain how I'm misunderstanding this specific guideline: "However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc." It seems very clear to me this is a case of an opinion being expressed in Wikipedia's voice, which goes against the guidelines. Its not a matter of me feeling I'm right, its an issue of the no-one addressing the actual guideline im talking about.Sandman9083 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit seems to have clarified that perhaps you dont actually believe I'm misunderstanding the guideline, but rather that you believe whether or not an editorialized video clip is deceptive or not is a matter of fact rather than opinion. I think its pretty clear that simply claiming the video is edited would be a verifiable fact (like the earth being round..this is verifiable), but once you get into labeling it as deceptive (an inherently subjective term, which depends on the perspective of those who are supposedly being deceived) or not, you've leaped into a matter of subjective opinion. If that adequately describes our disagreement, we can leave it at that, in order to assuage your concerns of "bludgeoning". I just want people to be clear on what their actual opinion on the issue is. Sandman9083 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Reword per Sandman's suggestion Saying a video is edited is a statement of fact; adding "deceptive" becomes a value judgment.  A reliably sourced opinion is still an opinion, and should be treated as such here.  Given that Sandman's proposed edits are factually correct, still present the assessment of numerous reliable sources, and accurately represents that assessment as an opinion, it's honestly a little hard for me to understand why his suggestion is controversial. (Apologies for any errors in formatting, etc.; I'm not very active!) J. Langton (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You've never edited this article or its talk page, and aside from this you've made one other edit to Wikipedia in the past five years. How did you come to know about this discussion? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how my editing history is relevant here, but in the interests of transparency: I don't edit very often; I think I've had a few typo fixes over the last couple years as an IP. I frequently find myself looking at talk pages on (potentially) contentious topics, as I find it helpful to interpret the information on the article if I have a better idea of the perspectives of the people who are writing it.  In this case, I saw that the discussion was still pretty fresh and thought I'd chime in.  Hope that helps! J. Langton (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain existing wording. The wording is adequately supported by multiple high-quality sources, including academic sources. I've just added "Watchdog", a chapter of Undercover Reporting: The Truth About Deception by Brooke Kroeger (a New York University journalism professor) that was published by Northwestern University Press. This source confirms the deceptive editing performed by Project Veritas that was described in other reliable sources:


 * I'd like to make it clear that I'm not concerned with the sourcing of the "deceptively" description....my suggestion leaves it in the article. All I'd like to do is rephrase it so that the opinion is presented clearly as a widespread view rather than a fact. The guidelines clearly state that wikivoice should not be used to state an opinion without attributing it to someone in the text or describing it as a widespread view. I'd note that your source actually uses the less loaded term "highly selective" rather than "deceptive" to describe the editing, but I'd also note that both terms are still ultimately statements of opinion in judging the editing.


 * Its also interesting that Project Veritas has recently sued the NYT for calling their videos "deceptive", and the NYT has defended themselves by saying “But whether or not a video is ‘deceptive’ is plainly opinion and not actionable by law,” (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/30/project-veritas-sues-new-york-times-over-dishonest/). I certainly believe the opinion was *presented* in a way that a casual reader might incorrectly interpret as a matter of fact though, which seems to be the source of the confusion here. Sandman9083 (talk) 07:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The source states that Project Veritas modified its content using "slanted finesses", which caused the content to be "discredited". That is equivalent to describing Project Veritas's videos as "deceptively edited". Regarding your link from The Washington Times, a statement by a lawyer representing their client is not a reliable source. The objective of a lawyer is to support their client, not to provide accurate information. —  Newslinger  talk   10:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A statement from an in house legal dept representing a RS is the most reliable source we have as to whether a statement made by a RS is fact or opinion. Lawyers in the US do in fact have an obligation to not lie. They are allowed to pass along the lies of the entities they're representing, but since the entity is a RS and the issue in question regards an article which the RS have editorial control over, this shouldn't be an issue.Sandman9083 (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Retain existing wording The wording is supported by the article's sources and "deceptively" is by no means a subjective opinion. This is the organizations main claim to fame. Dimadick (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain existing wording. Just follow the reliable sources. And "deceptively edited" is a statement of fact, not a statement of opinion. R2 (bleep) 17:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain existing wording per Newslinger. It seems that almost all the sources agree that Project Veritas deliberately manipulates the content of its recordings in ways that obscure the actual situation. Mentioning this notable fact in the LEDE isn't a violation of our neutrality policies. Tikisim (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain existing wording per Newslinger and a wealth of evidence of deceptively edited videos. Sandman9083 makes a fundamental error in the difference between fact and moral judgement—it is a fact that the videos are deceptively edited; whether you view this as justified (to promote an ideology you believe in, for instance) is up to you. We do not tell you that misleading videos are morally wrong. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain existing wording - as per the cogent arguments above. That you don't like the reliable sources describing PV's videos as deceptively edited is not reason for us to change it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain existing wording - not a single valid reason to change it was given, but there are good reasons to keep it, as above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain existing wording - no valid reason given, the massive WP:WEIGHT of Reliable sources coverage is that the videos have been deceptively edited in multiple instances. The organization gained notoriety by producing deceptively edited videos to create scandals based on factually false claims. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Retain existing wording - Sources state it is so. I have yet to see multiple (or even *any*) independent reliable sources state that PV videos show factual verifiable unedited events as they actually occurred in real time. Shearonink (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Frozen google snippet
While this isn't directly relevant to the article. Google appears to have frozen the snippet from Wikipedia to "Project Veritas is an American, deemed by its detractors as a far-right activist group founded by James O'Keefe in 2010.", which out of line with the current lead. Presumably this was due to complaints from PV itself? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That does look like someone went directly to Google and tried to scrub the text. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It could be that Google has just got an old version of the page, though I don't know if that version's been in place for some time. Usually Google scrapes pretty regularly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been like this for a while, it seems more likely that it was deliberately fixed somehow. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Google Knowledge Graph entry for Project Veritas has been updated. I assume that Google failed to sync the changes after Special:Diff/991971824 due to a technical issue. Changing the first sentence, as I did in Special:Diff/998776784, triggered Google to sync the changes again. —  Newslinger  talk   06:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia continues to relegate itself to the fringes of the internet by deeming most of the world's political organizations "far right"
I understand that by the standards of the people who invaded Wikipedia this election cycle, everything is "far right" and a majority of political pages now open with "Far-right" disclaimers and that most of you considering yourselves "by any means radicals" will never repent in this regard. However just for the sake of humor, how can a whistleblower organization possibly be "far-right" or "far-" or "extreme" anything? This has reached the point of absurdity. IF everything is "far-right" then the term has no meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:C800:7BD0:7993:CDCE:ECE3:5491 (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your perception is warped. Using the phrase "this election cycle" already shows that it is confined to one country, probably the US.
 * Maybe Wikipedia describes most organizations you are familiar with as far-right, or even most US organizations, but that is more your problem, or that of the US, than Wikipedia's. (To give you a bit of perspective: If the two biggest US parties were to compete within to political landscape of, for example, Germany, one of them would be far-right and the other centre-right.) And no, calling oneself a "whistleblower" is not insurance against being called out on one's political position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Incredibly weaselwordy answer. But that's what you would expect from Wikipedia, the "free" encyclopedia. A mockery of what it used to be a decade ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C4E:248F:6500:1966:EBBE:72AD:5203 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you mean "according to policy" YES.Slatersteven (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I retract ans strike my first answer as too WP:FORUMy. Better answer: See WP:TALK. If you do not have a suggestion for improving the article, this is the wrong place for not having it. Bye. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021 edits
please lay out the edits you wish to add, and the specific sources you wish to use. If they are not listed green at WP:RSP you will have to explain why you believe each source is reliable for the content. You have been notified multiple times to take your concerns here, when warned on your talk page and in edit summaries. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I tried to talk to the other reverters on their talk pages, was immediately reverted as well, obviously they didn't even watch the video, but OK. So, what I want to do is to add a new chapter to the "History" tab in this article, this time about a video featuring Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, speaking about further plans after the suspension of Donald Trump account. This video was origianlly posted on PV website and on James O'Keefe's twitter. and later shared by multiple sources (most of which just included the video itself and at least partial transcription of what was said in the video. Sadly, revisions were always reverted, under justification that the source is unreliable. I tried to find more of them, but all were rejected (sometimes under justification that the source is unreliable simply because it shares the video).

I therefore formally propose to add a chapter.

Twitter CEO video
In January 2021, Project Veritas released a video of Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, talking about the plans the company has after the suspension of Donald Trump's account. This video was supposedly recorded by a whistleblower. Dorsey claimed: “We are focused on one account [@realDonaldTrump] right now, but this is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and it’s going to go on beyond the inauguration,” Mr. Dorsey said. “And we have to expect that and we have to be ready for that." He also specifically mentioned the QAnon movement (a large number of QAnon accounts were recently deleted) and that Twitter needs to focus on the ties between its accounts (namely Trump) and real world violence.

The revision only focuses on what was said in the video and on the fact that PV posted it on their web and twitter. It isn't concerned with the implications of what Dorsey said. I would advise you to go watch the video, because they really posted it and those things are really said there.

THere are many news outlets who refereed to this, sadly, Ihateaccounts stated in the first revert that the source is unreliable because it shared it (circular logic). But the most "accepted" by Wikipedia is Fox news, again, it mostly just shares the video itself and speaks about what it contains. . But I still don't understand why everyone so vehemently refuses to go see the video for themselves.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 03:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The first problem is you are continually trying to use "sources" that are known to be problematic because they have repeatedly violated ethical and journalistic standards to push propaganda and disinformation. Cases in point: Project Veritas's website, their twitter account, and Fox News (which is listed at WP:RSP not to be trusted for items related to politics, which this absolutely is).
 * The second problem is that you are continually making a number of personal attacks and simply false statements.
 * Project Veritas is known for fraudulently editing the things they release. Knowing that, trying to trust what they have put out is extremely problematic; they are the exact opposite of a reliable source for encyclopedic purposes. We need to wait until there is coverage from actually reliable sources on anything they produce, not just their latest disinformation being pushed by the "usual suspects", right-wing outlets that will credulously repeat and try to promote the disinformation that PV produces. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * . The ones you would propably consider reliable have yet to report about this, as things like this usually attract attention of media who specialize on them. Of course, it is entirely possible that some media will ignore it at all. And why is it politics? Because it features Trump, because it deals with potential censorship plans? To me, it just sounds like an attack on Twitter, which is not a political party.
 * The second problem - After being continually reverted despite just claiming that there is a video of something (despite the sources having it) you would get that feeling too, but I did not make personal attacks, most of the time, I simply requested people to go see the video for themselves and said that certain things sound bias (like when you reversed the first edit, saying that the source is unreliable because it shares something made by PV (circular logic).
 * Third - That is literally said in the beginning of an article, plus, the edit was not meant for people to trust it, just to know that they posted the video (as the article contains many of such events about leaks and other things posted by PV). So I think that anyone who comes here will read that first and in best case will go watch the video for themselves. To be honest, though, that video didn't look edited, although it is certainly possible Dorsey clarified what he meant and the video "ended or began" prematurely (in which case, Twitter will likely publish the rest). But if you just want to wait until someone "reliable" covers it (I think they eventually will), like with the others (I didn't search PV for leaks that were not covered by these media), then fine. But I swear, the video really exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 04:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not the ones "I" consider reliable; it's what Wikipedia policy considers reliable, and the consensus regarding virtually all that you proposed at WP:RSP indicates they are not reliable for this. If you're trying to push disinformation into wikipedia, you're going to have a bad time. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, having located a transcript: "I don't believe this is going away any time soon. And the moves that we're making today around QAnon for instance, one such example of a much broader approach we should be looking at and going deeper on. So the team has a lot of work and a lot of focus on this particular issue. But we also need to give them the space and the support to focus on the much bigger picture. Because it is not going away. You know, the U.S. is extremely divided. Our platform is showing that every single day. And our role is to protect the integrity of that conversation and do what we can to make sure that no one is being harmed based off that. And that is our focus." It looks like the reason this isn't being picked up in anything reliable is that when you see the actual text, it's nothing; it's the same things he said publicly before. Sure, the right-wing propaganda outlets are trying to make something nefarious out of "ooh secret video" from a dishonest disinformation mill, but there's simply nothing there. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)..


 * He also said that “We are focused on one account [@realDonaldTrump] right now, but this is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and it’s going to go on beyond the inauguration,” which sounds like "something", so those outlets pointed that out (and get called "right wing propaganda" for that. Calling articles about the existence of a video "disinformation", despite the fact that the video really does exist (and even speaking about it) is a little doublethinky. I wonder how "reliable" outlets will put this, if they even speak about it. Which is why I would prefer people to watch for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 12:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When RS care so can we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, Dorsey announced something in a meeting on January 8 that was subsequently enacted the following Monday. Twitter had already announced in July last year that they would do something like that. There's really nothing to report. The leaked video doesn't reveal any discrepancies between Dorsey's public and private statements, but PV announced "video evidence inside Twitter". The disinformation is implying that there is evidence of malfeasance. There isn't. Vexations (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC).
 * It is primarily meant to report discrepancies between the recent public statement, where Dorsey nearly tearfully said that he didn't really want to ban anyone, that it sets a dangerous precedent and some other things. But at the same time said things mentioned in the video, that is a big discrepancy. Disinformation may be based on not publishing the whole video or something (as I said earlier), but not on stating that what Dorsey says publically doesn't reflect the entirety of Twitter's internal policy. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not even the sources you cited say that there's a discrepancy between Dorsey's public and private statements.Vexations (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought those sources were unreliable anyway ;-). Also, you know that this video was released just few days after Dorsey made those public statements. That surely isn't a coincidence on the side of PV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 14:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PV's got a pattern. They think this can be ginned up into a controversy, provided enough dishonest right-wing media outlets (such as the Moonie Times, Breitbart, etc) misreport on it the way PV is dishonestly misframing the story. And they released it now, because (a) they have it now, because (b) they're desperate to get themselves into the news cycle right now, and (c) because they really don't care about the content, their audience doesn't bother fact-checking or even reading past the headline.
 * So Jack Dorsey, in both public and private statements, said that Twitter's going to wind up having to take down a lot of accounts, especially QAnon sockpuppets and other deliberate bad actors? News Flash: Water Is Wet, and Don't Eat Yellow Snow. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Dorsey spoke about "dangerous precedent" in banning Trump a few days ago, basically pretending that the ban was a one time exceptional necessity, yet a recording immediately surfaced, where he basically says that Twitter will go much further in banning users, basically that Trump was just the beginning and that it is going to be "much broader", which contradicts his original message a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Twitter, in July last year announced sweeping measures aimed at cracking down on the QAnon conspiracy theory, including banning thousands of accounts. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53495316 So that's what they did. You may have understood Trump's ban to be a one time exceptional necessity but the reliable sources do not support that claim. Vexations (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you joking? Twitter bans people all the time, for far less than the number of violations Trump had racked up when they allowed him to hide behind exception after exception after exception. There were people who made accounts whose sole purpose was to repost everything he tweeted: they got suspended or banned, over and over again, for obvious violations. It takes a hell of a dishonest misrepresentation to take Dorsey's comments about how Twitter became an amazingly toxic environment - mostly due to their failure to properly police the alt-right, and their new understanding that yes, violent cults like QAnon, and other hateful, bigoted movements, can't be allowed to flourish on their platform - and decide that means that Dorsey was somehow being dishonest when he says it's sad that Twitter winds up having to ban accounts. I'm sure, in an ideal world, he would love to not, and he's finally coming to the realization that certain people/groups (e.g. nazis and similar) are simply too toxic to be allowed in the door. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that Twitter bans people all the time, yes, that doesn't mean it is impossible for them to ban more of them. Yes, Twitter is toxic environment, but not for the reason of "tolerating nazis", far-left and progressives can basically do whatever they want. For example, J.K Rowling got a lot of death threats for saying that pregnant people are called women (a lot of example can be found on google pictures), a lot of those, including verified accounts, were unpunished. Same with, for example, calling for violence during BLM protests. The problem with the "paradox of tolerance" is that "nazi" became a buzzword to accuse people (for variety of reasons, for example, I got the "honor" for not agreeing with banning guns and praising the Czech example) in order to justify their ban or deplatforming, which leads to eventually extending the "you can't be allowed here" thing on people who do not deserve it. Nazis can only flourish if they themselves have the power to silence people (like SA did in Germany between wars), the ideology is literally based on silencing dissent (for good reasons, as it can't be justified). Vojtaruzek — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, which makes the "go further" plan a bit disturbing. I didn't understand it as a "one time necessity", I see it as a culmination, as a lot of Trump supporters were also banned before it. But Dorsey officially said that it sets a precedent and such, which is contradicted by the leaked internal video. Vojtaruzek — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot stress this enough: we consider what reliable sources have to say about this. No sources at all, not even the unreliable ones you cited, support your position that there is something contradictory about Dorsey's statements in the video vs his public statements at the same time, so we're not going to claim that in the article. Now, unless you have a constructive proposal, based on reliable sources, for improving the article, I'm going to close this thread because there is nothing "actionable" here. Vexations (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with IHateAccounts.PailSimon (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, here's the problem: the video you quote may or may not be real; PV has a track record of deceptive editing, so you can't trust 'em. That said, Jack very well could have been discussing Trump's account, and saying what he said in light of the special privileges that account has, until recently, enjoyed. If I were managing a workgroup facing similar challenges, I would tell them to deal with the big problem first, and then chase the smaller problems. So the point here is that you're asserting you're the only person who's found the smoking gun, and you need to tell everyone. That's not what Wikipedia does. We discuss and publish what other reliable sources say. Here's what you need to do: Also, remember to sign your posts (with four tildes, " ~ "). &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 16:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Discuss the article on the article's Talk page. Don't go to other editors' Talk pages and insult them
 * Don't try to spin the rules. I can find someone on the Internet who's written that the sky is green. Just because they have said it, doesn't mean it's true.
 * Don't keep re-inserting text. Try it once. If someone objects, go to the article's Talk page and make your case. If it doesn't happen, let it go and move on.

I'm going to properly indent a reply by. Please feel free to revert if you object. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 16:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The video is real, I watched it, although I admitted it might not contain everything (The Fox NEws article also included a reaction from Twitter spokesperson, basically that there is nothing in the video that would contradict the official and long standing policy (although it does contradict what Dorsey said few days before that), so those articles weren't saying that sky is green (they usually involved the video). I simply wanted to add the info about the video with sources that include it, so that people can go there and watch it themselves. The beginning of the article is quite openly anti-PV, so they would propably know they should not take the information they see there for granted. I was actually thinking about expanding the "Purpose" with "Officcial: Whistleblowing, Undercover Journalism" but I doubt that would last long. Vojtaruzek — Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That suggestion for the "purpose" would absolutely be against established consensus and fall under WP:MANDY, and would be rightly reverted immediately. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The video does exist; of that there is no argument. The question is whether or not it is genuine, i.e. correctly depicting what occurred during said conversation/meeting. There are some really good hucksters out there, both in PV and outside of it, and without digitally analyzing the video, you can't tell if it's fake or not, and that's the problem. When it comes to people (or groups) who lack integrity, I remember an old adage, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.", and that applies to PV's track record.


 * Seriously, it seems like you're dug in like a Georgia tick on this one. With several editors are saying "no", and you saying "yes", the consensus here seems pretty clear. Don't try to fix the Internet (see https://xkcd.com/386/, especially the alt-text). &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, such edits would not be a slander, shame this has happened here. I noticed that many wikipedia pages are basically meant to discredit people and pages that do don't like censorship (for example, Gab is openly called an "antisemitic page" and even featured in the "Antisemitism" series, just for refusing censorship, on the basis of fallacy "You don't like censorship? That means you agree with nazis!". But whatever, close it, if you like, but I hope I won't find the same information I said about those videos (PV has published another one, but it looks very edited - a lot of cuts) in a few days, since that would make this whole affair and your defense against those information pretty pointless. Bye. Vojtaruzek — Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gab is not called an "antisemitic page" for "refusing censorship". As the article plainly states, Antisemitism is prominent among the site's content, and the company itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary on Twitter. The article says so because reliable sources have thoroughly documented it to be true. We don't write articles to "discredit people"; at most, we document how they have already been discredited. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not advance facetious arguments or mischaracterize the actions of other wikipedia editors. This is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, it seems your problems aren’t ones that can be resolved through this venue without a significant re-think of our policies and guidelines. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We wait for reliable secondary coverage and write based on that, obviously. In this case I think it's non-negotiable - this concerns negative accusations against a WP:BLP cited to an extremely low-quality source with a reputation for manipulative editing. Under absolutely no circumstances can we cite anything regarding a living person solely to Project Veritas directly, and I'd be extremely skeptical about using secondary sources that are both biased and of dubious quality when it comes to American politics to source it, like Fox. If it's actually reliable and noteworthy, better sources will pick it up eventually; if they do, we can use their interpretation and analysis to determine how we cover it.  We can't touch it until then. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gab is literally featured in antisemitism series and the article itself almost solely focuses on slights and accusations of "far right userbase" "racism" etc. So yes, it is labeled "antisemitic page". And trying to fix this bias is met with immediate revert (based on careful selection of media to exclude those who do not agree with those slights) and eventual ban (which I got, of course). Shame that Wikipedia is now used to discredit people who are against big tech (both Gab and PV, for example). I should go, before I get another ban. Now, do what you must and erase this whole section. I am sure that is inevitable. Vojtaruzek (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You're not doing yourself any favors with this behavior. The wikipedia policies involved are clear, and screaming "bias" nonsensically isn't a valid argument. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know I am not doing myself any favors. Wikipedia policies are clear, yes, for example the list of allowed sources is engineered to prevent any information that do not slander people who criticize progressives, big tech or the very same allowed media from being posted, while the others are labeled as unreliable for no other reason than that "the reliable media call them unreliable" (it also works vice versa, but apparently, that is a lie, because media who say that the "reliable" media are not reliable or that they post lies, are unreliable, because the first group of media said they were). I experienced that with Reportéři ČT ("investigative" journalists, who are generally considered reliable by other "reliable" media, yet they were caught at lying at multiple occasions, for example, by blatantly ignoring the firearms act and saying incorrect information about it, manipulating crime statistics or even purely making stuff up - of course, the other "reliable" media didn't report on this, because apparently it is impossible for Reportéři ČT to lie, because they are also reliable. So if this kind of policy was used, the "alternative media" who actually reported on this (especially the pro-gun groups), would be also slandered and it would be literally impossible to write it here on Reportéři ČT article, because you judge the messenger, not the message, regardless of its contents or accuracy, and presume that your handpicked media are 100% accurate and truthful, while the others are lying about everything (locals have proved this when they refused to acknowledge the existence of that PV video for so long and kept reverting me for writing against it - of course, none of them got banned for constantly reverting my edits, only I did. Also, yes, pointint out bias is a valid argument. Now, as I have explained myself, this conversation is over, please leave me alone now, you are propably waiting for another excuse to report me and have me banned again. Vojtaruzek (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

PS. To think that 4 years ago, someone gave me a wikipedia defender barnstar for reverting changes to article about 2016 US presidential elections, where the guy I reverted did basically the same thing that was done to articles about Gab, Parler or PV (filled it with slander against Trump and random accusations), it only took 4 years to turn into official policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 01:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know. "Everyone is wrong but me." "You don't agree with me, so you must be biased!" "Help! I'm being repressed!" Sorry, but there are rules here, just like everywhere. You don't like 'em, you're free to go somewhere else. Sounds pretty simple to me. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is just a bunch of strawman arguments and mockery. Also, by the "go somewhere else" argument, you basically confirmed that I was right about wikipedia being hijacked. So that's one loose end less.Vojtaruzek (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC) And, as per my request on my talk page, please leave me alone, you are just provoking.
 * What happened to "Now, as I have explained myself, this conversation is over, please leave me alone now"? Either stick around or leave; continuously posting about how you're totally leaving is ridiculous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That was said to Ihateaccounts, obviously Bubba didn't understand it. And I can't let others just spew argument fallacies on me without defending myself. The request to be left alone clearly implies that I plan to stop the discussion if I am left alone and no further messages are sent, naturally. Vojtaruzek (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, understood it fine. He just thinks that your statement is disingenuous—or specious; he's not sure which—and that you'll continue hurling vitriol for the foreseeable future. &mdash; <b style="color:black">Uncle</b><b style="color:darkred">Bubba</b> ( T @ C ) 19:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cut it out. Stop discussing each other, and find some better sources instead. Treat each other with respect. Vexations (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Respect? Yeah, I got enough of it, constant mockery, even some insults (getting called a fanatic for not agreeing to all this) and then a 2-day ban based on Ihateaccounts making a one-sided accusation without even giving me a chance to defend myself, oh, and then he made another one. But yeah, sure, respect. Someone has asked for a proof that wikipedia is biased (the discussion was then promtly locked to prevent me from responding), if what these people did to articles about PV, Gab etc. and to myself when I criticized it (dogpiling, reverting, provocations, reports, verbal abuse including false accusations and strawmen etc.), that is the proof. I will say it again: Leave me alone. I have been saying that over and over, only to be attacked by the same people, forcing me to defend myself. Vojtaruzek (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)