Talk:Project Veritas

Project Veritas vs NYTimes

I see this defamation suit is moving forward to the discovery phase. Since the NYTimes stated they used Wikipedia as their source and they now have the potential to lose, I'm surprised there hasn't been a reassessment of the way the article is written Pkeets (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for any of that? --Aquillion (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe sources on this been posted here before. It's been going on for a while. [1] There are various sources reporting the NY Supreme Court ruling in favor of Project Veritas on Friday, but probably none you'll like. [2] Pkeets (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct. Let me restate: Do you have any reliable sources (ie. ones with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; "mainstream" ones, so to speak) for your claim that the New York Times cited things to a Wikipedia article which a court has found to be inaccurate? The Washington Examiner is a low-quality source with a heavy bias, and you cited an opinion piece on top of that; given that Byron York has no relevant expertise, his personal feelings about the topic aren't really useful. If, as you say, it is significant, you should be able to find better sources on that point. The article's current version, meanwhile (while it could always use more cleanup) is mostly cited to large numbers of high-quality academic sources - especially in the lead section, which has about a hundred sources from a wide variety of high-quality places. You will need sources of comparable credibility and weight, or problems with the existing sources, in order to start serious discussions about large-scale changes. If your only concern is that you personally believe the NYT might lose a lawsuit about a specific statement they made, and you feel that the statement they made might relate to specific things in Wikipedia, we can simply wait for the case to complete and then look at what high-quality mainstream coverage says - and especially if a significant percentage of those hundred sources we cite in the lead issue retractions or corrections, or if broad mainstream coverage changes significantly afterwards. But right now I am not seeing it. Lawsuits are long and huge and complex and messy, and of course anyone can sue anyone else at any time for any reason; they mean very little until / unless they reach a decisive conclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, we can wait for the conclusion. Meanwhile I see Project Veritas has announced they'll be releasing the depositions. Pkeets (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• We don't base our coverage of a topic on primary sources (court documents), nor do we do speculation about what the outcome of a lawsuit may be, so this is all very dangerously close to being an off-topic WP:NOTFORUM discussion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Pkeets: You would do well to remember Dennis Brown's advice from the April arbitration enforcement conversation about your conduct: "You need to be careful in how you question sources. Really, the proper place is generally WP:RSN, but they aren't going to kick out CNN, you have to be realistic. You would do good to pick your battles, and then make sure you don't actually battle when you raise the issue, but continue to be respectful and provide solid reasoning, with links. Questioning sources that are generally considered reliable, can be irritating to people; it seems a waste of their time. That isn't a policy violation by itself if done from time to time. If you do so continuously, in a way that inteferes with normal article editing, then that is a violation of WP:DE, and you WILL be sanctioned, without question."
  The discussion of whether the NYT or other generally reliable sources that Project Veritas has targeted with its various "exposés" can be used as sources here has been asked and answered so many times that it's included in the FAQ (#4). Your argument that this has somehow changed solely because the case has moved forward to depositions, which itself is a statement you've only been able to source to New Tang Dynasty Television (RSP entry) who themselves are sourcing statements directly to Project Veritas, is a far cry from "solid reasoning". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Ya know, I don't usually comment on things in Wikipedia, but this sounds dangerously like threats to suppress free speech and dissent about this organization. What Pkeets posted looks like an ordinary update recommendation to me. So your immediate response it to bring up conduct arbitration and tell them to "be careful"? How will this look to potential new editors in Wikipedia? Sooner2020 (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I linked to the arbitration enforcement request, where you (and anyone else) can review the history to see that what looks to you to be a single "ordinary update recommendation" is a part of a pattern of disruptive behavior. As for "suppressing free speech and dissent about this organization", please see WP:FREESPEECH. We are an encyclopedia, not a platform for personal opinions. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, looking at Pkeets record of contributions and list of Barnstars, they look like a good editor, the kind of person Wikipedia needs. I don't see any pattern of disruptive behavior over most of their history and there's no ban currently in effect. I'm not going to get into an argument about this and get you to threatening me, but this looks like bullying behavior. Pease out. Sooner2020 (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to the above, when (and if) PV win then PV may have shown the NYT was in the wrong. But that would still not mean we are unless we were the sole source for the NYT. But filing a case and winning it are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

My objective is only to address the comment "this sounds dangerously like threats to suppress free speech and dissent about this organization": You have zero right to free speech on a privately owned website. Zero. You sound rather foolish by saying you do. The 1st Amendment protects you from government interference, not interference on private property, and Wikipedia is a privately held corporation. Btw, I don't see any of this silliness as an attempt to censor anyone, it is all about running a website with sensible rules. You will be much happier here when you accept that you have NO rights on a privately owned website, any privately owned website. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

But isn't it a conflict of interest to cite NYT when describing PV, after PV has exposed them? Not only that but articles being addressed in the lawsuit are being cited on this page. (Not to mention that NYT has cited this Wikipedia page in their lawsuit). And for PV not being a reliable source, remember that they've never lost a lawsuit. 2605:B100:12D:F05C:EC92:5C9C:75D2:5BDB (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

No. Because by that logic, PV could suddenly make any news source ineligible for citation on this page by "exposing them." The "never lost a lawsuit" bit is disingenuous, and just shows us where you're getting your information (PV themselves). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

never lost a lawsuit' but settled at least one case and pled guilty in another. -- M.boli (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

See the FAQ. This has been asked and answered over and over in the archives of this talk page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

When the time comes to write about the suit against the New York Times, I think a suitable reference could be this article from the Columbia Journalism Review -- M.boli (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Grueskin, Bill (May 18, 2021). "A matter of opinion: Project Veritas, the New York Times, and a bitter defamation suit". Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2021-08-18.

That's an opinion piece, so WP:RSEDITORIAL will come into play... GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. It is an opinion piece, clearly slugged as such. It is a reported opinion article by a journalism professor, published in a top-tier magazine covering journalism issues. Grueskin interviewed and quotes the parties involved and describes his sources. But at the same time Grueskin also lets us know his opinion on a variety of aspects of the suit. I wouldn't hesitate to cite the article for describing the suit and its history. With the caveat that RSEDITORIAL seems entirely apt: stick to the facts. -- M.boli (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

This page falsely claims that Project Veritas engaged in "disinformation", the relevant supposed citation(14) is also missing. 2600:8801:1200:7A00:E149:43E6:8602:1C9E (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)