Talk:Project Veritas

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021

1- Project Veritas’ purpose is NOT Disinformation. They show videos of people actually talking, unlike our MSM that ask the public to trust “Sources”.

2- Project Veritas is NOT a Far-Right Organization. They actually expose the Right Wing Politicians and news outlets just the same.

3- (Personal attack removed)... you are hurting your image and driving it into the ground. 173.2.161.24 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 01:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has for quite sometime been excellent at creating and using the 'broken feedback loop' method. unfortunately for them this is no longer and invisible hand. Project Veritas Wall of shame shows how successful they have been in their endeavors to expose the lies and falsities of those organisations that they have been stacked up against. Wiki is losing trust by the day here, and now that we have one of the founders explaining this problem within it on Tim Pool, it is obvious for all to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.166.80 (talk) 05:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You may be interested in the high-quality academic publications cited in this article. Here is a sample:

Despite seething antipathy toward journalism, Veritas assays to coopt the prestige of the profession and to penetrate its mainstream discourses (as flagged in the epigram). While the status of professional journalism has absorbed blows in recent decades, it retains the greatest reach for news discourse. In this view, Veritas seeks the prize of the mainstream's approval and its vestigial prestige that O'Keefe otherwise dismisses. Hence, "Project Veritas journalist" title cards in its videos tendentiously assert Veritas personnel's qualifications to mainstream specifications. Despite its bids for professional authority, Veritas manifestly defies the letter and the spirit of journalism ethics.

Goss, Brian Michael (March 12, 2018). "Veritable Flak Mill". Journalism Studies. 19 (4): 548–563. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2017.1375388. ISSN 1461-670X. S2CID 149185981.

In November 2017, for example, the right-wing disinformation outfit Project Veritas tried to trip up the Washington Post, offering the Post a fake informant who told the Post that Roy Moore had impregnated her when she was a teenager. The sting operation was intended to undermine the credibility of the Post’s reporting on Roy Moore's alleged pursuit and harassment of teens when he was a 30-something-year-old. Rather than jumping at the opportunity to develop the Moore story, the Washington Post's reporters followed the professional model—checked out the source, assessed her credibility, and ultimately detected and outed the attempt at manipulation. Mainstream media editors and journalists must understand that they are under a sustained attack, sometimes as premeditated and elaborate as this sting, usually more humdrum.

Benkler, Yochai; Faris, Rob; Roberts, Hal (October 2018). "What Can Men Do Against Such Reckless Hate?". Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 358. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-092362-4. OCLC 1045162158. Archived from the original on January 26, 2021. Retrieved January 29, 2021.

False information can make movements defend the accuracy of their own claims and materials because of doubt sowed by countermovements and governments (Tufekci 2017). For instance, Project Veritas, an alt-right group, has a track record of attacking movements through misleading editing of videos and through fabricated 'sting' operations (Benkler et al. 2018).

Tumber, Howard; Waisbord, Silvio (March 24, 2021). The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-34678-7. Retrieved 19 March 2021 – via Google Books.

An additional example of the growing spread of fake news financed by billionaires is Project Veritas, an organization run by James O'Keefe that specializes in operations against the media (e.g., recently against the Washington Post and the New York Times). According to the Washington Post, relying on documents fielded with the International Revenue Service, Project Veritas received $1.7 million in 2017 from charity associated with the Koch brothers. Furthermore, other contributors to Project Veritas in recent years include Gravitas Maximus LLC, an organization controlled by the Mercer family.

Cagé, Julia (February 11, 2021). "From Philanthropy to Democracy: Rethinking Governance and Funding of High-Quality News in the Digital Age". In Bernholz, Lucy; Landemore, Hélène; Reich, Rob (eds.). Digital Technology and Democratic Theory. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-74860-3. Retrieved 27 March 2021 – via Google Books.

Key is if—and it is a big if—it is possible to verify the truth of the material through supporting documentation, including notes and raw footage, and expert or independent analysis, and the forthrightness of the editing of the report, tape, or transcript. In the end, these considerations, I think, matter more than the impetus for its creation. In the Ron Schiller instance, these standards were not met before the video got wide mainstream play. Although Project Veritas described the footage as "largely the raw video" redacted only in one brief section to ensure the safety of an NPR correspondent overseas, analysis by others (interestingly, the most impressive was done by fellow conservatives at Glenn Beck’s The Blaze) pinpointed instances of highly selective editing of the two-hour hidden camera taping—discrediting it, even though the slanted finesses did not concern the key comments that forced the two Schillers out.

Kroeger, Brooke (August 31, 2012). "Watchdog". Undercover Reporting: The Truth About Deception. Northwestern University Press. pp. 249–254. ISBN 978-0-8101-2619-0. JSTOR j.ctt22727sf.17. Archived from the original on December 6, 2020. Retrieved 7 November 2020 – via JSTOR.

— Newslinger talk 05:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Bias in article introduction

Are you serious? Those bold-faced lines are the quotes. I give up. No one can have conversation with people being this pedantic.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Project veritas isnt far right. That sources that are used to support this claim does not provide an political or historical based arguments why it is far right. Far right refers to believing in racial supremacy ideas and that does not characterise Project veritas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerchasúr (talk • contribs) 13:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. Over a dozen independent reliable sources describe Project Veritas as a far-right organization. Please see these references for details. Far-right politics is not limited to "racial supremacy ideas". — Newslinger talk 13:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

They are biased sources. Every aspect of far rightism that isnt racial or about ethnic supremacy exists in other political ideologies (eg. political-coporate cabals, personality cults, mitaristarism, anti communism, extreme nationalism). None of the sources list why it is far right. None of the sources list any of those features.

The sources include: Daily Dot left leaning https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-dot/ US Today left leaning https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/usa-today-2/ Philipdepia inquirer left leaning https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/philadelphia-inquirer/ Columbia Journliams review leaf leaning https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/columbia-journalism-review/

Lots and lots of bias. Bottom line is that Project veritas isnt far right. They are standard conservatives. Aerchasúr (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Media Bias/Fact Check (RSP entry) is not considered a reliable source for political bias, as it is self-published by a non-expert. You've also ignored many of the cited sources, including a high-quality academic source published by Routledge, The New Zealand Herald, Forbes (RSP entry), and News.com.au. Biased sources are not automatically unreliable; even far-right sources have the potential to be reliable if they have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. (Project Veritas does not.) Your political analysis is original research and cannot be cited in the article. — Newslinger talk 14:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I find MB/FC can be useful in talk page discussions, though you're absolutely correct it shouldn't be used as a source. But I agree with the gist of your reply, which is that biased sources are not automatically unreliable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

USA Today (the dictionary definition of mainstream media), the Philly Inquirer (a major metro daily), and CJR (basically the most respected media criticism publication in America) are "left-leaning"? Get outta here with that shit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aerchasúr: I find it interesting that you've cherrypicked four of fourteen sources to demonstrate that this descriptor is based on left-leaning sources, conveniently ignoring the centrist and right-leaning publications in that cite group:

• New Zealand Herald MB/FC: "Least Biased based on story selection that very slightly favors the right.")
• Forbes: MB/FC: "Right-Center biased based on story selection that favors the right and the political affiliation of its ownership."
• News.com.au: MBFC: "News.com.au Right-Center Biased based on story selection that slightly favors the right"

Furthermore, you've failed to mention that three of these four sources you've named as "left-leaning" (USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer, CJR) are quite centrist, and classified by MBFC as "left-center", not "left".

There is no requirement that sources be centrist, or represent publications throughout the spectrum of political bias, but that is precisely what is happening with the sources used for "far-right". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Your argument doesnt take into account that it violates NPOV and NPOS. I could easily cite many sources that describe it otherwise. It possibly contrevences WP:RS. UNreliable sources doesnt change truth Aerchasúr (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The cited sources are reliable. If you see an unreliable source cited, feel free to point it out. If you find reliable sources that claim that Project Veritas is not far-right, feel free to share them. Currently, the article cites 14 reliable sources based in 5 different countries for the far-right descriptor, making it the majority description that is neutrally presented in the article. — Newslinger talk 15:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

NPOV is about properly representing reliable sources, not about avoiding criticism, —PaleoNeonate – 03:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

You have alleged the propagation of misinformation.Can this be reliably cited. With the exception of 2010 when there was a settlement I don't see anything but a bunch of he said she said. Further, allegations of deceptive video editing is a common practice. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, & PBS all engage in this practice. For example if the democrats propose a bill & republicans then hold a 30 minute press conference of concise well thought out reasons for their opposition the mainstream media will give overview of a democratic plan then they will play a clip of the republican press conference which is nearly muted with the commentator only saying that republicans oppose what sounds like good legislation ostensibly giving equal time to both sides. The TV program "What Would You Do" used highly edited video of people who did not know they were being recorded. I'm sure ABC covered themselves by having unwitting participants sign a release but the thing is the they did not know in advance so were not given ample time to consider how this might push a certain narrative, if the video then misrepresented their viewpoint they would probably see no way to correct this, also they could have easily been led led to react a certain way by ABC's manipulation. These are also far left media organizations but have not been deemed so as they vilify the right & condone the left. My citations are based on easily observable phenomenon.Haddi Nuff (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Haddi Nuff (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Haddi Nuff: Please review WP:OR for an explainer of why "My citations are based on easily observable phenomenon." is not sufficient. ‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.›  for all of this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

See Special:Permalink/1018297887 § cite note-disinformation-14 for the disinformation descriptor and Special:Permalink/1018297887 § cite note-conspiracy theories-56 for the conspiracy theories descriptor. These descriptors are verifiable to reliable sources. — Newslinger talk 15:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read all of the threads above and add something new.Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Which citations? —PaleoNeonate – 04:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully this doesn’t start and editing war with @User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof who has either wrongly or decided to disingenuously interpret what I said to mean that newspapers need a source to their claims that events happened. Also, he just ignores me. I told him this is not what I said or meant. Also should be noted that @User:NorthBySouthBaranof|NorthBySouthBaranof should refrain from using foul language as it can't create animosity making the thread unproductive, so don't write: "get out of here with that s**t", as it's not helpful, just demeaning.

I explained opinionated statements need a reason, didn’t talk about events. If a newspaper says, “this man is bad,” and gives no reason, we’re all accept that it’s a poor and inappropriate article for a Wikipedia citation, (obviously we’re not talking about historical well-known figures.)

You could find endless sources say "right-wing". Check for yourself: [link https://www.google.com/search?q=%22project+veritas%22+%22conservative%22&sxsrf=ALeKk00PZd6TDe_RK1T_OLoCccNvIR7g-g:1620040514024&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi1ofCasa3wAhXO3mEKHTtZAe8Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1800&bih=1042 link]

[link https://www.google.com/search?q=%22project+veritas%22+%22right+wing%22&biw=1800&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ALeKk02sSt6es19JIEY5z2rCZu61XR9nFw%3A1620042208689&ei=4OGPYPjOKZj6wAOSkoTQAg&oq=%22project+veritas%22+%22right+wing%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...0.0.0.54223.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0._nYMZMuJIAw link]

So why do we accept these sources as correct in accusing PV of being "far-right", when many other reliable sources say "right-wing"?

Also I can find academic sources, (people with a Ph.D), therefore reliable, that say “right-wing” or “conservative”. In fact I can’t find one that says far-right. They are often analysis of alt-right groups and yet still none of them call PV alt-right or far-right.

“Groups like the Oath Keepers pounced on information provided by Project Veritas, a conservative activist group known for conducting manipulative video stings of progressive organizations…” p. 12 - https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1897&context=etd

“For instance, she [Brittany Pettibone] also tweeted a link to the controversial right-wing Project Veritas YouTube video on ‘Democrats rigging the election.’ The Veritas project is known to be linked to the entourage of Trump.” p.6

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342680182_Metapolitical_New_Right_Influencers_The_Case_of_Brittany_Pettibone

“Veritas is a right-wing flak mill that, using media, has set out to professionally damage people and organizations across almost a decade.”

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1375388

“It was the work of Project Veritas, a group of conservative provocateurs that for a decade has run sting operations to embarrass left-leaning groups and seek evidence of political bias among top media organizations … ”

https://www.pacificariptide.com/files/a-history-of-the-trump-war-on-media-t...virus-could-stop.pdf

This article that goes in-depth with O’Keefe, and he doesn't discover a secret far-right activist.

“But many hours of rare conversations with O’Keefe, and with his friends and associates, suggest that an evolution is being debated. That Project Veritas could steer away from partisan causes and adopt the identity of an apolitical watchdog. That maybe, just maybe, its leader is open to reinvention—and redemption.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/04/james-okeefe-undercover-sting-profile-feature-2018-218015

“The conservative activist organization Project Veritas was suspended from Twitter on Thursday for violating platform rules.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/11/project-veritas-suspended-twitter-468748

Mikeymikemikey (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You must drop “far-right” for the integrity of Wikipedia.

The sources are not sourced by academic standards. They merely say “far-right” in passing, (which I will quote ALL below), as a smear, they do not explain why PV is far-right. Do we live in a bubble? Surely people know media outlets smear political rivals. Fox News calls CNN communists, does that make them communists?

Left bias or not, if zero articles explain WHY or even source an article that explains WHY PV are far-right, then it is not a source, even if they are considered reputable.

A source for a political analysis is not: source says X, its: source says X BECAUSE … but for Wikipedia you don’t need to write the because part, and some people, -cough: PaleoNeonate- are abusing this.

If you can tell me WHY PV are far-right and point to the source, then we have something to cite the article with. If you can't say WHY with a source, remove it.

Generally Newspaper articles should be used only for evidence of events, as all newspapers are highly politically biased, do not use them for political analysis. Find an academic source, or use what PV claim to be, or don’t write anything at all.

So, that said, I reviewed all articles cited and quoted ALL mentions of PV as far-right (it's just one time in most articles) to point out how none give support to the "far-right" claim, in fact most copy and paste the same words from each other, most of the time just changing it very slightly, one doesn't say far-right at all:

Mikeymikemikey (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Mikeymikemikey, so sources that say it might one day stop being a right wing grift-o-rama, are somehow indications that it's not far-right? Not seeing it, sorry. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

“Trump has boosted far-right outlets with a loose relationship to truth, like Breitbart and One America News, into household names. Another such outlet, Project Veritas … ”

- The best journalism of 2020: Covering Trump - Columbia Journalism Review (cjr.org)

"far-right" is just said in passing, no support for the claim.

“For instance, Project Veritas, an alt-right group, has a track record of attacking movements through misleading editing of videos and through fabricated 'sting' operations (Benkler et al. 2018)”

- Tumber, Howard; Waisbord, Silvio (March 24, 2021). The Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-34678-7

"alt-right" is just said in passing, no support for the claim. Only supports claim for disinformation.

“The far-right troll finally drops his big video.” “O’Keefe is the head of Project Veritas, a far-right outlet that uses misleading edits and various forms of entrapment to try and catch Democrats, liberals …”

- James O'Keefe Claims Bernie Sanders Will Throw Trump Fans in Gulags (dailydot.com)

"far-right" is just said in passing, no support for the claim. The source also changes to "right-wing" at times in the article, treating them as synonymous, meaning they don't know the difference.

“He rejects the mainstream media as covering up for Democrats and refers to posts on far-right websites like Project Veritas.”

- Pennsylvania Trump supporters travel to Washington to protest Biden Electoral College certification (inquirer.com)

"Far-right" said in passing again, no support is given to the claim.

“His claims were publicised by Project Veritas, a far-right activist group, with founder James O'Keefe desribing [sic] him as "an American hero.”

-https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/us-postal-worker-reportedly-completely-recanted-claims-of-vote-tampering-but-hits-back-saying-thats-not-what-happened/HPWD6IMMXGNGYJVLARSWKPUEFQ/ A publication with many typos, suggests its poorly edited, and again, just says it in passing. Not evidence.

“The far-right conspiracy theory-driven group Project Veritas is offering rewards of $25,000 for tips relating to election fraud in Pennsylvania.”

- Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick Offering Up To $1 Million For Evidence Of Voter Fraud (forbes.com)

Again "far-right" claim not supported.

“Donald Trump, have given vast sums of money to conservative causes and partly funded the far-right Project Veritas, which tries to secretly record and smear journalists, nonprofits [sic] and other targets.”

- Climate Point: Climate change disrupts life on the Hopi Reservation (usatoday.com)

Again "far-right" claim not supported.

“James O'Keefe, founder of far-right group Project Veritas, and Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who wore a gas mask on the House floor in March while voting on Covid relief legislation.”

- New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy slams New York Young Republican Club for hosting large, maskless gala in Jersey City amid Covid surge (archive.org)

Gas masks are not evidence of being far-right, so again no evidence or argument here.

“James O’Keefe, founder of conservative activist group Project Veritas.”

https://news.yahoo.com/trump-first-public-appearance-since-182233692.html

This one doesn’t say far-right, it labels them correctly

“Jewish American journalist and far-right” “self-proclaimed “proud Islamophobe”, who has been banned from several major social media platforms and ridesharing apps because of her racist and anti-Muslim speech.” “She previously worked undercover for Project Veritas, a far-right organisation known for targeting leftists and anti-fascists.”

- https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/31/us-house-race-to-watch-lois-frankel-vs-laura-loomer

This one comes the closest to an attempt to make the argument, claiming that an individual who worked for PV is “far-right”. However, Aljazeera is basically state media run by a deeply far-right Islamic nation, Qatar, (Apostasy and blasphemy is a crime) and is highlighted a Jew who has protests against Islamists. Hopefully Wikipedia isn’t in that much of a bubble to know what’s going on here.

Either way still not evidence of PV being far-right, but that this woman is possiblely far-right, but says nothing about her view on policies, as dislike of religion is not far-right itself. Please see page about far-right ideologies

“Project Veritas is a far-right activist group, which says it uses undercover techniques to reveal so-called liberal bias and corruption.”

- AOC embroiled in fresh Twitter row with Marco Rubio over PPP loans | The Independent

No support for the claim again.

"His claims were publicised by Project Veritas, a far-right activist group, with founder James O’Keefe describing him as “an American hero” while Donald Trump himself hailed Mr Hopkins as a 'brave patriot'."

- https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/us-election-trump-supporters-plan-huge-protests-over-fraud-claims/news-story/7b707f224a038f9315210084ace8a74f

Is Mr Hopkins a confirmed Nazi? If not, then again, no support for "far-right" claim.

“Project Veritas, a controversial far-right media group known for “sting” operations against its political opponents and the publication of selectively edited videos.”

- Prosecutors Withheld Evidence That Could Exonerate J20 Inauguration Protesters, Judge Rules (theintercept.com)

Said in passing, no evidence for the claim.

“Project Veritas, the far-right activist group founded by James O’Keefe”

https://time.com/5947561/pinterest-gender-discrimination-racism/

Again, another unsupported generic smear.

“The ad includes footage by the far-right activist group Project Veritas that shows a man identified as a CNN employee talking about news coverage of Gaetz, Politico reported.”

- Matt Gaetz makes six-figure ad buy targeting CNN amid sex trafficking allegations | TheHill

Said in passing, no evidence for the claim. Mikeymikemikey (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I can find sources that do not say the "sea is wet", that does not mean they are saying it's not wet. You need sources that say its not far-right.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this a serious argument? Why do you assume they are "far-right" Why is that the assumed political position. Because you don't like them? This is like a Christian who tells an atheist they must find evidence that their God does not exist, yet they are the ones who claim he does exist. The affirmative claim needs support, not the disbelief in the affirmative claim. PV has attacked a lot of the reliable sources, so, I think we can accept they have a conflict of interest, and far-right is meant as a smear.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't assume they are far-right, RS say they are, so we need RS saying they are not if we are to challenge that claim. It's called policy, as in wp:v and wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, who is RS? The thread said the sources are reliable, ergo, its true. But other reliable sources define them differently. Is it policy to pick the most defaming one? Also, none of the sources actually explain what is far-right about Project Veritas. What extremist nativist policies do they hold? Why do we say Far-right in the introduction, but literally nothing in the rest of the article depicts them as Far-right activists.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

No, but "conservative" does not exclude "far-right" like " "liberal" would. However you point about our content is valid, we have no real discussion of their politics, and in that regard you are correct. The lede is a summary of OUR article, not a summary of other peoples. This I think we need a section on their political outlook.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deceptively edited video

Why is there no reference to the video themselves? If there was deceptive editing the consumer could verify this for themselves rather than relying on others that may or may not be trust worthy? What is better than actual video evidence. In any court of law video evidence would be more credible than a verbal account of the evidence, even when made by a "reliable source". Yes I realize this isn't a court but the quality standards for truth should over lap. Also not taken into account is coordinated defamation of a person. When people and groups of people know how to game the system, then people are going to do those things. Wiki isn't an opinion piece yet it makes statements which then references an opinion article (which is described in the rules as to how and why something would be kept up that shows negstivety towards something). ViolentG (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Coordinated defamation of a person - You mean like Juan Carlos Vera, the ACORN employee who was defamed by Project Veritas' false insinuation that he supported or condoned human trafficking, when instead he immediately reported the matter to the police? Yes, that's coordinated defamation of a person. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The policy on primary sources states that "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". Per the high-quality academic sources cited in this article, Project Veritas does not meet that requirement. The organization's website is already linked in the article in case readers want to see its content. — Newslinger talk 02:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Which source cited is an opinion piece? 2605:B100:D14:B6F7:1175:D621:C213:DC67 (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Because unless you can access the full unedited videos, including before and after you can't know if they were deceptively edited or not. But what RS can do is talk to both sides, look at other evidence and analyze it. We do not have the resources to do that.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

On top of that, we are not allowed to do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)