Talk:Project Veritas/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Project Veritas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2024
 | This edit request to Project Veritas has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace "In January 2021, a lawyer for PBS resigned after Project Veritas released a video of him." with "Michael Beller, a former PBS lawyer, was recorded in a Project Veritas video making controversial statements about the 2020 U.S. presidential election and the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to his resignation from PBS."
Explanation:
Under Deceptive video recordings, every sub header explains who was recorded and what the potential issue was except the PBS lawyer video (2021) sub header. This one, though sourced to AP, Current, and PBS articles, fails to establish the Wikipedia:Notability for inclusion and lacks Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as explained in the FAQ on this TP as it currently stands. As per the rest of the tone of this article, the name of the lawyer in question should be added and a short, neutral summary of what happened that lead to his resignation.
2601:19E:427E:5BB0:30AA:55DF:4E2C:8345 (talk)
- wp:n apples to article creation, not content. Slatersteven (talk)
- Unclear why the lawyer should be named. It wasn't a notable person, I don't see that leaving the name out is a problem of notability or neutrality. The targets of PV's stings are only sometimes named in these pages,
every sub header explains who was recorded
is simply false. Arguably fewer of them should be named. But I agree it is usual that the general nature of the controversial remarks would be mentioned. I'll take a crack at it. -- M.boli (talk) - Sorry for chiming in months later, but it doesn't really matter here whether or not PV's target is named. His position with PBS is relevant and should be indicated, but I tend to agree with M.boli that fewer people should be directly named. Further, as Slatersteven notes, wp:n is specific to article creation so it would only be applicable if someone is either creating a page for that person or proposing said page's deletion.Ecthelion83 (talk)
Planned Parenthood videos - why?
Greetings: I am wondering why PV made videos attempting to somehow entrap Planned Parenthood employees. The paragraph on the incident is not clear on that point. What were they hoping to "expose"? There was no illegality involved on the agency's part that I can see. Thank you for your help, Wordreader (talk)
- The attempt was to create the impression that PP was advising people to violate laws. I believe the result was damage to PP funding. If we can find WP:RS for this, it might be a useful addition. I think the current text does show the attempts to sully reputation. 18:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)O3000, Ret. (talk) O3000, Ret. (talk)