On an unrelated note, WikiMedia foundation actually pays progressive groups to write/edit Wikipedia articles.
Conveniently, you can evaluate their cited sources for yourself.
> Following the Boudreau incident, Project Veritas paid Izzy Santa a five-figure settlement after she threatened to sue, which included a nondisclosure agreement.[185]
That links to https://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68628_Page3.html, which seems like a factual account to me.
You should consider that facts that you don't like aren't "opinions", they're just facts that you don't like.
Settlements doesn't prove anything
Also the Wikipedia article begins by labeling PV as being "far-right", which is in and of itself an opinion and they proceed to quote opinion pieces.
Why do I have to explain this tho? I feel like a high school teacher explaining yet another time to his students why they can't cite Wikipedia.
So you agree that the article had a factual statement backed by a factual source then. Thanks.
Your previous statements are demonstrably incorrect and you've resorted to goalpost-shifting. "oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation, but that fact doesn't mean anything!!"
Please consider that facts you don't like aren't "opinion", they're just facts you don't like.
For real though, I know I'm repeating myself, but I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer for you to understand.
> oh sure that was a factual statement backed by a factual citation
Don't you think considering "X thinks Y" as a fact is a bit disingenuous?
> you've resorted to goalpost-shifting
You started quoting Wikipedia as a source, and then shifted the debate about how not problematic it is. I "resorted" to nothing outside of common sense.