Talk:Krystle Matthews

Leaked phone call to prison inmate scandal

On June 27th, a story was published about a leaked phone call between SC Democrat state representative Krystle Matthews and inmate David Solomon Ballard in which she stated "Where the f—- are my black people with money? I don’t care about no dope money, give me that dope boy money. S—, where the f—, where’s the duffle bag boys? Get you, find you somebody in your family that doesn’t even know you’re donating to my campaign, and put that s— under their name. Like, like what the f—?"

She also discussed "secret sleepers" which she wanted to infiltrate the Republican Party.

This story has been published by multiple reliable sources, so should be noted in her bio. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Project Veritas has long been considered an unreliable source at Wikipedia, where WP:RSPS says "due to its reputation for selectively editing its videos. As an activist group, Project Veritas is a biased or opinionated source." The other two sources presented say they got it from Project Veritas. Indeed, one of those sources, in the same article explicity describes Project Veritas as "a right-wing organization that secretly tapes progressive politicians and edits the tapes to show the politician in an unflattering light."

There's also the question of undue weight. The bulk of material overshadows the neutral material in the lede. In the "Political career" section, it would represent about 90% of the content, which certainly isn't a fair presentation of her entire political career. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a political opinion, not a reasonable position. Project Veritas is a reliable source, regardless of some people's opinion. Recordings, selectively edited or not, which still have context are a reliable source--which Project Veritas provides.

However, that said, there were multiple reliable sources even if Project Veritas was not acceptable. It's difficult to substantiate the claim that a local NBC News affiliate or The State, a statewide newspaper of general publication, are not reliable sources.

It seems to me that someone is engaging in vandalism, trying to hide the fact of what happened from public knowledge, when there is more than enough information to show that the content of the recordings are accurate. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the voice on the tape belongs to Krystle Matthews or that she said the things she said.

In fact, the existence of the recordings itself is newsworthy and article-worthy, even if those claims are unsubstantiated--just look at all the unsubstantiated claims on articles for Joe Biden or Donald Trump. The claims exist and should be noted as part of the public record--which is one way in which Wikipedia functions.

That is why the information about the recordings should be presented in a neutral point-of-view. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you simply looking for anything to avoid including relevant information?

If you feel that "undue weight" is an issue, by all means expand the article regarding her career...but do it honestly and fairly. This is an encyclopedic entry, not a place to cheer for your political favorites.

The point here is that a significant piece of news came out regarding arguably inappropriate words spoken by representative Matthews. That news is likely the most prominent thing that has ever happened in her career, bar none. It absolutely should be included in her article, without question.

Keep it neutral POV. That's great. That's what we all want...but the inmate call issue needs to be in the article, period. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 09:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I interject here to remind you to assume good faith. I live over a thousand miles away from the election district, in a country with a very different political system, facing very different issues. I'd never heard of Matthews until I arrived at this article. Most articles I come to edit are the result of recent change patrolling. So nobody here is interested in white-washing or promoting a particular agenda or political candidate. I make arguments based wholly on the merits I've expressed in discussion here, and I trust you will do the same.

Some nuance: the noteworthy item is perhaps not that Matthews said these things, but that Project Veritas has made the accusations. Again, the sources I looked at yesterday were all careful to mention PV as the source, sometimes even commenting on PV's reputation for deceptive editing and taking things out of context. None seemed to want to stand by the information on their own account. I didn't have time to find in the edit history the NBC affiliate source you gave. You are right that NBC is likely to have done some independent fact checking. I'd be interested in reviewing it to see if they are reporting that "Matthews said this" or that "Project Veritas said Matthews said this". Re "Project Veritas is a reliable source, regardless of some people's opinion", Wikipedia community consensus is that it is not. You will need to change that opinion first, if you are going to go forth arguing your case based on PV being a reliable source. _signed, Willondon (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I do assume good faith. However, you seem to have some strong opinions about Project Veritas, for example, when many sources for this news investigated this recording independently. Project Veritas is *a* source, but not the only source. At this point, there are numerous independently-sourced and reliable sources for this timely news item.

You say you live more than 1000 miles away in another country...which I assume is likely Canada. As a U.S. citizen, I rarely go around--read that as never--editing or correcting articles based upon the affairs of other countries. I think we generally assume that Wikipedia editors have at least some reasonable interest in the subject matter. In my case, the interest is that politics is honest and nothing is hidden by anyone, which means neutral POV articles which simply present the evidence without editorial additions.

Even in the spirit of good faith, it's difficult to understand why you would be interested in an article about a state-level politician in the U.S. unless you have a deeper interest in the subject. In any case, the issue is important to include in Matthews' bio regardless of the source. If Project Veritas is considered an unreliable source, then the article should have a note to that effect.

If we were to only include news items which were based upon reliable and verified sources, large portions of many of the political articles would have to be removed from Wikipedia. For example, many of the accusations leveled at Biden or Trump and which have been included in their articles would not be allowed. The event is the important thing. The news of the event should be included with details which explain the source and its reliability.

In this case, Matthews did make the call and those were her own words, modified or not. (Even unedited and giving her the widest possible latitude, I don't see how the context could make the least difference.) Therefore the event should be noted. The explanation of the event should be neutral POV and perhaps discuss sources (although that appears to be immaterial at this point, with the multiple sources which have independently verified this news). JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

One source given, The State (South Carolina newspaper), says merely "Listen to leaked phone call between SC Dem lawmaker and an inmate", and the statement "The South Carolina Department of Corrections sent to The State Newspaper a leaked prison call from February between South Carolina state Rep. Krystle Matthews and inmate David Solomon Ballard." It doesn't say anything at all about the content. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Willondon: This has been reported in multiple reliable sources, and it doesn't matter that the recording came from Project Veritas or any other "right wing" source, because she's admitted it was her voice on the recording. And it's hardly undue; just because she hasn't screwed up yet doesn't give her a get-out-of-jail-free card on Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

She claims the recording was edited, and the ultimate source (Project Veritas) is known for editing recordings, and taking things out of context to paint progressive figures in an unflattering light. The other of the multiple sources don't seem to vouch for it as fact. Instead, they say it came from PV, and one explicitly makes note of PV's reputation for deceptive editing. I'm not sure it's accurate to say there are multiple sources for this. _signed, Willondon (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

She at first said the call was edited, then probably realized she'd be shown to be a liar too, and then admitted it was her voice on the recording. If she didn't believe the recording was genuine, she wouldn't have responded as she did. Thus, it makes no difference where the recording came from--reliable source or not--because she admitted it was her voice saying all that stuff (and her response was reported in reliable sources). Magnolia677 (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I self-reverted. No rush to add this. More details about whether the recording was altered will emerge. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Then probably realized she'd be shown to be a liar too, and then admitted it was her voice"... now we're really getting into original research territory and speculation. I note again, that all of the other reliable sources report "Project Veritas said this", as opposed to standing by it as fact. That it has received coverage demonstrates that it is noteworthy, as a purported eleventh-hour scandal in the campaign, but not that the reliable sources are confirming that it's true. In fact, they all seem to be careful to mention Project Veritas as the source. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. "All" of the reliable sources do NOT say that "Project Veritas said this". The State reported the information directly with no mention of Project Veritas. News 2, a local NBC affiliate, reported the news directly as well, only mentioning Project Veritas as a footnote.

It's quite doubtful that an NBC News affiliate would not have independently checked the facts with the South Carolina Department of Corrections.

It seems to me that you are trying to avoid negative information being posted which might tarnish the image of Krystle Matthews. It is going to get posted, one way or the other, because it is true and it is timely and appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. Scandals are reported because they are a significant part of our political landscape and of the history of political figures.

Let's keep it neutral POV. I'm all for that. But the facts should be included, no matter how they might tarnish Matthews' reputation. We are editing an encyclopedia, not trying to please people and their political opinions. All the truth should be found in these pages, as much as is possible. This is a record of history. We shouldn't try to whitewash it or engage in historical revisionism.

Do you dispute that Krystle Matthews said the things which were said on the recording by the person who is ostensibly identified as Krystle Matthews--by Krystle Matthews herself? JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The ultimate source was the South Carolina Department of Corrections, not Project Veritas. If she claims the recordings were edited, then include that in the article...but quit vandalizing the existing information. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Edited or not, those where Krystle Matthews words by her own admission. We aren't offering an opinion about them. This is simply a timely report of something which is related to her Wikipedia page. If you don't like the way I or someone else reports it, edit it to make it more neutral--which I attempted to do.

This information should be posted on her page. It is current political information and belongs here.

Do you object to similar information on Joe Biden's page? Donald Trump's? We should seek to be fair and careful in our "reporting". I believe that providing the information that Krystle Matthews herself has admitted to saying, sourced by multiple reliable sources as well as what you consider unreliable ones, is more than adequate to add this information to her bio.

If you revert it again, rather than editing it for neutral viewpoint (if you feel it is necessary), we will have to get administration involved. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Privacy of the phone call to the inmate

@Willondon: With respect, all phone calls to inmates are non-private, unless they are privileged conversations, such as with the inmate's attorney. Therefore, the phone call was not private even if Matthews may have believed it was. Honestly, I find it extremely difficult to believe that she was not aware that the conversation was with an inmate and might be recorded. I have made and received calls to multiple federal and state prisons numerous times. During those conversations, a recorded message is often played, which explains that the call is to a correctional facility. Her call lasted more than 40 minutes, according to sources. There is virtually no way that she was unaware that she was speaking with an inmate. That being the case, indicating that the conversation was private is not accurate. At the very least, the record should note that Matthews *said* she believed the conversation was private, not that it actually was. JohnBoyTheGreat (talk)

@JohnBoyTheGreat: Do you have a source to support that? I read someplace that a transcript of these calls can be obtained by public records request. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Project Veritas Audio Leak Inclusion

The two audio leaks from Project Veritas seem to have become an issue of contention on this page lately and it seems to be having an impact on the neutrality of the article's language. While Project Veritas is not considered a credible source on Wikipedia, other sources like AOL.com and Count On 2 News (NBC Charleston affiliate) have reported on the audio leaks and included quotes. That said, this does not mean AOL or Count on 2 is backing up the leaked audio as legitimate or credible; it just means other sources are reporting on the incident of the leak itself. Therefore, you can't take the audio and accurately draw conclusions like, "Matthews instructed the inmate on the phone to do this and that." Any mention of the audio leaks should be limited to simply stating that the leaks happened and maybe including a brief summary of what is in the audio. Anything further risks the use of non-neutral language. I know this has been discussed already, but it doesn't seem like there's been any resolution so far. The Banker of Seville (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

She herself confirmed the audio is legitimate. There is no original research going on in that regard.

They are reporting on comments she said she made, Count on 2 News did so without the mention of Project Veritas. There is no reason to not include widely covered, RSed material the quoted has admitted to saying. Thespearthrower (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)