Talk:James O'Keefe/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

The Blaze as a source. Glenn Beck is anything but an RS

Is anyone really going to try and promote Glenn Beck's The Blaze as an RS? Please. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, editors already have, at least for the content cited to it. Perhaps you should raise the issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not see anyone debating the WP:RS status of Glenn Beck's blog - which by definition is not a WP:RS if it's a blog. Also, here's what Xenophrenic has previously said about the WP:RS status of both Glenn Beck and blogs:

"I'm still waiting for that reliably sourced evidence. So far, I've seen Beck on Fox claiming some recordings are unedited; O'Keefe on Fox claiming some recordings are unedited. Links to places like HotAir, Youtube and Breitbart's sites that claim ... well, all manner of things." - Xenophrenic

You cannot simply try to promote Glenn Beck or his blog as WP:RS when it says what you want it to say and reject them they don't say what you want. Neither of them are WP:RS. I simply do not see a serious argument here. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So it appears we are in agreement: No one is debating the RS status of Beck's blog. We are, however, debating the suitability of The Blaze (which also has a 'Blog' section, but we're not using that) as a source. As for your quote of my words above, they say nothing about blogs. If I were to say something about blogs as sources, I would say they may be unusable...

...with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. --WP:RS

I have no problem with you removing content cited to Glenn Beck. However, there is no reason the reliably sourced content by Scott Baker should be purged. As I noted above, you can raise your concerns at the RS noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

In no way is Scott Baker a RS. That's absurd. He's a random conservative blogger who runs Glenn Beck's blog. Are we to suggest that whoever runs Rush Limbaugh's website is now also a WP:RS in your eyes? Give me a break. You are so clearly trying to have it both ways. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC) He wasn't even "reporting." He was giving opinion, because he is an opinion blogger, not a reporter. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect, as explained above. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not even addressing anything, and in no way did you explain above how any of that is incorrect. The Blaze is not a RS. Period. His piece was not a "news story," it was an opinion piece. It was also expressed as such. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Can anyone here try to explain Xenophrenic's attempt to promote current Glenn Beck blogger and former Andrew Breitbart blogger Scott Baker as a WP:RS as anything other than a profoundly absurd attempt to have it both ways? DoctorFuManchu (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It appears we are in agreement: No one is debating the RS status of Beck's blog. We are, however, debating the suitability of The Blaze (which also has a 'Blog' section, but we're not using that) as a source. I have no problem with you removing content cited to Glenn Beck. However, there is no reason the reliably sourced content by Scott Baker, Editor in Chief of The Blase, should be purged. As I noted above, you can raise your concerns at the RS noticeboard if you disagree. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets hear your explanation for why Hot Air and Breitbart's websites are not WP:RS whereas The Blaze is. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Too vague to answer, as no source is universally non-RS for all purposes (unless it is on Wikipedia's banned site list). If you have specific content examples on which you'd like my opinion, no problem, but unless they relate to this article, we should probably continue that discussion on our personal talk pages. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Michael Gerson

It doesn't matter whether it is opinion presented as opinion. That is a weight issue regardless. There is no conceivable reason why Michael Gerson's opinion should matter here, certainly not more than anyone else's. Wikipedia is not an op-ed. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

His opinion matters because it directly pertains to the issue being discussed in that section. No one has said that it matters "more than anyone else's". As the former senior editor covering politics at U.S. News and World Report, he's not just another conservative voice. Gerson was a top aide to President George W. Bush as Assistant to the President for Policy and Strategic Planning. Prior to that appointment, he served in the White House as Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Presidential Speechwriting and Assistant to the President for Speechwriting and Policy Advisor. Gerson joined Bush's presidential campaign in 1999 as chief speechwriter and a senior policy adviser. He's a published author several times over (remember "Heroic Conservatism"?), he is the Hastert Fellow at the J. Dennis Hastert Center for Economics, Government, and Public Policy. From 2006 to 2009, Gerson was the Roger Hertog Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

And he's not just someone giving his opinion, his twice-weekly WaPo Op-Ed columns actually fall under the editorial control of The Washington Post, and as WP:RS advises:

When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may be a strong factor in determining reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint than the opinions of others. When using opinion pieces it is necessary to attribute the information to the author, and not to assert it as fact.

Do you have an actual legitimate reason for the repeated removal of that content, or is it that you simply disagree with it? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

For starters, I don't see how any of Gerson's work as a speechwriter in the Bush administration in any way augments his authority on this matter. This is a news story, and yet the entire Wikipedia section reads like an op-ed because it is chocked full of opinions like Scott Baker's and Michael Gerson's. For a news story - and such a controversial one - I don't think it is particularly appropriate to introduce the opinions of individual columnists (particularly ones who are frequent contributors to public broadcasting and therefore have a built-in bias to this story) when there are a wide and disparate variety of opinions on the matter. At the very least, it needs to be presented as a point-counterpoint where you show one opinion, then an opposing opinion.DoctorFuManchu (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Speechwriting augments authority? Huh? Sorry, you lost me with that. Chocked full of opinions? Perhaps you could cite one here for purposes of discussion. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"According to NPR, in a statement released before the O'Keefe video was revealed to be heavily edited..."

"in a statement released before the O'Keefe video was revealed to be heavily edited"

This statement needs to be removed. O'Keefe released both an edited video - which was always understood to be edited - as well as the full, unedited video at the same time. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We're not talking normal editing praxis here.TMCk (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, O'Keefe has never released a "full, unedited" video of that meeting. He did release a longer version, but it too was edited, had portions "redacted" supposedly to protect someone in a foreign country, and had missing and distorted audio segments blamed on technical difficulties. I would love to see the completely unedited recording someday. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Intro does not introduce

The O'Keefe introduction does not introduce. The text, which is too long, begins with a mere detail (his undergrad institution and the student paper he founded) and then gives an exhaustive rundown of his videos---yet for space reasons dedicates a mere couple sentences to each video. We are left not knowing who this guy is in general or what he does in general. The point of an introduction is generality.

Perhaps we have failed to write a good intro because no one can agree on who he is in general, but (optimistically?) I feel like we could come to a consensus pretty easily by avoiding buzzwords such as "journalist."

I know it is hard to change intros due to institutional inertia, so would it be OK if I announced a change here and then we could discuss it? My suggested intro is intentionally too short because I know that people will want to add things they feel are important. My suggestion is:

James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a politically conservative American activist who produces videos of public figures that are shot undercover. He came to national attention after publishing recordings of workers at Planned Parenthood in 2008 and at ACORN in 2009. The videos are shot surreptitiously in order to capture his targets' unguarded behavior, and he uses the videos to represent his targets as unethical, irresponsible or biased.

Some of O'Keefe's projects have made prime time television and have influenced Congressional votes. Others have resulted in his scheme being discovered by his targets and even in his arrest. O'Keefe's targets, such as Planned Parenthood and NPR, accuse O'Keefe of misrepresenting them in his videos and of using editing techniques to manipulate the images and audio in order to lie. His example has motivated a public debate on what it means to be a journalist and on what constitutes good journalistic practice when the journalist is using false pretenses.

The above first paragraph contains no value judgment words such as "self-described" and "controversial." It does not comment on what was contained in the videos that launched his career, so there is no longer a need to use lots of careful qualification words such as "potentially" or "he claims". It states no more than who he is, what he has done and does, and why. These essential descriptors are missing from the current intro. The second paragraph gives some qualifying information about O'Keefe that I think we all can agree is necessary.

Someone please reply to me. Ogo (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a nice draft, Ogo. That said, the phrase self-described citizen journalist should stay.

To apply the term journalist for polemicists or activists or whatnot only on one side of the political spectrum but not on the other, despite where the sources lead us, would be biased and not balanced. Not to cite wp:OTHERSTUFF but...: eg, Mumia Abu-Jamal, both historically and currently, has hosted/hosts radio programs as a commentator and activist. And, it would be POV to insist that Jamal's work not be described as a type of journalism. And a list of such cases on the political left go on and on! It can be observed that O'Keefe has long been trained in, has participated in, and has taught to others, all three initially through institutions other than himself and subsequently through the one he founded, his--- OK, um, "current events advocacies." And, as the talkpage above demonstrates, the sources (and, I'd purposely left out any Conservative souces up there)...term O'Keefe's work--- Um, generally a qualified type of journalism.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a good argument for saying he is a journalist, not a "self-described citizen journalist."

The problem with "self-described" is that it is pejorative. It is "to damn with faint praise" and is even worse than saying he is not a journalist. If I say Socrates was a philosopher but label Ayn Rand a self-described citizen philosopher, what am I saying about Ayn Rand? By the infirmity of the phrase I am implying no one thinks she is really a philosopher except herself. Since we cannot agree let's neither (1) label O'Keefe a journalist or (2) label him not a journalist. The "self-described citizen journalist" label is an instance of (2). Frankly I am OK with calling him a "journalist," but we cannot get a quorum here to agree on it, so whatever. Rather than propose a fix that is worse than the problem, let's move on to fix what can be fixed given the constraints of Wiki democracy. Ogo (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem with using the unqualified description "Journalist" is that it misleadingly implies he is objective and unbiased, and that he follows journalism ethics and standards. You are correct that adding "self-described" lowers the legitimacy of the claim, to which I can only respond: If the shoe fits...

That said, I would not be adverse to removing from the article all instances of verbiage associated with journalism, but good luck getting a quorum to agree on that. There were long fought battles to add legitimacy to O'Keefe's endeavors by injecting mentions of "journalist/journalism" whenever possible, regardless of how qualified or infirm the usage. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thus far, Ogo has convinced me with his argument's seeming rigor/neutrality--still, I'll wait a bit 'fore I cast my seemingly so-called self-described ersatz would-be as-they-say <twiddles index/middle fingers on sides of head> vote.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Xeno's suggestion that we remove all copy that takes any position on his "journalist" credentials (for now) is good and would table a lot of disputes. It is something that can be thought about more clearly once the article becomes more intelligible. May I press ahead? I looked at some other biographies of living persons and they usually have an abbreviated history in the second paragraph. The only important thing O'Keefe has done is publish these political YouTube videos, so I focused on that. Also I felt it would be good to connect him to Lila Rose and Andrew Breitbart in the introduction, so I referred to them.

James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a politically conservative American activist who produces videos of public figures that are shot undercover. He came to national attention after publishing recordings of workers at Planned Parenthood in 2008 [1] and at ACORN in 2009 [2]. The videos are shot surreptitiously in order to capture his targets' unguarded behavior, and he uses the videos to represent his targets as unethical, irresponsible or biased.

O'Keefe became politically active during his undergraduate at Rutgers University. There he founded a conservative student paper, the Rutgers Centurion, which publicized his first undercover video in 2005. After graduating O'Keefe continued to produce videos, partnering with anti-abortion activist Lila Rose in 2008. In 2009 Andrew Breitbart paid him for the option to publish new videos on BigGovernment.com exclusively. O'Keefe formed a 501c3, Project Veritas, in 2010.

Some of O'Keefe's projects have made prime-time television and have influenced Congressional votes. Others have resulted in his scheme being discovered by his targets and even in his arrest. O'Keefe's targets, such as Planned Parenthood [3] and NPR [4], accuse O'Keefe of misrepresenting them and of using editing techniques to manipulate the video and audio in order to lie. His example has motivated a public debate on what it means to be a journalist and on what constitutes good journalistic practice when the journalist is using false pretenses [5].

I am trying to get Drfumanchu and Azurecitizen to comment on these things. Hey if either of you two are reading this would you please post? Ogo (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Reorganizing article along the lines of John Stossel

Hi all. I think the body of the article deserves a reorganization, in particular by grouping all the O'Keefe videos together, reducing the amount of text by culling extraneous facts, and removing some of the wildly excessive referencing. (Practically everything in this article is sourced, including prosaic facts undisputed by anyone. Should we source the spelling of his name?)

I think a good model to use would be the John Stossel article, a muckraking "journalist" who is conservative and controversial. The article groups its copy in the categories "Early life," then "Career," then "Beliefs," then "Praise and criticism," etc. In particular the praise and criticism section could include everyone's favorite discussion: whether O'Keefe is a journalist.

Does anyone have an opinion on this? Want to work together to restructure the text? Ogo (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

The article looks like a boring block of text. I was thinking of adding pictures and reducing the size of the ACORN and NPR sections in particular. There is a lot of shrapnel from some long past edit war lying around these sections, and a lot of it isn't the most relevant to an article on O'Keefe specifically.

The ACORN copy can be placed in the ACORN subarticle if it is not already there. I think the subsection should be at most one paragraph long because there is already another article. At least, this is how it is in the mathematics WP pages.

As for the NPR copy, I am not so sure it deserves its own subarticle, but maybe. Does anyone have an idea about that? I have never made a new article on WP before... Ogo (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Daaamn, Wikipedia's images policy is strict. Ogo (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Break for size

I addressed your #3 cite concern. I restored neutral wording that is supported by sources. --DHeyward (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What was your solution to #3 of the 7 concerns outlined above? I see that you have also added that the "report concluded" something in the ACORN section, but then you failed to convey that conclusion -- instead only quoting 2 sentences from it. In addition, you appear to have introduced details of a particular video scheme into the lead; those belong in the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I added the cite you requested. I already addressed the other six concerns you had. You have only reverted and have not added anything. Secondly, The report concluded "the video recordings evidence a serious and glaring deficit in management, governance and accountability within the ACORN organization. It is both disturbing and offensive that ACORN employees in different and far-flung offices were willing to engage in such conversations." It is sourced in the report and is in the "Conclusion" section of the report. The CA AG report differs markedly from the current portrayal in the Wikipedia section. I remind you that this is a BLP article. The tone and content of the lede and sections are largely sourced by scandal rags (Murdochs Post) and partisan source (TPM self-describes as a liberal slant on news). Using those pieces as sources is okay if the wording and facts is presented neutrally but using sensational wording or biased wording is not appropriate even if source used them. You are wikilawyering and revert warring to keep a largely biased version of this person intact. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

re: item of concern #3, if you'll please re-read what I said, you'll see that I didn't request a cite. What I did say was that your rewording of content was unsourced, inaccurate and tried to replace an accurate sentence about O'Keefe's videos with text just about specific ACORN videos. Your recent edits tried to replace this:

O'Keefe's videos have been examined by law enforcement agencies and news organizations, and they were found to have been selectively edited to misrepresent his subjects and deceive viewers.

which covers his video schemes, with this:

Based on the actions depicted in the videos, various law enforcement agencies began several investigations into the people and organizations shown. The released ACORN videos, for example, portrayed ACORN as an organization infested with criminal activity.[5] However after a full review of all material, prosecutors found that exculpatory material was edited out. No charges were filed and the videos and the editing was criticized for being "agenda driven" and that O'Keefe was out to make a point and not objectively report a story. Various news organizations and journalists have criticized the videos for being misleading and deceptive.

which speaks only about specific ACORN videos, and not his NPR stuff, PP stuff, etc. That misleads the reader. You also misleadingly altered the factual statement that law enforcement AND news journalists found the videos were edited to mislead. And no, you did not address the other concerns I listed.

Regarding your two-sentences cherry-picked from the several-paragraph conclusion of one of the AG investigations, and misleadingly conveyed as being the whole conclusion: yes, I know where it is in the report. If you feel we should inflate the ACORN subsection of O'Keefe's by adding in specifics from each of the many investigations, we can do that, too, but it will be done in a way that correctly conveys what the sources convey.

If you have actual, legitimate WP:NPOV concerns or concerns about sources, please raise them here for discussion. Further personal attacks upon editors by accusing them of wikilawyering or revert warring will only result in this conversation being resumed on an Administrator's noticeboard. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

2006 Forum controversy

Why was the section under this title heading removed from the article. It appeared to be well sourced with information presented from both supporters and detractors. What's the deal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.130.210 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

See [1] and [2]. This has already been discussed. Truthsort (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at the section, it is well-sourced, does not advance any ideas that aren't in the sources, and appears to be presented neutrally. Another editor has re-added the passages in question, and I would suggest that, at the very least, if it's disputed, rather than extricating the section, you should find some reliable sources that describe the dispute and discuss that neutrally. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this section as it is an outrageous violation of WP policy on Biographies of living persons. It is an incredible slander, and whoever is posting it or advocating posting it should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

Here is what it said at the time I removed it:

In January 2010 the anti-racist organization One People's Project noted that during his tenure at Leadership Institute, O'Keefe attended a forum called "Race and Conservatism" organized by paleoconservative Marcus Epstein of the Robert Taft Club and featuring white separatist Jared Taylor, John Derbyshire of the National Review and Kevin Martin of Project 21. Supporters of O'Keefe have raised issues with the forum being termed a white supremacist event, citing the appearance of Martin, a black man, and the fact that Epstein, who was also working with the Leadership Institute at the time, is of Korean and Jewish decent. But the event was controversial enough for the Leadership Institute to ask it moved from its building to a nearby college law school, and at the time it was only discussed and reported on by white supremacists and those opposing them. The level of O'Keefe's involvement was also in dispute, with his Breitbart.tv employer Andrew Breitbart filing griviences with anyone who reported that O'Keefe helped organize the event. To date, although much had been made of the revelation by conservative and anti-racist activists, O'Keefe has yet to speak about the forum himself, save for a statement through Breitbart's BigGovernment.com where he admitted he was there but did not assist in its organization.

To generate a fraudulent controversy obviously designed to suggest there is a legitimate debate over whether James O'Keefe is somehow a white supremacist or white supremacist sympathizer is absolutely beyond the pale. Kevin Martin (the black guy speaking at the event) has himself attested that O'Keefe was there to support Martin. O'Keefe's best known current associate is Shaughn Adeleye - a black guy. Suggesting someone is a white supremacist or has sympathies for them is a very serious charge, and that is a slanderous, phony controversy if I have ever seen one. You have to be out of your minds to think you can simply slander someone like that on Wikipedia.DoctorFuManchu (talk) 21:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted before, the section that you deleted is a legitimate point in his career, and it meets the Wikipedia standards, even if it doesn't fit the standards of those who want to defend Mr. O'Keefe. I feel this passage does indeed need to be put back in the entry, and as also noted before, it is incumbent upon those who disagree to come up with verifiable sources that refute the facts as they are in the passage, not delete them because one does not like what is said. DCKaba —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC).

I have to very strongly request that this section not be added back unless and until there is consensus to do so here. The section in question suggests to the reader that O'Keefe is, as DoctorFuManchu puts it up above, "somehow a white supremacist or white supremacist sympathizer". And that is, indeed, absolutely beyond the pale without some very solid sourcing. And at least to this reader, the whole thing seems transparently thin and political - he attended a debate, so what? (And to add what is likely an unnecessary pre-emptive defense of my position here, I am in no way trying to "defend Mr. O'Keefe". I'm defending Wikipedia's strong stance on quality and neutrality, particularly with respect to biographies.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The controversy and him attending a debate was enough for Salon, Viliage Voice and other outlets to report on the matter, and definitely enough for Andrew Breitbart, O'Keefe's employer at the time, to go on a campaign to demand a retraction of the story, sparking several stories on conservative blogs about it. However, no one has ever retracted their stories, nor has O'Keefe himself commented on it. That is what this section is based on. This isn't about if O'Keefe is a white supremacist. This is about the controversy that was generated, and that's all. The contentions by O'Keefe's supporters are even noted. I must stress again, this section is within Wikipedia's standards, and if anything can be edited to comply even further, but it should not be removed altogether. DCKaba —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC).

Are you saying that if he had commented on it, you'd count that as a reason to not include it? Forgive me for being skeptical. It sounds like you don't like him and want to make sure this slur is included, BLP policy or no BLP policy. And you are wrong about the retractions - Salon in particular had to take back the claim that he was an organizer. So all we are left with is that he allegedly attended it. Again, so what? It's irrelevant, and Wikipedia should not be used to push a political agenda, whatever it may be.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So we can add that Salon retracted its writing that he helped organize, but it is still a contention on other sites, and the fact that Salon had not striken the entire article altogether and it is still available on their site says that they still see the relevance in it. As for pushing political agendas, I honestly suspect that it is a political agenda that has people in the past trying to remove it. This is the same thing they did when the photograph came out in the first place, and ironically their contentions is that people did exactly what O'Keefe did to earn an entry on Wikipedia in the first place! What would you need to make this a relevant topic for Wikipedia when it is relevant on conservative websites? One thing I did not note is that O'Keefe is still associating and yes, working with the people who put together that forum. Some of the founders of the Robert A. Taft Club went on to found another group called Youth for Western Civilization and their website notes that he has spoken on behalf of one of their chapters. It's not about whether or not I like him. It is simply about putting information up, nothing more. Even if it doesn't warrant an entire section, it still should be noted. I am fine with even just a sentence, and I will add the same sources that I used in the section.DCKaba —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC).

Who are you and how do you know all this stuff about the Robert A. Taft Club and Youth for Western Civilization? The fact that you are digging up dirt on people and organizations suggests to me that you are part of a partisan research/mudslinging organization, which is why your suggestions sound so politically motivated. Neither of those organizations are suspect, especially the Robert A. Taft Club. BTW There's a wikipedia rule for everything and I'm sure you'll try to get me censored for good faith or whatever. Don't bother, this is my last message on this topic, I'm just concerned about your particular attack-dog mentality towards the subject of this article. JettaMann (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Gee, I never got anyone demanding how I know about Cameo when I edit their entry! It's all public knowledge the stuff about Robert A. Taft Club and YWC, and given in the case of YWC that MSNBC has raised questions about them recently, saying that they are not suspect is subjective anyway. So even though you said this was your last post on the matter, let me ask you: is your "concern" politically motivated? Because looking at your talk page it seems you have been called on your antics in the past when editing articles of a political bent. You were even blocked for attacking other editors.(DCKaba (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC))

Where is the balance in this article?

I can't help but notice that most of this article focuses on negative aspects towards the subject of this article, as though those were the only articles written about him. There are plenty of positive articles about him for doing brave work uncovering corruption by political organizations, for creativity, designing and setting up his stings, etc... Where are those references? I think it would be good to include some of those to offset the obvious attack-dog slant (within the limits of Wikipedia rules) towards the subject of the article by people who are peeved at him. JettaMann (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any pointers to some good articles? That would be helpful. Most of what you can find by googling around is pretty negative, the guy's done some wild stuff. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Take down "needs citations" notice

OK, so the next thing that I think should be done is that we should remove the "needs cites" notice on the front page. This article suffers from wild overcitation not undercitation. (Practically everything in this article is sourced, including prosaic facts undisputed by anyone. Should we source the spelling of his name?)

I have the sense a lot of the citation has been done to try to keep certain sentences from being removed from the article, regardless of how useful or relevant they are. In any case it is not necessary to encourage ideologically motivated editors to cite their sentences... quite the reverse.

Anyone agree? Ogo (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree - there are too many cites for non-controversial reporting by RS (Reliable Sources), as defined by Wikipedia.Parkwells (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight

Given his very short public career, this article seems too detailed, despite the public controversy about his tactics.Parkwells (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Tone and style of coverage

The article needs extensive editing for a more encyclopedic tone and deletion of unsourced OPED statements, such as describing teachers as "gloating". Language needs to be factual and neutral. When an incident is reported by a Reliable Source (RS) per Wikipedia MOS, the article does not need to carry four or five cites for the same event. The article is not supposed to be journalism - that is, it needs fewer quotes by O'Keefe about what he was doing, and more by RS about what his actions, and their analysis, evaluation and conclusions about these. WP is supposed to rely on third-party sources, not a bunch of primary quotes by the subject of a biography.Parkwells (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Your observations are correct, but with his career and notability being so short, as you've noted above, the bulk of what we have to work with consists primarily of "he-said, she-said" news stories and quote-filled coverage of the various sides of controversies. We have much less to work with in the way of reliably sourced analysis and in-depth coverage of the person and his career to date. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

So many of O'Keefe's quotes do not have to be used to convey what was going on, nor quotes from the distorted videos. It is better to present the facts of what happened, rather than his distorted view, according to several accounts. In some sections, such as regarding the ACORN controversy, the content is provided out of context in terms of chronology, with quotes from later being used early in the events. In addition, it does not tell how ACORN was destroyed by O'Keefe's tactics, before the several investigations concluded there was no criminal activity among the ACORN workers. There is no reason to perpetuate his misrepresentation of these events. In addition, when a RS (Reliable Source) as defined by Wikipedia reports something, you don't need three more cites to show it has been reported.Parkwells (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have done extensive editing to improve the neutrality of the tone and try to stick more to accounts rather than repeating O'Keefe's statements and the distortions of his videos, but there seems to be an edit conflict underway, so I'll have to start over. Parkwells (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Fewer quotes from O'Keefe and his videos

Since numerous investigations have shown that O'Keefe heavily edits his videos to show his point of view, the article would be improved by fewer quotes from his work, unless, as in the NPR section, there is also a comparison with the raw video. For instance, the issue with Planned Parenthood is not improved by having so many quotes from his video, especially from an article by FOX News. The Jon Stewart Comedy Hour has produced considerable evidence showing the degree to which FOX News distorts its representation of "facts". There is little context provided, either, as to what the issues are.Parkwells (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Some changes

Firstly, documentaries are projects that have subjects. Not targets. Targets are what they have at shooting ranges. The use of the word "target" is unnecessarily inflammatory especially after the Giffords shooting. Second, tweets with commentary are not reliable sources for BLP. I replaced the NYPost tweet with an actual news article that quoted the source. Note that the source was not nearly as inflammatory as the the tweeter. --DHeyward (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"Targets" is from sources in the article, but "subjects" works well enough, too. I returned a deleted source, the story by Alex Ginsberg and Murray Weiss in the NY Post, as well as sourced content. I don't see anything inflammatory in our Wikipedia article. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"Scheme" is inflammatory. "Target" is again an opinion piece and is inflammatory. You deleted a better source for the opinion tweet. "in order to lie" is inflammatory and not supported by law enforcement as claimed. They aslo didn't investigate the videos, rather they were investigating Acorn and PP and determined the videos were edited for an agenda. That's the direct quote from the DA, not the interpretation of opinion writers. --DHeyward (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Scheme isn't inflammatory. Why did you insert a tweet? I returned reliable source citation that was deleted without explanation. They did investigate his videos - PP, ACORN, NPR - (and that is reliably sourced), as well as individuals, and the videos were to found to be heavily, misleadingly edited. As for "opinion writers", I don't see them ... could you provide a link, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for President Bush, writes an OP-Ed column in the WA Post, and commented on this case, also bringing in material from other sources, but he is more than an opinion writer.Parkwells (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen O'Keefe's targets referred to as "subjects" in any of the sources currently in use. Reasonable, descriptive words like 'target' and 'scheme' are only inflammatory when they are inaccurate. News sources have frequently used them (Filmmaker Who Targeted ACORN Arrested in Alleged Senate Phone Scheme --FOX News), (USA Today) when describing O'Keefe's endeavors. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have to agree with DHeyward that the lead could be a little more in the spirit of WP:NPOV. The word "target" really isn't required, but I decided to rewrite that section a little and still include that term, for the sake of compromise. "Scheme", as it appears currently, is not very appropriate. The first sentence of the second paragraph calls his works "projects", and so there's no good reason not to carry that theme through. Other newspapers may speaks of his "target" and "schemes", but we are by no means required to use those words. In fact, we are given very good reason not to use them because of how they can be bubbling over with negative connotation. Newspapers, frankly, like to be a little more sensational with this kind of thing, and so we need not adopt their model.

Also, to say that the investigations found that James O'Keefe "lied" is a bit extreme. Let's stick to "mislead", "distort", "obscure". To accuse O'Keefe of "lying", when the California Attorney General did not, is not very impartial. Now, there are some news organizations that outright accuse him of lying, but the phrase "in order to lie" as it exists currently in the lead doesn't accurately portray the consensus of law enforcement agencies versus news organizations.

A few more things: The page lists Saul Alinsky as one of his inspirations. Could someone perhaps find some concrete information about this? because this would be very odd considering how much the right vilifies that man. Please let me know what you think of the changes I made. --Enderandpeter (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I reverted your revert for two reasons: 1) You ended up reverting more than you said you did in your edit comment. 2) This sentence is the best of both worlds because it lists the subjects as targets and it also describes what the director aims to do, which is expose unethical behavior, even though we may not be convinced that they behaved unethically. I insist that you express your disagreements here and be sure to only change content that you intend to. I would greatly appreciate that, sir. --Enderandpeter (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it might be more accurate to say that even though we, or others, may not believe that unethical, etc. behavior was exposed by the videos, the creators of the videos promote them as such, and so that sentence describes the purpose of the videos, what they are created in order to do-- even though others may not think that the videos actually do that. --Enderandpeter (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not acceptable because it appears that Wikipedia is stating as a fact that this behavior is unethical, etc. I'm afraid my objections stand unless you are willing to peruse alternative wording. I also have some thoughts that concur with some of Xenophrenic's objections and I don't feel you have addressed his comments fully. Gamaliel (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gamaliel. The sentence in the lede, as it is—The videos are shot via hidden camera in order to candidly document targets and are intended to expose unethical, irresponsible or biased behavior.—is biased. The intentions of O'Keefe are very clear, but as expressed, it appears to be a fact that the targets or subjects of the videos have actually committed "unethical, irresponsible or biased behavior" and that O'Keefe is just exposing it, as he intended to do. That is clearly not the case and it violates WP:NPOV, among others. The statement must make it clear that it's O'Keefe's belief about the claimed unethical behavior, and not the actuality of it. The sentence needs to be fixed to read something similar to "... what he alleges to be unethical, irresponsible or biased behavior." — Becksguy (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• "The first sentence of the second paragraph calls his works "projects", and so there's no good reason not to carry that theme through."

Not exactly. The first sentence of the second paragraph does indeed call his projects "projects", when referring to responses by the public or congress. When later sentences refer to "projects" of his that include "hidden" video, "secret" recording, "misrepresented" identities and "deception", etc., that project is then more specifically referred to by its more accurate synonym: scheme. Such as when that scheme is "discovered". Projects are not discovered; schemes are. News sources are not being "sensational" when they so describe a particular "project" of his as a scheme, they are being accurate (and by the way, "scheme" is also used in legal documents to refer to his antics).

• "...what the director aims to do, which is expose unethical behavior, even though we may not be convinced that they behaved unethically."

Not exactly. You have misidentified what we "may not be convinced" about. The issue here is not concern with whether his targets behaved unethically. We aren't convinced that his aim is to "expose unethical behavior" (a statement you made as if it were factual, by the way), when reliable sources indicate that his aim was instead to portray their behavior as unethical.

• The page lists Saul Alinsky as one of his inspirations. Could someone perhaps find some concrete information about this?

While they may not share ideologies, James is a big fan of Alinski's "Rules for Radicals", in a taste-of-your-own-medicine fashion. This has been noted in an LA Times article, among others, as well as in an interview that appeared in the NY Post:

Q: Who are your journalist models?

A: Frankly, there aren’t really any journalists today I can look to. Most self-described journalists are either pundits or stenographers. But I’d say our methods can be considered a hybrid. There is the straight reporting of Morley Safer, the guerilla theater of Borat, the release strategy of Saul Alinsky, the gotcha of “Dateline,” and the Gonzo approach of Hunter S. Thompson.

I hope that's helpful. I'll be correcting the article accordingly. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to read: The videos are shot via hidden camera in order to capture his targets' unguarded behavior, and he uses the videos to represent his targets as unethical, irresponsible or biased. I don't have strong objections to phrasing it as, "... what he alleges to be unethical, irresponsible or biased behavior." I was trying to find away to avoid the use of the word "allege", while still conveying that "unethical, irresponsible or biased" is how O'Keefe is trying to portray them, not necessarily how they factually are. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

First of alll, I want to thank Gamaliel for commenting here in addition to editing. Now, again gentlemen, clearly we are of the opinion that James O'Keefe was very deceptive, and the California Attorney General agrees with us. If we decide to write this article in a way that clearly advocates that view as fact, we are not being balanced because we are not giving due weight to the varied perceptions of his work, no matter how much we agree with some of them. It makes little sense, for instance, in the second paragraph to introduce his works as "projects" and then suddenly describe them as "schemes". It is very clear much of the lead endorses negative views of him, despite how justified we may feel in personally endorsing these views. It is crucial to recall how we should be in the business of providing info based on verifiable sources, but we should avoid antagonizing him as some of those sources do.

Even the second sentence of the lead is still too antagonizing. Currently, it brings attention to the fact that he aims to represent his targets or whathaveyou in a deceptive way, and the beginning of the article is fully endorsing this view. If you insist on putting this information there, then you must clearly identify that language with a certain source and make clear it is that source's, or many sources', view of him rather than ours ( such as the rephrasing Xenophrenic offered for the 3rd sentence of the second paragraph. Thank you, sir :-) ). Regardless of how convinced we are in the AG's findings, we should not present them as absolute fact. Instead, we should make clear where that assessment is coming from, and it shouldn't be coming from the Wikipedians.

Becksguy, there is a grave contradiction in your argument. You say that you are not fond of my phrasing: The videos are shot via hidden camera in order to candidly document targets and are intended to expose unethical, irresponsible or biased behavior because you fear that this endorses the view that his targets truly engaged in unethical behavior. Again, this is not what this sentence is implying. If you say that someone did something with the intention of exposing whatnot, you are not agreeing that this person successfully did that. It is very clear that there are editors here who are much more comfortable endorsing the view that they did not do anything unethical rather than the one that they did. Shouldn't we avoid endorsing either view? The lead, currently, is obviously siding fully with his critics and it needs to be less one sided.

Xenophrenic, I greatly appreciate your responses. Let me address your responses to my comments in order:

1. Don't you see how much bias is expressed when you insist that his projects might be more "accurate[ly]" described as "schemes"? A "project" can be a "scheme", but "scheme" clearly carries far more negative connotation and the lead is already negative enough. It does not matter that other published sources have called his projects "schemes". The AG is in the business of determining guilt or innocence. We are not. And of course "projects" can be discovered!! Surely you agree that someone can embark upon a secret project that is subsequently discovered. And so, it behooves us to use far less loaded terms to describe this man.
2. Pay close attention to this part of your response: We aren't convinced that his aim is to "expose unethical behavior" (a statement you made as if it were factual, by the way), when reliable sources indicate that his aim was instead to portray their behavior as unethical. Once again, clearly his aim was to expose unethical behavior. Your bias is displayed here because you give much more weight to sources that say that his targets did not behave unethically. Again, the phrasing "...intended to expose unethical behavior..." does not endorse the view that his targets indeed behaved unethically. It merely describes what O'Keefe set out to do. It does not agree with whether or not his videos actually captured unethical, etc. behavior.
3. Thanks for bringing my attention to an interview of his where he names Alinsky as a inspiration. You wouldn't happen to have a link to that article by any chance, would you?

And so, the lead is unfortunately still a little rocky. The change he uses the videos to represent his targets as unethical, irresponsible or biased still comes across as negatively charged as speaking of what O'Keefe "alleges". The reason is that when you say he "uses the videos to represent his targets as..." you endorse the view that he is being manipulative. Again, even though other reliable sources express that view, we should not represent this as the view of Wikipedia. Instead, when mentioning such analysis of his videos as being deceptive, this information must be accompanied by sources that accuse him of such. Just because articles and reports provide analysis regarding O'Keefe that we totally agree with, we should not express those views as those of Wikipedia. Instead, we must neutrally describe these views. In that spirit I'm going to rephrase some of the negative rhetoric still in the lead. Thank you for taking the time to present your arguments, and I hope everyone does this whenever they change text in the lead, for now anyway. --Enderandpeter (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This statement is still problematic: "O'Keefe's videos have been examined by law enforcement agencies and news organizations, and they were found to have been selectively edited to misrepresent his subjects and deceive viewers." First, law enforcement and news commentator opinions should be separated because they are vastly different. LE in the form of the District Attorneys are investigating potential crimes by the subjects, their conclusion are very muted by saying things like then-AG Jerry Brown said "sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor." And then LE sources inside Brooklyn DA "They edited the tape to meet their agenda." Those statements are in the context of committing a crime meaning that the elements of criminality appear in the edited tape but disappear in the context of the entire interview. In no way did LE conclude that he misrepresented his subjects or deceived his viewers. Unless the sentence is changed to indicate that the acts shown didn't actually rise to the level of a crime it's a misrepresentation of the views of LE. Second, the wording makes it appear that LE was investigating the videos. They were not. They were investigating the organizations and person depicted in the videos. Here is a neutral depiction as I see it:

"Based on the actions depicted in the videos, Law Enforcement began several investigations into the people and organizations shown. The released video appears to show criminal activity however after a full review of all material, prosecutors found that exculpatory material was edited out. No charges were filed and the video's were criticized for being "agenda" driven. Various news organizations have criticized the videos for being misleading and deceptive." --DHeyward (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I, too, see something that can be addressed in that sentence, more along the lines of your first point. I'm afraid I don't really follow your second one. I think that the sentence you quoted could be broken up a bit in order to reflect the divergent opinions of news organizations, although you can easily argue that a majority of those who analyzed the situation, particularly after seeing the full videos, concluded along the lines of Jerry Brown's report. Now, as far as I can tell, the next two sentences you quote actually support Xenophrenic's description of what LE agencies found in their reports. If an agency found that "They edited the tape to meet their agenda", this implies that there was an agenda that O'Keefe et al. had which they then set into action by way of their editing. That would mean that the videos misrepresented their subjects, especially since the agencies found no evidence of wrong doing on the part of the ACORN employees. If the "fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor" in this occasion, that means that it was not found in the videos themselves. Therefore, it makes sense to say that their reports concluded that deception and misrepresentation was at hand on the part of O'Keefe/Project Veritas. --Enderandpeter (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

One other thing: I do think it's fair to claim "The videos are shot via hidden camera in order to candidly document targets and are intended to expose unethical, irresponsible or biased behavior." That's his intent. In fact, press releases by PP and Acorn after they fired the people involved back it up so if a conclusion can be drawn, it's been done by his subjects, not WP.

"It is also important to remember that Planned Parenthood acted swiftly when the initial publicized video, taped at a New Jersey health center, showed a now former Planned Parenthood staff member engaging in behavior that is appalling, inconsistent with Planned Parenthood’s practices, and in violation of Planned Parenthood’s policies. Planned Parenthood has a zero tolerance policy for this behavior and the employee was immediately terminated for violating Planned Parenthood’s high standards of health care and ethical conduct." http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/statement-stuart-schear-vice-president-communications-planned-parenthood-federation-america-liv-36136.htm

I don't think there can be any argument that his intent and videos showed this. The argument is over editing practice and fairness. It would be biased and drawing an incorrect correct conclusion if we inluded "criminal" in that statement as he has not depicted any crimes but "unethical, irresponsible or biased" is the conclusion reached by organizations depicted. --DHeyward (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

DHeyward, I do appreciate that you approve of my re-wording, but I'm sad to say that I don't agree with your reason.

Here's the issue: If I were to say, In tonight's debate, Palin intends to eviscerate Obama, I am not necessarily endorsing Palin's win. This could be said by someone who either thinks she will clobber him in the debate or by someone who thinks she doesn't stand a chance. The sentence merely communicates what Palin plans on doing. That's the kind of neutrality I'm aiming for. I hope that makes a little more sense... --Enderandpeter (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a citation that this is his intention? If he states that it his intention, should we accept that as true? I think that we should make clear that this is a claim and not the truth, otherwise the intro is not NPOV. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.theprojectveritas.com/about The lede shouldn't be "claiming" they are doing it, but they are "intending" to do it. It more of his mission and "about" him. "claims" are hindsight and after-the-fact. --DHeyward (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Issue: When to use "project", when to use "scheme"

• "Don't you see how much bias is expressed when you insist that his projects might be more "accurate[ly]" described as "schemes"?"

Correction: I didn't say 'might be'. "Schemes" is more accurate, when describing projects that involve secrecy, and that is what is used by reliable sources. Which source are you citing that refers to his schemes as mere "projects"?

• "And of course "projects" can be discovered!! Surely you agree that someone can embark upon a secret project that is subsequently discovered."

Correction: Projects cannot be discovered, unless it involves secrecy, in which case it is more accurately described as a scheme. You have made my point. I recommend looking up the definition.

• "..."scheme" clearly carries far more negative connotation and the lead is already negative enough."

Careful; your bias is showing. While it is true that saying John Wayne Gacy "murdered" people in the lead of that article carries far more negative connotation than saying he "unlawfully terminated the existence" of people, we are careful not to confuse "accurate but unflattering" with bias. Saying that Gacy "murdered", or that O'Keefe had "schemes", is accurate and encyclopedic, and not biased. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"Scheme" is flashy shock tabloid stuff. I'd expect it on a O'Keefe title, not an encyclopedia. Many journalists and documentarians use hidden cameras for their projects. Rarely are they called "schemes" unless they wish to ocnvey something sinister. "Schemes" is not neutral term for documentary or journalism projects. Sources that use that term are expressing an opinion. --DHeyward (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The word "scheme" is a common, non-flashy, descriptive word that not only accurately describes these projects, but is also used by many reliable sources. As I asked above, which source are you citing that refers to his schemes as mere "projects"? I might agree with you that "schemes" is not a neutral term for documentary or journalism projects, but we're not talking about those -- we're discussing O'Keefe's schemes. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Issue: The videos are shot via hidden camera in order to ... what?

• "Once again, clearly his aim was to expose unethical behavior. Your bias is displayed here because you give much more weight to sources that say that his targets did not behave unethically."

Correction: I haven't once mentioned any sources that say his targets did not behave unethically; in fact, I can't readily cite a single reliable source that has. So you are operating from a false premise. As for your opinion about his aim, it may be "clear" in your mind's eye, but that is not what is expressed by reliable sources. According to reliable sources, his aim was not to expose unethical behavior, but instead to show his chosen targets as unethical by collecting recordings that could be used to advance that portrayal. There is a difference.

• "This statement is still problematic: "O'Keefe's videos have been examined by law enforcement agencies and news organizations, and they were found to have been selectively edited to misrepresent his subjects and deceive viewers." First, law enforcement and news commentator opinions should be separated because they are vastly different."

Correction: That statement would be problematic if it were, as you wrongly assert, based on "law enforcement and news commentator opinions". But "opinions" aren't involved here.

• "Just because articles and reports provide analysis regarding O'Keefe that we totally agree with, we should not express those views as those of Wikipedia."

Correction: Those aren't views; those are statements of fact supported by reliable sources, and our Wikipedia article must convey that. We don't take statements of fact from high quality investigative sources and misdescribe them as "opinions" or "views", so that we can then argue that "we should not express those views as those of Wikipedia. Instead, we must neutrally describe these views." That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, they are opinions of journalists. There is a difference between straight-up reporting where they gather evidence and quotes and commentary. If you cannot distinguish between those two, you should not be editing BLP articles.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-01/news/27057678_1_acorn-offices-o-keefe-and-giles-prostitution http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/acorn_set_up_by_vidiots_da_x16IroTf4AsXCI19nttFLL

Both of the above sources cover the same thing. One is straight up reporting. The other is tabloid opining. It should be obvious which is which. --DHeyward (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Both cover the same thing. Both contacted involved sources and quoted them. Both have run stories on the issue before. Both are equally valid sources. The only thing that is obvious is that one covers the unflattering angle in more detail than you would prefer. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

DHeyward's changes have greatly improved the lead. Thank you for simply removing/rewording the words that we were so hung up on :-) Truly, sir, I do think that your rewrite encompasses the best (and worst) of both worlds. I'll take undercover sting operations over schemes, because although they both carry negative connotations, schemes implies something more sinister, as you said. An undercover sting operation still implies deception, and such operations are criticized as either righteously deceptive or irresponsibly so, depending upon the operation in question. The judgement of O'Keefe's actions is left to the reader and any judgement reflected in the lead is attributed to those critics.

Keep in mind that an Attorney General report is still a critical review. Such reports, and judicial documents in general, aim to discover and report the truth as accurately as possible. These documents, however, are not decreeing the truth. Along with prosecutors' findings mentioned in the lead, we may want to name other law enforcement agency analysis too, because Jerry Brown's report also found that exculpatory material was edited out of the videos. Yes, such a report as that is a reliable source. That does not then give us license to express that report's conclusions as Wikipedia's conclusion regarding James O'Keefe's actions. Instead, we must impartially and disinterestedly convey the information.

I know that in many other contexts, these distinctions wouldn't matter as much. For this article, in order to improve the neutrality overall, it's good to see that there are diligent editors working on this issue. We all obviously have disagreements about several topics. Some of those arguments will surely continue, and I hope we continue to reach common ground with this article. The nature of our disagreements are intriguing in their own right. In fact, feel free to engage me about any of the points of contention we have discovered on my talk page if it appears that continuing to have the discussion here may no longer be appropriate. I hope that either of you are so open to discussion I might initiate with you on your respective talk pages.

So, what are your views on the lead so far? --Enderandpeter (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A few notes on the lead so far, as well as my explanations for some changes I've made:

1. I see that O'Keefe's Veritas Project website has been cited as a source supporting an assertion of fact about O'Keefe's "mission". That is in violation of WP:RS. In addition, that sentence is inserted immediately following mention of O'Keefe's undercover video schemes, potentially misleading the reader into thinking O'Keefe's claimed "mission" has anything to do with his previous project. (I note that the cited website also didn't come into existence until June, 2010.)
2. The sentence, "Various news organizations have criticized the videos for being misleading and deceptive", while true, is incomplete and misleading. Law enforcement agencies have made the same criticism.
3. The phrase, "The released video appears to show criminal activity however after a full review of all material...", is unsourced as well as inaccurate. In addition, please keep in mind that the lead section is not ACORN-centric, and other video projects (Planned Parenthood, NPR, Teacher's Union, etc.) exist as well.
4. The text, "...the video's were criticized for being "agenda driven", is not accurate and misleading. It was O'Keefe's deceptive editing of the tapes that was called agenda driven.
5. The text, "...law enforcement agencies began several investigations into the people and organizations shown", is incomplete and misleading. Law enforcement agencies launched investigations "into the tapes and the organization". The CA AG, for instance, "opened an investigation of both ACORN and the circumstances under which ACORN employees were videotaped", and some news organizations investigated only the tapes (See Blaze & CJR, for instance).
6. The text, "One of the undercover sting operations was discovered..." is incorrect. A number of his schemes have been discovered.
7. O'Keefe is not a journalist. See previous discussions, including Talk:James_O'Keefe/Archive_1#Is_he_really_a_journalist.3F. Perhaps someday, if he chooses to start adhering to journalistic standards.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• • • You are incorrect. Using their own websites to describe themselves is allowed and standard practice. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You are incorrect. Law enforcement has not characterized it the same as some journalism outlets. The split out actually uses the quotes that Law Enforcement used. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You are incorrect. The released video is the basis of the criminal investigation and the stuff left on the floor is what contained exculpatory material. It is sourced. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You are incorrect. The final released version was agenda driven. Deceptive was not used by that source (unnamed Brooklyn DA source?). However saying the video or it's edits were agenda driven is nit point. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • You are incorrect. There is no evidence that O'Keefe was investigated for anything related to the tapes. It would be a BLP violation to imply it. "circumstances" is too vague to believe it extended to O'Keefe. In fact, the investigation in the letter that you cite is the broad investigation into ACORN voter registration and the "circumstances" is the specific issues raised in the video. In other words, there were two separate investigations related to ACORN and none related to the activites of O'Keefe. In fact, in order to obtain the unedited video, the CA AG agreed not to investigate the "circumstances" related to O'Keefe. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The techniques he uses are all journalistic techniques. He workeWhether he is an ethical journalist is a different debate. The lede and the rest of the articles describe him working as a journalist, starting a newspaper in his alma mater, etc, etc and doing journalist projects. you are confusing the videos with the person. Whether the videos themsevles are a journalistic product could be debated but this is his bio and he worked as a journalist. --DHeyward (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You have misread, DHeyward. I didn't say that a subject's own website could not be cited for descriptions for themselves. My objection is to the way it is being cited to support a statement of fact, rather than to support his own opinion of himself. The location is also misleading. As for criticism of O'Keefe's videos, both law enforcement as well as investigating news agencies have described them as deceptively edited and misleading. You have not shown my concern number 3 to be incorrect (please keep in mind that we are speaking of many videos, of several organizations). I do not understand your objection to my 4th point. Could you please rephrase that? You have made the statement, "There is no evidence that O'Keefe was investigated for anything related to the tapes", -- I never said there was. And you have spent the rest of your argument refuting that statement, instead of my point number 5. Regarding your opinion as to whether O'Keefe "is" a journalist, or merely self-describes as one, has been discussed and decided several times before. Do you have new reliably sourced information that may change that consensus? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've returned the "Project Veritas" mission statement to the lead of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You have just made an edit that reinstates a number of the problems described above. I have reverted that edit. Rather than edit war, please discuss and resolve the existing issues. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

O'Keefe used the word "target": O'Keefe defined his subjects as "targets". "Though O'Keefe described himself as a progressive radical, not a conservative, he said he targeted ACORN for the same reasons that the political right does: its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos to cast ballots against Republicans." Article in LA Times; originally in Washington Post Parkwells (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't blank—discuss

If an editor perceives a problem with the article, it should be discussed here. Instead, the article has been repeatedly cut down to stub status with only vague edit summaries to justify it. Before reverting, as I just did, I reviewed the content—not exhaustively but I think thoroughly enough to be confident there are no glaring WP:BLP violations. There were, however, a large multitude of what appeared to be reliable sources. Maybe some of those didn't support what was written; I don't know, but I think if that's the case it would be better to remove them individually rather than en masse. As for allegations of NPOV violations, I think those also should be discussed here. I'm quite willing (time allowing, not necessarily today) to join in a discussion of specific problems with the article. Let's try to make it better. (And let's try not to accuse one another of vandalism, while we're at it. The definition of vandalism is here, if anyone needs a reminder.) Rivertorch (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I have made numerous edits recently to make the article more objective, and discussed them above while in process. As noted above, the article had extensive quotes from the videos, which investigations showed to be edited to present the subjects in the worst possible light. I don't think we need to extend O'Keefe's scams by continuing to quote at length from his videos here. The work can be discussed from third-party sources, as is customary. What went on? He portrayed low-level workers as having been involved in illegal and unethical activities, by editing out explanatory material - such as his self-presentations. This can be described without all the inaccurate quotes from the videos.Parkwells (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

NY Times and CNS articles do not support "O'Keefe" content

An editor marked the NY Times article "To Court Blacks, Foes of Abortion Make Racial Case By SHAILA DEWAN, February 26, 2010" as "failing to verify" that Lila Rose was the founder of an anti-abortion group on campus. It's on the second page of the article.Parkwells (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That is incorrect. An editor marked the NYTimes article as "failed verification" that "O'Keefe helped plan and produce undercover videos with pro-life activist Lila Rose..." as described in that cited paragraph. O'Keefe isn't mentioned on either the first or second page of the NYT article. In addition, the following sentences, "O'Keefe planned to have Rose pose as an underaged pregnant teenager..." and "They made two videos", are not supported by the CNS citation. O'Keefe isn't mentioned in that article either (although there is a "Video" link embedded within this source that shows a young O'Keefe in the video footage). The content is likely true, but the sources need to be improved. I'll re-tag the problematic paragraphs. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I've been going back to the source articles, too. Had not checked the other part. Also, the articles typically provide a fuller view of issues than had appeared here.Parkwells (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

Specifically, considering that the recordings were secretly made, illegal and edited to present PP workers in a bad light, I don't think the article is strengthened by having numerous quotes from O'Keefe's staged encounters in 3 or 4 separate places. The point was made - it isn't just the fact of his version of the sting that should appear here; what are RS saying about it? What does it mean for the public's sense of what they are seeing and reading? Does every low-level worker have to worry about entrapment from their next client? In addition, the recordings were not the whole story. Planned Parenthood of CA filed a "cease and desist" order against Lila Rose for her violation of state law against secret recordings, which she and her lawyer complied with, and I'm adding this to the article.Parkwells (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

NPR

Similarly, in the NPR article, editors had numerous quotes from the videos, which have been described by several sources as "deceptive", but the editors here left out any perspective or context on the issues. I added comments by journalists and academics reflecting about the ethics of the controversy, and what the case revealed about activists and the media. Additionally, in some places, 4 or 5 cites are used to support a non-controversial fact, such as that Ron Schiller was placed on admin leave. This is not needed and surely now the multiple, repetitive cites could be removed. They look silly.Parkwells (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

ACORN

I added a quote in which O'Keefe later told the WA Post why he "targeted" ACORN - his words.Parkwells (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Attempted CNN setup on love boat trap

Acorn 'Pimp' Loveboat CNN Prank Fail youtube. Are there any other sources on this?--91.39.127.195 (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Read the section in the article on "Abbie Boudreau", and see references 71-76.Parkwells (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy in quotes

I have been checking sources in this article and have found at least three in which material was not quoted correctly by previous editors: Blackwell's statement about O'Keefe's intentions, and two quotes related to Planned Parenthood of Ohio from a CNS News article. Please be more careful. In addition, in the Planned Parenthood recordings section, this source: LifeNews ( does not appear to qualify as RS, as it is basing its story on an article in The Advocate, a student-run magazine at UCLA.Parkwells (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood recordings

The following material and quotes are not found in the cited source: <<Autumn Kersey, the vice president of Planned Parenthood of Idaho, was suspended after the recordings showed that she had laughed and said to O'Keefe, "understandable, understandable" and "Excuse my hesitation, this is the first time I've had a donor call and make this kind of request, so I'm excited and want to make sure I don't leave anything out.">> Parkwells (talk) 02:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Edited Videos in the Lead

This edit restores a duplicative section within the first paragraph. I would like Xenophrenic to explain why he thinks it is neccessary to say that the videos were edited in the first two sentences of the lead. Also, I would like to know why he insists on using WP:WEASEL words? We can debate some of this, but repeating the same exact verbage in successive sentances is a blatent violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Arzel (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that same edit, I don't see a weasel word; however, I see the removal of the weasely "It was reported (fact)" phrase in favor of the simple and accurate: "(fact)" statement. I see that edit also corrects your change from the accurate "The videos were shot via hidden camera" statement to the innacurate "The ACORN videos were shot via hidden camera" — where you seem to have forgotten that the NPR videos were also shot via hidden camera. As were the Census videos. As were the PP videos. As were the Teacher's Union videos. O'Keefe's edited videos are not only his hallmark, but the most significant reason for his notoriety - hence, their mention in the first couple sentences of the lead. If you are having difficulty with same word, "edited", being used where ever it is appropriate, then feel free to used an accurate alternative word, like "altered". Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The word "Heavily" is a weasel word used as an adjective to describe the editing. Only one opinion source uses the word "heavily" to describe the editing. Ironically, that source uses another source (The Blaze), a blog, which does not use the adjective "heavily" to make the statement, so it is obviously an opinion. Even then, if it is to be used it can only be used to describe an opinion in reference the NPR video, which is the only one is mentioned in reference to. There is absolutely no reason to state this aspect twice in the lead other than to badger the point and violate WP:NPOV. Now I see that Gamaliel has joined in without discussion here, perhaps he will explain why we should allow the use of that weasel word. I don't have a problem stating that the videos were edited, but I do have a problem with repeating the same statement twice in back to back sentences or the use of the weasel word "heavily" especially when it fails WP:V. Arzel (talk) 04:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You mention an "opinion source" and "a blog" source; all I see are reliable sources for assertion of fact, so perhaps you could be more specific. The "heavily edited" you deleted with this edit mistakenly asserts in the edit summary that the phrase was about the "Blaze article", which is incorrect. That phrase was about the NPR video, so I have reinserted it. Your follow-up edit removed a couple more "heavily" phrases; I have filled those gaping holes with reliably sourced descriptions, although the "heavily" adjective is appropriate. As for stating something twice in back to back sentences, I don't understand what you mean. Could you please be more specific on that as well? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

After a little more digging the statement is from here, and is from the DA that was investigating the case. The NY Mag source simply repeats that line in a multitude of sources, originally I looked like the NY Mag source pulled that from The Blaze. This needs to be attributed per WP:WEASEL. I don't know how to answer your other question. The first two sentences of the article both say that he used edited video in reference to the same videos, why the overkill? Arzel (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Xeno, are you going to discuss or not? You have yet to address my statement, and your reverts are a violation of WP:BLP Arzel (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Your incessant personal attacks (e.g., POV Pusher; unwilling to compromise) are not conducive to casual discussion; you've effectively slammed the door on that. I'll continue to briefly address any valid issues that are raised, but not repeatedly. It has already been established that the "heavily edited" description comes not from one "opinion" source, but from many reliable news sources. It has also been established that the description applies to more than just the ACORN videos. Sourced alternatives to the wording (e.g. "misleadingly"; "substantially"; "deceptively"; "inappropriately edited"; "altered"; "doctored") have already been suggested and/or implemented. Note: reverting is not a violation of BLP. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break. You are unwilling to compromise and you are pushing your POV. Your use of the word "Heavily" applies to only one persons view of one video aspect. Just because you repeat a false statement doesn't mean you have addressed it. Show me these "Many" reliable news sources that make this statement. Explain to me how your edits in the lead adjective description of the subject is not a BLP violation. Show many any instance of compromise. Arzel (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Jump through hoops for someone that comments on and about fellow editors the way you do? You'll be receiving no breaks from me. "Heavily" isn't my word; Scott Zamost of CNN's Special Investigations Unit used it back in September long before I did, as did Campbell Robertson of the NY Times back in May before that. David Edwards of The Raw Story and Jake Simpson of The Atlantic Wire also use "heavily" - and not just about the 'ACORN' videos either, and they clarify that the Brooklyn DA's office, not an individual, also uses that description. If you prefer, the California AG's office uses "severely edited", while the AG himself describes it as "highly selective editing". If you want to compromise on what wording should be used to convey the facts, see above; if you want to compromise on the facts themselves, you'll just be reverted again. Note: reverting is not a violation of BLP. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are all personal opinions with the exception of the DA who was directed to investigate the videos. There is no reason to use a subjective term to define a person, it is the very definition of WP:WEASEL. Take it from the other extreme. If someone(s) were to say he was a brilliant or exceptional journalist that would be a weasel peacock term. Those kinds of terms should never be used. Arzel (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect; those are all facts, conveyed by reliable sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements for the assertion of facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is already filled with more than one reliable source that characterize O'Keefe's work as deceptive, selectively edited, heavily edited, "a lie", a political hit job, etc. More sources are not needed, and it is appropriate to reflect this characterization in the Lead. Many sources say that because O'Keefe "targets" (his word, in the case of ACORN) organizations and sets up his subjects, he is not a journalist but a propagandist.Parkwells (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between describing the incident versus defining the person, which what we have to be careful in a BLP. It is one thing to say that someone said he produced some propaganda, it is an entirely different thing to say he is a propagandist. Arzel (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We are not describing anyone; we are citing sources that use those terms. I did not originate it.Parkwells (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the Lead- Error in what was publicly available

I think the changes rely on over-lengthy quotes in the Lead. More importantly, an error was made in using material from the Hoyt article. At the time that Hoyt wrote his article, March 2010, no raw footage was publicly available of the O'Keefe videotapes. As Hoyt says in the article, he viewed and compared what was then "publicly available": O'Keefe's released videos, his full transcript of the encounters, and the audio recordings. This was before the California AG released its report and put copies of the raw footage out in public. There is an important difference between this and seeing the raw videos, which were what the California AG's office reviewed and analyzed in comparison to the released videos, as the basis for their report.Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Context

Providing context is not "trying to portray O'Keefe in a bad light", as one editor suggested, but using RS to provide a fuller story than what was included here before. Also, I have been correcting material from sources, as editors have been substituting their own words in quotations, or getting the content wrong, as from the Hoyt article, noted above. It is not NPOV to have an article that is limited to quotes from O'Keefe's videos, his own statements, and quotes from his targets. Journalists are writing about these incidents because of the ethics questions and consequences. O'Keefe portrayed low-level employees as if they were engaged in criminal activities, and caused several to lose their jobs. He violated California and Maryland laws against secret recordings. He contributed to the collapse of ACORN, which had helped low and moderate income people - that was a quote from an RS, which I can find again. The Blaze is a conservative website; its staff compared and analyzed his raw and released NPR recordings, and its journalist had problems with them.Parkwells (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Excessive Lead

That lead is really excessive. It's larger than many sections in the body of the article. Much of it is too detailed, belonging in the body of the article. The first paragraph says most of what needs to be covered, but two paragraphs would be reasonable.

I would argue that the first paragraph, plus a short mention of his impact, such as his videos leading to the fall of ACORN, would be appropriate. The rest should be merged into appropriate sections below. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree - it is far too long, and has too many long quotes.Parkwells (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

General comments on sourcing and bias

I've been asked to take a look at this article by a friend of mine. I'm an avowed liberal and someone who is personally disgusted by the actions allegedly (and in some cases admittedly) perpetrated by O'Keefe or his colleagues. However I'll try to leave that bias at the door. I'm not here as an admin (insofar as I can distance myself from the mop). I'm not going to hold BLP over anyone or use my position to push editors or content out beyond what any editor could do by themselves.

Lede

• Some comments above argue that the lede is too long. Per WP:LEDE an article of this length could have a 2 paragraph lede or a 5 paragraph lede. the length itself doesn't seem to be an issue.
• However some elements of the lede appear to give undue prominence to particular viewpoints. Specifically:
  • The quote from Gershon, while accurate, is supported only by one cite (Gershon's column). The second cite covers the story in general but seems to give the impression that the quote was more widely circulated than it is. If elements of that sentence belong in the lede and need to be cited then the citation should appear after the material which can be contested. Also, the quote itself may not be important enough to end the first paragraph of a biography for O'Keefe. In fact the entire first paragraph is devoted to allegations of misrepresentation. I'm not going to argue that O'Keefe is famous for something other than the videos/recordings in question but I'm not sure we need to give them the prominence we see here.

This verbiage is particularly problematic: Investigations by legal authorities and journalists have found O'Keefe has "selectively", "heavily" and "deceptively" edited videos to leave a false impression and present the subjects in the worst possible light[3][4][5][6][7]. Pulling these particular critical terms out of different sources and then stacking five sources at the end of the constructed sentence misrepresents those sources. Only one of these articles uses the word "deceptive," and that op-ed is clearly not a dispassionate piece of reporting. Further, this New York Times article by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Clark Hoyt asserts a different position, that the videos were "heavily edited," but that the essential dialogue is accurately represented: The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context. Harshbarger’s report to Acorn found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. But, he told me: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.” This material may all be useful in the article's body, where there is room for context, but loading up the lead with criticism as if it were fact isn't in keeping with NPOV or BLP, as it lends undue weight to a controversial assertion about a living person. Assertions about O'Keefe's motives in the lead ( to leave a false impression and present the subjects in the worst possible light) are bombastic in present form and even if toned down present the same NPOV problems as the preceding language. I'm removing this particular assertion from the lead. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The various adjectives used to describe the nature of O'Keefe's editing, and the results of that editing, are correctly (although not inclusively) represented by the few reproduced in the lede. Hoyt's comments about the limited sample he looked at (certainly not all the videos), and before the raw footage was made available, not withstanding, the characterization of O'Keefe's style of editing is in no way a "misrepresentation", and correctly summarizes the findings explained in more detail in the body of the article as well as in the related "main articles". "loading up the lead with criticism as if it were fact" ... this has not been done, and you have not indicated where you think this may have been done. What you perceive as "criticism" are indeed facts, and reliably sourced as well. I've reverted your bold edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV provides guidance on issues like these: Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone. Quoting a bunch of pejoratives from critics in the lead is POV-pushing. And there is no way that you can claim that attribution of certain motives to O'Keefe is a "fact" that can be verified. This article should be a biography that summarizes reliable sources in neutral language that doesn't pick winners and losers in an ongoing controversy. I am removing this offensive language. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

But those quotes aren't from participants -- they're from journalists and criminal investigators.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

They are most definitely participants in the larger debate about whether O'Keefe is a journalist, what the moral status of his actions is, and so on. Journalists have opinions too, and the sources being cited are mostly opinion pieces, not straight "reporting." But in any event, this is a controversial subject, and we can't just stack up critical sources in the lead and leave them unanswered without veering away from the neutrality to which we should aspire. Those are the neutrality issues. But there is also the BLP issue. These are controversial claims made about a living person: that he intended to deceive, that he was misleading, etc. Each and every controversial assertion must be supported by multiple, independent, reliable sources. I believe that this controversy is central to O'Keefe's notability, to be sure. We should absolutely summarize notable criticisms and the response by O'Keefe and others. We should not say in the lead that unnamed experts have accused him of dastardliness. We should not draw conclusions about O'Keefe's character in the encyclopedic voice. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• "They are most definitely participants in the larger debate about whether O'Keefe is a journalist, what the moral status of his actions is, and so on."

We're not having that debate. At issue here is that simple, non-controversial fact that O'Keefe has severely edited videos to give false and misleading impressions. This is extensively conveyed by the body of this article, as well as in the linked main articles; this is cited to reliable sources that exceed Wikipedia's requirements for assertion of fact (not opinion pieces); and this is accurately summarized in the lede. As for the deflections and straw men, I won't be addressing those. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The language that other editors keep inserting in the lead (''Investigations by legal authorities and journalists have found O'Keefe has "selectively", "heavily" and "deceptively" edited videos to leave a false impression and present the subjects in the worst possible light.) is untenable for the reasons I've described above. Now what purpose does it serve in the lead? The only legitimate purpose is to alert the reader to the fact that O'Keefe's veracity has been disputed by some notable folks (his targets, journalists, columnists, and so on), and that other notable folks have stated that the portrayals in his videos are essentially accurate (Hoyt, O'Keefe himself, Breitbart, and so on). More generally, since we are talking about lead content, we should be rattling off the broad strokes of O'Keefe's biography--the things for which he is notable. Instead of the sentence I quote above, the legitimate encyclopedic purpose could be served by something like this: Journalists and legal authorities who have reviewed O'Keefe's recordings have come to varying conclusions about how accurately the most widely distributed versions of the videos reflected the actual exchanges that took place. We can call the readers' attention to the fact that O'Keefe's claims have been disputed by notable folks and defended by other notable folks without ourselves attacking or defending either side. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• "...alert the reader to the fact that O'Keefe's veracity has been disputed..."

Oh, I see the misunderstanding now. Disputed? No, DickClarkMises, that is incorrect. Numerous reliable sources have asserted the facts regarding his editing. Not "opinion", not "criticism", and the numerous sources didn't "dispute" anything. Your suggested verbiage misleads the reader into thinking there is some foggy disagreement over the fact that O'Keefe has edited videos to deceive, when there is no such disagreement over that fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

This waters it down so much it would have exactly the same effect as removing it altogether. It is also inaccurate and strives for "balance" where none exists. What legal authorities have concluded they are a genuine and accurate representation of the actual exchanges? Gamaliel (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As noted before, Hoyt of the NY Times was reviewing material available and writing before the release of the raw videos and the report by the California AG's office. It is misleading to say that he thought the O'Keefe piece was reliable. It is part of O'Keefe's notability that reliable sources have analyzed his work and found it deceptive, past the usual editing to make a story. There are numerous sources for this. This characteristics of his work is now what he is generally known for. As I've written before, we need to step back, summarize more, and present this as a biography, rather than get involved in the same overkill of too much detail and quotes on each video. This is not the way investigative journalists are covered.Parkwells (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Have made changes in the Lede to make it shorter, present more of a summary of what O'Keefe does, acknowledge his success in strategy to gain attention, and the journalistic controversy. Also tried to present an overall summary of his career so far. I think those are the major points We need to spend time on this page discussing how to treat his "projects". Suggest they be listed in a summary table like the works of film directors, with a few notes - perhaps marking the contrast between released and raw videos. He is continuing to work; so the projects need to be summarized in much shorter form than now in the article, with not every case argued about at length. People who want to classify him as an investigative journalist should look at articles on those people for ideas on how to deal with this.Parkwells (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• • The second paragraph has a similar problem. Most of the paragraph is devoted to a quote by the NYT's public editor debunking the ACORN video.
• The third paragraph seems fine to me. It shows the empirical impact of O'Keefe's actions as well as an investigation without restorting to specific pull quotes. It would be even better if the paragraph immediately preceding it were a discussion of the actions rather than a recitation of Hoyt and Gershon's opinions.
• Likewise with the fourth paragraph. Maybe too much detail for the lede but I can't complain too much.
• The fifth paragraph seems like an afterthought. Imagine a new reader who had only heard O'Keefe's name. they need to skim or read 4 paragraphs of politics before they get any biographical detail.

Early life and education

• No real complaints. The rutgers story seems to match the tone of the section and is appropriately cited. Interesting viewpoint into tactics and motivation.

Career

• "After working at LI, O'Keefe attended Western State University law school for one year." the Star-Ledger says he went to UCLA. the NYT doesn't list a school or employer after LI. What cite supports this? Does someone corroborate the Star-Ledger on UCLA?
• This cite Doesn't mention Rose, O'Keefe, or UCLA. Also the text of our article suggests he met Rose in 2006. The Star Ledger suggests he met her after he left LI.

The first page of the NYT article mentions the sting; the second page of the article mentions by name both Rose, and her starting her anti-abortion group at UCLA, and O'Keefe, and their sting of PP.Parkwells (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see the second page. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• Who is CNS news? Why do we trust their reporting in a BLP? Is there a better source?

I agree we should look for another source. Parkwells (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• "A representative of Planned Parenthood of Ohio replied, "For whatever reason we'll accept the money."" this appears in a paragraph about New Mexico. Does it belong in the above paragraph?
• I'm skeptical of the entire last paragraph in the Planned Parenthood section. Does this belong in O'Keefe's biography? How accurate are the characterizations of our article which seems to assert that O'Keefe triggered some mass black protest movement against PP? Does a bio of O'Keefe need to mention the number of abortions MLK's niece had?

Good points; I agree - too much.Parkwells (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Acorn

• Unlike PP above, the ACORN controversy has its own article. That means we can and should use summary style where appropriate. Our biography should summarize the controversy as it is relevant and appropriate to O'Keefe and not attempt to recapitulate coverage. As it stands the section is too long and too detailed.
• "he targeted ACORN for the same reasons that the political right does: its massive voter registration drives that turn out poor African Americans and Latinos to cast ballots against Republicans." this is a direct quote from the LA Times, not O'Keefe, as the article might lead us to believe. His quote is on the next paragraph in the source: here.
• "An independent investigation of ACORN..." indicates to the reader that this was a different investigation than the previous paragraph. They describe the same investigation. The previous paragraph (fn. 38/39) refers to the start of the investigation. Both of these should be consolidated. This isn't just a style issue. Overloading this bio with claims distorts the POV. The Brooklyn DA's investigation was separate, but that is one sentence.
• "As of January 2010, O'Keefe began..." I'm not sure where this paragraph wants to be. Right now it appears that Brietbart is paying O'Keefe a sinecure (probably the case), but that impression may be due to the positioning of the paragraph in our article.

Arrest in Sen. Landrieu's office

• I'll tip my hat. It is hard to be as critical here as it was the other section. That may be my bias and it may be that O'Keefe grew brazen from his success. But I don't see a major problem with this section. the event id described, along with the arrest. O'Keefe's defense is presented (per se) and the resolution is shown.

U.S. Census video

• Again, my bias is setting in, but in this case I think the section is less defensible. Imagine for a minute that we weren't concerned about undue coverage of O'Keefe's antics in his bio. Would this section be as long as it is now? Obviously the ACORN/PP stuff is important--O'Keefe would not be nationally famous if he hadn't been involved. but the Census stuff seems like a whiff.

the rest in career

• I don't have the stomach to keep reading sources about this, but the NPR section is too damn long. If it requires substantive coverage, break it out into its own article and summarize. If not, shorten it. This biography isn't meant to serve as a holding area for the various scandals O'Keefe has exposed or perpetrated.

Political and personal beliefs

• Can probably be moved into the early life bit or expanded. Again, bear in mind the scant coverage here vs. the gigantic section above on his exploits.

Praise and criticism

• Criticism sections always suck. It is a fact of life. Given the article subject this section is better than it could be. I think the exchange between Garfield and O'Keefe is good as it shows the blind spots of both men (maybe this isn't intentional). Why does Garfield get the last word?
• The ACORN para. just re-words what is in the article already. We don't need to hear it twice.

Overall

I realize this is something of an unsolicited peer review, but this article has some POV problems. They can be fixed mostly through editing (in the traditional sense). Redundancies need to be trimmed, sources need to be pruned and the article needs to be positioned as a biography--not a refutation of the "factual" claims made by O'Keefe. Protonk (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree - maybe the videos can simply be mentioned as "works", with some nod to actions that resulted, opinions expressed, and overall summary. There is far too much quoting from the videos, as if taking his cases in his own words. I'm one who felt if those sections were going to be in there, additional content was needed to show the fuller context - but more, I think the whole thing should be reduced and written about objectively through third-party sources, as stated above.Parkwells (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Am working to try to make this more like other bios - including list of selected (major) works - summaries should be short. If editors want more coverage, they should make separate articles on the videos, as is done for films, books, etc.Parkwells (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we have a table to show his major works - it could include notes to convey reception and aftermath, and could be added to for future works deemed sufficiently notable for coverage. See table of Robert Altman's works for an example. It seems overkill to devote so much detailed discussion to these videos, compared to works of major authors, directors and artists, or of other journalists, for example. He effectively destroyed ACORN, got some people fired, and raised a lot of noise and controversy, but does each video really deserve this much content? Then more of the discussion could deal with the ethical and other issues his work has raised among journalists (how the media responded - whether that was appropriate, etc.), and their varying opinions as to what this means to journalism. What major recent journalist exposes have been covered in Wikipedia in this way? Probably none - is it the videos that caused all this attention, or the national media frenzy? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Parkwells (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The NPR events probably deserve a separate article; don't think the NJ teachers' union, Abbie Bourdreau set-up, or arrest do, but other editors may have other opinions.Parkwells (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)