Talk:James O'Keefe/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about James O'Keefe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

News - Medicaid, Summer 2011

O'Keefe is getting much less attention for new videos released in August 2011- media and governmental officials seem more cautious about accepting his press release claims as to what the videos show - staged encounters purportedly workers aiding illegitimate applicants in Medicaid fraud. Reporters are analyzing the videos, rather than accepting his claims.Parkwells (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Its because he's a charlatan and his arrest trying to wiretap Landrieu's office (Nixonian tactics) don't deserve credibility. Especially, after Breitbart is being discredited with his own Sherrod story. --JLAmidei (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

His "exposes" are pitiful. The latest one from this week about the media elite or whatever had me cracking up laughing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation in lead (from Raul's talk page)

Raul, I don't see anything in the Reception sections that says O'Keefe's work is widely seen as deceptive. I see that someone named Gerson found something "deceptive", but that's not enough. Can you point me to something specific? Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's just a few select quotes found in the reception sections:

Comparison of the raw video with the released one revealed editing that was characterized as "selective" and "deceptive" by Michael Gerson, opinion writer in the Washington Post, who wrote, "O’Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie."
Scott Baker of The Blaze wrote in March 2011 about the NPR videos that O'Keefe was "unethical" because he calls himself an "investigative journalist" but "uses editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented."[3]
The journalist Chris Rovzar of New York Magazine, in reporting on the NPR video, wrote that O'Keefe's videos are "edited in a highly misleading way."[79]
Time magazine noted that the video "transposed remarks from a different part of the meeting", was "manipulative" and "a partisan hit-job".[53]
"The evidence illustrates that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor." - California Attorney General Jerry Brown,

You removed the sentence claiming it in contentious, but in order to be contentious, there has to be disagreement. Where the validity of the O'Keefe videos is concerned, I have yet to see a single person argue that they are truthful. Raul654 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Raul, here are some other things that Jerry Brown said at the end of his AG report [1] (see pp.23–24):

CONCLUSION
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. ACORN’s conduct suggests an organizational ethos at odds with the norms of American society. Empowering and serving low- and moderate-income families cannot be squared with counseling and encouraging illegal activities. This is particularly so given that ACORN received government grant funds and the support of major charitable foundations and thousands of members.
...
... ACORN is, however, disorganized and its operations were far from transparent, leaving it vulnerable to allegations of illegal activity and misuse of funds. Many of the ACORN employees lacked appropriate training and ACORN did not comply with its own internal policies and procedures. Unfortunately for ACORN, ACORN itself had undermined public confidence in the organization before O’Keefe and Giles walked into the first ACORN office. By covering up Dale Rathke’s embezzlement, keeping him as an employee and going after board members who sought to
rectify the situation, ACORN’s management damaged the organization.

The reason that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President decided to defund ACORN is because O'Keefe's videos exposed that organization for what it was. The reason ACORN employees were fired (by ACORN) is because they did and said what the videos showed. Were the videos truthful enough for the Congress, the President, and ACORN itself to act? The answer is YES.

I would guess that just about all the videos we've seen during our lives have been "heavily" and "selectively" edited. It's the nature of the beast. "Deceptive"? Some journalists and others have come to that conclusion, but that doesn't translate into "O'Keefe's videos are widely seen to be deceptive". You can't list six or seven people who think they're deceptive and then make a generalization about "widely". To make that statement within Wikipedia's rules, you'd need Gallup poll results, especially since we're dealing with a BLP. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

They're not merely saying he selectively edited them. They're using words like "Deceive", "lie", "mislead", "manipulate". In short, they are saying that he attempts to create a false impression in the minds of his viewers, which is the textbook definition of deception.

You can't list six or seven people who think they're deceptive and then make a generalization about "widely". - actually, that's precisely what I'm doing. And unless you can come up with a much better reason than "You need a gallup poll for that" - like someone who actually disagrees - I'm going to restore it. Raul654 (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President decided to defund ACORN is because O'Keefe's videos exposed that organization for what it was. --Kenatipo

No. That is a common misperception, but doesn't square with the facts. The reason Congress (not the President) passed the Defund ACORN Act (which addresses funding of organizations indicted for illegal activities) was because the videos were made to misrepresent ACORN as conducting illegal activities. The passage of that bill by Congress (as well as the firing of an employee by ACORN) were done prior to serious investigation into the issue. Once the truth was revealed, the bill died and failed to pass into law; the one "fired" employee successfully sued for wrongful termination; and the one "suspended" employee was reinstated. There were no illegal activities, and the most egregious of video taped activities turned out to be distortions and misrepresentations of what really transpired. But damage had already been done.

No one is saying the large, 40+ year old organization didn't have its faults -- as evidenced by critical statements made by various agencies looking into the matter with any measure of thoroughness. But the issue here isn't ACORN; it's the video productions of O'Keefe. Quite simply, he deceived to achieve a desired goal. He took recorded conversations and situations, and through editing, omission and fabrication, created a false narrative. Similar to replacing certain qualifying statements made by the Attorney General with ellipsis in the transcript above, but to a far greater degree. What you left out was:

The edited O’Keefe videos released on the BigGovernment.com website portrayed ACORN as an organization infested with employees committing crimes. However, the impression of rampant illegal conduct created by the recordings at the various ACORN offices around the country is not supported by the evidence related to the videos in California. Our investigation revealed facts which were not reflected in the recordings. The San Diego employee’s answers were influenced by his limited English and intent to contact the police. The San Bernardino ACORN receptionist knew it to be a prank and made outrageous and false statements. O’Keefe stated he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story. The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O’Keefe and Giles. Each of the ACORN employees recorded in California was a low level employee whose job was to help the needy individuals who walked in the door seeking assistance. Giles and O’Keefe lied to engender compassion, but then edited their statements from the released videos. Would it have been best had each ACORN employee simply refused to deal with the couple and shown them the door when their story came out? Of course. ACORN was not the criminal enterprise described by O’Keefe in his “Chaos for Glory” statement – it did not receive billions in federal funds and did not control elections.

...but I'm sure O'Keefe would still be proud. ;-) When you say, "You can't list six or seven people who think they're deceptive and then make a generalization", you seem to be misunderstanding. The fact is, every thorough investigation into O'Keefe's productions have found deception and misrepresentation, not just the ones Raul654 chose to list. And no, Gallup Polls aren't needed to support assertions of fact; reliable sources will suffice. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

President Obama signed the bill into law on October 1. See also the ACORN article, Defund ACORN Act section. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, Obama didn't. It is still in committee, and isn't likely to ever move beyond there. What Obama signed was a spending bill into which was inserted a rider containing some of the same language from the failed bill. That language has since been challenged - thrown out - upheld - and may be addressed yet again and again through the courts, but I wouldn't hold my breath -- as the organization is now defunct, I doubt there is any urgency as to when they will revisit the matter. Fun stuff, but...

None of that is relevant to the matter at hand, which is that O'Keefe's media productions (note: this is not ACORN-specific, and includes NPR videos, etc.) are widely considered deceptive and misleading. That is the summary content in the lede about which you've expressed concern, correct? Could you be more specific on what that concern is? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition to the lead: Wikipedia editor Xenophrenic, an expert on common misperceptions, has found that "every thorough investigation into O'Keefe's productions have found deception and misrepresentation" and "his [O'Keefe's] work has become widely seen as deceptive". (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk) --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really clarify the matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, you are overlooking paragraph 1 in the Conclusion of Jerry Brown's CA AG report:

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. ACORN’s conduct suggests an organizational ethos at odds with the norms of American society. Empowering and serving low- and moderate-income families cannot be squared with counseling and encouraging illegal activities. This is particularly so given that ACORN received government grant funds and the support of major charitable foundations and thousands of members.

This is what O'Keefe's videos show, this is what Jerry Brown's investigation found and it's why ACORN is no longer around. If the videos are as deceptive and misleading as you claim, how did CA AG arrive at the conclusions stated in para 1? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. I did not overlook paragraph 1 of the report, nor did I overlook it when you copied it to Raul654's talk page, and nor did I overlook it when you copied it to this page at the beginning of this section, and nor did I overlook it when you again copied it to this section, two paragraphs above. That paragraph says ACORN has/had problems, and I don't see anyone arguing against that fact. But, you see, the report doesn't consist of just that one paragraph. The report also shows that O'Keefe's videos were deceptive; selectively and heavily edited to omit salient statements and to convey something other than reality. Just as he has in his other productions not related to ACORN (see above quotes and citations). Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have an RS that states "O'Keefe's work is widely seen as deceptive" then please produce it so we can end this discussion. If you can't produce one, that phrase will have to be removed from the lead as it is contentious, unsourced and violates BLP. You cannot quote six people making a claim and then jump to the conclusion that such a view is "widely" held. --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The statement is an accurate summary of cited content in the body of the article. If you have concerns about the word "widely" or the word "deceptive", then perhaps you could suggest alternative wording that still conveys an equally accurate summary of the content in the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Kenatipo. We need a source for this--otherwise it's SYNTH. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that thoughtful and detailed presentation of additional points thus far not considered. I will give this great advancement of the discussion due consideration. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, the sentence "President Obama signed the bill into law on October 1." comes from our ACORN article, in the section called "Defund ACORN Act". You worked on that article. If you knew that statement (and other statements in that section) were incorrect, why did you leave them in the article? You are correct that the "Defund ACORN Act" did not pass; I relied on information you left in the ACORN article which is technically incorrect. Isn't bigger picture, though, that the Democrat-controlled Congress passed legislation (spending bills are legislation, aren't they?) to discontinue funding ACORN, and that Obama signed the spending bill? --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that I have done some work on the ACORN article, and you may be correct that there exist errors in that article; I'll make a note to tend to it when I can, but it isn't relevant to the issue presently at hand. The legislation, by the way, didn't discontinue funding ACORN; it might have, according to a Congressional Research Service report, if ACORN were ever to be indicted in specified criminal violations (it wasn't), and it was subsequently ruled that already authorized funding must be honored. The "bigger picture" is that the ACORN-related videos are just one small part of O'Keefe's deceptive productions. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The summary from our article: "Because his work has become widely seen as deceptive, O'Keefe's success in gaining extensive media attention has caused controversy and discussions of journalistic standards."

Of course, the real story is never what it seems with O'Keefe. From the selectively edited Acorn videos to his abortive efforts to "take down" Senator Mary Landrieu (Democrat, Lousiana), which resulted in criminal charges, to his sophomoric attempts to get a CNN reporter in a room with him and a variety of sex toys, the mainstream media has had plenty of warning about his love of "truthiness" and disregard for actual facts. And, as with most of O'Keefe's videos to date, releasing selectively edited, embed-friendly clips got him exactly the coverage (and notches on his Flipcam) that he wanted – even as the full footage showed that almost everything he claimed to have discovered was untrue. --Megan Carpentier

That's only an editorial about O'Keefe's NPR production, but it, too, reflects the same conclusions. Looking back into the edit history of our article, the summary text was introduced to the article here, and referred only to journalists. It was then made less exclusive, to include the various (non-journalist) legal agencies arriving at the same conclusion, in this edit, and modified to its present form here. The sentence in the lede is an accurate summary of content in the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Raul654 (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the first comment on Carpentier's editorial sums up the view from across the aisle:

What an interesting perspective, Ms. Carpentier. Just two days ago, my 15 year old son asked me who this O'Keefe guy was and I explained that he was a modern day version of Mike Wallace. Same in your face journalism. Same gotcha methods. The only difference is that the former was liberal and the later is conservative. James O'Keefe is the ultimate radical: a journalist that ISN'T a liberal pitching for the leftist agenda. Man, that must really piss the main stream folks off. My son, by the way, thinks O'Keefe is fantastic. In large part because he is bucking the system, which is in large part a liberal entity. Oh, how times have changed.

from "mysmartypants", and reported by --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Mike Wallace never lied to his audience. That's the difference between O'Keefe and real journalists. Raul654 (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You probably wouldn't think that way, Raul, if you or anyone you knew had been one of Mike Wallace's targets. It sort of depends on whose ox gets gored. I notice that Carpentier worked for Air America and Wonkette—maybe Xenophrenic will next post an editorial attacking O'Keefe by one of the Rathke's or Bill Ayers or Barack Obama (as though that would be any kind of proof!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you do not seem to grasp the fundamental difference between lying to the target of an investigation (which has been a standard journalist tactic for over a century) and lying to the audience. The latter is simply not done by real journalists. Raul654 (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

When you can't present a reasoned argument against the content, try attacking the sources — I see that all the time around here. But noting that a source worked for Air America or Wonkette rather fails as an attack since everyone knows that having a right- or left-leaning bent may influence your area of interest, but not your reliability. Logically, the vast majority of motivated sources of news reporting about O'Keefe should be from left-leaning journalists, simply because of O'Keefe's anti-left and anti-journalism position. I'll stack the chief editor of Raw Story up against your anonymous "Mysmartypants" any day. I won't be citing Rathke, Ayers or Obama since I don't see even a tenuous connection between them and journalism, news sources or O'Keefe. O'Keefe's antics are widely seen as deceptive and misleading; I don't see you flooding us with reliably sourced information to the contrary. Even O'Keefe's staunchist supporters admit that fact, but then try to justify it as "the ends justify the means" -- after all, he still manages to cause significant damage to his chosen targets, does he not? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Despite the fact that O'Keefe is a known liar, and that his past video stings have been edited in misleading ways, much of the mainstream media ran with his latest. -- Andrew Sullivan for The Atlantic
So Mr. O’Keefe has been found to cut both corners and video to achieve a certain outcome. What’s so bad about that, right? The Daily Show does it all the time. But Mr. O’Keefe seems to understand if that he feeds video into the maw of the 24/7 news cycle, news organizations will link first and ask questions later. -- David Carr for the New York Times
To the list of journalism's greatest disgraces, let us now add James O'Keefe. O'Keefe calls himself an investigative reporter, though as far as we can tell the only group of journalists he has anything in common with are habitual fabricators like Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, and Janet Cooke. But that's not the scandal we're talking about. The real scandal is that—even though by the time he posted a "sting" of a top NPR fundraiser, O'Keefe was notorious for creating deceptive video smear jobs (ACORN? Hello?)—the media repeated the allegations uncritically. -- Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery for Mother Jones
I am kind of ashamed of myself in retrospect that I took the James O'Keefe NPR video at face value last week and wrote a post without thinking to myself, hey, let's hold off here for a minute until we have a chance to see what the full context is, how this thing was edited. We know O'Keefe and his confederates have a track record in that regard. Sure enough, it emerged last week that the editing on that video of former NPR exec Ron Schiller talking with fake representatives of a fake Muslim nonprofit was not only misleading but in journalistic terms outright corrupt. -- Michael Tomasky for The Guardian

The sources aren't saying "*I* personally think O'Keefe is deceptive", they are saying he is widely known as deceptive; known to misleadingly edit, known to cut corners, known to lie, that he has a track record of this, that he is notorious for creating deceptive videos. Maybe the "widely seen as deceptive" verbiage from our article is too generous, and should be changed instead to "consistently proven to be deceptive"? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on the links to the edit history you supplied above, Xenophrenic, (and thank you for doing so), it started to go wrong with Gamaliel's edit. Parkwells had added: Because some journalists find his work deceptive, O'Keefe's success in gaining extensive media attention has caused controversy and discussions of journalistic standards. He has also gained support from conservative outlets. There's nothing wrong with saying that; I'm assuming it's substantiated in the body. Gamaliel, I suppose because some law enforcement agencies also said some discouraging words, changed it to: Because his work is widely seen as deceptive, .... But that's a step too far, and Gamaliel, being an admin, should know BLP policy and should know better. You can't introduce an unquantifiable weasel word like "widely" just because a few DA's or AG's have joined the party, no matter how many you cite in the body. In my opinion, Gamaliel's new wording is contentious and unsupported, and in a BLP it needs to be directly sourced, in line, to the RS who said it. The burden of proof is on those who would add contentious statements to a BLP; and, that burden has not yet been met; and no, it doesn't matter how many journalists or cops are quoted in the body. It would literally require a source something like the results of a Gallup poll taken on the very issue. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing boxquote taken from California AG's report

I added the boxquote from the CA AG (Jerry Brown) Report to offset the preponderance of pro-ACORN, anti-O'Keefe statements in that sub-section. SarekOfVulcan removed it saying it didn't apply because it was about ACORN and constituted SOAPBOXING. I restored it because it is about O'Keefe's "deceptive" and "misleading" videos and therefore obviously relevant. Without the boxquote I added from the conclusions of the CA AG Report, anyone reading that section would come away with the false conclusion that Jerry Brown's report completely exonerated ACORN. It did not! (A little balance, anyone?)

It also makes the article more interesting as it provides an ironic contrast with Jerry Brown's soundbite boxquote from his press release. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So your motivation in pulling these quotes and juxtaposing them is to make Jerry Brown look like a hypocrite? What a great approach to editing a biographical article, especially when you back it up with edit-warring.

Frankly, the article would be better off without any quote-boxes at all; they're inevitably going to seem unbalanced and/or serve as a tool for agenda-driven editing. if the situation is nuanced (e.g. O'Keefe's videos were deceptive and misleading and ACORN was a poorly run organization), then it's better to just explain the nuance in the text. MastCell ^Talk 00:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

MastCell has !voted against the section being balanced. Anyone else? --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I opined that the article was better off, and more balanced, without any quoteboxes. Surely it is possible to create a balanced article without the use of quote boxes. I don't quite understand your comment. MastCell ^Talk 00:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

MastCell, there's a phrase in the lead that "seems to be a focus of edit-warring and agenda-driven editing and we're better off without (it)". Would you remove it for me lest I be accused of edit-warring? It starts something like "Because his work has been widely seen as deceptive, ..." Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

In the country I live in, the accused is allowed to defend himself and speak for himself. Your removal of the quoteboxes by James O'Keefe deprives him of that right. The quoteboxes of Jerry Brown talking out of both sides of his mouth on the same day (before Xeno interfered with his overkill) were perfectly balanced and wonderfully "nuanced", as you put it. Having seen you in action, MastCell, and knowing your agenda, I have no expectation that you will understand what I'm telling you here. But, the section on the CA AG report was all pro-ACORN, and therefore, unbalanced. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems far-fetched to believe that James O'Keefe is being deprived of his inalienable rights if we choose to construct his Wikipedia biography without quoteboxes. Do you have any other, more serious points you'd like to raise? MastCell ^Talk 06:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The article quotes or cites many, many people saying negative things about O'Keefe or his work. Your deletion of all the quoteboxes wasted 2 of 4 instances we had of O'Keefe speaking for himself. You've made the imbalance much worse. Do you intend to add back the O'Keefe quotes from the quoteboxes to the article body somewhere? --Kenatipo ^speak! 07:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not about "allowing O'Keefe to speak for himself" - what do Reliable Sources say about him? What are their conclusions after reflection and analysis? They seem to have come to a consensus, including some conservative media, as noted by the many quotes above. The article is not made by picking from primary sources.Parkwells (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I feel MastCell has diminished the article by removing 2 quotes from O'Keefe. I mean, if the article is trying to help the reader understand O'Keefe, don't O'Keefe's own thoughts aid in that goal?

"Institutions I’ve gone after are the institutions that investigative reporters have refused to investigate."

"All journalists use excerpts to highlight the most egregious things made by their subjects. All Pulitzer Prize-winning journalism does that. Do you think when a reporter files a FOIA request and goes through to audit the university or the business or the publicly funded entity, he focuses on every single excerpt? Or does he focus on the excerpts that characterize the subject, on the unethical things that the subject does?"

The article has serious balance problems and these quotes should be added back when the article is unprotected, and more positive assessments of O'Keefe's work should be found and added.

(Oh, and neither quote is Primary Source; one is from Newsweek, the other is from On The Media.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I simply removed all the quoteboxes. (For those of you keeping score, that apparently included 2 quotes by O'Keefe and 2 quotes from the California Attorney General's report critical of O'Keefe). I'm having a hard time seeing how doing so has unbalanced the article. It was an attempt to resolve a focus of edit-warring. If you don't like it, revert it, and I won't reinstate my edit. That's how bold, revert, discuss works. If others think it's a good idea, then they'll support the removal. If not, then that's fine with me too; I gave it a shot, I'll bow out, and you can go back to testing the limits of 3RR. MastCell ^Talk 01:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My point was that the article should have other journalists' opinions about what O'Keefe was doing, not just his self-justification. What do they think the effects are? How well do they think he is presenting his cases? That's what I meant. Rather than "two quotes by O'Keefe", find quotes by people writing about him, how they assess him.Parkwells (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP/N discussion taking place

In an effort to resolve the edit war I asked Kentapio to post on BLP/N, which he's done. Interested editors here might want to take a look. causa sui (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The description of O'Keefe's works is if anything overly cautious; it is not an NPOV violation to state a clearly-attested fact, which is that the man is a fraudulent huckster in a Barnumesque vein, but a clearly-established fact. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean like Michael Moore, right? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you plan to offer a coherent argument at some point rather than just throwing around non-sequiturs? Raul654 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like "no objection" to me. a13ean (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Like others here, I am finding your behavior in these discussions increasingly bizarre. At what point will you decide that you aren't going to win people over and walk away from this? causa sui (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Raul, here's an argument from WP:LEADCITE:

Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement.

(Sorry for bringing this up so late in the discussion; I tend to avoid reading policies). --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Causa, removing BLP violations does not require talk page consensus, if I recall correctly. They are to be removed immediately without discussion. (We've been discussing this for how many days now?) Also, local talk page consensus does not over-ride policy. Just for your own peace of mind, Causa sui, I will tell you that it's not my intention to be disruptive (it just comes to me naturally) and I will make an attempt to curb my natural inclinations, for the sake of peace and harmony. There are 2 other arguments that I'm still working on: one is WP:SYNTH, which clearly applies here to the entire contentious sentence; and, whichever policy says "you cannot quote 6 or 15 or 100 people expressing an opinion about something and use them to make a generalization in the lead about the opinion being "widely held" (unless you're quoting Gallup and Roper and Pew). I'm still working on these two arguments, but, I promise I'll be good! --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The policy says that BLP violations need to be removed immediately. The policy does not say that Kenatipo's opinion on what is a BLP violation overrides the opinions of anyone with whom he comes into contact. causa sui (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Causa, Causa, Causa, a negative generalization about the entire career of a culture warrior hero, in the middle of a culture war, could not be anything but contentious. I'm not alone—Lionelt says it's SYNTH and Kelly reverted it as POV. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP is at WP:BLP. SYNTH is at WP:OR. POV is at WP:NPOV. You don't autolose the argument for being a poor Wikilawyer but I understand the frustration people have with you switching arguments with every other comment. causa sui (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's my fault there are so many good arguments on my side and folks like Raul can't hear any of them? I haven't switched anything! Exactly which of my arguments have(has?) been rebutted? What's frustrating is having to point out Policy to people who should know it a lot better that I do. That's what's frustrating! --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) I'm pointing out that by rotating your arguments you create a dialogue that goes like this:

A: This is a BLP violation. *revert*

B: No it isn't because...

A: But it's SYNTH. *revert*

B: No it isn't because...

A: Did you know this article isn't neutral? *revert*

B: No, it is, because....

A: Oh my god! This is a BLP violation! *revert*

B: ...

A: By the way, Michael Moore is a fraud.

B: What the hell?

See where I'm going? When you switch from one argument to another, it makes it impossible to actually get to the bottom of anything, and creates the appearance of filibustering and WP:IDHT. It would have been a good idea to split these issues up and consider them separately from the beginning, but at this point, people who might have once been inclined to listen to you have grown exasperated with their inability to get you to hold still on anything. And while you might think that you're entitled to do this because "none of my arguments have been refuted", the absence of evidence that anyone agrees with you about that ought to give you pause.

At this point, I'm thinking the best thing you can do is back away from this for awhile and let things cool off. I know you're very sure that you're right, but you need more than that to be successful at improving Wikipedia. causa sui (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I said: I haven't been switching anything or rotating anything, just trying to respond to the comments of several editors who don't seem to understand the policies being violated. Perhaps it appears to you that I'm "switching" arguments because I've tried to respond to several other editors (let's see: Xenophrenic, Raul654, MastCell, Parkwells, Orangemike and you on talk pages; and SarekOfVulcan and AzureCitizen in edit summaries). One reason we're spinning our wheels here is that no-one seems interested in addressing the substance of my objections. The burden of proof here is on those who want to keep contentious, unsourced material in a BLP; it's not on me. What we need here is more attention on the substance of the arguments and less attention on appearances. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you, Kenatipo, as the only editor who claims that the content in question is "contentious, unsourced material" (the "unsourced" part is particularly risible). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No. See WP:BURDEN. Also WP:CITELEAD. Also WP:SYNTH. Also WP:OWN. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"I tend to avoid reading policies" I think many of the editors involved in this conversation are familiar with these. If you have an original concern related to one of these that has not already been addressed please clarify. a13ean (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Edited for encyclopedic tone and quality

It's time to add a sense of proportion to coverage of O'Keefe and to reduce the article's sense of breathless reporting; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a daily newspaper but an encyclopedia. For that reason, I made the following edits:

removed the quote from LePage in the Lede and summarized it; such quotes really belong in the body of the article or in footnotes (where I put it, as the quote is not particularly striking).
summarized other quotes rather than having them all at length; put the quotes in footnotes.
moved the "2010 Arrest" from "Major Works" (as nothing was produced or released), summarized the events and added it within the "Career" section.
moved the "Summer 2011-"Medicaid fraud" videos" to the "Minor Works" section. Both officials and the media have become more cautious in responding to O'Keefe's provocation, and these videos received more measured response from officials and less national media attention than O'Keefe's early efforts.
reorganized material to first describe the videos, followed by "Reception," with response by officials in each jurisdiction.

Finally, it's time for editors here to remember that O'Keefe is just one muckraker. Wikipedia does not generally devote articles to national investigative reporters, nor to their major exposes, unless they have substantial effect. I agree O'Keefe became a media figure, but now it's time to put his works in proportion, as well as to better summarize and evaluate the events based on RS. Every event covered by local media (such as the Medicaid series) may not be notable enough to write about here, even if O'Keefe originated it.Parkwells (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

New Hampshire Primary Video (2012)

Added section on this under "Major Works". "Reception" needs more filling out, but I think it's a good start. OldSkoolGeek (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I improved your addition by removing the paragraph that was pure OR based on primary sources like legal codes. This kind of speculation can be mentioned, but the speculation has to come from newspapers, I think. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, secondary sources are to be used. I think it is too early to label this as a Major Work.Parkwells (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Parkwells, that it's currently in the wrong section.

It also occurs to me that speculation should have a very, very small place in an encyclopedia, especially if it's a politician speculating about someone else's actions. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Most people's opinions are "speculations," including those of O'Keefe as to the conclusion to be drawn from his videos. So we show his quotes and those of other speakers from RS.Parkwells (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I moved New Hampshire 2012 to "Minor Works" and put "Minor Works" right after "Major Works". --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems appropriate.Parkwells (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New disambiguation candidate

I've recently seen several news articles refer to another James O'Keefe, head of the Pirate Party of Massachusetts.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/vote-pirate-notes-from-a-pirate-party-conference.ars/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.22.53 (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hacking phones?

In the paragraph about the Sen. Landrieu event, O'Keefe is claimed to have attempted "hacking" the Senator's office phone system. How does one "hack" a "phone system?" 174.50.99.112 (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

We can't instruct you in how to do that. Wikipedia is not a manual. The cited source used the word "tamper", so that should probably be used here as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"Tamper" makes sense. 174.50.99.112 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Results/reception

Question for edditors working on this page: I think the breakdown of "results" and "reception" under the NPR video is a better format than just saying "reception" (like with the others.) ACORN getting defunded, for example, is more of a "result" than a "reception," which makes more sense for information about how the media responded to OKeefe. Any thoughts on this? I may try it out on the ACORN section to see if it works better --JohnMorse73 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

First thoughts on this: I just reverted an edit summarized as "Breaking out results and reception for greater clarity vis a vis NPR section -- see talk page." The edit actually added 5K+ content, apparently from the main article. This article isn't the proper location to rehash the ACORN video controversy at length. It also broke several links. My second thoughts on this is that much of the material you would move to a new "Results" section actually fits well in a "Reception" section, including Congress moving to defund - that's a reaction, more than a "result". Maybe when O'Keefe was later sued and paid a former ACORN person, that might be considered a "result". Xenophrenic (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, Xenophrenic - most of that extra 5K content was citations, so the word length added was only about 150 words extra. Also, "reception" probperly describes how people and institutions commented on the work, and results properly describes events that happened because the work was made. I think it's a fair distinction, and it's one that made in the NPR section below. It's overall a solid article -- I'm just trying to make the article a bit more internally consistent and ID a few cite-needed areas. (That's why I first raised the issue on the talk page - just trying to see what other editors here thnk.)--JohnMorse73 (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If internal consistency is your concern, then I would recommend removing the single "results" header, as none of the several other sections use it, and it doesn't exactly delineate results anyway (i.e.; the fact that Schiller had previously, before the incident, given notice that he was resigning in order to accept a different job, is not a "result"). Information about "what happened" (such as the release of videos, then defunding, resignations, etc.) should rightly be in the first part of the section, and doesn't really benefit from being split into two sections. It appears the "Reception" section is presently being used to convey not just "comments" but information developed after the initial event and fallout.

Regarding the "only about 150 words extra", I find those somewhat problematic as well. For example, your redefinition of a California law enforcement office as the office of a Democrat instead -- which brought to mind efforts by certain editors some time ago to characterize an investigation as a "Democrat effort". Those same editors also asserted that the description of O'Keefe's work as deceptive and misleading was merely what some people have labeled it, rather than proven fact. We can, of course, see what other editors think. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Widely viewed as deceptive"

Regarding Xenophrobic's removeal of citation needed tags, he said he took them out becuase the cites are further down in the text. But there's nothing that says Okeefe's work is widely viewed as deceptive -- just that some people have labeled it that. We can't say "widely" if ti's not substantiated.--JohnMorse73 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, reliable sources describe his work as deceptive, not that it is "viewed as deceptive". Xenophrenic (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's the "widely" that needs to be substantated. It's a slippery term that frankly is next to impossible to prove, so I don't think your reliable sources will confirm the extent to which Okeefe is viewed as deceptive.--JohnMorse73 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the "widely" term was used as a concession to those with a fringe dissenting view, rather than use "universally". It can only be said that the Earth is "widely" viewed as spheroid, as long as flat-earthers protest otherwise. We could solve the issue by changing the wording to read, "Because his work is deceptive, ..." Xenophrenic (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Comparing a difference of opinion to a difference of fact is not a good comparison. The earth being spheroid is factual and scientifically proven. Arzel (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As is the deceptive nature of O'Keefe's work. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, It sounds like you're allowing a degree of personal bias to intrude into this conversation. "Widely" is a subjective term, and there is no possible reliable source short of a public opinion survey that would establish the extent to which peple think Okeefe's work is deceptive. Since you have insisted on reverting even small changes to this article, would you mind changing the sentence yourself to read "because his work was seen by some/many as deceptive" (I'm asking purusant to WP:BRD).--JohnMorse73 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Widely", "many" and "some" are all subjective terms. On what basis would you propose substituting one for another, other than to change the quantitative measure being conveyed? Reliable sources have investigated his work and found deception and I don't recall seeing reliable sources arguing that his work has not been deceptive (although I've seen an argument that his deceiving of viewers can be justified in order to convey a "larger truth").

Regarding your comments about bias, I believe you are projecting, as I have no opinions, affiliations or experience with the subject matter, and the only knowledge I have on it is from reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Needs to be Updated, Re: Juan Carlos Vera

James okeefe recently paid 100,000 dollars to Juan Carlos Vera in a settlement to avoid the hearing of Vera's suit against him. Okeefe tried several times to have the case thrown out and failed. He eventually settled with Vera for 100,000, rather than testify. Okeefe's settlement is a very important biographical fact, and should be added to the article.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/andrew-breitbart-and-james-okeefe-ruined-him-and-now-he-gets-100-000/273841/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/03/08/lawyer-okeefe-requested-confidential-settlement/ http://wonkette.com/505026/wonket-sexclusive-totally-blameless-crime-stopper-james-okeefe-to-pay-100000-to-acorn-criminal 75.72.235.42 (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

That information has been in the article since March 10, 2013. You must have overlooked it. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

POV Flag

Disputing the neutrality of this article. I found the following paragraph to be extremely biased. At the very least it needs some reliable citations.

"Due to his videos of ACORN workers supposedly aiding a couple in criminal planning, the US Congress voted to freeze funds for the non-profit, which had aided low- and moderate-income people for 40 years. The non-profit also lost most private funding, and in March 2010 had to close most of its offices. Shortly after, the California State Attorney General's Office and the US Government Accountability Office released their related investigative reports. The Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers and that the workers had not committed illegal actions. Because his work has become widely seen as deceptive, O'Keefe's initial success in gaining extensive media attention caused controversy and discussions of journalistic standards..."

--24.136.181.38 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

- Regarding the citations, since this is the lead and a summary of the article you'll find the citations in the main body.
- About the bias: Could you please clarify against or for whom your perceived bias is directed?TMCk (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

"As the journalist Scott Baker wrote, analysis of the raw videos showed that O'Keefe's released video was edited to intentionally lie or mislead, that much of the context of the conversation was changed, and that elements were transposed and chronology shifted."

What is as Barker wrote? This seems to convey that this one person's analysis is correct. I'm not really even sure why we're relying on the interpretation of one person.

"On the edited, released video, it appears..."

Appears to whom? This seems like an obvious POV.

"then he appears to contrast the fiscally conservative Republican party of old..."

Again, appears to whom? This also seems like an obvious POV.

"Later in the edited video, Schiller seems to say..." Seems to say? Again, POV.

I didn't look over the whole thing, but this article has some clear POV problems. It also relies on a bunch of opinions of O'Keefe, which are almost always negative. I don't see the point of quoting his critics so much, especially without showing opposing opinions. As is this article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards. I think someone should rewrite it and either only stick to the facts, or present the opposing opinion for every opinion stated. I don't see any justification for leaving it the way it is. 207.42.135.25 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't look over the whole thing...

That became evident rather quickly. If you continue reading, you'd see that the article doesn't rely on opinions, nor does it rely on just "one person". To answer your multiple "appears to whom?" questions: the viewer of those edited videos, of course. No "POV" involved there. Is there a specific POV problem that you can point out for us? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This one seems unbelievable.

"His strategy has included releasing some projects only to conservative media outlets, such as Fox News Channel and the Big Government website; he has interviewed exclusively with the same media to control the story."

I noticed it first because it is unsourced and says his strategy is to release some projects only to conservative media outlets. I question if that's truly his strategy, or if those are the only ones that will run his videos. What is crazy to me is that it goes on to say that he interviews exclusively with those media outlets "to control the story". Where does that come from? How could we possibly know that unless he's said that himself, and if he said that, there should be a source. 207.42.135.25 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not a "POV" problem. That's a cite-needed problem. I'll see if I can track something down. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Concerning POV issue, which is quite clear to me. I have added an opposing comment in the summary which comes from the same reference as the previous sentence and therefore the comment was just inserted using same reference. Snippet of comment for refence: “political hit job and a quite clever and successful one at that.”Jvaughters (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

More specific

This edit removed two (actually three, since the video clip with the first source is cited) references with the vague explanation "reference does not support claim being made". Could the editor please be more specific regarding which reference and which claim? Xenophrenic (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The claim in the sentence it purports to sourcing, that the media and government are being more careful and cautious. In fact, Media Matters is critical of the New York Times for doing the exact opposite in the source. There's also the issue of using Media Matters for any claims, but that's not the specific issue with its use in this case. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "issue of using Media Matters", and since you say it isn't an issue with this case, we can move on. There are at least 4 sentences prior to the reference citations, but your concern appears to be with the last half of the last sentence. I've looked at the origination of that verbiage in January 2011 (this edit made by Parkwells), and it wasn't immediately accompanied by references. It appears the editor was trying to convey what many of the already existing cited sources say about the growing distrust of O'Keefe's productions. Since the two present sources only show a government official and media handling O'Keefe's video production with more caution, instead of reporting that they are doing so, I agree that section can certainly be worded better. I've rewritten it accordingly. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, now it's an issue because I don't see what the Media Matters link is adding outside of a long attack on O'Keefe with the rewrite. Are there certain news pulls we can use instead? Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you're still replacing this source. Is there a reason why? Also, aren't you under sanction on articles like this? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I did return the source, because it was removed without first substituting a "news pull we can use instead", which you suggested above and would be an acceptable alternative. You also labeled the source as "partisan", which I believe is in error, as as it maintains a 501(c)(3) status in good standing and cannot be beholden to political parties. If you meant that the source has a progressive bias, I would not disagree, but bias does not disqualify a source as meeting Reliable Source requirements. Can you suggest alternative sources to support the fact that media, and not just government officials, looked closer at O'Keefe's Medicaid fraud "evidence" and found it lacking? As for sanctions, I'm only restricted from articles related to the TP movement, which O'Keefe isn't, as far as I am aware. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Damn, the words "Tea Party" do briefly appear in the article as part of a Schiller quote. Since you raised the question, and I don't want to stir up any trouble, I am going to suspend further involvement here until I get clarification, just to be on the safe side. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

It's more about an entire video he did regarding the TP. As for MM beyond that, you can claim they aren't beholden to any party, but "partisan" means "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person," which clearly qualifies. I don't agree that they're a reliable source, and the RSN has not shown it to be such either. As you've shown nothing to support its inclusion, it should be removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Praise And Criticism section

Given the title of the section, there should probably be some examples of praise from his supporters on the right to balance out the criticism. If anyone can bring themselves to do it that is, lol. Maybe I'll look for some later. --Sarahp48 (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is ridiculously biased. The author couldn't wait but for the second sentence to start heaping on the criticism. I think that there should be separate sections that are for both praise and controversy. The opening should just state facts, i.e. "James O'Keffe made undercover videos investigating ACORN". Another section should talk about how some think his videos were manipulated to put the subjects in a bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.19.225.250 (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Leed

I've tried to trim down the monsterously huge leed to something more manageable. It's better, but it needs work still. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sources

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: Could you please clarify in what sense all those removed links are "invalid". Thanks.--TMCk (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

~~::: You're asking me now about an April 1 edit? Seriously, dude. Why don't you examine why my edits are being deleted. Quis separabit? 01:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)~~

Yes, I ask now after seeing all the cn tags and I would appreciate a constructive response.And please don't call me "dude".--TMCk (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

::: I see three links that I apparently removed. One, probably because it is subscription required/paywalled. The other two, including this one, I do not remember why. They appear to be reliable and valid. Maybe I was rushing and screwed up. Mea culpa. Quis separabit? 01:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Updated: I figured it out. Somehow, by mistake I reverted the bot edit immediately preceding my edit. I did screw up but it was not intentional blanking of text/edits (see below). That's why it made no sense. Quis separabit? 01:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

"(cur | prev) 13:39, 1 April 2015‎ AnomieBOT (talk | contribs)‎ . . (74,737 bytes) (+1,017)‎ . . (Rescuing orphaned refs ("WCSH" from rev 654343222; "nytstinger" from rev 654343222; "portlandpressherald" from rev 654343222; "brown releases" from rev 654343222)) (undo)"

The NYT can be easily accessed thru a free subscription while another one you get to read 10 articles and after that I don't know what happens. Anyways, although easily accessible sources are preferred, those kind just like printed newspapers and books are legit to be used and should not be removed on those grounds. Everyone (human) makes mistakes once in a while. No big deal. I'd be appreciated tho if you'd re-add those sources which has to be done manually.--TMCk (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Shit happens.--TMCk (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Occupational description (revisited)

As some editors have pointed out, sources can be found which describe O'Keefe as a "journalist", while other sources instead refer to him as a "provocateur", "gadfly", "prankster", "video maker", etc., or will mockingly put "journalist" in scare quotes. Other reliable sources specifically refute the "journalist" label, and explain why O'Keefe's endeavors can not be described as journalism. Our article has a section regarding this descriptor and subject matter, and placing the "journalist" descriptor in Wikipedia's voice in the lede sentence does not properly summarize the content of our article. (Note that discussions on this matter are perennial on this Talk page, as a search of the archives will attest.) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Staged encounters

Copied from an editor's Talk page for further discussion here.
Hello, Xenophrenic, Can you point to which sources you referenced for this edit? Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I've seen the verbiage used in a lot of reliable sources. May I ask what the objection to it is?

Huffington Post: James sent CNN an email denying that he intended to stage this prank, claiming that it was “not my work product.” But the “CNN caper” document indicates otherwise, and even includes an detailed set of instructions on what to do if CNN caught wind of the plan...”
New York Magazine: The Alfred E. Newman of investigative journalism, James O'Keefe, staged his latest undercover video at the New Hampshire primary, where members of his team attempted to expose voter fraud by obtaining ballots for dead people.
CNN: "She doesn't know she is getting on a boat but rather James' office. James has staged the boat to be a palace of pleasure with all sorts of props, wants to have a bizarre sexual conversation with her. He wants to gag CNN."
NPR Interview: If James O'Keefe is staging guerrilla theater to expose hypocrisy and hate, a la Sasha Baron Cohen of Borat fame, maybe that's no big deal.
NJ News: Howell Township police are investigating whether conservative activist James O'Keefe broke any laws when he staged a mock presentation at a district public school earlier this year.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Presidential videos do show criminal activity between pac, DNC and Clinton campaign

This article states that there is nothing criminal in what Kramer is describing on video. That is false. It is illegal for pacs to coordinate with the DNC and with the Hillary campaign, especially Hillary herself. That is exactly what Kramer is admitting in the videos and whomever said no laws were broken is lying to cover up the massive election violatons; The entire article is slanted/bias against okeefe. A misdemeanor for filming without consent does not make someone a 'criminal' Clearly a diversonary tactic to divert from the criminal activity being shown done by Hillary/Hillary campaign and the DNC. Kramer is the one convicted of bank fraud, but we never hear that when talking about criminal past. Okeefe has never been convicted of a felony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.140.62 (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Robert Creamer did indeed say self-incriminating words in the videos.

US Presidential Elections (2016) A month before the launch of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, O'Keefe's Project Veritas was paid $10,000 by the Trump Foundation.[31][30][86]

In October 2016, O'Keefe released a series of videos on Project Veritas' YouTube channel that he alleges show former national field director Scott Foval of Americans United for Change discussing planting agitators, including "mentally ill people that we pay to do shit” in front of Donald Trump rallies to ask questions near reporters, a process they call "bird dogging".

The accuracy of the videos has been questioned, as O'Keefe's edits have omitted necessary context, and the unedited raw footage has not been made available.[15][87][88][89] DNC Chair Donna Brazile has also said they omit necessary context. Scott Foval was fired by Americans United for Change after the first video was released.[90] In an email to Associated Press, Foval stated that he was set up and that, "Despite our attempts to redirect the conversation and actions towards positive, results-oriented, legal and ethical political organizing, O’Keefe’s crew of impostors continued to walk down a path of deception and manipulation."[15][87][88][89] Robert Creamer, husband of U.S. Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), another person featured in the video while not saying anything that appeared to be unethical or illegal, said he would be "stepping back" from the campaign so as not to become a "distraction."[87] Following the publication of his videos, O'Keefe filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and the DNC, alleging "a criminal conspiracy" involving the Clinton campaign, the DNC and three left-leaning super PACs.[91]

In response to a third video, where O'Keefe claimed that Clinton was behind an "illegal" public relations gimmick to punish Trump for not releasing his tax returns, the Clinton campaign denied any wrongdoing. Independent campaign finance experts say that the video doesn't support the claim that the Clinton campaign did anything illegal. Clinton was aware of the activists dressed as Donald Duck, who were following Donald Trump while asking about his tax returns, and she said she was amused.

Anyone with half a brain can watch the videos and recognize him discussing criminal activity such as voter fraud using Hispanics and coordinating directly with the Clinton campaign, which is illegal! <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs/ref>

2601:547:1100:9780:901C:165:19CA:1FED (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"Anyone with half a brain can watch the videos and recognize..." is called WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and is not allowed on Wikipedia. We only report what is in WP:RELIABLESOURCES. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Introduction Section, Neutrality

I find the 1st paragraph to have some neutrality issues, especially the placement and wording of the last two sentences.

James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is an American conservative activist who has produced secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters with public figures and workers in a variety of organizations, showing apparent abusive or alleged illegal behavior by representatives of those organizations. He gained national attention for his release of video recordings of workers at ACORN offices in 2009, his arrest in early 2010 at the office of Senator Mary Landrieu in a failed attempt to record staff conversations, and release of videos of NPR executives in 2011. California prosecutors found that O'Keefe selectively and heavily edited the ACORN raw footage.[1][2][3] Despite his tactics James O'Keefe's productions have been described by Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes as a “political hit job and a quite clever and successful one at that.”[4]

The sentence below is factual but as a sentence by itself, it adds to an already overly negative tone. The fact itself should be moved elsewhere in the article or worked into the sentence before it which is more appropriately written since it generally lists his legal troubles without single any out.

California prosecutors found that O'Keefe selectively and heavily edited the ACORN raw footage.[1][2][3]

The sentence after that:

Despite his tactics James O'Keefe's productions have been described by Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes as a “political hit job and a quite clever and successful one at that.

Is more troubling in terms of neutrality. Specifically because it implies that the opinion of the Weekly Standard editor is "[in spite of O'Keefe's] tactics." This sentence implies that there is something wrong with the tactics of O'Keefe in addition to the opinion given by Fed Barnes for going against them - so it actually convey's two separate opinions - that of the editor who wrote that sentence and that of Fred Barnes, giving more weight and credibility to the first. I don't think this contributes well to the neutrality of the introduction and should be removed entirely.

With those two sentences removed or adjusted, the intro should then be restructured to contain brief information about James O'Keefe's organizations and accomplishments, his supporters, his critics and his legal troubles with careful consideration that this is an article about a person that is considered very controversial with a lot of people who hate him as well as those who admire him. As written, the intro is heavily slanted toward the former.

Oldmanklc2 (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)oldmanklc2

To some degree the intro should not be as 'neutral' as you suggest. He became famous by forging videos, that is his main claim to fame. Not including it is irresponsible. If you go to a wiki page like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_dahmer you'll see that it refers to him as a murderer and sex offender in the very first line. Both descriptions are accurate, and negative but it is neutral from a reporting perspective. I agree with you on the second line as being potentially a violation, but the first is a simple statement of fact.

69.165.157.255 (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article is heavily biased in the intro. It should be a brief description of O'Keefe's work and his justice problems should be in the body of the article. Saying that his claim to fame is "Forging videos" instead of his journalistic work is a very partial affirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.14.210 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

page protection

i asked for pp to fend off the repeat vandalizers. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

citation 111 doesn't claim selective editing in bird dogging videos

Unless all editing qualifies as being selective, in which case the term is redundant and should be fixed for all WP articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.157.40.233 (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "entering a federal building under false pretenses."

While the article frequently makes use of the aforementioned phrase, it seems to downplay the severity of the crime for which he was convicted. "Entering a federal building under false pretenses" reads very differently than "Entering a federal building under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony" which is what he actually pleaded guilty to. 174.95.94.209 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I looked over both of our sources. The crime he pled guilty to is "Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport."

As per 18 U.S. Code § 1036(b)[3], this crime is punished differently "if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony." However, based on our source[4], it looks like the "intent to commit a felony" part was dropped, triggering 18 U.S. Code § 1036(b)(2), which carries a maximum sentence of 6 months and does not require "intent to commit a felony." Therefore, I think the article text is correct as it stands. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)