Jump to content

Talk:James O'Keefe/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

@Volunteer Marek: Regarding this addition: Isn't it more relevant for an article about Sanders? For instance, why are Mother Jones and Think Progress used as refs for that? I can see that they are talking about criticism on Sanders, but a. they don't support the text that "the Washington Post criticized Sanders" and b. why are they relevant for an article on O'Keefe? Also, the WPo ref isn't an editorial so shouldn't it be attributed to the author, who is not "The Washington Post"? Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017

In the "Reception" heading, the 6th paragraph is currently the following:

" In a March 2011 interview with O'Keefe, NPR journalist Bob Garfield asked, referring to the ACORN videos, "If your journalistic technique is the lie, why should we believe anything you have to say?"[161] O'Keefe responded that his that his techniques should be characterized as a form of guerrilla theater rather than "lying" – "you’re posing as something you’re not, in order to capture candid conversations from your subject. But I wouldn’t characterize it as, as lying.”[161] "

The error here is "that his" is repeated twice. 84.198.88.87 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, Thanks for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Note: Marking as answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

CNN weight

It strikes me that we're giving way too much weight to the recent CNN videos, which really seem like a "nothing burger" to me, just not particularly encyclopedic in their details. Ten years from now, will anyone care exactly what these mid-level folks at CNN said about whom in which video? I think we should be able to consolidate our content down to a single paragraph that talks about the videos collectively. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, a paragraph should suffice. In fact this whole article seems a bit bloated, there are more things that could be condensed. Judging by the edit history I think there's a preoccupation with showing every facet of the stories given their controversial nature, which is a good thing but it leads to bloat some times. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Foval - admission

The following bolded text was recently added: Foval also appeared to admit that Democrats have been rigging elections for 50 years, saying "We've been bussing people in to deal with you fuckin' assholes for fifty years and we're not going to stop now." I don't think this language is neutral or verifiable. The cited source does include this language, but I don't think the source is reliable for this particular content. Foval later said he was talking about busing people to rallies, not to voting stations. And looking at news coverage of Foval's statement, I couldn't find any other ordinarily reliable sources jumping to this conclusion. Given that O'Keefe has a known track record of using statements out of context, and that the raw footage or transcript was never made public, I do not think we should be jumping to any conclusions about what Foval meant without extremely solid sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anybody should be jumping to any conclusions about Foval's words, either. But there are no RS that back up a claim that Foval wasn't talking about voter fraud. He literally speculates about the consequences of using buses to commit "vote fraud" (Foval's words), so I don't know if there's any ambiguity there at all. The blog you provided (which I've personally never heard of) is the only website on the Internet that provided that quote. Do you have an established RS that carried his denial that you mentioned? RealClearPolitics is a non-partisan, independent source that is highly respected by Democrats and Republicans alike. I don't know if it gets more solid that RCP. They have zero retractions AFAIK, and had no inappropriate contact with either presidential campaign according to the WikiLeaks emails, which puts them in a very small club. But if RCP isn't enough, DNC-friendly WaPo also unequivocally and explicitly states that Foval was discussing voter fraud: "Foval spends five minutes discussing how voters might be brought from outside Wisconsin to commit voter fraud, buying cars with Wisconsin plates to avoid looking suspicious."[1] Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Isthmus isn't a blog, it's a reliable print newspaper that's been in circulation since 1976--unlike RealClearPolitics, whose reliability I question. (Just because you haven't heard of a media outlet doesn't make it a blog.) The WaPo source seems more reliable, however; thanks for that. I still have my doubts, but I'd feel a lot better if we used the WaPo source instead of RCP, and if we changed "admitted" to "said." "Admitted" is non-neutral because it implies that Democrats had actually been rigging elections, which is definitely not verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, let's go with WaPo then. The language does seem pretty loaded when I say it out loud, and that is a pretty big jump to make from the quote. "Said" is fine by me, thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
DrFleischman - do you have any other source besides the Madison weekly newsletter for the Foval response? I would think if this was a real statement, at least one other source would have covered it except an alternative newspaper in Wisconsin. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
No, but that's not surprising that a local weekly would get an exclusive interview with a bit player. Isthmus is a reliable source and the quote isn't particularly controversial. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps it's not uncommon for a local paper to get an exclusive, but isn't it a bit odd that nobody else printed his response? Not a single national source that reported on the tapes felt it was appropriate to quote Foval's alleged response from the Isthmus? If a subject of the tapes responded to very serious allegations, I would think that it would be paramount to report on the development. And I do have to disagree - I'd say that Foval claiming he wasn't talking about "vote fraud" after he explicitly muses how to avoid a voter fraud conviction and RS agree that he was talking about voter fraud is more than a little controversial. The excuse doesn't make any sense, right? Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Does it matter? Take it up on WP:RSN if you're going to insist that Isthmus is unreliable for this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it absolutely matters, since we're talking about the content of the article. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, this can't be included as the quote is unverifiable and a Madison newsletter isn't going to cut it as the sole source of material. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Now it's a newsletter? I'm sorry but you're really straining AGF. Like I said, feel free to take it up on the noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, edit warring isn't the solution, so I won't revert your reversion for now. However, Wikipedia:Verifiability really couldn't be more clear: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." As the editor who wishes to add the material, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with you, DrFleischman. Thus far, you have provided one lone source (likely not a RS) for your material, and have not provided a citation that directly supports the contribution. As you can see, the material must be removed immediately, as you have not satisfied Wikipedia's guidelines for adding material to this article, and editors are not required to "take up" anything anywhere. Kindly self-revert. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I will not self-revert when your sole argument appears to be the unsupported assertion that an article published in an established print newspaper might be fabricated. Frankly, it's absurd. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea if Isthmus' claim is fabricated, because the claim is completely unsupported. An "alternative newspaper" that you scoop up outside of the grocery store in Wisconsin is the only place on Earth that printed this alleged quote. Not a single (not one) other media outlet has this quote, or even bothers to reference the Isthmus quote. Do you not find that at least a tiny bit strange that nobody is interested in Foval's rebuttal to his videos that received extensive media coverage? I just don't see any way that anyone who wishes to add this material can satisfy his/her burden to demonstrate its verifiability without a single mainstream source that supports it. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Not strange at all. The news-consuming public has a short attention span and most outlets have moved on. If you are so confident about the source's unreliability, then why not pursue DR? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Lol well of course we could go down that road, but this case really is so cut and dry that I'm perplexed why anyone would defend the credibility of an alternative news source so vigorously. Especially when considering that the Washington Post (which undoubtedly despises James O'Keefe) pulls no punches about describing Foval's musings about committing voter fraud. And you've no doubt read WP:Verifiability, which hammers the point home that one alternative news source simply isn't enough to satisfy your burden of proof, here. But, if you plan to continue arguing that Foval's alleged quote belongs in this article, then I suppose you can make your case to the powers that be. Good debate, though. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Foval busing comment

The consensus is to include the sentence bolded in the opening posted.

Cunard (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should we include the following bolded sentence: Foval also said "We've been bussing people in to deal with you fuckin' assholes for fifty years and we're not going to stop now." Foval went on to discuss the legal consequences of voter fraud: "Let's just say, in theory, if a major investigation came up of major vote fraud that way, how would they prove it?...If there's a bus involved, that changes the dynamic... You can prove conspiracy if there's a bus, but if there are cars, it is much harder to prove."[94] Foval later said he was talking about busing people to rallies.[95] The accuracy of the videos has been questioned for possibly omitting context, and the unedited raw footage has not been made available.[18][92][96][97]

Citation #95 is: Potter, Steven (May 18, 2017). "Scott Foval speaks out about Veritas video". Isthmus. Concerns have been raised about the source's reliability for this purpose. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose: For the reasons in the above discussion - only one source is available for the alleged quote, and the "alternative local newspaper" is highly questionable. I think a third opinion may have been a good route to take before a full-blown RfC, but oh well. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - the source is reliable ("concerns have been raised" is just a way of saying "someone somewhere WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT") and it's a quote. I don't' think the veracity of the quote is being disputed. Given all that, it's actually necessary to include it for NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Please take a look at the above section. The reason for the existence of the RfC in the first place is because the quote's veracity is disputed. We're on a slippery slope if one local alternative newspaper article (with absolutely zero supporting sources) is sufficient for adding contentious material.Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - No reason I can see to consider the source unreliable. Obviously should be included. Hidden Tempo's "rephrasing" idea below is a bizarre, unsupported reversal and should be rejected. Parabolist (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The only evidence that we have that Foval did anything inappropriate is an edited video made by someone with a history of editing videos to mislead. The source of the interview is by a newspaper in the same area as Foval; so it’s not surprising that they were the source of an interview. There is no record of Foval claiming that his local newspaper made this up. Given the serious charges of illegal activity; NPOV requires that a denial by the accused be included. Hidden Tempo’s suggested change is a serious BLP violation as HT is making an accusation against a living person with absolutely no evidence. Objective3000 (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
O-3000, there is literally no better evidence of a quote than videotape - very strange that you're attempting to belittle video footage with your own personal views. RS all agree that Foval said the words (nobody said he did anything "inappropriate", so let's stick to what the sources say). I've already agreed Foval's quote should be included IF we can trust an alternative newspaper from Madison, WI. Did you read the whole discussion? Also, crying BLP is disruptive and not conducive to improving the encyclopedia. Neither is making false accusations and casting aspersions against your fellow editors, but that's another story. Enjoy your weekend. Cheers. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
O'Keefe is well-known for editing videos in a misleading manner. No, an edited video does not show context. Your accusation that Foval made a false claim in the interview is without evidence and a clear BLP violation. Objective3000 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Your opinions are on record, no need to keep repeating them. Nobody accused Foval of anything - we, as editors of the encyclopedia, submit potential edits in order to build consensus. You have made your opinion very well-known that the suggestion would be a BLP violation. Please don't try to turn every interaction you have with me into a battleground. So again, thanks for your input on the RfC. Have a good weekend. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - source is reliable for this statement, and to omit this would raise serious WP:BLP concerns (presenting an negative claim while omitting context or denials is a classic example of something that runs afoul of BLP). Neutralitytalk 18:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
As previously discussed, the issue isn't whether or not a Foval denial should be included, but rather if we can rely on a single source reporting the quote (which happens to be an "alternative newspaper" from Wisconsin). In any case, the content was voted to remain despite the ignoring of this alleged interview by every other media outlet on the planet. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • support sourced and relevant material. This RfC with its current focus on wiki lawyering and policy bashing has become a discussion forum. This isn't a discussion forum. If there were and RS which could have been included to either detract from or support whatever is in the article it would be on the table by now. This should have been a BRD. Suggest we close this RfC early and stop 4channing the dead donkey. Edaham (talk) 05:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, but this discussion has been over for a few weeks, now. I asked Drmies to close the RfC, which Drmies opted not to do. So this is just a stale RfC which determined that four people feel a single alternative newspaper in Wisconsin is good enough for the quote, and those votes outnumbered the one person who feels the source is highly questionable and its claim more than dubious. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Five people, not including the requestor. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Lol, yes. It's technically five now. I was referring to the vote tally before Edaham made the decision to insert him/herself into the stale RfC. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Extended discussion

Just a note, I could live with a rephrasing, such as: "Foval later said falsely claimed that he was talking about busing people to rallies, in an article published by a local Madison alternative newspaper.[95]," given the fact that should Foval have said that, it was clearly a false statement. He was videotaped discussing the dangers of being nailed on conspiracy charges for using buses, rather than using cars. Last time I checked, busing people to political rallies is in no way illegal (as every big campaign has done this), and would thus have no reason to fear criminal charges. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's ridiculous. Unless you have a source which says that he "falsely claimed" you're way out of line here. In terms of both POV and BLP. Again, let me remind you that you *just* got off a topic ban in this area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Volunteer, this is the second time this week that you've referenced punitive action with no relevance to the topic of the hand. Please stop, and review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF guidelines. Constructive collaboration is welcome, and attempting to proclaim who is "out of line" with suggested content and who isn't is WP:OWN problematic. Now that that's out of the way, can you find any RS that support Foval's claim? DrFleischman couldn't and neither could I to this point. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
" Unless you have a source which says that..." is relevant to the topic "of the hand". As is the fact that you appear to have immediately resumed the behavior which led to your topic ban in the first place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Volunteer, I'm going to again remind you of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If you find it difficult to follow these guidelines when interacting with other editors, I suggest you spend your Saturday doing something else. Calm down, enjoy the day, and help us improve the encyclopedia instead of attacking those with whom you disagree. I really hope my suggestions will be sufficient this time. Cheers. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't what? I think you are misrepresenting me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Find any RS that support Foval's claim/the Isthmus article. If you have some, then I apologize, but I would love to see anything that backs it up...I couldn't find anything on Google and normally I'm pretty good at that sort of thing! But my point remains - nobody gets charged with a crime for "busing people to rallies." Would you stipulate that such a claim/excuse would be false, if made? Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't "stipulate" to anything with you. The Isthmus source is reliable on its own. That is my position; please respect it, even if you disagree with it. And please stop wikilawyering - you have somehow managed to piss off every editor who's had the pleasure of working with you, as well as a small army of admins. It might be time to rethink your approach. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt the need to investigate my history, but I of course heavily dispute your characterization of my interactions with fellow contributors. I do respect your belief that Isthmus is a RS, and respect your refusal to stipulate that if Foval actually claimed what Isthmus is alleging he did, then the claim is false. However, this is a discussion (as the subheading indicates), and I'm curious what your stance is on my proposed re-wording. If you'd rather keep your position secret and simply let the RfC run it's course, that's fine too. Hope we can continue working to improve the article without casting aspersions or assuming bad faith. Thanks for the reply. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course you dispute it. I share VM's position on your proposed re-wording. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I saw this at WP:RSN. There are two different issues here:

First is the issue of whether Foval's quote is reliable. Is there any doubt that Foval actually said it? I don't think that is much of an issue. The issue is how to (and whether to) present it in the WP article. That is a matter of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV.

Second, there are two different parts of the video: The quote about We've been bussing people in to deal with you fuckin' assholes for fifty years and we're not going to stop now. This is separate from the part where Foval talks about the license plates (see the actual video to confirm this). As far as I can see, Foval is talking about the former (when he talks about busing people to rallies). The latter can't be about busing people to rallies because it is talking about Wisconsin license plates, voter fraud and so on. The Washington Post story by Dave Weigel also interprets the conversation as about voter fraud, not busing people to rallies. For the latter part, the response by Creamer is that it was a hypothetical scenario and did not take place. Foval says the same thing in the Isthmus source.

I have therefore moved the Foval quote to directly come after the earlier quote (this is the way it's presented in the Isthmus source. I have also added a response by Creamer to the second charge (in the paragraph just below). This, I hope, will satisfy NPOV concerns. Feel free to edit/revert/discuss etc. This RfC can go on if required; I am not touching the quote per se. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

This repositioning of the quote definitely makes more sense in this position, although to me it comes off as Wikipedia's voice is being used to lend credence to Foval's excuse. I maintain that the alternative newspaper source is highly questionable and probably shouldn't be used at all, but I could live with a compromise of "Foval claimed" rather than "Foval said," given the unusually flimsy and specious nature of his claim. I'm willing to let go of the word "falsely" in a gesture of good faith. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The language falsely claimed is, by policy, unacceptable; the rationale given above for this text is purest WP:SYNTH, and it clearly fails to meet WP:IMPARTIAL (and WP:NPOV in general). Text claimed is similarly troubled w.r.t WP:IMPARTIAL et al; see also WP:CLAIM. Suggest said or stated. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Alright, so putting the word "claim" aside for a moment (although I do think it is alarmingly appropriate, here), are you of the belief that we can rely on a single alternative newsletter from Madison, Wisconsin as the sole source of this alleged quote? Given the fact that not a single mainstream source has picked it up? I find it exceedingly strange that everyone seems to find this perfectly natural, when every other citation in this article can be backed by multiple mainstream sources, but this particular quote is somehow deserving of special treatment and near non-existing sourcing. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Regarding verifiability, per WP:INTERVIEW, this source should be treated like self-published material. Regarding such a use and any policy based objections which might be made to it: I do not believe that there is a reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, as meant by point 4 of both WP:BLPSPS & WP:ABOUTSELF. This leaves open the question as to whether it is unduly self-serving (emphasis mine) as meant by point 1 of those policies. While clearly self-serving, I do not believe that it is unduly or unreasonably so. Traditionally, we have given wide scope for inclusion of statements made by living persons about themselves in response to allegations made by others. I do not believe that this case is sufficiently different as to warrant a different approach. Given the disparity in the coverage of the allegations and the coverage of the response, an objection might be made based on WP:DUE. Again, traditionally, we have given a wide scope for inclusion of such responses and I do not believe that this case is sufficiently different. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Videographer

I would like to propose that in the 'Known for' section on the right side column of the page, that 'Videographer' be added, based off the following:

Wikipedia's own page on "Videographer" contains the following text - [[2]] "Strictly speaking, a videographer is a person who works in the field of videography and/or video production, recording moving images and sound on video tape, digital, or any future data storage medium, disk, other electro-mechanical device."

Wikipedia's own page on "videography" contains the following, backing up James' exact profession (or part of it) - [[3]] - "Nowadays, any video work outside commercial motion picture production could be called videography."

If O’Keefe’s work pretty much all consists of releasing videos (edited or not!) videography is completely reasonable to include in his “Known for” section. Practically every mention of O’Keefe in the news has to do with his video work.

Here's three examples in the accepted cited sources included in the beginning of the page, all stating that O'Keefe does indeed produce 'video work' as defined by the "videography" wikipedia article itself, just to include as much information as possible to ensure that consideration of this proposed change is objectively reviewed: 

Weigel, David (October 19, 2016). "Two local Democratic operatives lose jobs after video sting on voter fraud". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved October 19, 2016.

David Folkenflik, "Elements Of NPR Gotcha Video Taken Out Of Context", npr.org, March 14, 2011; accessed February 24, 2015.

"The Twisty, Bent Truth of the NPR-Sting Video", time.com, March 13, 2011.

LibertyChick1776 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a difference between doing videography and being known as a videographer. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
In this case, O'Keefe is both clearly known for doing videography and actually does videography. Would you rather videography in the Occupation section instead of the Known for section? -- LibertyChick1776 (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The thing is that the guy is primarily known for his activism rather than for his videography. One could say they're part and parcel of the same thing, but most reliable secondary sources describe him as an activist, not as a videographer. As for the occupation field, we already say the guy is a filmmaker so adding videographer would be redundant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Is James O'Keefe known for or not known for video work? The term activist is too broadly interpreted on its own. Adding a term related to video work in that field would improve the article." -- LibertyChick1776 (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. If you can convince a consensus that we should add videography to the infobox then I'll abide by it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd oppose this. He is known for making videos designed to mislead. I suppose anyone that posts videos of cute kittens on YT could be called a videographer. But they, and he, aren't known for videography. He is known as an activist. Objective3000 (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Failed Washington Post sting

Here's a story about how Jaime T. Phillips tried to trap the Washington Post with a fake story, but was caught by the Post's fact-checking.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html
A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.
By Shawn Boburg, Aaron C. Davis and Alice Crites
Washington Post
November 27, 2017

A woman who falsely claimed to The Washington Post that Roy Moore, the Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Alabama, impregnated her as a teenager appears to work with an organization that uses deceptive tactics to secretly record conversations in an effort to embarrass its targets.

...on Monday morning, Post reporters saw her walking into the New York offices of Project Veritas, an organization that targets the mainstream news media and left-leaning groups.

--Nbauman (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this belongs in the article. Very significant. Neutralitytalk 23:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I added text on it. It of course belongs on the O'Keefe page and is reliably sourced. It was of course removed by James Lambden[4] who has a thing for mass-reverting reliably sourced text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Clearly belongs. Might wait a couple days for a reaction from O'Keefe. O3000 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
The Washington Post reporting on an alleged sting of the Washington Post is primary. The text inserted based on this source falsely claimed the Moore accuser was a Project Veritas employee, which is not supported by the source. For these reasons I have removed the section. The best course would be to wait for strong secondary sources. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
  • No, that is not primary. It is secondary. If you want it even more secondarily, link to the Chicago Tribune article. You can use the search engine Google to find it. That the person was an employee of Veritas seems a reasonable assumption made by the various news sources, but of course you are welcome to tweak the wording. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome to restore text supported by sources cited in the article. Do not restore text which, as has been explained, is not supported by the cited sources. See WP:BURDEN James J. Lambden (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
A few things come to mind--"whitewashing" being one of them. Good luck with your obstructionist edit warring. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Pssst... look below...there's a boat load there for your burden. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I have pared your list down to usable sources:
None support the claim that the woman was an employee of Project Veritas which was repeated five times in the section I removed. We can build a usable and properly-cited section from these sources now or wait a day or two for more comprehensive reporting. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Enough. I reinstated, but added attribution for now. It may be OK to remove it later. And, some cleanup is probably needed. James, you are welcome to edit. O3000 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Your edit restored the repeated claim the Moore accuser was an employee of Project Veritas. This is not supported by the source you cited or the additional sources above. I have now removed it three times. Do not restore this claim without a citation. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I have added a reworked version that hews scrupulously closer to the sources. Neutralitytalk 01:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the rework. The first paragraph describes her alleged employment correctly however the second paragraph attributes the sting to Project Veritas as a statement of fact, which it is not, and uses the phrase "Project Veritas employee" which is not supported. These should be corrected. Baron's claim that the sting was a Veritas scheme is attributed so there is no issue. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I've made these changes. Neutralitytalk 01:40, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Your updated text has addressed all of my objections. Thank you. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
You had to revert three times for it--you could have done this yourself. I think you owe Neutrality and maybe some other editors a barnstar for doing the heavy lifting for you. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
P.S. - a side note not related to the current article text: Lambden - do you really think "The Daily Beast" is not "usable" but "The Daily Caller" is? Neutralitytalk 01:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Beast proper is usable. This uncredited blurb under "SELF-OWN"[16] does not appear to be. Has this come up in prior discussions? James J. Lambden (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
"SELF-OWN" is a subtitle, not an author/category (as in "self-goal"). Just like this finance article says "CASHING IN"[17], or this marriage related one says "TOGETHER"[18]. Stickee (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, Nomoskedasticity: for the record, this deletion was indeed because it appeared to claim the WP couldn't substantiate any of the accusations and didn't publish any of them, which is of course not true. "the allegations about Moore" (especially in the plural form) could be confused for being in general rather than about this one woman's allegation. I thought the paragraph itself already made it clear that they would not report on a story they already believed to be fraudulent. In any case, simply adding "the woman's" solved the issue and may have been the better option. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hey now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that a major point in this story -- which is repeated by many WP:RS -- is that the sting failed because the media doesn't work the way O'Keefe thinks it does: to spread propaganda, even if it's false, to help liberals get elected. That ironically is what O'Keefe tries to do for conservatives. For example:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/project-veritas-washington-post/index.html
What James O'Keefe doesn't get about the media
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
November 28, 2017
The problem -- if O'Keefe knew anything about how large media organizations like the Post and CNN work -- is that neither of these organizations would ever simply run with a story from one woman about an alleged forced abortion without doing the most basic fact checking...
No story -- NOT ONE -- would get anywhere near the Post's website or CNN's website or air with these sorts of major red flags. And no researcher worth his or her salt -- and the Post and CNN have some of the best fact-checkers in the business -- would not find these things and find them quickly.

The quote from Jonathan Chait may have covered it adequately. And I realize that you're giving all those conservative sources because James J. Lambden said that he wouldn't be satisfied with just liberal sources. But O'Keefe's ignorance of fact-checking is an important point that journalists made repeatedly. --Nbauman (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The quote above is exactly what PV wants. Their MO isn't just one attempt. There is undoubtedly more stings in the works (and CNN is a likely target). With a bit brighter plan, some outlet may bite. The above above quote will then be used for fodder. ACORN was destroyed this way because each time they said "isolated incident" he dribbled out another video from a different place. Comments like the above only help him. --DHeyward (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm holding out hope for Sean Hannity. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Methods

  • @DrFleischman: I am having difficulty understanding this revert which restored the text: "Project Veritas operatives misrepresent their identities and use other methods not employed by mainstream journalists." I removed it because it implies undercover reporting is a method not employed by mainstream journalists, which is untrue. Instead I incorporated "methods not employed by mainstream journalists" into the opening sentence because it is true that some of their methods are not employed by mainstream journalists. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The sentence you removed merely reflected the source, which was reliable. The relevant source content: "[T]he organization’s operatives use methods that are eschewed by mainstream journalists, such as misrepresenting themselves." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
I do not disagree it reflected the source. I am suggesting the source is not credible or poorly phrased. Every local news "scam mechanic" expose, 60 Minutes and Dateline NBC all do investigations that involve "misrepresenting themselves." Are they not considered mainstream journalists? James J. Lambden (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Your argument is that a news article in the Washington Post is "not credible"? That's not going to fly. As for your arguments - pure WP:OR. Neutralitytalk 05:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Please reconcile that claim with the sources in our article on Undercover journalism. When sources disagree we can resolve by judging the sources (which is not OR) or balancing their weights. Here we have a single source that claims undercover work is "eschewed by mainstream journalists" and multiple sources that associate undercover work with mainstream journalists. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Sources don't disagree. A situation where "sources disagree" would be a case where a reliable source contradicts the assertion (e.g., by saying "PV follows mainstream journalistic practice" or something like that). Nothing like that exists. Neutralitytalk 06:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
There may be some disagreement among sources or views on the ethics or meainstream-ness of O'Keefe's tactics. A good but somewhat dated analysis can be found here. But simply removing a fact-checked WaPo source because you disagree with it? No, that's borderline disruption when done by such an experienced editor. I'm sorry, but James' approach here is totally inconsistent with our core policies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This is semantic fuckery. The normal operation of a newspaper reporter is not to go undercover. Outfits that do this kind of thing are marked as such--anyone remember To Catch a Predator? Lambden, the "implication" you mention in your opening shot is not there. I'm not opposed to a tweak ("...and other covert methods typically eschewed by mainstream journalists"), but what you are doing is pretending that Veritas operates in a way not significantly different from what real journalists do, so you can lump them all together in a post-truth move that pretends there are good people on all sides. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

POV-check

Article makes him look to be a real sleazeball. 108.48.103.218 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you have a point? --Calton | Talk 17:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The entire article is written in non-neutral language. The sources are picked, and the article is structured, to support the point of view that he is intellectually dishonest. 108.48.103.218 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you identify any sources that you think should be added to balance things out? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
108.48.103.218, can you point to anything specific that either doesn't reflect the cited sources or uses non-neutral language? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, even a shred of evidence that he values honesty, based on RS, would be an interesting addition. So far he's shown himself to be a specialist in dishonest portrayals of those he doesn't like. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:05, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Exactly as @BullRangifer: wrote.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

POV in section names

POV has been added to the section names. The items in "Other incidents" are not random incidents. They are planned operations. And to call everything "attempted" is not neutral. No other article in Wikipedia has section names like this. – Lionel(talk) 02:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted. I don't think these are improvements. (1) "Operations" is not the name most commonly used by reliable sources (that makes it sound like military operations); (2) "Attempted" is just fine, give that this is the language most commonly used by sources. See, e.g., NY Times (" after an attempted sting aimed at The Washington Post backfired in spectacular fashion last month"); New Yorker ("O'Keefe's bungled attempt to sting George Soros's Open Society Foundations, a liberal nonprofit group that O'Keefe had targeted."); even Fox News ("An effort to entrap the Washington Post"; "an orchestrated attempt"). Neutralitytalk 02:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
To a newspaper reporter these perhaps are "incidents." To a newspaper reporter the activity is taken in isolation apart from the entire body of activity. However we are building an encyclopedia. And to describe the planning, ongoing activities of O'Keefe and his team as "incidents" is not encyclopedic.
In the section body it is appropriate to describe the activity as "attempt." However to use "Attempt" in the section heading is unencyclopedic. No other article does that. And if we use "attempt" in the section heading, then per NPOV we will have to use "successful" as well. And I know that's the last thing that you want to do. – Lionel(talk) 04:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you point to some data (empirical or qualitative) indicating that your preferred phrasing is more common in reliable sources, or is preferred by higher quality sources? None has been offered. Just saying "X is unencylopedic" or "X is not encyclopedic" is just ipse dixit. Neutralitytalk 04:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
"Activities" is fine with me. Neutralitytalk 12:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Lionel? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
"Activities" works for me.– Lionel(talk) 02:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Politico profile

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/05/04/james-okeefe-undercover-sting-profile-feature-2018-218015
James O’Keefe Can’t Get No Respect
The muckraking conservative just wanted journalists to take him seriously. They never did, and now he’s out for blood.
By TIM ALBERTA
Politico
May/June 2018
Long, detailed profile. --Nbauman (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

2018 New Jersey videos

Calton, I cannot accept your removal of the entire 2018 New Jersey videos story because it got "almost no traction" and it only came from a "local source." That's bullshit up and down the line. The scandal has led to a legislative investigation, New Jersey Star-Ledger is a major newspaper, and the story has been covered by a number of other reliable sources. Come on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DrFleischman.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
No, your puffing it up as a major enough to include is bullshit up and down the line. The New Jersey Star-Ledger is a local newspaper here, and the ONLY source for this allegedly major story. So no, not enough traction for here. If you want to promote O'Keefe, go elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 23:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
On review, I think Calton is right that we need better sources on this. It's clear Project "Veritas" makes stuff up and Wikipedia needs more sources before we include an entire section like this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what's wrong with the Star-Ledger, but sure, why not northjersey.com (North Jersey Media Group), WKXW, the Cleveland Plain Dealer (not local), or I suppose the Washington Times (also not local)? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
What policy is your objection based on? Because it it's based on WP:NOTPROMOTION, then we should address whatever language concerns you have. But deleting content outright on this basis when it's supported by multiple reliable sources is out of the question. Now, as for your completely unsupported allegation that the Star-Ledger is a local newspaper "here," wherever that means, how exactly is that consistent with it being the 16th largest US newspaper by circulation? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Project Veritas has, at best, a reputation for producing misleading and poorly-edited videos. It has previously been found responsible for half-truths and outright misrepresentations of people it accuses of wrongdoing. Given the sensitivity of these allegations, we can afford to wait for more investigation and independent confirmation before publishing defamatory claims about non-public figures. This very article contains numerous examples of O'Keefe's videos which were once hotly-promoted but later found to be entirely bogus and damaging to their victims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
What's wrong with the existing sources? Regardless of what the videos show, which we can qualify however we wish, it's indisputable that O'Keefe did take some videos, he publicized the videos, and the videos have prompted a legislative investigation. Why on Earth wouldn't we include this highly noteworthy, perfectly verifiable information? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
There might be something to write about this, but we should not be including extensive purported quotes and names of non-public figures and depicting them in a strongly-negative light based solely on allegations from this discredited partisan wreck of an organization. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. The media has misinterpreted O'Keefe's videos in the past, so a case can be made that the cited sources are unreliable for those particular aspects. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Given the long history of O’Keefe, I think we need to be more careful about reports of claims. We wouldn’t include such details in the article on The Onion. And I’m only half-joking. O3000 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Mission statement

I think we should include PV's mission statement from its website. Even if it's inaccurate, it's still valuable information as it explains how PV markets itself. We can use slightly less endorsing language: instead of saying what PV's "stated mission" is, we can say, "On its website, PV says its mission is..." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about James O'Keefe, not Project Veritas. So no, that level of detail -- and implicit promotion -- doesn't belong here. --Calton | Talk 00:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
No the article is about PV too. There's consensus above ("Need Project Veritas article and move to that article") that O'Keefe and PV belong in the same article (this one) that should be moved to Project Veritas. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Abasolutely not. It is a self-serving marketing statement that is at odds with the mountain of evidence about what he and his bogus "Project Veritas" actually do. They claim to "investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud and other misconduct", but there are numerous documented instances where it is O'Keefe's work that is fraudulent, corrupt and dishonest. No way should we give any weight at all to the self-sourced marketing claims of O'Keefe. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Guy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I still think we should include it but I guess's so disconnected from PV's actual purpose that it's not of much value. It's about as deceitful as PV's videos themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Claire McCaskill campaign in “other activities”

I wrote up a section detailing the latest activity to make it in the news. Project Veritas inserted videographers into the Claire McCaskill campaign. Tried to stick to just the facts and detail what happened and Sen. McCaskill’s response, etc.

The section was removed entirely because it was supposedly unsourced, but the sources were a NYT piece discussing the event and the other source was a station to whom McCaskill directly gave her interview and response. So both sources seem to be the best sources available, but anyone should please feel free to supplement if they have additional or better sources.

Anyway, I undid the deletion as the content was neutral and cited with respectable sources. Feel free to add to it if there is additional noteworthy information. Thanks. Blinkfan (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The cited sources do not support the text that you wrote. And even if they did, videos produced by O'Keefe and his organization of smear-peddlers should not be uncritically repeated, even if the write-up is in a WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV style. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Now the section has been deleted because the “wiki voice” (ie: neutral) is supposedly too favorable to O’Keefe’s narrative?

Why should we detail all these other activities, but this one should NOT be included? I understand the criticism and encourage editing, but add, don’t just delete things you don’t like, please.

The sources are the New York Times and a direct interview with McCaskill. What else can be done to offer a balance of viewpoints for neutrality? I’ve included a synopsis of what the videos show, the sequence of events as reported by the NYT, McCaskill’s response from her own words. What else can be done to offer a neutral view?

Open to ideas, but would vastly prefer someone collaboratively add and edit the section, not broadly remove entire sections without taking it to the talk page first.

Thoughts, folks? Blinkfan (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, bad content should be removed immediately. And you shouldn't be transcribing what's depicted in videos produced by an organization that has been repeatedly found to misleadingly edit videos, falsely claiming that the text adheres to secondary RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Blinkfan, it's not going to happen. If you don't understand why, then you don't understand O'Keefe -- in which case it's not going to happen. If you do understand, then you'll understand why it's not going to happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Selectivity?

This article fails to mention that the targets interviewed were democrats, and should mention that he is politically selective in his targets, Or is the wikipedia politically selective as well, and further proves Project Veritas sense that something is very wrong here in this country with people desperately trying to gain power and cover up if neccesary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9460:5A40:4DC0:FB4A:A2B1:5A69 (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Reception

This line is simply absurd:

"Project Veritas uses methods not employed by reputable journalists, including misrepresenting its operatives' identities.[158]"

And what's worse, the citation is from one of those corporate media outlets. Of course they would want to discredit the guy in any way. Mind you, these same outlets routinely hide behind the wall of anonymity for their "sources" that more than likely don't exist. Chase1493 (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It is well sourced and your accusation that they fake their sources doesn't belong here. If you have a problem with the sources, you can take it to WP:RSN. But first, I suggest you read WP:IRS. O3000 (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Google news regarding James O'Keefe and Project Veritas

I believe that news surrounding Google and Project Veritas should remain on the page. It is documented by two reliable secondary sources, the Washington Post and The Verge. - Splinemath (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

You are adding this with the line Elements of the corporation's strategy were revealed in a Project Veritas expose and not mentioning that your source says it was deeply misleading and the evidence was all phony. That makes your addition equally misleading and phony. This stuff has been reverted by four editors. O3000 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
But in any case all the article says now regarding Google is basically that Project Veritas interviewed Google employees about an implementation of fairness as a part of its machine learning techniques. It doesn't explain at all what it's actually about, why it is significant or what Google actually means by "implementing fairness" into the algorithm. So isn't just calling it an " implementation of fairness" and linking to the WP article about "fairness", itself misleading?
Hoerth (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that is misleading, and is also a reason this content is inappropriate. This would be another good reason to remove this content if it were restored again. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Instead of removal entirely how about changing the section to demonstrate what the Washington Post and The Verge articles show? Those sources are undeniably trustworthy secondary sources. - Splinemath (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The WaPo "article" only has one sentence, so it really isn't a source. The Verge article appears to say it's embarrassing that the Senate brought up another phony Veritas video. You can try to write up something along those lines and suggest it here on the talk page. O3000 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
There were more than 15 sentences exchanged in the video. I suggest you refer to Wikipedia:Videos as references before devaluing sources in the format again. - Splinemath (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The video is not a reliable secondary source and WaPo doesn't talk to its contents. I don't even see what the video shows us other than a senator is making accusations based on a source known for making videos that misrepresent situations. What is your point in adding this? O3000 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. The video itself is one of many clips hosted by the website, but being hosted by a news outlet doesn't transform the source into a secondary one. Presumably a transcript is hosted on a government website, as well. The format is not the problem. Interpreting primary sources to suggest a non-neutral conclusion is inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There are a lot of completely unreliable sources covering this (Brietbart and Daily Mail are both blacklisted on Wikipedia, as a couple of examples). There are also a few potentially reliable sources from more reputable outlets:

The IBT one is the only that seem open to the possibility that Project Veritas is legit, but it also spends more of the article quoting Gennai's rebuttals. Any use of this source would have to follow. The Hill one spends less time covering this specifically, but contextualizes it as a misleading attempt at a "gotcha". None of them take O'Keefe's claims at face value. These sources would provide context, but would also give weight to the incident, which is specifically contrary to the intentions of these sources. In other words, if sources don't treat this seriously, neither should Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Would this work as an addition?

In June 2019, Project Veritas interviewed Jen Gennai, a Google employee. Gennai states that “selectively edited and spliced the video to distort my words and the actions of my employer.”[1]

The title of the section could be "Google Interview (2019)". - Splinemath (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "White House to convene social media summit after new Trump attacks".
That's still giving Veritas far more credit than is supported by reliable sources. This wasn't an "interview", and Gennai isn't the only one saying this was distorted. I also do not think sources justify creating a new subsection for this. If this has lasting encyclopedic significance, we'll find out eventually and can reevaluate, otherwise this may end up being a political WP:FART.
Also, WP:BLP applies to Jen Gennai as much as O'Keefe, so we must not misrepresent the significance of this. Arguably we should be more cautious in this regard, since Gennai is not a public figure. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
It's inaccurate to say that Project Veritas interviewed Jen Gennai? - Splinemath (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, in this context, it's inaccurate, because it's misleading. An undercover video filmed under misleading pretenses is not an wikt:interview as the vast majority of people would understand the term. That this video was selectively edited makes this even worse. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The most recent attempt to shoehorn this is is sourced to Variety -- yeah, the showbiz trade paper -- the Moonie Times, and Rep. Louie Gohmert's Congressional web page. All in all, really scraping for anything resembling reliable sources. --Calton | Talk 11:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

There should be a mention in the article, The Verge, Variety, RT, IBtimes, Bloomberg,[19], at least two congressmen (in a Senate hearing, referenced by The Washington Post), and the POTUS have all referred or hinted to this undercover video, whether the information is incorrect, taken out of context, not an interview, or whatever WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH you've made is absolutely irrelevant. Also beware of WP:1RR, WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and WP:OWNING, leave your biases at the door. For now all these sources reflect mostly what the Google exec responded, so include that, per WP:IMPARTIAL Loganmac (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Variety is only RS in its field, which this isn't. RT and IBTimes are not RS. A video of a hearing is a primary source and not usable. That leaves Verge, which appears to say it's embarrassing that the Senate brought up another phony Veritas video. As I said before, someone can try to write up something along those lines and suggest it here on the talk page. O3000 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
That's why I mention TWP references the hearing, as Business Insider did too [20], they felt the need to highlight it, that's all the mention would amount to, "it was referred in X hearing by Y Senator", you left out the Bloomberg mention, and I seem to have missed the discussion on International Business Times not being reliable. Still, the fact you call it phony says a lot, please be impartial, don't WP:OWN Loganmac (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Your Bloomberg link doesn't work. The only Bloomberg article I could find with those words does not mention O'Keefe but just has a weird accusation from Trump that Twitter is making it very, very hard for people to follow him. The IBTimes is marked unreliable in the perennial sources page.[21] WaPo does not say anything but just posts a video. It is a primary source. It would be WP:OR to try to state anything based on questions asked at a Senate hearing. And, I have not in any manner indicated impartiality or ownership and suggest you stop lecturing. O3000 (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Lol Fox News is reliable according to that list? So then there's this too [22] Loganmac (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
No idea how this link applies to anything. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A few more sources I could find in 5 minutes: The Washington Post [23], The Boston Globe [24], The LA Times, [25], Bloomberg [26], The Independent [27]. I'm off to work, please assume WP:GOODFAITH people.

All of the stories are the same, a few word for word. They are all about the Fox Business News interview where Trump claims Google and Facebook are trying to stop him from being reelected. Please don't point to duplicate articles as it wastes editor time. And please read WP:AOBF. Repeatedly suggesting that other editors are violating AGF, OWN, etc. without evidence of bad behavior is disruptive editing. O3000 (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Now with the "Social Media Summit" thing, we got several mentions in RS, I think it's pretty bad we haven't covered this, a few examples BuzzFeed News, Washington Post, The Hill (there's also ThinkProgress but I don't think it's considered reliable). All describe him by his Google reveal Loganmac (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Claims of "investigations" need citations to match.

The sentence, "The national controversy resulted in the non-profit also losing most of its private funding before investigations of the videos concluded no illegal activity occurred." does not have any citations. What investigations? Who concluded no illegal activity occurred? Were there any other contrary opinions? And, there is a false implication that it would have needed "illegal activity" to properly explain why ACORN lost "most of its private funding". Private donors can make any decision they want. Private donors can decide that ACORN was engaging in sleazy and misleading activity, even if it was not necessarily "illegal". 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:6460:7AFD:D4AB:B37 (talk) 01:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Bullshit. There is a reference: the New York Times article. Read the paragraph starting "In the month after the videos were released..." I know, reading is hard work--much easier to read a tweet or watch a YouTube video. As for opinions: well, we have a reliable source here giving you a few opinions; yours, it seems, come from way elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
That paragraph in the New York Times article merely claims lack of criminality. It does not overtly claim that that lack of criminality meant that the subsequent loss of funds was not justified (or explained). That conclusion was contrived (synthesis?) by some WP editor to imply that (ostensibly) because there was no criminality, there was no reason for private donors to reduce or eliminate their level of funding. My edit was and is correct, because it eliminates that synthesis. As WP:SYNTH says, " Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:6460:7AFD:D4AB:B37 (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:SEALION. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Next up, consensus for your view. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I've made some edits that remove the false and conclusory nature of the relation between the "lack of criminality" and the reduction in private donations. But, I also notice this wording in the article: "The Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers in California and that the workers had not broken any laws." There is no citation for this. Also, I wonder if the California Attorney General's office proper function is to pass judgment on O Keefe's opinion of a private organization, ACORN. Once citations are available, we will check this. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:5D1:4F61:A097:1186 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Lots of info and citations her - ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy#Investigations of ACORN and the videos. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
But no citation on the specific line I was referring to. It isn't proper to "cite" something by, for example, saying "It's somewhere on the Internet! Find it!!" 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:5D1:4F61:A097:1186 (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
It's a link to another article. The content is summarised from that article, where it is sourced, including all parts of the text you identify. Example: "Because of the negative publicity, ACORN lost most of its funding from private foundations". Guy (Help!) 12:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
[dead link‍] All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC).

Split into project veritas

We gotta move some of his activities into the Project Veritas article, as that article is quite shallow and mostly covers the backlash to the organisation, and not the work they do. Also, a lot of the content here is not solely James's work, but the porject's too. Cheers, FriyMan Per aspera ad astra 06:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:FriyMan please go for it! Even if you only do a little. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC).
Why not duplicate it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Excessive Citations

As per "overkill," adding too many inline citations can cause clutter and are not helpful to readers. "In controversial topics, sometimes editors will stack citations that do not add additional facts or really improve article reliability, in an attempt to "outweigh" an opposing view when the article covers multiple sides of an issue or there are competing claims." Refer to the sentence: "He has selectively edited videos to misrepresent the context of the conversations and the subjects' responses, creating the false impression that people said or did things they did not." Many cited sources in this phrase have been retracted and edited to reflect statements that oppose this claim. Having fewer and more accurate sources would help justify this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CybaltM (talk • contribs) 20:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Need Project Veritas article and move to that article

The failed Project Veritas sting of the Washington Post has a glaring problem in that O'Keefe hasn't been named as a participant. It's here through his connection to Project Veritas but I haven't seen sources that have yet connected him to it. Without sources that identify the level of his involvement, this needs to be separated from his BLP. His other stings involved him directly but this one has not directly included him as of yet or indicated to what level he participated. --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

From the WaPo article, the link of this sting to O'Keefe is: James O’Keefe, the Project Veritas founder, declined to answer questions about the woman outside the organization’s offices on Monday morning shortly after the woman walked inside. “I am not doing an interview right now, so I’m not going to say a word,” O’Keefe said. In a follow-up interview, O’Keefe declined to answer repeated questions about whether the woman was employed at Project Veritas. He also did not respond when asked if he was working with Moore, former White House adviser and Moore supporter Stephen K. Bannon, or Republican strategists.

I don't think we can COATRACK this in his BLP. Unlike the federal office sting where he was directly involved, no such link has been made here. Nor would it be appropriate to COATRACK it into Steve Bannon's BLP, Roy Moore's BLP or any Republican strategists baased only on the fact that WaPo asked a question. --DHeyward (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Naturally enough, plenty of reliable sources are writing about O'Keefe in connection with the failed sting. This one might do nicely: [28]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Of course they are. He's the founder. WaPo covered it. What they aren't doing is factually asserting a conspiracy between a woman that lied about being sexually assaulted and O'Keefe. They also write about Moore and Bannon. Should we add a blurb on the Roy Moore biography that a woman lied about being raped and impregnated by him (can you imagine the dust up of reporting that in the accusations of sexual assault)? I think not. That CNN editorial you cite is an analysis/opinion/editorial not suitable for BLPs. --DHeyward (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I support this move. This article should focus mainly on O'Keefe's biography, and it shouldn't be that hard to summarize his notable videos and sting attempts. The fact that the "Project Veritas" section has become so cumbersome should be enough evidence of its own notability. I'm pretty sure there are other PV videos not mentioned that got some coverage, like the recent New York Times videos. FallingGravity 09:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Reading the comments further down, I think just moving the whole thing would be a better solution. O'Keefe's bio can be covered in the background section of a Project Veritas article. FallingGravity 07:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • There is nothing notable about O'Keefe except his Project Veritas work. When O'Keefe does something else (e.g. gets his own Fox show, wins a Republican primary), we should consider breaking up the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I should have reviewed the article before posting. Technically at least, O'Keefe is certainly notable for the ACORN scandal, which happened before PV was formed. But, it seems PV was just a continuation of the same work (probably formed as a donation vehicle and a liability shield). It's hard to argue that O'Keefe hasn't had his fingers in every PV project, and so I tentatively agree with TheValeyard. Also to be considered is the fact that splitting the article would be extremely difficult, and of questionable value to readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - Most content in the current article deals with Project Veritas so the title (James O'Keefe) is misleading. There is a reasonable dividing line between O'Keefe's early work (ACORN and Planned Parenthood) where he participated directly in undercover work and Project Veritas which operates with a significant budget and dozens of employees. Both O'Keefe and Project Veritas have sufficient coverage to justify their own articles.
The articles should be split chronologically with a short summary of O'Keefe's previous work in PV article and of PV in O'Keefe's article. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree with this. I suggest moving the contents that cover O'Keefe's activities and works as part of Project Veritas, retaining a summary about this period under the Career section. The information covering the time prior to Project Veritas is also substantial. In addition, O'Keefe has been the subject of recent reports in the media. Regarding Project Veritas, as Dwarfdwarfdwarf said, it is a separate entity. It is composed of a group of people and was noted as such, for instance, in its dealing with Izzy Santa. Darwin Naz (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
O'Keefe is essentially known only for his Project Veritas stunts. Neutralitytalk 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - It's bizarre that this hasn't already been done. O'Keefe is a different entity from his organization and both are notable enough to require their own articles. Amazon isn't Jeff Bezos. Mcdonald's isn't Ronald McDonald. Dwarfdwarfdwarf (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus to create a new article but noone wants to go ahead and do it yet lol Loganmac (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I guess this is all rather dull for everyone, me too, but I'll see if I can find time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC).
OK I made a start. Only items that are PV should be moved, please include a permalink in the edit summary, for attribution purposes.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_O%27Keefe/Archive_8&oldid=986990510"