Talk:James O'Keefe/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Re: proposed cleanup by James J. Lambden

@James J. Lambden:, there are several problems with your recent changes to the article. Some of the more problematic are:

• In this edit, you claim to "re-balance" content, when you instead reworded the reliably sourced assertion of fact that "O'Keefe has produced, misleadingly edited" recorded videos into an attributed allegation that the "videos which critics charge are often misleadingly edited". "Critics" aren't making the "charge", James; reliable sources are stating the fact. Wikipedia has a word for that kind of "re-balancing", and it isn't allowed.
• In this edit, you "consolidate" Sen. Landrieu content from two paragraphs into one, which isn't objectionable in itself, but ACORN content is similarly spread across two paragraphs with no such remedy. That should be addressed. I reworded your description of the event to more closely adhere to reliable sources.
• In this edit, you claim to "rm primary source" for no evident reason, when in reality you also removed the content cited to it. Stranger still, you re-add the primary source (without the content) in a later edit.
• Likewise in this edit, the fact that O'Keefe's NPR videos were publicized just as NPR was entering Congressional funding hearings mysteriously disappeared. The timing of O'Keefe's projects isn't random or arbitrary according to reliable sources, and it is probably better that we not conceal that from readers. This edit also introduced the somewhat inaccurate assertion that "led to the resignations of CEO Vivian Schiller and NPR Foundation president Ron Schiller." The sources say Mr. Schiller had already submitted his resignation prior to these videos being published (although he moved up his departure date a bit), and Mrs. Schiller resigned because of an accumulation of reasons, of which O'Keefe's video was just a part.
• In this edit, you remove some text about Donor's Trust that you argue is "not exactly neutral", and replace it with somewhat non-descript language, and you added a source which doesn't mention O'Keefe or his organization even once, for a bit of understandable supporting synthesis. I've removed that unrelated source about Donor's Trust. I could argue that the text you removed is not POV, but I left it out and added text from Donor Trust's own promotional materials, which is cited to the already existing reliable source about O'Keefe. Let me know if that is okay with you.
• In this edit you moved, without explanation, the fact that Trump donated $10,000 to O'Keefe out of the "Presidential elections" section and into the "funding" section. That move seems odd. Of all of the many funders of O'Keefe and his Project Veritas organizations, why would we name just one and only one funder (Trump)? I checked the reliable source (and the arguably less reliable source you replaced it with) in search of the significance and discovered that Trump gave the money to O'Keefe just before he formally announced he was running for President. The significance of Trump giving O'Keefe $10,000 is not that he is a donor to O'Keefe, but the connection between O'Keefe's videos and the Trump presidential campaign. For this reason, I've returned the content to the "Presidential election" section, while also leaving your addition to the "funding" section.
• In this edit, James deletes a redundant section, which is generally a good idea. I've recovered some of the source citations, however, and moved them into the existing section about that subject matter.

Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: I've reviewed your edit and comments above. I don't think we can discuss your concerns all at once in a clear manner. Would you object if I split them up, to discuss each individually?

Overall, I have some issues with the tone and (minor) structuring of the edit (which may have existed in previous versions), for example: under career, the description of his current work leads with: O'Keefe has produced, misleadingly edited and distributed secretly recorded videos and audio files made during deliberately staged encounter implying that is an accurate summation of his current career, which is not supported. The description of his staged encounters as "deliberately staged" is negatively biased - every "staged" encounter is deliberate and this adverb seems to be included for effect. Another example is the text: O'Keefe's Project Veritas was paid $10,000 by the Trump Foundation. We don't use that language with other donor-supported organizations, e.g. "PBS was paid", "Planned Parenthood was paid" - we use "donated." Was that unintentional or would you object to rephrasing it?

Otherwise, thank you for restoring information and references I inadvertently removed; my intent was not to reduce factual content. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The edit also restored some unsourced or poorly sourced content, for example the phrase media specialist Ben Wetmore which I removed, is unsourced. The text He has sought to "embarrass" and "damage" his targets, such as Senator Landrieu and ACORN is sourced to a primary source James J. Lambden (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I think if you check again, the Ben Wetmore content is indeed fully sourced. As for content being sourced to a primary source, a very reliable one in fact, that isn't against Wikipedia policy. High quality secondary sources are preferred, granted, but the former are not disallowed - and are specifically allowed. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you link the source that describes Wetmore as a "media specialist"? I couldn't find it in any cited sources and google only points back to our article.

Re: the AG's report (primary source) WP:BLPPRIMARY is explicitly clear on this:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

An AG's report like a judicial ruling is a public document, necessitating secondary coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As for the "tone" of the article, I think that should be set, and accurately reflect, the preponderance of reliable sources. Looking at the sources today, it is apparent that they are a bit more skeptical and wary than they were years ago when it comes to O'Keefe-related productions. Most sources now convey to their readers very early in their articles the warning that he has manipulated past videos to misleading effect. I don't think it is inaccurate to say that reliable sources, after considering his whole body of work, consider agenda-driven deception to be his hallmark rather than a rarity. Do you disagree?

Regarding "deliberately staged" versus "staged", the "deliberately" wording isn't mine. I don't share your objection to it, but I also won't object to its removal. The "staged" verbiage is easily sourced, as previously discussed here.

Regarding the use of primary sources, the admonition you quote warns us not to misuse primary sources, it does not prohibit their correct use (a fuller explanation can be found at WP:PRIMARY). Do I understand your position correctly: that the content cited to that source should not be in this article?

Regarding the description of Wetmore,I believe it was a reflection of the cited source, which describes him as, "the conservative Leadership Institute’s Balance in Media grant program, which was overseen at the time by Mr. Wetmore [...] Mr. O’Keefe and Mr. Wetmore were “among the early users of putting multimedia content online for the conservative cause,” said Ryan Nichols [...] the paper by Mr. Wetmore, whose motto was “Don’t complain about the media — be the media.” Would you like to describe a different way of describing him? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind splitting up (or allowing me to split up) your initial bullet points to facilitate discussion?

Re: BLPPRIMARY, the link to WP:PRIMARY says:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them

BLPPRIMARY in this case is the "other" policy as BLP takes precedence, and it says:

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

It addresses this exact situation: we're using a public document to support assertions about a living person. I suspect our discussion here will be lengthy, so for the time being I've removed it on BLP grounds. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I regret that I still disagree with your interpretation of that policy (and with your characterization of an Attorney General Office's report). We can certainly raise your concern at the BLP Noticeboard for more clarification if you'd like. In the mean time, I've added secondary sources referencing the same information. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Public documents" has a straightforward legal definition which the AG report falls within. That's not my subjective characterization. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Wetmore doesn't deserve the title media specialist. He's a media novice if anything. Benwetmore (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Would you mind splitting up (or allowing me to split up) your initial bullet points to facilitate discussion? James J. Lambden (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind at all; whatever facilitates the easiest and quickest resolutions to whatever concerns remain. How's this:

•  Done In this edit, you claim to "re-balance" content, when you instead reworded the reliably sourced assertion of fact that "O'Keefe has produced, misleadingly edited" recorded videos into an attributed allegation that the "videos which critics charge are often misleadingly edited". "Critics" aren't making the "charge", James; reliable sources are stating the fact. Wikipedia has a word for that kind of "re-balancing", and it isn't allowed. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that's a statement of fact. I added another statement of fact: O'Keefe's activism has focused on undercover "sting" videos. Both statements are sourced ([1] [2] [3]), both should be included, one is unquestionably more neutral - we should lead with the more neutral statement. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so we are in agreement on the fact, not opinion, that "O'Keefe has produced, misleadingly edited" recorded videos. On the new issue, are you saying his videos should also be described as undercover "sting" videos? I've heard both "undercover" and "sting" used as descriptions, but I'm curious as to why you put the word 'sting' in quotes. Your 3rd linked source does not say 'sting' at all, describing them instead as "undercover" stunts, with 'undercover' in scare quotes. Your NPR source has called them undercover exposes and both sting videos and video stings. Your Atlantic source doesn't use 'undercover' at all, but says hidden video sting. (Just FYI: your assertion that one description "is unquestionably more neutral" is nonsensical to me, like saying one pregnant woman is unquestionably more pregnant than another pregnant woman. It's either neutral or it isn't.) I'll not object to re-adding your 'undercover "sting"' description as I don't have strong objections, but other editors might. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If in some topics we're leaving open the possibility that others might object we shouldn't close others as "done" when you and I agree. It's not an official marker so use it however you like but please keep it consistent.

Sting/undercover/"sting" - I'm not particular about which we use. Re: neutrality: Bob Creamer is a felon; Bob Creamer is a Democrat strategist. Unless you think these are equally valid opening sentence for his article then yes there are levels of neutrality. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Since some sources put one or both descriptions, "undercover" and "sting", in scare quotes, it appears reliable sources aren't unanimous in how to characterize O'Keefe's video projects. As I said, I don't really object to their use (they are already in the article multiple times), but the sketchiness of the descriptions doesn't exactly scream "more neutral".

As for my marking certain discussions "Done", that is just to indicate some level of agreement or conclusion between you and I. It isn't a decree or anything like that. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• In this edit, you "consolidate" Sen. Landrieu content from two paragraphs into one, which isn't objectionable in itself, but ACORN content is similarly spread across two paragraphs with no such remedy. That should be addressed. I reworded your description of the event to more closely adhere to reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings on whether this content or the ACORN content has line breaks - adjust it as you see fit. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

How would you feel about changing the second paragraph from being a rehash of just the ACORN content to being a summary of his activities to date? The ACORN stuff is arguably his most notable activity, but does it warrant such an extensive dedicated paragraph in the lead? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

As I understand the lede should give a reader a high-level summary of all major article info. If that's the case wouldn't a summary of his activities in Career be a rehash of that section in the lede (maybe with slightly more detail?) It doesn't seem biased just wasteful. I'd prefer a general summary: here's how he got started, here's how his organization operates, here's how it's funded, here are other things he's involved with. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I missed the second part of your comment: I agree the ACORN information in the lede is too detailed. I don't think it belongs in career (which as I said should stay general) but in the ACORN section if it's not already included. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Using other bios as a guide, there is usually an "early life and education" section just after the lede, and a "personal life" section near the end. Your suggestion to have the second paragraph in the lede be a summary of activities sounds about right. The present "Political and personal beliefs" section is odd; the information in it is okay (but sparse), but I don't think it needs a dedicated section. And the "Career" section & content should be a direct lead-in to the "notable works" content. Just some thoughts, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Done In this edit, you claim to "rm primary source" for no evident reason, when in reality you also removed the content cited to it. Stranger still, you re-add the primary source (without the content) in a later edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

We're discussing this in another section, so I'll continue there. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay; I'll mark this redundant bullet-point as done (but still active). We'll finish up the discussion below, as soon as it is created. (I don't see where it is mentioned yet.) Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• Likewise in this edit, the fact that O'Keefe's NPR videos were publicized just as NPR was entering Congressional funding hearings mysteriously disappeared. The timing of O'Keefe's projects isn't random or arbitrary according to reliable sources, and it is probably better that we not conceal that from readers. This edit also introduced the somewhat inaccurate assertion that "led to the resignations of CEO Vivian Schiller and NPR Foundation president Ron Schiller." The sources say Mr. Schiller had already submitted his resignation prior to these videos being published (although he moved up his departure date a bit), and Mrs. Schiller resigned because of an accumulation of reasons, of which O'Keefe's video was just a part. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I trimmed both NPR and ACORN details because they're was presented (1) in the lede, (2) in this "Career" section (3) in the Major works section. I think "Career" should be a general overview, avoiding duplication, and the timing detail is relevant and belongs in Major works.

Re: the NPR resignations, the connection is well-sourced and should be included: While O'Keefe was instrumental in causing ACORN's bankruptcy and the resignation of executives at NPR, not all his operations have been as successful.[4] Schiller officially resigned, but there was little doubt she was ousted under pressure from NPR's board and officials from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting...NPR's directors, CPB officials and lobbyists for public broadcasting interests were concerned that Schiller's continued presence at NPR in the wake of the video would almost certainly have a catastrophic effect on the debate in Congress[5] James J. Lambden (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The fact that O'Keefe times his productions and publications for the greatest political effect applies to all his work, not just ACORN or NPR, so it should go in the career overview. As for the NPR execs, some early sources, such as the ones you mention, casually say O'Keefe caused the resignations. Other later and more carefully developed sources note that one exec was already leaving, and the other was under pressure for multiple reasons - not just O'Keefe's video. We can't portray events just one way when reliable sources conflict as they do. Even the NPR source you linked above ends with NPR's Dana Davis Rehm has told members stations that "there is no connection between the video and [Ron Schiller's] decision to leave NPR." Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree timing should go in Career, it's info about "how his organization operates." Re: causality, we give statements from primary sources less weight whether from Schiller or NPR execs, e.g. if David Duke or his boss says Duke's not a racist it doesn't mean our article says he's not a racist. If more sources correlate the firings/resignations with the videos than not then that's what we go with, otherwise not. I'll survey the sources in the dedicated ACORN article. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, we go with what the best and most comprehensive sources say, not necessarily with what "most" sources say, although that often ends up being the same thing. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• In this edit, you remove some text about Donor's Trust that you argue is "not exactly neutral", and replace it with somewhat non-descript language, and you added a source which doesn't mention O'Keefe or his organization even once, for a bit of understandable supporting synthesis. I've removed that unrelated source about Donor's Trust. I could argue that the text you removed is not POV, but I left it out and added text from Donor Trust's own promotional materials, which is cited to the already existing reliable source about O'Keefe. Let me know if that is okay with you. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason we need to say which according to its promotional materials, says that it will "keep your charitable giving private, especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues" when we can just say anonymous? James J. Lambden (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

As Wikipedia editors, the more appropriate question we must ask is: Why do reliable sources (and even the Trust itself) not just say "anonymous", but instead also stress that the Trust "specializes in hiding the money trails of conservative philanthropists" ... "especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues"? If it is important to the Trust, and to reliable news sources, to convey this additional information, why are you suggesting that we shouldn't? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

We don't require sources be neutral, we do require articles be neutral. Any anonymous donor fund could be described as "hiding money trails", because by definition they all do. Unless we describe others that way we shouldn't describe this one that way. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic: Given the following sources:

* "Donors Trust allows wealthy contributors who want to donate millions to the most important causes on the right to do so anonymously, essentially scrubbing the identity of those underwriting conservative and libertarian organizations."

* "Donors Trust is classified as a "donor-advised" fund under U.S. tax law, meaning its funders don’t have direct say in where their money goes. That in turn allows them to remain largely anonymous."

Would you object to the following wording: ...through Donors Trust, a conservative, American nonprofit fund which allows donors and thus funding sources to remain anonymous ? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking if I would object to that wording in addition to the present wording? Because I am pretty keen on keeping the wording that our sources felt was important to convey. Wouldn't that make your proposed addition somewhat redundant? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

When you say "keen on keeping the wording" what particular wording and what sources? The wording you restored was cited to the Donor's Trust website, not any 3rd party sources (as far as I can tell.) James J. Lambden (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The present wording I referred to is this: Much of the funding for Project Veritas comes from anonymous donations through Donors Trust, a conservative, American nonprofit donor-advised fund, which according to its promotional materials, says that it will "keep your charitable giving private, especially gifts funding sensitive or controversial issues." Xenophrenic (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, that claim comes from the group's website. I presented relatively neutral descriptions from left-leaning Democracy Now and Mother Jones. What objections to you have to using phrasing from those sources? James J. Lambden (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

More accurately, that information (not a claim) comes from a reliable secondary source, which cites the Trust documentation. What objecttion do I have to you also adding your proposed text? No strong objection, other than the redundancy. I would object to "replacing" the existing content with your proposed content, however. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• In this edit you moved, without explanation, the fact that Trump donated $10,000 to O'Keefe out of the "Presidential elections" section and into the "funding" section. That move seems odd. Of all of the many funders of O'Keefe and his Project Veritas organizations, why would we name just one and only one funder (Trump)? I checked the reliable source (and the arguably less reliable source you replaced it with) in search of the significance and discovered that Trump gave the money to O'Keefe just before he formally announced he was running for President. The significance of Trump giving O'Keefe $10,000 is not that he is a donor to O'Keefe, but the connection between O'Keefe's videos and the Trump presidential campaign. For this reason, I've returned the content to the "Presidential election" section, while also leaving your addition to the "funding" section. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As I say in the edit-summary, CNBC is re-reporting what was reported in thinkprogress. It seemed better to use the original but I have no strong feelings on that. The implication with the current placement is that the funding affected these videos. That's OR, not even the CNBC source makes that claim and no other source connects them. (As an aside, I did try to expand the funding section with other notable donors but I couldn't find any; there may have be a Koch-related organization but it wasn't recognizable or a named individual.) James J. Lambden (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

CNBC may have started with the ThinkProgress report, but they also added additional reporting not conveyed in the ThinkProgress report. I think the additional layer of fact-checking and scrutiny added by a reputable news source such as CNBC is generally a good thing. As for your observation that the implication is that Trump's funding of O'Keefe had some influence, I would agree that could be implied by the sources. But our article doesn't contain OR because it doesn't convey anything outside of what reliable sources convey. The facts according to sources: Trump gave money to O'Keefe just before launching his campaign (and never before, according to more sources) - O'Keefe produced videos designed to damage Trump's opponent - Trump now cites those videos at debates and rallies. That's all the sources say, so that's all our article should say, and we should avoid any OR conclusions or synthesis that isn't from reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

CNBC source is fine. The default place for funding info is the section on funding. Putting it elsewhere implies things we can't cite. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The WaPo source explicitly links the Trump campaign and $10,000 and the recent O'Keefe videos, and the CNBC source explains the $10,000 in the context of Trump citing O'Keefe's videos, so the content most certainly should be in the 2016 election section, and not just under the funding section. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Done In this edit, James deletes a redundant section, which is generally a good idea. I've recovered some of the source citations, however, and moved them into the existing section about that subject matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring citations. The section could use some tidying but I have no major objections. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Marking this one done. We still have work to do. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

In regard to this edit by James J. Lambden, as Xenophrenic points out above " reliable sources are stating the fact. Wikipedia has a word for that kind of "re-balancing", and it isn't allowed." Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Trying once again to discuss this on the article talk page

I keep trying and trying to open up a discussion about the difference between a widely-held opinion and an objective fact. Instead of a discussion, I am seeing edit warring. So, once again, I am trying to discuss this on the article talk page.

Regarding [6], [7], and [8], the words "manipulated", "distorted", and "heavily and misleadingly edited" are NOT statements of fact. When O'Keefe releases a video showing NPR saying something and NPR says O'Keefe took them out of context we do NOT decide that NPR's version is a "statement of fact".

It is against Wikipedia policy to turn a widely held but disputed opinion about a subjective assertion into an established fact in Wikipedia's voice. We should not conclude that the editing was misleading, manipulated, etc. We instead should report that multiple reliable sources have come to that conclusion (and add any reliable sources that disagree if we can find them).

Few here would dispute the assertion that the Nazis were evil, and claims that they were evil can be found in thousands of reliable sources, but Wikipedia does not say "The Nazis were evil" in Wikipedia's voice, because "evil" is NOT an objective fact. Instead we say "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime".[9] That is how Wikipedia handles a widely-held opinion.

What the edit warriors are missing is the fact that "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime" is a STRONGER statement than "The Nazis were evil" could ever be. It is the difference between the attributed opinion of experts vs. the unattributed opinion of an anonymous Wikipedia editor.

We need to treat all WP:BLPs according to WP:NPOV. This is especially true of BLPs of individuals that we dislike. Again, when the sources are pretty much all on one side, a neutrally worded article with all claims properly attributed is far more convincing than pretending that opinions are facts can ever be. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm seeing lots of discussion. Now I'm also seeing repeated attempts at WP:FORUMSHOPPING.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Reporting you at ANI after clearly warning you to stop reverting without discussing is not forum shopping. One report on one noticeboard is not forum shopping. Would you care to discuss the issue I raised above now? Do you agree that the words "manipulated", "distorted", and "heavily and misleadingly edited" are not statements of fact, or would you prefer to attempt to present some reasons why you think they are? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Starting, what, six? Seven? Different discussions about the same thing in order to try and finally get an answer you want is indeed forum shopping. BTW, how did that ANI report of yours go? I stopped paying attention.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Evidence, please. Name three forums where I have discussed this. With diffs, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Scroll through this talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Evasion noted. "this talk page" is ONE forum. Name two more or retract your claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

As far as "manipulated" "distorted" etc. first, what matters is not whether they're "statements of fact" but whether they're used by reliable sources. Second, yes, "manipulated" and "distorted" are statements of fact.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, finally an actual response to the issue I raised! Just to explore your understanding of Wikipedia policy, do you also believe that "The Nazis were evil" is an objective fact, and that "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime" as used in our Hitler article is "Weaselly"? If not, why the inconsistency? Do you deny that multiple reliable sources say that the Nazis were evil? I can post a couple of dozen citations if you doubt this. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"evil" and "manipulated" are different, if that's what you're asking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Manipulated" is objective only If you define every edited video as "manipulated" making virtually all televised interviews "manipulated" – otherwise it's subjective, like "evil." And repeated, even widely-held opinion is still opinion. I'm glad to see the beginning of strong policy-based arguments and editing here - I'd written this article off as another IAR BLP. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I would remind everyone that we have policies, guidelines and essays that give us guidance on this question. See WP:WikiVoice, WP:ASSERT, WP:!TRUTHFINDERS, Wikipedia:Truth matters#Wikipedia's voice vs assigned claims and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#"If it's written in a book, it must be true!". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not following the logic here. Specific videos are described in RS as having been manipulated or edited to misrepresent or convey false meaning. What's "every" about that? SPECIFICO talk 00:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

So? Specific political parties (the Nazis) are described in RS as being evil. That does not make it an objective fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't understand the difference between a verb and an adjective should not be editing an encyclopedia SPECIFICO talk 20:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There are a wide, wide array of reliable sources ranging from the conservative The Blaze to mainstream outlets such as USA Today and the Washington Post, that analyzed the videos and found significant discrepancies in the raw and edited versions which created, at best, out-of-context conversations and at worst, misleading false juxtapositions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

There are a far wider array of reliable sources that say the Nazis were evil. Yet WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia not say that, and to instead say "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word 'evil' to describe the Nazi regime". --Guy Macon (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

First, this is WP:OTHERSTUFF. Second, it's a horrible analogy. I'm actually to struggling to see the connection. If, for some reason, we had to, or wanted to, we *could* say "Nazis were evil" in our article on National Socialism and that would NOT be against policy. We might not want to do it for other reasons, but WP:NPOV is not one of them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's use your last comment as an example:

• Fact: it's an analogy
• Opinion: it's a horrible analogy

If a dozen editors chimed in to agree it was a horrible analogy the extent of its horribleness would still be opinion. No consensus no matter how strong could turn the opinion "it is horrible" into fact "it is horrible." Given the guidance in WP:ASSERT which says: "The text of Wikipedia articles should assert facts, but not assert opinions as fact" we could not claim in any article as fact that Guy Macon's analogy was horrible.

Does that example the distinction clear? If not, I enjoy these logic exercises so I'm happy to continue - I'm confident we will find a way to present it that does. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

See false analogy. Also equivocation. Clear?Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Unwatching this page

It has become clear that many (but not all) of the editors of this page are intent on either whitewashing or blackwashing O'Keefe, and have zero interest in actually following WP:NPOV. I am also fairly certain that somewhere along the line someone is going to roll up a bunch of Trump-related and Clinton-related pages and take the whole mess to ArbCom, followed by the traditional punish everybody phase. Because of this I am giving up, walking away from the entire mess, and unwatching this page. Note that if you reply, I won't see it.

In retrospect, it is hard to believe how incredibly stupid I was, trying to improve any politics-related page. Stupid as a stone that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that that I have traveled far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium. Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. My poor decision to stray from my usual engineering-related pages emitted more stupid in one minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid. This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of stupid. After this experience, all I can do is withdraw. I don't think that I can summon the strength to keep explaining clearly-worded Wikipedia policies again and again.

I wish those who have the courage to stay and try to make this page NPOV the best of luck. You will need it. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

"some of which he then edits in order to misrepresent persons as having said things they did not say"

"some of which he then edits in order to misrepresent persons as having said things they did not say" is a weasel worded quote that misrepresents the claim of its source.

The TIME article cites another TIME article as its primary source/original research, in which there is ONE (1) case where ONE (1) reply in ONE (1) interview was, for the shortened version of the video in question (with the longer and uncut version also being published by O'Keefe), outright misplaced to give a false sense of enthusiasm by the interviewed over fake donors supporting sharia law. This is what the source of the source cited claims. Other than that, there's no evidence of outright doctored footage as the quote would have you believe. Just of leaving out parts that would create nuance, and leaving out parts where the methods of the intreviewer are revealed.

Delete the weasel words, and mention the actual controversy and why O'Keefe is really deemed not trustworthy, and by whom that is. Or at least add source citations to justify the use of plural "some". The sentence gives the impression O'Keefe is producing several videos where he just mixes and matches samples of sources ad lib. I know many of us don't like O'Keefe but that does not justify these unprofessional and biased edits.

"He produces undercover audio and video encounters, some of which (SOURCE FOR PLURAL) are edited in a misrepresenting manner." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.194.2.41 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on adding latest video about Trump inauguration

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 a paragraph about the latest video released by the subject of this article regarding Trump's inauguration be added to the "US Presidential Elections (2016)" section, which lists other materials published by the subject of this article regarding the aforementioned topic? Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support but use the word "alleged" to describe DisruptJ20 plotting to use "stink bombs", especially when the aforementioned group themselves responded to the video, claiming that the members deliberately gave false information to Veritas. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 19:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not only a matter of undue weight, but the text being added is a pretty clumsy rewrite of events that privileges O'Keefe's, with the backwards chronology making it look like the O'Keefe sprung a traap and J20 is responding to that. And the Washington Times and the Daily Mail? What, InfoWars wasn't available? --Calton | Talk 14:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Calton: various additional and more reliable sources have been mentioned in the discussion below. If you have any ideas to improve the text feel free to share them in the discussion below or edit the paragraph if there is a consensus to add it to the article.Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

The best improvement is not to have it. Second-best would involve taking your propaganda version and setting it on fire. --Calton | Talk 11:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Woah. Calm down. Looking at your user history, you seem pretty close to be getting banned again. Natureium (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Is WaPo not good enough for you? [10] They were arrested for it, and the police seem to strongly believe that they were planning to attack people with acid. And there's no need to be snarky. Natureium (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Covered by the Natrional Review,[11] Ogden Standard-Examiner,[12] Washington Post,[13] and Snopes.[14] The Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department announced the arrest of Scott Ryan Charney -- one of the three people shown on the Project Veritas video -- for Conspiracy to Commit an Assault.[15][16] Also see DeploraBall#Protests. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oh, National Review! What, Breitbart or Glenn Beck weren't available? --Calton | Talk 11:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You already tried that "joke". Natureium (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I see nothing undue or otherwise non-neutral about this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Are you referring to this text you keep trying to add? If so, your RfC isn't worded correctly since it's unclear what it is you're talking about. Also, neither the Washington Times, nor Daily Mail are reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for making a reference to the text. I did not originally add it, it has been added at 760450470. It would be more precise to say that you are trying to remove it. The paragraph mentions material released by the subject just like many others in this article, I don't see why my RfC isn't worded correctly. Besides the three secondary sources there is also a link to the material itself, so I don't see how the sources could be an issue regarding the existence of the material. If there is an issue with the description of the content of the video by the sources please express your concern. What could be an issue is the fact that the material's contents may be misleading. Because of this, our paragraph correctly tells the other side of the story, mentioning that the people depicted in the video deny the accusations and explain that they were deliberately lying in the video to fool its author. If this is the issue for which the sources are under scrutiny, it is possible to add a link to the statement itself (found at http://www.disruptj20.org/media/vertas/).Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue is with DUE WEIGHT and sources. The above source are not reliable and the disruptj20 link is a primary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Rolling Stones recently mentioned the video in an article describing the DeploraBall - [17] Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, not really enough.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Video shows anti-Trump activists plotting to set off stink bombs, sprinklers at inaugural fetes --The Washington Times --Guy Macon (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times in not a reliable source. Also, the Southern Poverty Law Center also mentioned the video. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Also Snopes.[18] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: @Volunteer Marek: @Saturnalia0: And Washington Post. According to that report, Veritas' video led to an arrest. In fact, James O'Keefe stated "This is the first time that a video we shot has led to an arrest. It legitimizes what we’re doing. It’s a new era for us." Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the only source for last but one paragraph of the section being discussed is Salon, which shouldn't be considered reliable on this subject either. Do you suppose said paragraph should be removed also, Volunteer Marek? Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Which paragraph? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

"On November 8, 2016, during Election Day, O'Keefe spent some time going around vans that were allegedly "bussing people around to polls in Philadelphia".[101]". The source shows the tweets from O'Keefe himself, which include a video of O'Keefe doing exactly what is described in our paragraph, so I think it's just fine to leave it there despite the source. On the other hand the paragraph being discussed in this RfC is the same case I believe, since the sources referenced in it show the video by O'Keefe himself. Moreover, the Snopes article suggested by Guy Macon shows the note from DisruptJ20 itself also, so all material reference in our paragraph is both cited by secondary sources and can be found verbatim. In your opinion, are both the same case? If not, why not? Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Saturnalia0, please add a diff or collapsed pane to the RfC indicating exactly what content you're proposing be added, including sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I propose the paragraph below, which is the original text that was removed because of lack of consensus, updated with the Washington Post as a source for the video and Snopes as a source for DisruptJ20's claim that the information was false, as well as a sentence mentioning that the video has led to an arrest as revealed by the Washington Post (this addition was suggested in this diff, though I merely mentioned the arrest instead of quoting O'Keefe).

On January 16, 2017, Project Veritas uploaded a video showing DisruptJ20 members plotting to use "stink bombs" at the DeploraBall. After the video's release, DisruptJ20 denied the statements, claiming that the members deliberately gave false information to Veritas. The video led to the arrest of one man allegedly involved in the plan.

• This RfC will complete thirty days and be unlisted at the end of the weekend. It seems to me that all issues have been addressed, though I'm not sure how (or if) it should be closed. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

References

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James O'Keefe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531174024/http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no052610b.htm to http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no052610b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing

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.

---

Per WP:WikiVoice and WP:ASSERT, should accusations of selective editing be attributed as opposed to being stated as facts in Wikipedia's voice?

(Also see WP:!TRUTHFINDERS, Wikipedia:Truth matters#Wikipedia's voice vs assigned claims and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#"If it's written in a book, it must be true!").

-- Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support: Widely-held opinions and established facts are two separate things, and Wikipedia's policies ane guidelines forbid calling a widely-held opinion an established fact. We need to clearly state who said the videos were selectively edited, who said they weren't, and indicate how widely held each of those opinions are. We cannot call opinions facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Sure, "accusations" of selective editing" should be attributed. Since that's not happening here -- that ol' "statement of facts" thing -- then the question is irrelevant or misleadingly framed to elicit a preferred response. So Oppose. --Calton | Talk 14:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Snarky, and factually incorrect. Your own (also snarky) edit summary[19] calls them objective facts. See Talk:James O'Keefe#Trying once again to discuss this on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Snarky, because -- once again -- you're having trouble with that whole "fact" thing again. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Obvious support. It is the cornerstone of proper content editing: opinions should always be presented as what they are, opinions, and the sources of them should always be cited clearly. But what we currently have in edits like this [20] are opinions dumbed-down and made out to be unquestioned, universally held facts. While it is undoubtedly better, the earlier Guy Macon edit is still inadequate - there should be some content detailing what the alleged "editing in order to misrepresent" actually had consisted of, not just that it was alleged O'Keefe had done it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Obvious support, it is primarily in order to be fair to the reader IMO, not simply the BLP that we state who has made the accusation and its precise nature. As pointed out by Guy M in the related discussion, doing so will often strengthen, not weaken the assertion. Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per everything I said below. Basically, this is a bad faith-ed RfC because it PRESUMES that statements aren't attributed currently. They freakin' already are. What this proposal appears to be is a cover to sneak in a bunch of weasel language into the article. It's also not clear exactly what the proposer wants to change. Badly formatted RfC and the idea behind is wrong headed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Object and oppose. This RfC is malformed because it doesn't identify the specific "accusations" Guy is proposing to be attributed. From what I can tell, these "accusations" are actually analyses found in two generally reliable media outlets, NPR and Time. The statement that O'Keefe edited selectively does not appear to be an accusation; it appears to be based on reliably sourced factual content. In-text attribution would violate our neutrality policy by misleadingly presenting a reliably sourced fact as an unreliably sourced accusation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• The problem with this proposal is that it portrays it as a Yeay/Nay kind of thing. Also, by invoking WP:ASSERT, and WP:TRUTHFINDERS and portraying the disagreement as "attributed vs. Wikipedia voice" it misrepresents the nature of the disagreement - there's already tons of attribution, what some editors want though is to weasel and qualify everythign. Hence it is not neutrally worded, as RfC instructions require.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree. I believe that it is neutrally worded and represents the nature of the disagreement just fine. I say that the statements in question should be attributed. You say they should be presented as established facts in Wikipedia's voice. You argue that attributed opinions elsewhere on the page transform the statements made in Wikipedia's voice from widely-held opinion to established fact. I say that they do not. That being said, RfCs are usually closed by uninvolved administrators, and the closing admin will evaluate your objection above and take it into` account when evaluating the result. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, you are once again misrepresenting what I'm saying with your little " You say they should be presented as established facts in Wikipedia's voice". What *I say* is that *there already is plenty of attribution* and the additions you wish to make are just weaselin'. RfC are required to be worded neutrally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Objection noted. It really looks to me like you just repeated your assertion that attributed opinions elsewhere on the page transform statements made in Wikipedia's voice from widely-held opinion to established fact, but I trust the uninvolved closing admin to evaluate your objection and decide whether it has merit. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek, if you keep presenting opinions as facts as you did here[21] we are going to end up at WP:ANI over this. In the section Talk:James O'Keefe#The issue of selective editing three editors opposed you on this and nobody supported you. Please stop trying to push you POV into the article against consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• You did it again,[22] so off to ANI we go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Volunteer Marek --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Annnnnnddddd ANI report closed as "Nah".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Revert instead of discussing again and we will see if WP:AE has the same opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• What's up with these weird RfC's? Please identify the specific content change being proposed. Otherwise this belongs at WT:NPV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• There is nothing unclear about the RfC I posted. Either we state widely-held opinions about subjective value judgements "purposeful" or "misleading" as what they clearly are -- widely-held opinions -- or we pretend that they are established facts and present them in Wikipedia's voice without any attribution. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This RfC is garbage. How can anyone weigh in meaningfully without knowing what what "widely-held opinions" are being referred to and what sources they come from? I'm sorry but as it currently stands I see this as a meaningless RfC that could only lead to a false consensus. I wouldn't feel bound by it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I came here to close this RfC, but now I got more questions than answers. There are two parts where I saw accusations of "selective editing"

Keefe has selectively edited and manipulated his recordings of ACORN employees, as well as distorted the chronologies.

But the problem here is that he he agreed to pay Mr. Vera for "deliberately misrepresenting" his actions. Given the resolution of the lawsuit, it seems appropriate (to me) to keep this in WP voice. The other was this part about the NPR video:

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."[79] Time magazine wrote that the video "transposed remarks from a different part of the meeting", was "manipulative" and "a partisan hit-job."[80]

But this part is properly attributed to who is claiming the selective editing. Did I miss something? Is there some other part you are referring to? Or was the ACORN part that was being refereed to? If so why shouldn't the resolution of the lawsuit be enough to keep it in WP voice?Obsidi (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Nah, you didn't miss anything, that's pretty much it. The stuff that needs attribution is indeed already attributed. This RfC is a demand for a blank check to sprinkle all kinds of weaselism throughout ON TOP of the attribution.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Obsidi: Some of the unattributed claims have since been attributed. The ACORN lawsuit and settlement were I believe for recording without permission. If someone can find the text of the settlement that would be helpful. Assuming we have one objectively clear case of misleading editing I see these as problematic:

In the lede (implies multiple)

• He has received criticism for editing videos to misrepresent persons as having said things they did not say.

In Career (implies multiple):

• O'Keefe has produced and distributed secretly recorded—and at times misleadingly edited—videos and audio files made during staged encounters with targeted entities or individuals.[4][15] Some of his work has received criticism for misleading editing.

NPR video (attribution should be stronger):

• As blogger Scott Baker wrote, analysis of the full video showed that a portion was seemingly edited to intentionally lie or mislead.

(implies truth)

• revealed editing that was characterized as "selective" and "deceptive" by Michael Gerson

Reception, The Blaze (bad source)

• Scott Baker of The Blaze wrote in March 2011 about the NPR videos, saying 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."

Because of the history of this page it would be helpful to have an "official" conclusion re:attribution, even if it's preventative. Would it be reasonable to say we make the claim in wikivoice in cases where a court's found (or O'Keefe has admitted) deceptive editing, and attribute it in others? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:11, 23 March 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.

Quotefarm

A note to James and others. This article has an excessive amount of quotations, rendering it difficult to read and less than encyclopedic. Many quotations are simply recitations of facts by reliable sources that can easily be put in our voice. Other quotations are of opinions that can be paraphrased or at least trimmed to their essential points. If I or someone else paraphrases or trims a quote so that it loses its essential meaning, please see if you can paraphrase whatever is lost. If you can't, fine, then restore the entire quote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your take on quotes. My objection was that O'Keefe makes three points the statement we paraphrase:

1. His goal is to "capture candid conversations"
2. His method "a form of guerrilla theater"
3. He "wouldn’t characterize [his method] as lying"

We paraphrased (2) and (3) but excluded (1), his justification, arguably his most important point. I included the whole quote because I could not paraphrase his response more clearly or succinctly but I would not object to a paraphrase that reflects all three. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The source already paraphrases him, we don't need you to do it (see WP:OR).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Investigative Journalist

Come on Wikipedia. You can at least take your nonsense attacks out of the introduction paragraph and put them further down the page. He is one of the top investigative journalists in the world. His investigative reports are widely cited. He is widely respected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.5.117 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

What specific content in the first paragraph are you objecting to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There is more to the world than the echo chamber you've locked yourself in. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct, he would be better described as a hoax news reporter, who is famous for making hoax news reports that have been proven to be fake. Carewolf (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If there was nothing to his videos, no one would sue him. You don't sue people who have evidence of nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2EE6:9BE0:3D2D:B20A:5AD2:2491 (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not what a lawsuit means! It means that the plaintiff (grieved party) feels they were damaged by the defendant (O'Keefe). Whether or not it's just is what the court will decide. Also, to refute your argument - if I claim that John Doe was a murderer, a baseless accusation, and that statement causes the subject harm, then I can be sued for defamation. DocDoLittle (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources, misrepresentation

Re [23].

The original article text says: "He has received criticism for editing videos to misrepresent their subjects as having said things they did not say"

The source says: "O’Keefe has previously spliced videos together to imply its subjects were saying things they were not."

The original article text is being changed to: "He has been criticized for editing videos to misrepresent the context of conversations and the subjects' responses"

I'm sorry but the source doesn't say crap about "misrepresenting the context of conversations" - it straight up says "saying things they were not".

This appears to be a fairly transparent instance of neutral text getting WP:WEASELed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and in response to the edit summary (quote: "rephrase per WP:BLP; article phrasing is ambiguous and ours is baesd on that single source. No one alleges he splices words together to create statements, serious BLP issue"):

1. Accurately reflecting sources is NOT a BPL violation. Misrepresenting sources is potentially a BLP violation.

2. The article phrasing is not ambiguous. It says "saying things they were not"

3. The source indeed does say that he spliced videos to have his subjects "saying things they were not". Lambden, did you even read the source?

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a single source. Does "saying things they were not" mean: saying words or sentences they never said or (as is the case) rearranging their responses to make it appear they were responding to questions other than those asked? The phrasing is ambiguous and to include ambiguous accusations is a BLP violation. There are far more sources that support my phrasing, here's one from NPR: Elements Of NPR Gotcha Video Taken Out Of Context you can search the rest many which are already included in the article. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's in the lede, which doesn't even need sources. So what if it's a "single source"? How does that justify you misrepresenting the source, single or not? The phrasing is straight from the source and there's nothing ambiguous about it, quit making stuff up. Accurately reflecting a source is not "a BLP vio". Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE - save for user talk or admin boards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You've also violated 3RR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Violated 3RR with 2 edits? My paraphrase reflects the consensus of sources. You're attempting to use a single source to suggest something contrary to fact, in a BLP. No good. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Four edits, which I listed on your talk [24]. The "paraphrase" (i.e. misrepresentation of sources) does not "reflect the consensus of sources". It just reflects something you yourself made up. I'm sticking to the source that is given - neither more nor less. And doing so accurately, unlike you. One more time - whether it's a "single source" or not, how does that give you the license to misrepresent it? Please self revert your 3RR vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC) 4 edits, 1 of which was not a revert by any interpretation, 2 of which are BLP vios and revert exempt. This pattern of following me to articles to harass is not constructive. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Which one was not a revert? And you can try the "BLP vio" defense, but since you're misrepresenting the source, it ain't gonna fly. Also you have been following my edits around for quite awhile now, starting pointless disputes and edit wars, admitted as much and have narrowly escaped sanction on account of it - so please stop trying to gaslight people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Here are the four reverts, since you removed the notification from your talk page: [25], [26], [27], [28].Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC) The 4th diff is not a revert. A "revert" means restoring an earlier version of the text. If you can link an earlier version matching my edit I'll gladly self-revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's another example, cited to The Atlantic — O'Keefe paid a $100,000 settlement to an ACORN employee who was falsely portrayed as aiding and abetting sex trafficking, when in fact immediately after the contact with O'Keefe's "sting," he called police and reported the contact, then reported it up the chain to his supervisors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Vera was indeed falsely portrayed; he was however not portrayed "saying things he did not say." Using this source to support that phrasing is a misrepresentation of the source. The current phrasing is ambiguous, not supported by any but one source, and a disservice to the reader. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you think the given source is not reliable, take it up at WP:RSN. Otherwise drop these attempts to flaunt policy. And again, there's nothing "ambiguous" about current phrasing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether the source is reliable is not in question. The question is whether the phrasing used in a single source, copied almost verbatim, reflects the consensus among all sources. It does not. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

According to you and you alone. This "consensus among all sources" - what is that? On Wikipedia "consensus" refers to editors. You've provided no back up for your assertion. Just making empty claims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

According to our article only one source alleges he edits videos to suggest subjects "say things they did not say." If another exists, please provide it. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's your job to show sources which contradict that. Also NBSB just gave you another source. And here is another source which lists several examples [29]. So. Original phrasing accurately reflected the source. You WP:WEASELed it. Then you turn around and demand that... more sources are provided without bothering to provide any yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

He was falsely portrayed as having aided and abetted human trafficking; of course, we can't entirely spell that out in the lede, so we shorten it to "creating the implication that people said or did things they did not." If you have an alternative, concise, lede-worthy phrase which sums the situation up, you're welcome to present it. If you need more sources for the settlement with Vera, they are available, but we should avoid over-citing things in the lede, and I think four citations is enough. If you would prefer, though, we can always add more. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my attempt. I'm open to a number of accurate phrasings – misrepresented their statements or actions, edited questions and answers out of sequence, etc. My objection was and still is that the current phrasing is inaccurate.

You note there are four citations but only one of those four supports the claim he edited videos to make it appear subjects "said ... things they did not." That should tell you something. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You yourself state that the text is "copied almost verbatim" - how can it be "inaccurate" then? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with VM and NBSB. The current content is verifiable (supported by reliable sources) and neutral (representative of the reliable sources). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Volunteer Marek, the original wording he reverted to better represents what the sources say. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Splitting this article?

The bulk of this article is about videos created by O'Keefe's team "Project Veritas", so I think it's about time this got forked. If I understand this article correctly, this would mean most of the post-2010 content would be moved over to the forked article and summarized here. ^Falling_Gravity 06:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favor. I believe PV is basically just O'Keefe, and this article isn't too long. Some of the sections could use some trimming to address WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENTISM/WP:QUOTEFARM issues though. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

CNN

Looks like his project recently released a new film on CNN. [30] [31] PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd caution editors to be careful when adding anything about this. As we've seen, there are two sides to every O'Keefe video, and it usually takes a some time for the full story to come out. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah its still in the breaking news phase, more should be coming out from better sources soon. PackMecEng (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: @DrFleischman: Sarah Huckabee Sanders has just mentioned the video, recommending people to watch it. This was subsequently reported by Washington Post and many others. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 21:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, the Washington Post story is mostly about how hypocritical it is to complain about "fake news" and then tell people to watch O'Keefe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: @PackMecEng: @DrFleischman: I added it. Please, let me know what you guys think. Feel free to make some improvements. I also agree with Yoshiman6464 that it has become quite notable. Multiple news outlets are covering it and the WH Press Sec. made a statement regarding it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it, per DrF and PackMecEng. EtienneDolet - 1) what are you doing on this article? You've never edited it before, yet now all of sudden you show up 2) why are you adding controversial content which obviously has no consensus? 3) why are you adding what is potentially a serious BLP vio to the article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

1) Is it forbidden for me to edit this article or something? 2) Well, I wouldn't say there's no consensus to include. The comments by DrF and PackMecEng were made when there were very few sources covering it. Now we got plenty. 3) How is it a BLP vio when CNN and Bonifield are not even denying it? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

1) It's forbidden for you to engage in WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. 2) There's objections to inclusion and it's a BLP issue. 3) "Not denying it" is not a sufficient reason here. Maybe they don't feel like they should dignify this crap with a response (and actually CNN did make a statement). Not up to you invent some artificial bar for "BLP vio". "Not denying it" is nowhere to be found in WP:BLP so please drop it. And self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Might as well add that even BLP issues aside, the info was added in an obviously POV way. For example, no sources given refer to any "American Pravda". Or, another example, the word "merely" does not appear either in the sources nor in the video - that word was added by EtienneDolet to make the statement look worse than it was. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

1) Stalking and harassing you? How, when, and where? I simply added information about a bombshell video that has been the most trending video on YouTube for the past 24 hours. I really don't have to explain myself here. It's silly. 2) The only person arguing BLP on the thread is you. Hardly a consensus to exclude. 3) Soooo they shouldn't dignify it with a response. But they did respond, so they did dignify it. Okay.

...And the word "merely" isn't OR. It just goes to show that their coverage of Russia is merely (as in only or just) for ratings, which is what the sources say. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

1) You have a habit of showing up to articles that I've recently edited and starting up a fight. 2) Two other editors have objected to inclusion of this video, as you well know, so stop playing games. And you know very well that you need consensus to include, not vice versa. Stop playing games. 3) Again "didn't deny" isn't in WP:BLP, it's a bullshit standard you just conveniently made up. They issued a statement. You're demanding that they "deny". Two different things. Okay?

"And the word "merely" isn't OR. " - yes, yes it is. It's not in the source. You added it all on your own just to make it more POV. "which is what the sources say" - no, it's not what the source says at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

VM: You can't cry BLP without explaining the particular BLP objection. Is there a claim you feel is inaccurate or insufficiently sourced? Be specific. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The BLP objection is that we are giving space to a political hit piece against a living person constructed by a person who has been known to, quote, "editing videos to misrepresent persons as having said things they did not say". Other aspects of the BLP issue (like adding the word "merely" and titling the section "American Pravda" have *already* been explained - so why are you asking? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere in this response is there anything more significant than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you have issues with the sources take it up at RSN. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You wanted an explanation, you got it. Here it is again "we are giving space to a political hit piece against a living person constructed by a person who has been known to, quote, "editing videos to misrepresent persons as having said things they did not say". If you think that is "not significant" then you need to read WP:BLP and consider whether you really should be editing this project or whether you're WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking through these "many other" sources linked to by Yoshiman6064 (a google search) it looks like most of these sources are about... Sara Huckabee Sanders, not actually this O'Keefe video. This (no idea if that's RS) is a typical example.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

1) See WP:BADFAITH. This video is trending all over the internet, it's very reasonable that someone, including myself, would edit his article. 2) Those two other editors objected when the only two sources were the Washington Times and Veritas itself. We have addressed their concerns by adding more sources. 3) Not really. You claim O'Keefe makes stuff up. But CNN said that they "welcome it and embrace it." Doesn't sound like it's very contentious material to me. 4) I disagree with you regarding merely. But if you feel that there's a better word to comply with sources, feel free to modify it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, whatever, you know what you're doing, people who follow these matters know what you're doing, it's more or less an open secret, just something hard to prove. And I'm really not interested in getting drawn into your time wasting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games. You need consensus to include. You know that. There's objections here to include. On BLP, and other grounds. Ignoring these objections you added it anyway and then claimed lack of consensus to exclude. Which is WP:TENDENTIOUS and... bad faithed (hence good faith need not be assumed - especially given your prior history). If you want to start earning some of that good faith back then self revert and wait for the discussion to commence here.

Also, you put your comment in the wrong place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• My previous comments are being misconstrued by some editors here. I support the content as written, there is a clear consensus to include it as written, and I do not see a valid basis for the {{POV-section}} tag. My only minor beef is that the section heading ("American Pravda") is confusing and unhelpful and should be changed to something more neutral and informative. I am switching the {{POV-section}} tag to {{pov-inline}} accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  I think we should keep in mind that this is going to be a series of videos, much like PVA's previous releases. We don't really know what the other videos will be about (whether they still focus on CNN or another media outlet). One of these videos is supposed to be released today, according to O'Keefe on Twitter. ^Falling_Gravity 16:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Now we're in clearly non-neutral territory. Volunteer Marek, please cut it out and discuss. Bold =/= reckless. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

How is that non-neutral? It's straight from the sources and context is important. Indeed, with regard to Bonifield this info is required by BLP - the fact that he is being misrepresented in the video by someone who has a history of misrepresenting people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

How's he being misrepresented though? WaPo couldn't find anything in the video itself that would misrepresent Bonifield's remarks. After all, that'll be an impossible task since it's his own words. Instead, the WaPo just focuses on inconsequential technicalities (i.e. O'Keefe didn't mention where Bonifield's office is based out of or that he didn't say he's part of the CNN's health department etc. etc). That's hardly a case to disprove Bonifield's own remarks which is crux of the extraordinary revelations we are dealt with here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The source and the text explicitly explained HOW he was being misrepresented - why not actually read what you revert? And yes, it's perfectly possible to misrepresent somebody with their "own words". Just take them out of context. Or misrepresent who the person is. In another video O'Keefe showed somebody saying something without bothering to show the fact that the person was actually quoting somebody else. Please stop playing ignorant here - you know perfectly well that it's possible to misrepresent others "with their own words". Hell, just look at some of the past WP:AE requests and you see it all the time. Some people even get banned from WP:AE for that kind of behavior. Regardless, the sources are explicit here so we don't really need yours or anybody else's "interpretation" and original research.

And in this particular case there is most certainly misrepresentation. It's as if I went to my local Walmart, found a manager who says "WalMart is a shitty store", secretly video taped them without their permission then made a video which said "WalMart executive admits that Walmart is a shitty store!". Bonifield is one of hundreds of "producers" employed at CNN. His position has nothing to do with political coverage. He is speaking in his own personal capacity. His opinion, ideology or anything else has zero influence on how CNN covers Russia and Trump... but the video dishonestly pretends otherwise. Guess some people just have some issues with the difference between truth and lies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Some people even get banned from WP:AE for that kind of behavior."? Would you be referring to me? My self-imposed 6 month vacation from AE is over, by the way. I could file AE reports any time I want. But back to the real issue: just because O'Keefe didn't say he's based in Atlanta (he actually did say that) doesn't negate the fact that Bonifield said that the Russia stuff "Could be bullshit. I mean, it's mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don't have any giant proof" does it? Nor does is negate the fact the Russia stuff is "good for business". I mean, that's the crux of the issue here. Sidetracking on technical things like "oh he didn't say he was part of the health department" or whatever is just an attempt to deflect, divert, and distract. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

" just an attempt to deflect, divert, and distract." - not according to sources. And BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. I tried to fix some parts of it up but the edit contains easily verifiable untrue information (or information that cannot be proven true). Brian Karem did not "fire back" at Sanders mention of the O'Keefe video, as the edit suggested. He fired back at how he did not like the administrations attack on the media in general. The O'Keefe reference happened much before Karem interjected. Itsclange (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• VM, please stop cherry-picking the most anti-O'Keefe points and commentary. It is blatantly non-neutral. Context and commentary may be warranted, but then we have to include the full context and the full diversity of viewpoints. Personally, I think these CNN videos are a "nothingburger" and we shouldn't be devoting so much attention to them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, if you keep re-adding cherry-picked commentary without consensus then I will report you. Again, you are giving the videos more emphasis than they deserve and opening the floodgates to pro-Keefe commentary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)