Talk:James O'Keefe

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[1] 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 [2] 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[3] 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,[4] 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)

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? [5] 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,[6] Ogden Standard-Examiner,[7] Washington Post,[8] and Snopes.[9] 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.[10][11] 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 - [12] 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.[13] --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.

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)

"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)

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)