Talk:James O'Keefe

Need Project Veritas article and move to that article

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

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

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

Naturally enough, plenty of reliable sources are writing about O'Keefe in connection with the failed sting. This one might do nicely: [1]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Of course they are. He's the founder. WaPo covered it. What they aren't doing is factually asserting a conspiracy between a woman that lied about being sexually assaulted and O'Keefe. They also write about Moore and Bannon. Should we add a blurb on the Roy Moore biography that a woman lied about being raped and impregnated by him (can you imagine the dust up of reporting that in the accusations of sexual assault)? I think not. That CNN editorial you cite is an analysis/opinion/editorial not suitable for BLPs. --DHeyward (talk) 09:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I support this move. This article should focus mainly on O'Keefe's biography, and it shouldn't be that hard to summarize his notable videos and sting attempts. The fact that the "Project Veritas" section has become so cumbersome should be enough evidence of its own notability. I'm pretty sure there are other PV videos not mentioned that got some coverage, like the recent New York Times videos. ^Falling_Gravity 09:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Reading the comments further down, I think just moving the whole thing would be a better solution. O'Keefe's bio can be covered in the background section of a Project Veritas article. ^Falling_Gravity 07:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Is it even possible to split the PV content form the O'Keefe content? Is O'Keefe notable for anything other than his PV work? Maybe we should be considering moving the entire article to Project Veritas. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• There is nothing notable about O'Keefe except his Project Veritas work. When O'Keefe does something else (e.g. gets his own Fox show, wins a Republican primary), we should consider breaking up the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• No. O'Keefe is Project Veritas, it is just a label self-applied to his political shenanigans. TheValeyard (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I should have reviewed the article before posting. Technically at least, O'Keefe is certainly notable for the ACORN scandal, which happened before PV was formed. But, it seems PV was just a continuation of the same work (probably formed as a donation vehicle and a liability shield). It's hard to argue that O'Keefe hasn't had his fingers in every PV project, and so I tentatively agree with TheValeyard. Also to be considered is the fact that splitting the article would be extremely difficult, and of questionable value to readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - Most content in the current article deals with Project Veritas so the title (James O'Keefe) is misleading. There is a reasonable dividing line between O'Keefe's early work (ACORN and Planned Parenthood) where he participated directly in undercover work and Project Veritas which operates with a significant budget and dozens of employees. Both O'Keefe and Project Veritas have sufficient coverage to justify their own articles.

The articles should be split chronologically with a short summary of O'Keefe's previous work in PV article and of PV in O'Keefe's article. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

O'Keefe is essentially known only for his Project Veritas stunts. Neutrality^talk 05:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support move to Project Veritas. I don't believe that a separate BLP for O'Keefe is needed; at the moment, anything pertinent can be covered in the org's article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Move the whole thing. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yes - It's bizarre that this hasn't already been done. O'Keefe is a different entity from his organization and both are notable enough to require their own articles. Amazon isn't Jeff Bezos. Mcdonald's isn't Ronald McDonald. Dwarfdwarfdwarf (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Move seems fair, Project Veritas is what gets all the attention. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Combine the articles Basically, this is two articles about the same person, which is why it's confusing trying to determine where to add material. O3000 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Move per above, most of the article is about Project Veritas anyway. There's plenty of sources to indicate it's a well discussed topic to justify its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loganmac (talk • contribs) 09:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. Makes sense to move. There are two articles in here. EyeTruth (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

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

I guess this is all rather dull for everyone, me too, but I'll see if I can find time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC).

OK I made a start. Only items that are PV should be moved, please include a permalink in the edit summary, for attribution purposes.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC).

Claims of "investigations" need citations to match.

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

• Bullshit. There is a reference: the New York Times article. Read the paragraph starting "In the month after the videos were released..." I know, reading is hard work--much easier to read a tweet or watch a YouTube video. As for opinions: well, we have a reliable source here giving you a few opinions; yours, it seems, come from way elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That paragraph in the New York Times article merely claims lack of criminality. It does not overtly claim that that lack of criminality meant that the subsequent loss of funds was not justified (or explained). That conclusion was contrived (synthesis?) by some WP editor to imply that (ostensibly) because there was no criminality, there was no reason for private donors to reduce or eliminate their level of funding. My edit was and is correct, because it eliminates that synthesis. As WP:SYNTH says, " Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:6460:7AFD:D4AB:B37 (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:SEALION. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Next up, consensus for your view. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've made some edits that remove the false and conclusory nature of the relation between the "lack of criminality" and the reduction in private donations. But, I also notice this wording in the article: "The Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers in California and that the workers had not broken any laws." There is no citation for this. Also, I wonder if the California Attorney General's office proper function is to pass judgment on O Keefe's opinion of a private organization, ACORN. Once citations are available, we will check this. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:5D1:4F61:A097:1186 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Lots of info and citations her - ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy#Investigations of ACORN and the videos. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

But no citation on the specific line I was referring to. It isn't proper to "cite" something by, for example, saying "It's somewhere on the Internet! Find it!!" 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:5D1:4F61:A097:1186 (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a link to another article. The content is summarised from that article, where it is sourced, including all parts of the text you identify. Example: "Because of the negative publicity, ACORN lost most of its funding from private foundations". Guy (Help!) 12:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC).

Claire McCaskill campaign in “other activities”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Per WP:BLP, bad content should be removed immediately. And you shouldn't be transcribing what's depicted in videos produced by an organization that has been repeatedly found to misleadingly edit videos, falsely claiming that the text adheres to secondary RS coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Blinkfan, it's not going to happen. If you don't understand why, then you don't understand O'Keefe -- in which case it's not going to happen. If you do understand, then you'll understand why it's not going to happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Selectivity?

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

Reception

This line is simply absurd:

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

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

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

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

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

You are adding this with the line Elements of the corporation's strategy were revealed in a Project Veritas expose and not mentioning that your source says it was deeply misleading and the evidence was all phony. That makes your addition equally misleading and phony. This stuff has been reverted by four editors. O3000 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

But in any case all the article says now regarding Google is basically that Project Veritas interviewed Google employees about an implementation of fairness as a part of its machine learning techniques. It doesn't explain at all what it's actually about, why it is significant or what Google actually means by "implementing fairness" into the algorithm. So isn't just calling it an " implementation of fairness" and linking to the WP article about "fairness", itself misleading?

Hoerth (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that is misleading, and is also a reason this content is inappropriate. This would be another good reason to remove this content if it were restored again. Grayfell (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Instead of removal entirely how about changing the section to demonstrate what the Washington Post and The Verge articles show? Those sources are undeniably trustworthy secondary sources. - Splinemath (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo "article" only has one sentence, so it really isn't a source. The Verge article appears to say it's embarrassing that the Senate brought up another phony Veritas video. You can try to write up something along those lines and suggest it here on the talk page. O3000 (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

There were more than 15 sentences exchanged in the video. I suggest you refer to Wikipedia:Videos as references before devaluing sources in the format again. - Splinemath (talk) 20:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The video is not a reliable secondary source and WaPo doesn't talk to its contents. I don't even see what the video shows us other than a senator is making accusations based on a source known for making videos that misrepresent situations. What is your point in adding this? O3000 (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The video itself is one of many clips hosted by the website, but being hosted by a news outlet doesn't transform the source into a secondary one. Presumably a transcript is hosted on a government website, as well. The format is not the problem. Interpreting primary sources to suggest a non-neutral conclusion is inappropriate. Grayfell (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

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

• Mallick, Pritha (26 June 2019). "Is Google trying to topple Trump's 2020 re-election campaign?". International Business Times, India Edition. Retrieved 28 June 2019.
• Newton, Casey (27 June 2019). "Project Veritas' YouTube sting was deeply misleading — and successful". The Verge. Retrieved 28 June 2019.
• Pethokoukis, James (28 June 2019). "Trump's war on Big Tech is getting even dumber". The Week. Retrieved 28 June 2019.
• Neidig, Harper (26 June 2019). "White House to convene social media summit after new Trump attacks". TheHill. Retrieved 28 June 2019.

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

Would this work as an addition?

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

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

References

That's still giving Veritas far more credit than is supported by reliable sources. This wasn't an "interview", and Gennai isn't the only one saying this was distorted. I also do not think sources justify creating a new subsection for this. If this has lasting encyclopedic significance, we'll find out eventually and can reevaluate, otherwise this may end up being a political WP:FART.

Also, WP:BLP applies to Jen Gennai as much as O'Keefe, so we must not misrepresent the significance of this. Arguably we should be more cautious in this regard, since Gennai is not a public figure. Grayfell (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

It's inaccurate to say that Project Veritas interviewed Jen Gennai? - Splinemath (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in this context, it's inaccurate, because it's misleading. An undercover video filmed under misleading pretenses is not an wikt:interview as the vast majority of people would understand the term. That this video was selectively edited makes this even worse. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

(edit conflict)Variety is only RS in its field, which this isn't. RT and IBTimes are not RS. A video of a hearing is a primary source and not usable. That leaves Verge, which appears to say it's embarrassing that the Senate brought up another phony Veritas video. As I said before, someone can try to write up something along those lines and suggest it here on the talk page. O3000 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

That's why I mention TWP references the hearing, as Business Insider did too [3], they felt the need to highlight it, that's all the mention would amount to, "it was referred in X hearing by Y Senator", you left out the Bloomberg mention, and I seem to have missed the discussion on International Business Times not being reliable. Still, the fact you call it phony says a lot, please be impartial, don't WP:OWN Loganmac (talk) 18:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Your Bloomberg link doesn't work. The only Bloomberg article I could find with those words does not mention O'Keefe but just has a weird accusation from Trump that Twitter is making it very, very hard for people to follow him. The IBTimes is marked unreliable in the perennial sources page.[4] WaPo does not say anything but just posts a video. It is a primary source. It would be WP:OR to try to state anything based on questions asked at a Senate hearing. And, I have not in any manner indicated impartiality or ownership and suggest you stop lecturing. O3000 (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Lol Fox News is reliable according to that list? So then there's this too [5] Loganmac (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No idea how this link applies to anything. O3000 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

A few more sources I could find in 5 minutes: The Washington Post [6], The Boston Globe [7], The LA Times, [8], Bloomberg [9], The Independent [10]. I'm off to work, please assume WP:GOODFAITH people.

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

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

Split into project veritas

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