Talk:James O'Keefe

Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation, click the [show] link to the right of a question.

Q1: Why does this article describe James O'Keefe and Project Veritas negatively?

A1: Wikipedia's aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources say; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This means that if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative. Since most reliable sources describe O'Keefe and his organization negatively, this article also describes them negatively.

Q2: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is far-right?

A2: The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. Over a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas as a far-right organization. Please see these references for details.

Q3: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is an "activist group"?

A3: The "activist" descriptor is based on many multiple independent and reliable sources. These sources describe Project Veritas as an activist organization or a group of activists. Please see these references for details.

Q4: Why does this article say that Project Veritas edited videos "deceptively"?

A4: The "deceptive" phrasing is cited to many multiple high-quality reliable sources. More than a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas editing its videos in a "deceptive", "misleading", or "manipulative" manner. Please see these references for details.

Q5: But what if the sources are biased?

A5: Reliable sources are, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources, not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you have reliable sources that express contrary points of view or refute any statements in this article, please feel free to discuss them here. If you are unsure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Sources or search the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if its reliability has been discussed in the past.

Q6: Shouldn't this article avoid using as sources media outlets against which Project Veritas has published exposés?

A6: Some editors have made the argument that, because Project Veritas has targeted various news outlets (such as The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR) in its operations, those news outlets should be considered unreliable with respect to Project Veritas due to conflict of interest. A 2020 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability found that disqualification of sources based on alleged conflicts of interest such as this did not have community consensus. In addition, many of the cited outlets that are critical of Project Veritas have not been targeted by them.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James O'Keefe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 21 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics C‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New Jersey C‑class Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why did yall remove the reference to Gannett? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gannett --Massintel (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry now Tegna. Massintel (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Right-Wing

For those of you who continue to revert my changes despite citing multiple journalistic sources, I'm curious on why you are doing this. I don't like James O'Keefe and I'm not defending him. This was a simple edit to be as accurate as possible with a controversial person. CNN, NPR, The Independent, etc have refereed to Project Veritas a "Right-Wing" activist group. I included the citations. User Greyfell said it was "Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, and weasel-words about being "right wing" isn't appropriate" I wasn't using weasel-words, I don't see how saying "right-wing" isn't accurate, they're literally described as such. You're really showing bias here.

Here's a list of describing them as such:

https://apnews.com/article/workplace-culture-florida-james-okeefe-business-1df6176308a14577ce9ba603fd227237

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/21/1158505780/project-veritas-james-okeefe-forced-out-financial-malfeasance

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/20/james-okeefe-exits-project-veritas/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/20/business/james-okeefe-project-veritas/index.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-okeefe-was-never-going-to-leave-project-veritas-quietly

https://journalnow.com/asheville-woman-suing-right-wing-group-project-veritas-founder-for-libel/article_8ba28850-3269-52ea-9e11-cb6cf571869e.html Noshisenpai (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ at the top of the page. We don't care whether or not you like him. Many sources consistently describe O'Keefe as far-right. Few, if any, reliable sources dispute this, not even those you have cited, since far-right is a subset of right wing. "also described as" is textbook WP:WEASEL since it was being used to imply a distinction which is not supported by sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling them "right-wing" doesn't meet the definition of weseal words. They are described as such by reputable outlets. It would be fair to say "they are described as right-wing" or "far-right". If you're telling me CNN, NPR, Washington Post, etc are not reliable enough sources to change this description. I believe your intent is to implement a biased narrative within this specific article Noshisenpai (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The terminology that we use to refer to a group is based upon an overall source review of how they are described. We already have a dozen high quality sources which describe it as "far-right." This has been subject to numerous voluminous discussions at Talk:Project Veritas, which had a consensus in favor of "far-right" as the descriptor. That's why your edit was reverted. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 02:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I'm giving you a list of reputable outlets that describes them as the same "right-wing" they are some of the same journalistic outlets that refer to them as "far-right" from that perspective it seems fair to include both definitions as they fit both.

Yes and I'm giving you a list of reputable outlets that describes them as the same "right-wing" they are some of the same journalistic outlets that refer to them as "far-right" from that perspective it seems fair to include both definitions of "right-wing" and "far-right" as they fit both described by journalistic outlets. Noshisenpai (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

from that perspective it seems fair to include both definitions of "right-wing" and "far-right" as they fit both described by journalistic outlets
Nope. As I said, things on wikipedia are determined via consensus, and we have a consensus that the most accurate descriptor is "far-right." You may disagree, but that's how this website works, and it doesn't move based on your (or my) personal opinion. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly is "we"? You're saying "it doesn't move based on your (or my) personal opinion." However, this appears to me, based on a few users opinions not as a general consensus, if you can link me where this was discussed that would be helpful as I'm not as savvy on some of these things on Wikipedia. It seems to me that ignoring reputable pundits and journalistic outlets to specifically label a group only far-right, despite reputable journalists labeling them differently; is politically motivated or at a minimum biased towards them, which does go against Wiki's rules. Noshisenpai (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2] - these discussions are what I was referencing. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered by the FAQ at the top of this page. Not sure why anyone is wasting time on this. --McSly (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's lovely that you see properly labeling groups on a freely edited encyclopedia as a waste of time. I'm not of the same opinion. Please don't comment if you have nothing to contribute. Noshisenpai (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ at the top of the page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. It seems like an issue to take up on the Project Veritas wiki discussion. I will do that. Noshisenpai (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can also read the FAQ on that page to save you the time. --McSly (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about OMG and the Veritas lawsuit?

James O'Keefe is no longer with Veritas, yes? 158.123.57.254 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Far Right Wing"?

"Far right wing": Such a depiction is, on its face, from the get-go, POV, and has no place at Wiki. It needs to be dropped. 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:A584:1053:9043:8374 (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the universal description by RS and is supported by a consensus that it is accurate. Andre🚐 15:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a POV, but it's the POV of RS, not just editors here, so we include it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV on Wikipedia has a specific meaning: ...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It doesn't mean that editors can just arbitrarily decide that what the sources say is POV and remove it or downplay it; in fact, doing that would be introducing your POV to the article. Even if you personally dislike the term "far-right", and even if you don't personally believe it is applicable, it has extensive usage in academia and similar high-quality sources, who use it as a neutral term to categorize a specific, reasonably well-defined ideology; and numerous high-quality sources use it in the way we're using it here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a term that should not be used. Note that the term "far left wing" is almost never used. The ratio of usage is an evidence of bias in the editing of these articles. The editors should learn from Sgt. Joe Friday (Dragnet TV show) and publish "Just the facts, Ma'am" then let the readers decide for themselves if it is "far" anything.173.62.193.38 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk)