Talk:James O'Keefe

BLP/N discussion taking place

In an effort to resolve the edit war I asked Kentapio to post on BLP/N, which he's done. Interested editors here might want to take a look. causa sui (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The description of O'Keefe's works is if anything overly cautious; it is not an NPOV violation to state a clearly-attested fact, which is that the man is a fraudulent huckster in a Barnumesque vein, but a clearly-established fact. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean like Michael Moore, right? --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you plan to offer a coherent argument at some point rather than just throwing around non-sequiturs? Raul654 (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like "no objection" to me. a13ean (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Like others here, I am finding your behavior in these discussions increasingly bizarre. At what point will you decide that you aren't going to win people over and walk away from this? causa sui (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Raul, here's an argument from WP:LEADCITE:

Some material, including direct quotations and contentious material about living persons must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned, regardless of the level of generality or the location of the statement.

(Sorry for bringing this up so late in the discussion; I tend to avoid reading policies). --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Causa, removing BLP violations does not require talk page consensus, if I recall correctly. They are to be removed immediately without discussion. (We've been discussing this for how many days now?) Also, local talk page consensus does not over-ride policy. Just for your own peace of mind, Causa sui, I will tell you that it's not my intention to be disruptive (it just comes to me naturally) and I will make an attempt to curb my natural inclinations, for the sake of peace and harmony. There are 2 other arguments that I'm still working on: one is WP:SYNTH, which clearly applies here to the entire contentious sentence; and, whichever policy says "you cannot quote 6 or 15 or 100 people expressing an opinion about something and use them to make a generalization in the lead about the opinion being "widely held" (unless you're quoting Gallup and Roper and Pew). I'm still working on these two arguments, but, I promise I'll be good! --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The policy says that BLP violations need to be removed immediately. The policy does not say that Kenatipo's opinion on what is a BLP violation overrides the opinions of anyone with whom he comes into contact. causa sui (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Causa, Causa, Causa, a negative generalization about the entire career of a culture warrior hero, in the middle of a culture war, could not be anything but contentious. I'm not alone—Lionelt says it's SYNTH and Kelly reverted it as POV. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP is at WP:BLP. SYNTH is at WP:OR. POV is at WP:NPOV. You don't autolose the argument for being a poor Wikilawyer but I understand the frustration people have with you switching arguments with every other comment. causa sui (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's my fault there are so many good arguments on my side and folks like Raul can't hear any of them? I haven't switched anything! Exactly which of my arguments have(has?) been rebutted? What's frustrating is having to point out Policy to people who should know it a lot better that I do. That's what's frustrating! --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) I'm pointing out that by rotating your arguments you create a dialogue that goes like this:

A: This is a BLP violation. *revert*

B: No it isn't because...

A: But it's SYNTH. *revert*

B: No it isn't because...

A: Did you know this article isn't neutral? *revert*

B: No, it is, because....

A: Oh my god! This is a BLP violation! *revert*

B: ...

A: By the way, Michael Moore is a fraud.

B: What the hell?

See where I'm going? When you switch from one argument to another, it makes it impossible to actually get to the bottom of anything, and creates the appearance of filibustering and WP:IDHT. It would have been a good idea to split these issues up and consider them separately from the beginning, but at this point, people who might have once been inclined to listen to you have grown exasperated with their inability to get you to hold still on anything. And while you might think that you're entitled to do this because "none of my arguments have been refuted", the absence of evidence that anyone agrees with you about that ought to give you pause.

At this point, I'm thinking the best thing you can do is back away from this for awhile and let things cool off. I know you're very sure that you're right, but you need more than that to be successful at improving Wikipedia. causa sui (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I said: I haven't been switching anything or rotating anything, just trying to respond to the comments of several editors who don't seem to understand the policies being violated. Perhaps it appears to you that I'm "switching" arguments because I've tried to respond to several other editors (let's see: Xenophrenic, Raul654, MastCell, Parkwells, Orangemike and you on talk pages; and SarekOfVulcan and AzureCitizen in edit summaries). One reason we're spinning our wheels here is that no-one seems interested in addressing the substance of my objections. The burden of proof here is on those who want to keep contentious, unsourced material in a BLP; it's not on me. What we need here is more attention on the substance of the arguments and less attention on appearances. --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you, Kenatipo, as the only editor who claims that the content in question is "contentious, unsourced material" (the "unsourced" part is particularly risible). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No. See WP:BURDEN. Also WP:CITELEAD. Also WP:SYNTH. Also WP:OWN. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"I tend to avoid reading policies" I think many of the editors involved in this conversation are familiar with these. If you have an original concern related to one of these that has not already been addressed please clarify. a13ean (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Other discussions concerning this article

In addition to the discussion here and at BLP/N, this article is being discussed at WT:BLP#Contentious? Challenged? who decides? and at WT:NOR#in a BLP. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Per discussions on the BLP noticeboard, what does everyone think about changing the sentence in question to say: Because his work was deceptive and citing two or three of the (many) sources provided above to back this up? Raul654 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would think for an opinion like that, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV would apply...wouldn't it be better to say something more along the lines of "Because his work was considered deceptive by Jane Doe and Bill Smith". Kelly ^hi! 19:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think it would be bad for the article, and actually bad for O'Keefe's critics, to have the article written this way. But to play Devil's advocate, would you say that we should call David Icke a crackpot conspiracy theorist, or Kent Hovind a fraud? At what point do you call the kettle black? causa sui (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Kelly - a statement that his work was deceptive is a statement of fact, not opinion. (And, as has already been pointed out, despite many requests, no one has cited source has been shown that disagrees with this) WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV does not apply. Furthermore, given that the view is essentially unanimous across the spectrum of everyone who has written about O'Keefe (the nine sources cited above are the tip of the iceberg), who exactly are you proposing that we attribute it to? Are we going to enumerate the nine (or 12 or 15 or 20) people who have said he's a liar/deceiver/manipulator?

Causa - With the caveat that I don't know much about Icke beyond what's in the intro to his Wikipedia article, yes, I'd call Icke a conspiracy theorist. Hovind is not a fraudster (Fraud has a specific legal definition and he doesn't fit it). I'd call him a creationist, which is what is article already does. Raul654 (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to derail, but aside from promoting ridiculous scientific theories, Hovind is also currently serving a 10 year prison term for tax evasion and fraudulent income reporting. I'm trying to point out that we have to draw the line somewhere, because a supporter could go onto Talk:Kent Hovind and argue that we should WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and say "According to the IRS and Judge So-and-so, Kent Hovind committed tax fraud", but we don't do that. We say that Hovind did commit tax fraud. causa sui (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Raul, please enlighten us on the magical process by which the opinions of liberal commentators are transformed into facts. And, point us to the policy that states nine (or 12 or 15 or 20) shared liberal opinions equals ONE fact. Also, show us how WP:BURDEN does not apply here. Kelly is right. The "deceptive" mantra has to be ascribed to the left, from which it comes. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Andrew Breitbart and other commentators on the right would dispute the "deceptive" tag - as a matter of fact, Breitbart has been extremely aggressive in doing so. In the political realm in which this resides, there is no "fact", it's all opinion. I'll freely admit to leaning conservative, but I tried to keep an open mind when looking at the sources for the deceptive claim. I just don't see it - for instance, the Sarah Palin interviews with Katie Couric were heavily edited, and CBS never released the unedited video. O'Keefe did release the full video - yet some characterize his work as "deceptive", but not Couric's. I'm curious as to what the difference is (aside from claims by left-leaning media outlets). Kelly ^hi! 05:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Kelly: Breitbart, of Shirley Sherrod fame? Thank you for lightening the mood! I needed that ;-)

@Kenatipo: Back to seriousness again, I'm not following your request of Raul654. The very first examples he gave you were from Michael Gerson and The Blaze staff. Uh...pillars of lefty liberalism, right? And no, they weren't giving "opinions" ... they were giving detailed, factual explanations of the mechanics of the deception in the productions. Happy holidays to you, but methinks there's more than egg in your nog :-) Xenophrenic (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@Xenophrenic - please attempt to stay professional and save the snark for another audience - thanks. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 06:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Just responding in kind. If Kenatipo wishes to discuss "magical processes", or you wish to cite Breitbart for anything but amusement, then who am I to buck that trend by remaining the only professional one here? Sincerely, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, should I delete your eggnog comment and mark the deletion as a "personal attack"? lol! --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course, if you feel that my comment rises to that level. I don't take offense to the occasional quip, barb or snarkiness — and I know you to be able to give as well as you get :-) — but if you feel I've crossed a line in some way, then I'll most certainly delete or redact the offense. No attack or ill-will was intended. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The difference between O'Keefe and CBS News is in the way they view their roles. CBS News is a mainstream news outlet, and its mission is to provide objective news. Whether they succeed in achieving their goal of objectivity is perhaps arguable, but that's beside the point here. O'Keefe isn't aiming for an objective presentation; he is a partisan polemicist and, I think, makes very few bones about it. He told the California Attorney General that "he was out to make a point and to damage ACORN and therefore did not act as a journalist objectively reporting a story" ([1], p. 23).

The other difference is in accountability and commitment to responsible journalism. Look at the highest-profile recent controversy at CBS News, namely Memogate. When questions were raised about the validity of the memos, they appointed an independent panel (led by Dick Thornburgh, a prominent Republican) to investigate their reporting, apologized to viewers, retracted the segment, fired the producer in charge (and, ultimately, their anchor, Dan Rather), and so on. O'Keefe doesn't operate under those sorts of journalistic standards, or that sort of accountability.

That said, I don't like the "widely seen as deceptive" wording, but don't have any better suggestions at present. It is equally wrong to suggest that only journalists, or only "liberal" commentators, view O'Keefe's work as deceptive; quite a few conservative commentators, and the California AG, reached a similar conclusion. MastCell ^Talk 06:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point...being political, the "truth" of O'Keefe's alleged deceptiveness can probably only be established by historians detached from the policial pressures of "the now". In the meantime, it would probably be best to attribute the opinion to its one or two most reliable proponents. Kelly ^hi! 07:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

But it is not "opinion" that O'Keefe's productions are deceptive, and therein lies the problem with your suggestion. The deceptiveness has been documented by reliable sources. Take, for example (and there are more than a dozen such examples now) the video analysis that discovered that O'Keefe had copied an individual's comments from one discussion and spliced them in as a response in a completely unrelated discussion. (See The Blaze source from the article.) Are you arguing that it is only "opinion" that O'Keefe did this, or are you arguing that it is only "opinion" that such misleading editing is deceptive? Please specify.

MastCell said that O'Keefe is political; he did not say anything about the "truth" of O'Keefe's deceptiveness being political.

Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested. --WP:NPOV

Deception in O'Keefe's productions is an uncontested and uncontroversial fact. Editors here have repeatedly asked for reliably sourced refutation of that fact, to no avail. The fact can be considered unflattering, but negative information ≠ controversial. That information should be presented in Wikipedia's voice. Therefore, I Support Raul654's wording proposed above. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I support Raul654's wording. Worked considerably on this article at an earlier point; O'Keefe's latest videos have been shown, in fact, to be deceptive, as were his earlier ones. At least more of the media is getting cautious about accepting his material without more checking. Parkwells (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If O'Keefe's videos were as deceptive as Xenophrenic imagines, AG Jerry Brown would not have been able to arrive at the conclusions about ACORN that are in his report (see first para of Conclusions; of course, to keep his liberal Democrat base happy, Jerry Brown was obliged to talk out of both sides of his mouth in that report); and, NPR would not have fired Ron Schiller. Xenop operates from the false premise that if 20 journalists of whatever political stripe hold an opinion, it becomes an "uncontested and uncontroversial fact". I think it's better not to treat opinions as facts, not to use unmeasurable weasel words like "widely"; and to make it clear who holds the opinion mentioned. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect. Xeno operates from the premise that O'Keefe's productions were found to be deceptive by numerous responsible journalists of all stripes; by conservatives, including news video editing professionals; and by law enforcement agencies (14 investigators of various stripes in the CA AG department, and 5 in the Brooklyn DA's office), regardless of Brown's word choice in presenting the AG office's findings to the public. It's better not to describe facts as opinions, just because you can't bear to acknowledge those facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So, the phrase "Because his work has become widely seen as deceptive," needs to be deleted because it violates LEADCITE. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you're erring by assuming it's a binary, XOR proposition. It's entirely possible (in fact, it seems to be the case) that O'Keefe's videos were deceptively edited and they revealed inappropriate conduct. That said, I agree with your closing statements, and I'm not entirely comfortable with "widely seen as deceptive". It's arguably true, but that wording just raises more questions than it answers, and we're better off attributing those sorts of judgments as clearly as we reasonably can.

Actually, we already do attribute the charge of deceptiveness, in the first paragraph of the lead, to "investigations by legal authorities or journalists", which I think is an appropriate level of detail for a lead. Given that, it's probably redundant to lead into the third paragraph with "Because his work is widely seen as deceptive..." We could probably omit that lead-in clause (since the deceptiveness issue is already mentioned in the lead) and just lead into the third paragraph with "O'Keefe's success in gaining extensive media attention has caused controversy and discussions of journalistic standards."

Alternately, we could use phrasing taken directly from O'Keefe's statement to the California AG (e.g. "Because O'Keefe's work is intended to 'make a point' rather than adhere to the standards of journalistic objectivity...") This would be in line with his own words to the California AG, as I linked a few posts above. But honestly, I don't have a strong feeling in any particular direction; I'm just putting these out there as possibilities. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should be omitted on the grounds that it raises more question than it answers. I think you make a fair point about that. But the naked "O'Keefe's success in gaining extensive media attention has caused controversy and discussions of journalistic standards" fares no better. Why has his success caused controversy? The status quo at least explains why. As I see it, the issue is that O'Keefe's work got a lot of attention and was regarded as authoritative or valuable investigative journalism before it was discredited, and the controversy was about how his work rose to such prominence before anyone had done their jobs and compared the original tapes to the edited versions. If we omit the admittedly generic "Because his work is widely seen as deceptive" and find no other way to describe the situation, we are lying by omission. causa sui (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

causa, if O'Keefe's work was "discredited" why did ACORN get defunded by the Democrats and why did Ron Schiller get fired by NPR? The point is that the raw tapes give evidence of unacceptable behavior by ACORN and R. Schiller. "Deceptive"? Uh, not exactly. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems time only runs in one direction. causa sui (talk) 01:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

So it was all just a big misunderstanding caused by O'Keefe's "deceptive" videos? Yeah, right! --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

causa, you probably follow current events more closely than I do. Jerry Brown's AG report came out April 1, 2010. The Democrats didn't lose control of the House until November 2010. Did the House Democrats, after Jerry Brown's AG report, realize what a horrible miscarriage of justice had occurred based on O'Keefe's misleading videos and vote to RE-FUND ACORN, or did I miss something there? --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Edited for encyclopedic tone and quality

It's time to add a sense of proportion to coverage of O'Keefe and to reduce the article's sense of breathless reporting; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a daily newspaper but an encyclopedia. For that reason, I made the following edits:

• removed the quote from LePage in the Lede and summarized it; such quotes really belong in the body of the article or in footnotes (where I put it, as the quote is not particularly striking).
• summarized other quotes rather than having them all at length; put the quotes in footnotes.
• moved the "2010 Arrest" from "Major Works" (as nothing was produced or released), summarized the events and added it within the "Career" section.
• moved the "Summer 2011-"Medicaid fraud" videos" to the "Minor Works" section. Both officials and the media have become more cautious in responding to O'Keefe's provocation, and these videos received more measured response from officials and less national media attention than O'Keefe's early efforts.
• reorganized material to first describe the videos, followed by "Reception," with response by officials in each jurisdiction.

Finally, it's time for editors here to remember that O'Keefe is just one muckraker. Wikipedia does not generally devote articles to national investigative reporters, nor to their major exposes, unless they have substantial effect. I agree O'Keefe became a media figure, but now it's time to put his works in proportion, as well as to better summarize and evaluate the events based on RS. Every event covered by local media (such as the Medicaid series) may not be notable enough to write about here, even if O'Keefe originated it.Parkwells (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

New Hampshire Primary Video (2012)

Added section on this under "Major Works". "Reception" needs more filling out, but I think it's a good start. OldSkoolGeek (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I improved your addition by removing the paragraph that was pure OR based on primary sources like legal codes. This kind of speculation can be mentioned, but the speculation has to come from newspapers, I think. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, secondary sources are to be used. I think it is too early to label this as a Major Work.Parkwells (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Parkwells, that it's currently in the wrong section.

It also occurs to me that speculation should have a very, very small place in an encyclopedia, especially if it's a politician speculating about someone else's actions. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Most people's opinions are "speculations," including those of O'Keefe as to the conclusion to be drawn from his videos. So we show his quotes and those of other speakers from RS.Parkwells (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As you can see, I moved New Hampshire 2012 to "Minor Works" and put "Minor Works" right after "Major Works". --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems appropriate.Parkwells (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

New disambiguation candidate

I've recently seen several news articles refer to another James O'Keefe, head of the Pirate Party of Massachusetts.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/vote-pirate-notes-from-a-pirate-party-conference.ars/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.22.53 (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

POV Flag

Disputing the neutrality of this article. I found the following paragraph to be extremely biased. At the very least it needs some reliable citations.

"Due to his videos of ACORN workers supposedly aiding a couple in criminal planning, the US Congress voted to freeze funds for the non-profit, which had aided low- and moderate-income people for 40 years. The non-profit also lost most private funding, and in March 2010 had to close most of its offices. Shortly after, the California State Attorney General's Office and the US Government Accountability Office released their related investigative reports. The Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers and that the workers had not committed illegal actions. Because his work has become widely seen as deceptive, O'Keefe's initial success in gaining extensive media attention caused controversy and discussions of journalistic standards..."

--24.136.181.38 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

- Regarding the citations, since this is the lead and a summary of the article you'll find the citations in the main body.
- About the bias: Could you please clarify against or for whom your perceived bias is directed?TMCk (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Direct action

I think that Mr. O'Keefe's work, because it is a battle of the powerless against the powerful using any means available, should be classified as direct action. I think it is a good designation because it expresses his political motivations and radical approach in a way that doesn't necessarily place a normative judgment on it. Typically the discussion in the "editing talk" section is about the word "deceptive". Mr. O'Keefe is willing to deceive because he believes in his cause, and believes that the end (defeating liberal evil) justifies the means (deceiving this person he is video-taping into thinking it is a confidential conversation). This movement-motivated kind of activity is political activism par excellence. It is a form of direct action, which is can be a form of terrorism. Terrorism intends to intimidate its target groups. O'Keefe's form of direct action isn't easy to classify as terrorism because it is non-violent. It is intimidation, and does rely on the above end-justifies-the-means logic, and is aimed at one group which the actor (O'Keefe) believes is so powerful that the only way of engaging it in debate is by a hard-ball approach. O'Keefe's victims and their supporters and benificiaries would experience his work as terrorism. But, both O'Keefe's supporters and his detractors can agree that his work is brazen, ideologically-motivated, non-violent and effective. That is what direct action is all about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueldee (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)