Talk:James O'Keefe

Widely disseminated 'scandal' to be included

The article on James O'Keefe will be hampered unless it includes widely publicized contentious material. Of particular interest is the rape-story broken by Gawker "James O'Keefe's Panty-Stealing 'Rape Barn' Sex Scandal" (1). In this the former collaborator to O'Keefe and current grad student at Harvard Nadia Naffe accused him of drugging and raping. The incident should be included as it is of public interest. For instance, c.f. the Ted Kennedy article, which includes the Chappaquiddick incident. Moreover, the incident with O'Keefe was recently followed up in a story by The Phoenix "The Trials of Nadia Naffe" (3).

(1) http://gawker.com/5895560/james-okeefes-panty+stealing-rape-barn-sex-and-racism-scandal (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#Chappaquiddick_incident (3) http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/152325-trials-of-nadia-naffe/

I am sure you want to include this unfounded smearings because of purely propagandistic reasons. You are part of the Clinton campign, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.53.87.115 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "selectively edited"

User:79.158.14.210 (and please confirm that you made the same edit from User:87.112.206.173), please explain why you keep removing "some selectively edited" from the WP:LEAD; this is very well sourced in the body and per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the body. Diffs of the removals:

• diff 13:59, 11 October 2016 @ 87.112.206.173
• diff 13:19, 12 October 2016 @ 79.158.14.210
• diff 17:25, 12 October 2016 @ 79.158.14.210

- Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell me what are such sources? Because the only "sources" are two opinion articles.

http://www.npr.org/2011/03/14/134525412/Segments-Of-NPR-Gotcha-Video-Taken-Out-Of-Context

http://entertainment.time.com/2011/03/13/the-twisty-bent-truth-of-the-npr-sting-video/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.14.210 (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And the sources only reference NPR. The claims are pov and bias and have no independent unbiased source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.88.7 (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing for claim Foval was fired

@Yoshiman6464: Is there a better source than the Washington Times for the claim "[Foval] was fired shortly after the 16-minute video was posted online" ? The statement I read from Americans United for Change to Fox News was: “Americans United For Change has always operated according to the highest ethical and legal standards. Scott Foval is no longer associated with Americans United for Change”, which could be interpreted to mean their relationship ended amicably before the video was released. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, Bret Baier on Fox News confirmed Foval was fired. They seem to be doing most of the journalistic work on this story so I'm comfortable including it. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Simply saying "I'm not" can lead to an idea of bias , Please explain further why you're "Not". Archvile.x86 08:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

citation 111 doesn't claim selective editing in bird dogging videos

Unless all editing qualifies as being selective, in which case the term is redundant and should be fixed for all WP articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.157.40.233 (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Establishing consensus on the use of "selectively edited" re: 2016 election videos

@Rms125a@hotmail.com: @James J. Lambden: @Arkon: I don't know if I'm in the minority here, but it seems that some editors have a problem with the use of the term "selectively edited" in reference to the videos released by James O'Keefe for the 2016 election cycle. I've created this topic so that we can attempt to reach consensus. Could you please explain your reasoning for removing this phrase despite its appearance in the source? AlexEng (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I self reverted after noticing you had inserted a new source in your revert. Side note: Please don't use the description like "Rv User:Blah" when you add new content/sourcing that was not there previously. So sourcing concerns out of the way, I don't care enough to have an opinion. Arkon (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Understood, thanks. AlexEng (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I din't get a ping but I was checking my watchlist and noticed this talk page colloquy. I think "edited" video should be pretty clearly understood as "selectively edited". Almost all video is edited, otherwise it's a documentary. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The very fact that almost all video is edited is what makes me want to say "selectively edited," to avoid ambiguity. "Deceptively edited" would also be very clear, but is rather accusatory and probably doesn't belong in a WP:BLP. AlexEng (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Sources that use the phrase "selectively edited":

• CBS

Sources that don't:

• WaPo
• CNN

The CNN source does say In the past, O'Keefe and his Project Veritas Action have been criticized for strategically editing footage to create false accusations about people or groups. which is reasonably represented in our article, but makes no comment about selective or strategic editing in these video. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this topic, James J Lambden. I didn't see it before I created the one below.

Although you are correct regarding the CBS source being the only one containing the phrase "selectively edited," I don't think that its absence in the other sources is any indication that the videos were not selectively edited. Neither source attempts to refute this claim from what I can tell. This is a developing story, so if you want me to hold off on adding "selective editing" until more news comes out, then I accept that. AlexEng (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The phrase bothers me because as rms says by definition every edit is "selective." The implication (I believe) is that the edits were deceptive. There's no question that O'Keefe has deceptively edited videos in the past - which our article does and should make clear in the lede. But without consensus backed by reasoned argument or evidence I'm reluctant to imply (or outright claim) that's the case with these videos. Barring that, if more sources present the claim as opinion, we should include it with attribution (e.g. "several commentators...") James J. Lambden (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I have a hard time recommending "deceptive" in a WP:BLP without multiple sources, but I agree that's what we're fundamentally trying to say. "Selective" sounds less accusatory/libelous but still gets the point across. By the way, what do you think of the source below? AlexEng (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

New source: I found this article on Snopes that uses the phrasing:

Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them.

AlexEng (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

As noted above, most video will undergo routine editing which does not in any way alter the meaning, context or content being conveyed by the video. But that isn't what is meant when reliable sources make it a point to note that O'Keefe and his crew have "selectively edited" their videos. For Example, as the linked CBS, WaPo and Snopes sources linked above note,

• CBS: Conservative activist James O’Keefe has released secretly recorded, selectively edited video footage [...] As with much of the video’s content, it’s impossible to say with certainty what Foval meant, because the video is edited in a way so that it’s not clear what led to the comment.
• WaPo: ...the editing raises questions about what was said and what may come out later. [...] But when PVAction edits this into a narrative, something gets lost. Foval says that “Bob Creamer comes up with a lot of these ideas,” but what the “ideas” are is lost to a quick edit.
• Snopes: Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. [...] Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.

When mentioning video editing in the context of O'Keefe's productions, it is a good idea to let the reader know it isn't routine editing, but rather deceptive editing. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I think "selective editing" is very unclear. If there is a consensus from relibable sources that he deceptively edited to mislead then stronger terms should be used to accurately report that. I believe that there is such a consensus on some of his earlier work.

All News Reports are "selectively edited". Every 60 minutes show has tens-of-hours of interviews that are chopped down to fit into the 14 minutes allotted per segment. Every nightly newscast has "selectively edited" clips taken from longer video recordings. The only non-selectively edited video on television might be C-Span when Congress is in session.

If something has been edited misleadingly then we should use that term. When NBC used fireworks to make trucks explode, but cut the film to make it look like a crash was doing it that was misleading. On the other hand only showing some small part of a larger statement (unless some qualifier is deliberately truncated) isn't misleading. Romney gave a 45 minute speech at the fundraiser where he made his famous "47%" comment. We all saw only 60 seconds, but I would still not say it was "selectively edited". It was not misleading, he said it, he meant it.

So far, in the current film, I have not seen anyone suggest that the quotes are taken out of context. In fact the audio clips (like Romney's video) are long enough that the entire context seems to be clear.

20:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs)

...I have not seen anyone suggest that the quotes are taken out of context. --ZeroXero

Have you reviewed the three sources mentioned just above? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@James J. Lambden: I'm satisfied with this edit. We should portray the allegations of selective editing as allegations. We won't know whether they were intentionally deceptive until/unless more info comes out. Thanks! AlexEng (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad. I'll search for more sources and if possible expand both O'Keefe's allegations and their criticism. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

JJL has certainly made some article improvement edits, but at the risk of appearing over-picky, and a bit of a stickler for Wikipedia policy, I must disagree with a couple of the more recent edits. I've also noticed some content problems elsewhere in our article. To bring the article content more in line with policy, I've made some changes, including:

→ removed the following wording, "Some have questioned the accuracy of the videos..." because the "some" implies it is just one of multiple positions in the matter. That is not what the cited sources convey.

→ removed the following wording, "according to CBS News", per WP:NPOV policy, which directs us to: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." I checked the CBS source and it appears to be a news article, not an opinion piece, and the content has not been contested by equally reliable sources so far. If such sources should appear, we can revisit this.

→ removed "accused of" from the sentence beginning with "O'Keefe has been accused of selectively editing and manipulating his recordings of ACORN employees...". The cited reliable sources did not say O'Keefe was "accused" of these things, the sources said he actually selectively edited and manipulated the recordings.

Xenophrenic (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A single source offering an opinion in passing is not enough for statements of fact on legal or ethical issues. Added NYT source, including claims like "the tactics described went far beyond mere distraction." without disputing their accuracy. Will expand the section with additional sourcing shortly.

@Xenophrenic: My "single source":comment above refers to the part of your edit that changed "although not saying anything that appeared to be unethical or illegal" according to CBS News to while not saying anything that appeared to be unethical or illegal. That indeed appears to be based in a single source.

I'm also concerned by your addition of the following criticism: and the unedited raw footage has not been made available. Is it standard journalistic practice to make raw video from interviews and investigations available? To my knowledge 60 minutes, 20/20 and most other investigative shows do not, but correct me if I'm wrong. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the explanations for the several other edits you just reverted as well, so I can address your concerns together. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

here I reverted three edits which I've addressed specifically in my comment above... can we deal with those, then discuss my subsequent unexplained reversion to the lede? James J. Lambden (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A single source offering an opinion in passing...

...is not what we have here. What we have is a reliable source making an uncontroversial assertion of fact. You argument that it is "an opinion in passing" is unfounded and unpersuasive. It seems a little absurd to cite the source as factual for all but that one sentence, then suddenly declare that as "opinion". I've cited above the policy that prohibits what you are trying to do. Your observation that "it is a single source" also doesn't magically transform an assertion of fact into an opinion, and isn't a policy-based objection. If you wish to pursue the issue of whether it is attributable opinion versus assertion of fact, I would suggest raising your concerns at the NPOV Noticeboard. (And an observation: for a slowly developing news event that is 72 hours old, expecting a vast array of sources to repeat all of the same information is rather unrealistic this early on.) Even the NPR source waves off Creamer's involvement, "Creamer's taped comments are much less inflammatory, but he has nonetheless stepped away from his firm, Democracy Partners." And The Nation article concludes, "Even viewed in the most trusting light, what do we have here? Creamer is perhaps a little too slow to condemn an illegal voter-registration plan. (Though ultimately he does.)" So several sources do indeed say that, with regard to Creamer, there is all smoke and no fire.

Is it standard journalistic practice to make raw video from interviews and investigations available?

I wouldn't know, and it doesn't matter for our purposes as Wikipedia editors. Multiple reliable sources considered it important enough to convey that (1) O'Keefe / Project Veritas have provided some unedited footage & transcripts in the past, but (2) this time they did not. It is our job to convey what the reliable sources convey. What 60 Minutes does or doesn't do really has nothing to do with this article.

...can we deal with those, then discuss my subsequent unexplained reversion to the lede?

There is nothing stopping discussion of any of your concerns, and there are no time limits or deadlines here. But deleting reliably sourced content for "reasons to be given some other time" isn't likely to sit well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

As per @AlexEng (see thread above), "selectively edited" should be more than sufficient for anyone reading the article. If someone needs to be browbeaten by a rhetorical cudgel or, even worse, does not know the meaning of the word "selectively" in this context then he or she should probably not be on Wikipedia in the first place, and I am not an elitist by any stretch of the imagination. We have gone from debating whether to even include an adverb ("selectively", "deceptively") with the word "edited" to now what I believe are wholly undue textual and contextual exegeses ("to imply its subjects said things they did not"). Blatantly widening the goalposts at this juncture is hard to see as a display of good faith. Quis separabit? 13:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Quis separabit?, I agree with you that in a perfect world, readers would understand that "selectively edited" means "selectively edited to mislead - deceive - distort - misrepresent - falsify". But as you can see by the threads on this Talk page, and in all 5 archived Talk pages, and in the edit summaries for the article page, many people still simply do not get it. They are confusing the misleading editing O'Keefe does with routine legitimate editing. For example, just look at the tortured logic in this recent edit summary from just a couple days ago: here. This isn't a perfect world, so apparently we need to spell it out for our readers exactly what the reliable sources are saying. We can't just say "edited" or "selectively edited", we need to say "edited for what purpose", so our readers understand what the reliable sources are saying.

Can you explain what you mean by "As per AlexEng" in the thread above? The discussion above was about whether to describe O'Keefe's most recent video creations as selectively edited to mislead, and I think the jury is still out on that. But what you just deleted was summary wording from our WP:LEDE, which describes the kind of editing O'Keefe has been guilty of in past projects like ACORN and NPR. Your edit summary claims the wording is unsourced (false: the sources are in the body of the article where they belong, not in the lede), and UNDUE, which you have not substantiated here. Wait, are you suggesting that we intentionally leave our readers wondering what reliable sources actually mean when they describe O'Keefe's editing? (Please be very clear with your answer to that question.) How do you suggest that we convey, for example, this from Time: O’Keefe has previously spliced videos together to imply its subjects were saying things they were not? Or this from the Chicago Sun-Times: O’Keefe is known for his highly controversial tactics and selective edits that create untrue storylines, notably in videos about Planned Parenthood and ACORN, a national community organization? I'm not seeing any reason not to revert your edit. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It is somewhat true there are "no time limits or deadlines here" (until a discussion is closed), given that the title of this colloquy is "... re: 2016 election videos" maybe we should hold off until after the US elections (November 8), if time is really not of the essence. Although -- depending on how the elections go -- some of us may not be in any position to edit (hard to do in a strait-jacket). Quis separabit? 13:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear here. There are two places in the article where "selectively edited" is under dispute.

• (A) The lead which summarizes the body
• (B) The section on the 2016 campaign videos, which discusses the allegations of selectively editing for this specific instance.

In this discussion section, we have been talking about whether selective editing should be included as part of topic (B). The consensus is that if "selective editing" is to be included in this section, it should be presented as an allegation since there is not yet evidence of wrongdoing.

Topic (A), which was not originally part of this discussion, seems to be more contentious. The fact that James O'Keefe selectively edits (at least) some his videos is not under dispute, see: ACORN videos and resulting controversy. Whether we need to add additional clarification with regards to how they were selectively edited, i.e. to mislead, may deserve its own section on this page to reach consensus. AlexEng^(TALK) 21:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, AlexEng, but if we are going to be clear, then we may as well be completely clear. You are only adding to the confusion when you say things like, "Whether we need to add additional clarification with regards to how they were selectively edited, i.e. to mislead..." Every use of "selectively edited" in our article already means "selectively edited to mislead", according to the sources conveying that information, without exception. So why not simply spell that out for the readers (as the Time article does) so that we avoid any future disruptive tinkering and deleting of the phrase by confused readers? It is evident that some readers still misconstrue "selectively edited" to be the same as the harmless, legitimate routine kind of editing done by scrupulous media editors.

The consensus is that if "selective editing" is to be included in this section, it should be presented as an allegation...

I must have missed where that consensus was developed. I recall Arkon mentioning that he was okay with "selectively edited" without attributing it as an allegation. I also see where Volunteer Marek seems okay with "selectively edited" as an unattributed assertion of fact. I see where Knowledgebattle is okay with an even more direct "selectively misrepresented" wording, without attribution as an allegation. Even you, Alex correctly noted that it was a sourced fact, and not an allegation. Need I mention Jytdog, or myself, or others? I would suggest that present consensus is to abide by Wikipedia policies and reliable sources. Our policies instruct us to NOT present an assertion of fact as a mere opinion. As for our available reliable sources, it's not "allegation" that the videos have been selectively edited to omit footage that would convey important context:

• CBS: Conservative activist James O’Keefe has released secretly recorded, selectively edited video footage [...] As with much of the video’s content, it’s impossible to say with certainty what Foval meant, because the video is edited in a way so that it’s not clear what led to the comment.
• WaPo: ...the editing raises questions about what was said and what may come out later. [...] But when PVAction edits this into a narrative, something gets lost. Foval says that “Bob Creamer comes up with a lot of these ideas,” but what the “ideas” are is lost to a quick edit.
• Snopes: Nearly all the videos used stitched-together, out-of-context remarks with no indication of what occurred or what was discussed just before and after the included portions. [...] Project Veritas' October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.
• Time: But if O’Keefe’s previous efforts to infiltrate and expose his foes such as ACORN and NPR are to offer a hint, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical. O’Keefe has previously spliced videos together to imply its subjects were saying things they were not. [...] Off-camera, a Veritas operator seems to get Vargas to admit the plan is voter fraud, but there’s no way of telling if that person said what the tape purports.
• The Nation:  ...O’Keefe leaves us without critical context—we don’t know that Foval is actually proposing this, and in fact, it seems like he’s answering a hypothetical question [...]  But there’s a huge jump-cut before the thrust of Vargas’s response, [...] We don’t really know what “this” is, since Project Veritas won’t release the full transcripts or tapes of its shoots, as it has in the past. But there’s reason to be extremely wary—time and again, O’Keefe has been busted for fudging his investigations.
• The New York Times: The creatively edited video (which contains profane language) was the work of James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action ...
• PolitiFact: The video Trump referenced also comes from a controversial group that has been accused in the past of purposefully editing footage to advance their agenda. [...] the videos are edited in ways that the context of the conversation or the meaning of the statement isn’t always clear, nor do you know when they took place.
• MSN: Because Project Veritas Action's full undercover interview with Scott Foval has not been made available, the charge that he plotted voter fraud is constructed from O'Keefe's narration and damning-sounding quotes. [...] There's another cut, in which it's not clear whether the topic has changed. [...] That cut ends, and the narration about voter fraud continues. But without seeing what happened before the “busing” quote, it's not 100 percent clear he's talking about voter fraud. [...] But the quick cuts make it unclear whether Foval is talking about a plan or a theory. [...] Because of the cuts, it's unclear what “it” refers to. The same issue arises after another cut...
• Chicago Sun Times: Project Veritas Action, founded by James O’Keefe, has been criticized for selectively editing videos from its undercover operations aimed at liberal or Democratic allied organizations. O’Keefe is known for his highly controversial tactics and selective edits that create untrue storylines, notably in videos about Planned Parenthood and ACORN, a national community organization.

The only speculation about the editing is whether the parts selectively edited out would implicate or exonerate the subjects. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Since the involved parties have revisited here without further objection, I've returned the content. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Assange and media

-- @Xenophrenic: Yes, but all the sources you listed are in the liberal media establishment. Check out this google thread here. Don't you find it curious that Ecuador severed Assange's internet access after Wikileaks embarrassed the Clinton campaign (if that's possible), not after any of Wikileaks' other disclosures? (Clinton/Kaine/Brock/Earnest to Ecuador: "Nice little country you've got. Be a shame if we cut all aid and assistance and tightened visa issuances.") Quis separabit? 00:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Whether you think they're in the "liberal media establishment" or not has no bearing on whether they are considered WP:RS. However, I think you would find this site useful, as I typically use it myself to discern which outlets are more biased than others. As for Ecuador's choice to cut off Assange's Internet access, I believe their stated reason was that he was trying to influence the US Presidential Election. They also said that their decision had no effect on the ability of Wikileaks to continue to release information. So if you're arguing that this was an attempt to silence him, I think it falls flat. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC) ::

"They also said that their decision had no effect on the ability of Wikileaks to continue to release information." -- you really believe that? (I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, if you do.) And if Wikileaks "was trying to influence the US Presidential Election" [because Trump is more congenial, LOL, to Julian Assange; talk about politics making odd bedfellows] then most media outlets releasing negative info about Trump are presumably doing the same thing. Quis separabit? 02:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

We're clearly drifting off topic. If you want to discuss this, please bring it up on my talk page. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "entering a federal building under false pretenses."

While the article frequently makes use of the aforementioned phrase, it seems to downplay the severity of the crime for which he was convicted. "Entering a federal building under false pretenses" reads very differently than "Entering a federal building under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony" which is what he actually pleaded guilty to. 174.95.94.209 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I looked over both of our sources. The crime he pled guilty to is "Entry by false pretenses to any real property, vessel, or aircraft of the United States or secure area of any airport or seaport."

As per 18 U.S. Code § 1036(b)[1], this crime is punished differently "if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony." However, based on our source[2], it looks like the "intent to commit a felony" part was dropped, triggering 18 U.S. Code § 1036(b)(2), which carries a maximum sentence of 6 months and does not require "intent to commit a felony." Therefore, I think the article text is correct as it stands. AlexEng^(TALK) 20:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: proposed cleanup by Mrtea

@Mrtea: let's talk about the cleanup you performed on the article today. I'm challenging three things:

• You removed the 2010 misdemeanor conviction from the WP:LEAD, citing MOS:LEAD, but I cannot find anything in that MOS guideline to support removing it. It's a major part of the article and should be summarized in the lead.
• You deleted the section on the misdemeanor but kept the section on Mary Landrieu (under Important Works). I'm assuming WP:Good Faith, but it looks like you removed the better worded of the two sections. Granted, there is a lot of repetition, but I would remove the Mary Landrieu section on the grounds that it was never a "major work" of O'Keefe's, considering the aborted attempt led to a conviction and no actual footage.
• You "moved" the section on the resulting ACORN lawsuits (valid), but you removed a substantive part of the topic sentence: O'Keefe has selectively edited and manipulated his recordings of ACORN employees, as well as distorted chronologies. changed to O'Keefe has distorted chronologies his recordings of ACORN employees. Why?

Please do not re-add until we have a consensus on these changes. AlexEng^(TALK) 02:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@AlexEng: sure thing. Here are my responses to your challenges:

• I removed the 2010 misdemeanor charge from the lead on the basis that it's not one of the most important parts of the O'Keefe article—the reason for my citing MOS:LEAD—but his arrest is also already mentioned before that point in the WP:LEAD.
• I agree with your proposal on how to go about removing the repetitive content, (which was my intention.)
• Chalk that up to rushing the edit. The statement that the recordings are "selectively edited" is ambiguous and I intended to only remove that. The sentence wasn't cited and the section sources don't offer much to explain what is meant by "selectively edited" so the sentence without that is more direct.

Thanks for your attention. Mrtea (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@AlexEng: @Mrtea: I just noticed this discussion, I apologize for not responding sooner. I removed these sections for two reasons:

1. Although the phrasing was different their contents were entirely duplicated in the chronologically listed sections. I can't recall any particular objections to the phrasing so if anyone would like to reword the (now) current section I wouldn't object and of course if my edits removed factual content it should be restored to the relevant section.

2. I've never seen a BLP structured to include everything potentially negative about the subject in dedicated sections before the article's major content. The section Lawsuit over ACORN footage came before the section discussing the nature of O'Keefe's ACORN operation, which gives it less context. A misdemeanor conviction doesn't seem significant enough to justify a dedicated section much less a leading section. Search "activists convicted of" and you'll get hundreds of thousands of results for petty offense convictions. Bob Creamer (mentioned in this article) has a felony conviction and I'd object if his article led with it (as it stands it isn't even mentioned.) James J. Lambden (talk) 18:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

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 ([3] [4] [5]), 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.[6] 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[7] 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)

Lede summary of ACORN findings

In this diff I've addressed what appears to be misleading summaries of the official reports. The text claimed The Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers, implying all actions had been misrepresented. That contradicts several sources and the text of the report:

• AG Report: The video recordings evidence a serious and glaring deficit in management, governance and accountability within the ACORN organization.

Re: funding, after citing the AG's report for statements critical of O'Keefe we ignore the AG's critical findings of ACORN's financial management and instead cite the GAO's more positive report. Here is the relevant text from the AG's report:

• ACORN Was Delinquent in its Corporate Filings and Tax Reporting

• ACORN Failed to Properly Account for Charitable Assets

• The confusing structure of the ACORN entities and the lack of appropriate internal policies and controls raise serious concerns about whether ACORN is misusing funds

We shouldn't pick and choose - wither we mention both findings or neither. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you aware that there are whole articles on both ACORN and also the ACORN video controversy? Yes there are plenty of criticism to be made about their management, etc., but this article is not the venue for that. What should be covered here is O'Keefe's assertion that ACORN was a criminal prostitution ring, and his concocted videos that he purports are evidence of that. I do not see where your bullet-point observations in any way contradict that: "O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers". Can you explain that, please? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm making two separate claims:

1. That according to the AG The video recordings evidence a serious and glaring deficit in management, governance and accountability within the ACORN organization. According to the AG O'Keefe also misrepresented a number of interactions. If the lede only mentions one of these claims it's unbalanced, both should be mentioned. I attmepted to address that by qualifying "misrepresented" but I'm open to including the "evidence a serious and glaring deficit" in lieu of that.
2. We state in the lede A preliminary probe by the GAO found that ACORN had managed its federal funds appropriately without mentioning the AG's report showed inappropriate management (see my talkquotes above.)

There appears to be a pattern of ignoring or burying information favorable to O'Keefe and unfavorable to his targets and highlighting information unfavorable to O'Keefe and favorable to his targets. I see it in the selection of sources and even in the statements selected from those sources. Reading the section on ACORN one gets the impression there was virtually no wrongdoing on their part which is not the conclusion of the AG or the consensus of reliable sources, despite O'Keefe's various deceptions and exaggerations. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That is a curious observation. There appears to be a pattern of ignoring or burying or whitewashing information unfavorable or unflattering to O'Keefe while trying to add or highlight distracting information not about the subject of this Wikipedia article. Regarding your first claim, you say that the report says "O'Keefe also misrepresented a number of interactions"? That's not how the report puts it. And you say that is somehow balanced by the report acknowledging that there were management problems in ACORN? I believe you are setting up a false equivalency here. Please review the whole conclusion presented by that report. O'Keefe alleged a nationwide criminal prostitution enterprise that controlled elections and misused ill-gotten money, none of which is true - despite O'Keefe's doctored video productions designed to convince otherwise. Of course the AG office found numerous problems with an organization that is 40 years old, consists of thousands of employees (and even more volunteers) across dozens of states. And that is all laid out in the ACORN articles where it is relevant and appropriate. It sounds like you'd like to turn this article into another profile of ACORN, instead of O'Keefe. But I'm willing to listen. If I'm missing a source or sources that explains how O'Keefe has anything to do with the tax reporting, charitable assets or management structure issues noted during the AG office's investigation, please point me to them. (And not that it matters, but the GAO report is more recent and more comprehensive than the CA AG report, as far as "funds" go. The AG office only questioned if there may be misused funds; the GAO answered it later.)

This article is about O'Keefe and his work and activities. While there is plenty to criticize about ACORN's 40 year of operations, I'm fairly certain 100% of the bullet points you've posted above are from an AG office and not an O'Keefe effort. We could always add the other AG reports, or the Proskauer Rose report, or the Congressional Research Service reports, etc., - but we really should try to stay focused on the subject of this article. Let me know your thoughts, please. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with James J. Lambden. This article is soaking in bias edits that the sources do not support. This article is a BLP and these edits must be removed. This article reads like an attack piece. The use of Wikipedia's voice to support these claims as facts is entirely inappropriate. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I think your problem is with what reliable sources say. Take it up with reliable sources then... somewhere else, Wikipedia follows reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a lot of text. I don't think I've removed any factual statements positive or negative. Let's keep it simple: the GAO report found ACORN managed funds appropriately; the AG report found serious concerns about whether ACORN is misusing funds. If we include one we should include the other. I'm more inclined to include neither in the lede of O'Keefe's article which should focus on O'Keefe not ACORN's financial management. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This entire article is totally negative towards the subject

This entire article is shockingly biased and totally negative towards the subject. It has been hacked by someone who obviously does not like the subject nor his actions . It needs to be written in a neutral & balanced tone. It's a fucken encyclopedia, not a goddamn political billboard or magazine. It needs editing to the barest, factual, verifiable bones. It need not be positive by listing "achievements" nor need it be negative by "debunking" said achievements. For now, it's best to just list the facts rather than try to build him up or tear him down. After the election fiasco cools down, then the article can be expanded---judiciously. 92.20.114.89 (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)SkibbingtonVonSkubber 10/25/2016

The article, another anon user showing up here, is CRITICAL of the subject, not biased. And it is CRITICAL of the subject because reliable sources are critical of the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a law journal. Your idea of "reliable sources" is relative to subjective interpretation. I strongly doubt the reliability of your "sources". All of this can be hammered out after the election storms die down. For now, this article should simply list him as a controversial investigative reporter. I have no problem if it merely mentions that some of his reports have been disputed. Therefore, this article, for now, should be no bigger than a 5 line paragraph. Maybe it should be reduced to a stub for the time being---and locked for editing until 25 December 2016.92.20.114.89 (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)SkibbingtonVonSkubber 10/25/2016

Reliable sources are defined at WP:RS. If you wish to discuss the reliability of any particular source you can go to the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN. But seriously, if you're here to bitch and moan about the "lamestream media", you're in the wrong place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I do not wish to discuss the unreliability of your sources. I have edited many articles over the past 10 years. I will edit this article down to one paragraph if it is not made neutral by 12:00 Noon UTC 10/26/2016. I am serious. This is not the place for politics.92.20.114.89 (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)SkibbingtonVonSkubber 10/25/2016

Oh, ok.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I am curious about reliable sources. Being new to Wikipedia, can someone point me to where to look up what reliable sources are? I could search, but I bet you all know exactly where I should look without batting an eye. I am very confused about the WikiLeaks emails leaked "showing" collusion of the media and a party. If this is true (can it ever really be proven?), can the reliable sources still be considered reliable? Does Wikipedia take that into consideration or has that even come up before? Thank you for not telling me to RTFM, but rather giving me a link to where I can be educated on Wikipedia's rules and practices! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.214.8.72 (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There is foul language seen here which has no place in Wikipedia specially in talk pages , Please consider removing foul words and keep the conversation respectful Archvile.x86 (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

How about adding these excerpts from NY Times to the O'Keefe article?

@James J. Lambden:@Volunteer Marek:

“I put James O'Keefe in the same category as Michael Moore,” says Dean Mills, dean of the University of Missouri’s school of journalism. “Some ethicists say it is never right for a journalist to deceive for any reason, but there are wrongs in the world that will never be exposed without some kind of subterfuge.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/magazine/stinger-james-okeefes-greatest-hits.html?_r=0)

Quis separabit? 17:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

[E]arlier this month [July 2011] he began releasing a series of videos taken in Medicaid offices around the country. In one of the first he made public, “Sean Murphy,” dressed in the same regalia he wore on the New Jersey shoot, presented himself to a Medicaid worker in Charleston, S.C., as an Irish drug importer and Irish Republican Army member who wanted coverage for 25 wounded comrades who entered the U.S. illegally. The kindly worker spent time photocopying applications and dealing with this improbable applicant. While she made it clear that he had to abide by the regulations, she also assured him that she didn't want to know details. “It is definitely not in my own best interest to divulge anything to anyone,” she said. “I do not want to go to jail.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/magazine/stinger-james-okeefes-greatest-hits.html?_r=0)

Quis separabit? 17:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Part of that is already in this article. How much of the Stinger article do you want copied into this one? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Whatever is appropriate. I mean I could do it myself but I don't want to add something and just have it removed because someone objects on any grounds given the heat and passions that we have seen erupt -- and yes, some from me. That's why I raised it here. Yours, Quis separabit? 01:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

"Rigging the Election" videos

I am noticing significant coverage[8][9] of the "Rigging the Election" videos[10][11][12] Those are from youtube, with all the problems that implies, but I am also seeing coverage from other sources.[13][14][15] Of course the usual biased sources are full of criticism/praise but Snopes[16] seems to have an objective analysis. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon -- but is "Snopes" considered a reliable source? Quis separabit? 14:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 141#Snopes.com again. Comment from that that discussion:

"Snopes.com is undeniably a reliable source. It has a tremendous reputation for fact-checking and is well accepted by countless other reliable sources throughout the world."

I agree. Snopes is a reliable source. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

BTW, Snopes is also an extremely reliable source on the question of sites that are not reliable sources. See Snopes.com's updated guide to the internet's clickbaiting, news-faking, social media exploiting dark side: [ http://www.snopes.com/2016/01/14/fake-news-sites/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Uh, Guy, you picked one comment out of that whole discussion. Here are some others:

In answer to question "is Snopes reliable": "Of course not." Little green rosetta

"It fails RS because it is self-published and does not have a formal editorial policy." ElinRuby

" its fine in researching an article, but not as a source within in." MAsem

Now, sure, some people in that discussion think it reliable but it's by no means clear cut. Personally it's a source I'd generally avoid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

While it's true that opinions differed in the early part that noticeboard discussion, I think Guy Macon chose the most salient and best supported take-away comment. Snopes is generally a reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: I've maintained a list of sources with which I intend to expand the section. It's not up-to-date (and another release is expected today) but it may be helpful. Feel free to copy or edit:

• CNN - Dem operative 'stepping back' after video suggests group incited violence at Trump rallies
• Time - Everything We Know About the Latest James O’Keefe Video Sting
• The Hill - White House urges 'extreme caution' on O'Keefe videos
• Fox - A.G. Schimel says O’Keefe videos show ‘apparent violations of law’
• ABC - WI Attorney General: "Video appears to show bragging about breaking Wisconsin laws"
• USATODAY affiliate - Attorney general may investigate secret video
• USATODAY affiliate (editorial) - Investigate claims of voter fraud
• NY Mag - James O’Keefe’s Latest Videos Cost Two Dem Operatives Their Jobs
• Business Insider - Undercover videos lead to Democratic operative's firing, force another to distance himself from DNC
• Miami Herald - Clinton campaigners out after being filmed talking about inciting violence at Trump rally
• PBS - What we know and don’t know about these videos alleging illicit strategies by Democrats
• Chicago Sun Times - Dem consultant Robert Creamer explains role in Trump rally flap
• Chicago Tribune - Longtime state Democratic political operative ensnarled in video controversy

James J. Lambden (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Due to this notability, is it alright that I move the "US Presidential Elections (2016)" subcategory from "Other Incidents" to "Major Works"? Yoshiman6464 (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, two resignations, a week of ongoing coverage - it's past due. The sections are ordered chronologically so this should come last. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not as convinced as James Lambden that it comes anywhere near approaching the notability or significance of the four truly "major" projects of his already listed. I was disappointed to see virtually no additional coverage for a week after the first 48 hour news cycle. I was rather hoping O'Keefe was holding back something substantial (and maybe he still is), but there's been nothing but crickets lately. (And there was only one "resignation", and that wasn't really an A-list "scalp".) But there's still time, so we'll see. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what news sources you read but I found significant coverage of each of the recent releases. Overall I find more news coverage of this latest operation than Planned Parenthood recordings (2008) and Senator Mary Landrieu (2010) both of which we include in Major Works, so while coverage may increase that's not an argument against promoting it. What do others think? James J. Lambden (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Like Sarah Palin, I read all of them. A Google News search indicates greater than 90% of the stories came out in the first 48 hours, with the more recent ones being some head-scratching follow-ups, or coverage of his most recent video. There was a small spike when Trump gave his hat-tip to the videos during the debate, but even then O'Keefe was vocally complaining that the media was ignoring his video productions. Regardless, I see someone has relocated the content to the "major works" section. I still think its premature and unwarranted, but I won't move it myself at this time. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Conservative??

If O'Keefe regards himself as "progressive radical", should we at Wikipedia state he is a conservative and add categories and templates to that effect? Just curious. Thanks, Quis separabit? 16:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a reasonable question. Most sources I find call him conservative, and Donors Trust (his main funding source) is a conservative group. Do we have sources that call him progressive or radical? James J. Lambden (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

He's a conservative activist according to reliable sources, and he's referred to himself as a conservative (at least once that I know of when he took the stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference), but he also described himself in one single interview as a "progressive radical". Perhaps he was being cheeky, like when he said the radical Saul Alinsky was one of his big influences? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

He explains why he uses the term, which seems sincere not sarcastic:

Mr. O’Keefe said he considers the British writer G. K. Chesterton his “intellectual backbone” and called himself a “progressive radical,” not a conservative, because he wants to change things, “not conserve them.”

While the majority of sources describe him as a conservative so that should come first in the lede, "progressive radical" is how he describes himself so that should come first in the section on his Political and personal beliefs - you recently reversed them which I'll undo. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I think his description is helpful, so I added it. You added "the media describes him as conservative", which I didn't see conveyed by any of the cited sources. What I did see in the sources is: he is conservative. A simple assertion of fact. So I corrected the wording. I disagree that what he calls himself should come before what he is, when both are simultaneously applicable; on what do you base your reasoning? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

As for your suggestion that "his" description of himself should come before reliably sourced descriptions of him, a wise man once said, "if David Duke or his boss says Duke's not a racist it doesn't mean our article says he's not a racist. What if Duke were to say he's not a conservative, while all reliable sources described him that way? Wikipedia generally gives a lot of deference to self-identification, but not when extraordinary claims are made - and he has counted himself among conservatives. The section header says "Political and personal beliefs", which doesn't imply it is restricted to just statements of self-identification. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

it says conservative if situation like this but never liberal or socijalist if someone like john oliver or michael moore.. very bad editors who just undo edits and have political views editing to have one side — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMilos (talk • contribs)

Really? You've never seen Michael Moore called "liberal"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

moore is a far left socialist who supports castro, probably stalinist.. oliver is liberal but rare to be called this compared to right wing always called conservative

undercover is secret

undercover is secret recording or it would not be undercover.. it is like having undercover spy, if not undercover then not very good spy. hello i am spy, can you tell me your secrets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMilos (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but that's not all that you're removing. You're also removing "some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not" which is exactly what the sources say and what has ALREADY been discussed. The "secret vs. undercover" thing appears to be a red herring for making the other content change.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"secretly recorded" is just more precise than "undercover". Whatever "undercover" is suppose to mean (like dark sunglasses and a long trenchcoat or something??? Fake mustache? A cut-off jean jacket and a dirty bandanna? He used a cloaking device? He tried to hide behind a bush?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Also "undercover" has connotations with law enforcement so it inadvertently implies that somehow this guy's actions were sanctioned by some authority or something. Which of course they weren't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The term "undercover" is used often in investigative reporting. The terms aren't equivalent - video of a nanny abusing a child recorded on hidden spycam would be "secretly recorded" but not "undercover." The videos O'Keefe releases are mostly (all?) recorded by individuals pretending to be someone they're not, i.e. undercover. To be precise we would have to say "secretly recorded undercover video" but "undercover video" is less clunky and no less precise. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Do the sources use the term "undercover" or do they say "secretly recorded"? Anyway, which ever way, that is no excuse to use this as a pretext to remove the "some selectively edited..." part (and come to think of it, what is that "some" doing in there?)).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's try to keep this discussion organized. This section is about "undercover" vs "secretly recorded." A search of "O'Keefe" and "undercover" in "News" gives a number of sources: [17] Do you agree undercover is more precise (considering the assumed identities?) James J. Lambden (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but look at those sources: Daily Caller, Breitbart, Washington Times, WND, Townhall, Washington Free Beacon, something called "Charisma News", something called "The Rebel", Daily Mail, etc. There are a couple of instances of a reliable source or two but for the most part it's like a who's-who's of far-right media.

So let's check "secretly recorded" [18]. CBS (several and affiliates), ABC (several and affiliates), Boston Globe, Fox (!), Columbia Journalism Review... and that's not even including left-leaning sources like Mother Jones or Politico.

I see no reason why we should emulate the phraseology of the far-right instead of mainstream sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

All of these sources using "undercover" were present in the link in my last comment:

* O'Keefe released another undercover sting video Business Insider

* In a new undercover sting video released by conservative activist, James O’Keefe Time

* Foval explains to O'Keefe's undercover journalist RealClearPolitics

* a Veritas staffer who went by Steve Packard met Foval, according to two officials familiar with the undercover effort who recalled their experiences for TIME. Time

* Conservative undercover journalist James O'Keefe  holds a news conference Chicago Tribune

* caught an infiltrator from Project Veritas, the undercover opposition research organization founded by James O'Keefe. Washington Post

* Rhodes told HuffPost that their operation was inspired by an undercover video published by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. Huffington Post

Are you really suggesting these are "far-right" sources? James J. Lambden (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of the sources though were: Daily Caller, Breitbart, Washington Times, WND, Townhall, Washington Free Beacon, something called "Charisma News", something called "The Rebel", Daily Mail, etc. Which are either far-right or just trash.

Anyway, regardless of what the proper phrasing is for this piece of text, the part about the videos being selectively edited should not be removed as KMilos is attempting to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Selectively edited" definitely needs to stay. It is the distinguishing feature of O'Keefe's work. "Secret video" can be read as "we kept the video a secret". "Secretly recorded video" would seem to be a reasonable alternative. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Forth video regarding presidential "rigged" election and alleged misconduct

Videos are self explanatory , Claim of uncovering alleged misconduct , voter fraud etc , Should a short paragraph be added to the article linking the video on their official youtube page and maybe citing other sources along with it about credibility and basically what other sources say about those footage ? Archvile.x86 (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Archvile.x86: the article is a work in progress, and every editor is encouraged to make edits and add relevant facts (see Wikipedia:Be bold). You could definitely use the YouTube video as a primary source and include interpretation of it from secondary sources (WP:PRIMARY). Mrtea (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Involvement with 2016 Elections

A couple editors have objected to the reliably sourced information about O'Keefe and the 2016 Elections:

A month before the launch of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, the Trump Foundation donated $10,000 to O'Keefe's Project Veritas. O'Keefe also attended, as a guest of the Trump campaign, the final presidential debate, and was later available in the spin room following the Las Vegas event.

Those two sentences are presently sourced as follows:

• Trump Foundation paid filmmaker who claims Clinton paid to incite violence at Trump rally CNBC:

  Trump Foundation Paid Activist Filmmaker James O'Keefe. At the third presidential debate, Donald Trump invoked a video that says supporters of Hillary Clinton were paid to incite violence at one of his rallies in Chicago. It was an attack thread to emphasize that her campaign was "sleazy." But what Trump didn't say is that he has paid the filmmaker who he says uncovered the story. The video, which was just released earlier this week and made by conservative activist James O'Keefe of Project Veritas, was paid $10,000 by the Trump Foundation in May of 2015 - one month before Trump's announcement of candidacy.

• Trump’s claim tying violence at his rallies to the Clinton campaign The Washington Post:

  The Trump Foundation made a $10,000 gift to Project Veritas last year, the Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold reported. [...] Further, the Trump Foundation gave $10,000 to Project Veritas in 2015. Just as Trump is skeptical of Rodriguez’s motives because of her previous payment from the Clinton campaign, readers should also be wary of Trump touting a Project Veritas video that matches his campaign rhetoric.

• Experts: Actions of Democratic operatives in latest undercover James O'Keefe video are likely not a violation of the law; Business Insider:

  A recent story in the liberal blog ThinkProgress, which drew on a Washington Post database, revealed that Trump's foundation gave $10,000 to Project Veritas on May 13, 2015. Project Veritas is a non-profit that is in the same 501 C-4 classification as Americans United for Change. Last week, O'Keefe was invited by the Trump campaign to be a guest at the final presidential debate, and was later available in the spin room following the Las Vegas event.

• Donald Trump Foundation paid James O'Keefe $10,000 in 2015: report; Salon:

  Donald Trump helped finance the creator of videos purporting to show individuals working on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign inciting violence at Trump rallies, according to a new report. The videos, which claimed to prove that the Clinton campaign (as well as representatives of President Barack Obama) were paying people $1,500 to “be violent, cause fights, do bad things,” were produced by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, which was given a $10,000 donation from the Trump Foundation, Think Progress reports. Think Progress pointed to a donation from May 13, 2015 — a month before the Republican announced his candidacy.

• Trump used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O'Keefe; ThinkProgress:

  Trump used his foundation to fund guerrilla filmmaker James O’Keefe - He funneled at least $10,000 to O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. [...] Still, Trump claimed the videos exposed that a violence at a March Chicago rally was a “criminal act” and that it “was now all on tape started by her.” Trump neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas tax-exempt group. According to a list of charitable donations made by Trump‘s controversial foundation (provided to the Washington Post in April by Trump’s campaign), on May 13, 2015, it gave $10,000 to Project Veritas.

The most recent edit summary claims the two sentences in our article are original research: Deleted blatent WP:OR. There is zero evidence that the donation has anything to do with O'Keefe's 2016 US Presidential Election activity. Causes need to come before effects. Wikipedia's "No Original Research" policy prohibits Wikipedia editors from adding their own "original thought", "new analysis" or "synthesis" or "implied conclusions" not clearly conveyed by published sources. WP:OR has not been violated in this instance, as 100% of the information in the two sentences is conveyed by reliable published sources. It is NBC, WaPo, Business Insider, et al., that connect Trump+O'Keefe+Election, and not a Wikipedia editor. Perhaps another Wikipedia policy, one that actually applies, can be dredged up to disqualify the unpalatable information from appearing in the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• I've since added a denial by a Project Veritas spokesperson who, if I'm reading his statement correctly, claims that Trump's $10,000 gift is too tiny to have influenced their multi-million dollar "Rigging the Election" production. Sourced to a Washington Times article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that the information belongs in that section? I am looking for evidence that, specifically, that donation was somehow tied to the October 2016 videos on Project Veritas' YouTube channel titled "Rigging the Election". Where is the connection? Given the fact the CAUSES OCCUR BEFORE EFFECTS it seems far more likely (but still WP:OR) that the donation was the result of the James O'Keefe#U.S-Mexico border-crossing stunt (2014), which fits in with what Trump was claiming at the time of the donation. Yes, the trump donation definitely belongs in the article. It would be misleading to not mention it. But you put it in the wrong place. I tried to put it in a more appropriate section earlier[19] but was you reverted me.[20]), It does not belong in that section. By putting it there you are strongly implying without any evidence that on May 13, 2015 someone at the Trump foundation gazed into his crystal ball, predicted that on Oct 17, 2016 O'Keefe would release his "Rigging the Election" videos, and made a donation based on events that had not happened yet. Please note that that the videos reference violence causing a cancelled Trump rally on March 12, 2016, so we know that the video was shot some time after after that date. Did O'Keefe tell Trump his plans and perhaps ask for funding? You have no evidence of that. Do any of the sources you cite have any way of knowing that O'Keefe told Trump his plans? No. They are all speculating about an alleged effect coming five months before the alleged cause. There is zero evidence that the donation was in any way linked to the videos described in the section where you insist on putting it. Show me some evidence of find a better place for it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Guy. When I look at the above cited 5 sources covering Trump & O'Keefe, I don't see a single mention of the "border-crossing stunt", so you are correct that placing this information in the "border-crossing stunt" section would be a violation of WP:OR. Each of those sources do, however, absolutely mention the "rigging the election" stunt when they mention Trump's $10,000 gift. You say that you are "looking for evidence that, specifically, that donation was somehow tied to the October 2016 videos", but I don't think those news media organizations will see your request here. (Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to produce their own evidence; it must come from published sources instead.) I'm not privy to their sources when they say, "Trump helped finance the creator of videos purporting to show individuals working on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign inciting violence at Trump rallies" and "what Trump didn't say is that he has paid the filmmaker who he says uncovered the story" and "Trump neglected, however, to mention his own connection to the videos, released by James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas". Nor do I need to be. Wikipedia editors did not link the Trump donation information to the 'Rigging' video information; the published sources did. Now if you think their evidence may be lacking, you'll need to take that up with the sources; perhaps you can convince them to issue a retraction or correction?

Ever since the news reports were published about Trump first donating to the video maker just before he launched his campaign, and then later touting videos from that very same video maker during his campaign, critics have been quick to publicize that connection - especially the DNC and Clinton campaign. (See The Hill article, Dallas Observer article, etc.) Project Veritas insiders have since downplayed the connection, or denied that Trump influenced the video productions. (I would expect nothing less.) But there is simply no question as to where in our Wikipedia article all this information should be located. That much is a no-brainer. Let me know if you disagree. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, but see below for a possible compromise. Here is why I disagree: If the most reliable source in the world were to say, to pick an example, that Russel's teapot exists, we would have to conclude that that source is not reliable on the question of the existence of Russel's teapot -- no source is. We could report that they say the teapot exists, but we cannot imply in Wikipedia's voice that the teapot does or does not exist without actual evidence of it existing. None of those sources are reliable regarding the alleged connection because they have absolutely no way of knowing whether a connection exists. However, this opens up a possible compromise. We can simply report who made the claim that there is a connection (of course including the Clinton campaign and DNC) and include the counterclaim that O'Keefe denies it (primary sources suffice for that). We cannot imply that something that the sources have no way of knowing is true, but we can report that the sources said that it is true.

And please, no more snarky comments like "Perhaps another Wikipedia policy, one that actually applies, can be dredged up to disqualify the unpalatable information from appearing in the article?", OK? I am just trying to fix an article that implies a connection that it should not imply. I have no interest in taking sides regarding US politics, and have a generally low opinion of James O'Keefe as a source simply because I see so many quick cuts, which makes me think that important context is being snipped out. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I was following along with your analogy until you said, "they have absolutely no way of knowing whether a connection exists, which doesn't appear true. Based on these 3 indisputable facts alone, there is absolutely a "connection":

1. Trump's organization gave $10,000 to O'Keefe's organization just a month before Trump formally launched his campaign
2. O'Keefe's organization has since produced video after video alleging various wrongdoings by Trump's opponent and her support groups
3. Trump cites O'Keefe's videos during the third debate, to which O'Keefe was invited by Trump, and Trump alleged the the identical wrongdoings

Did you mean to say the news sources have no way of knowing if Trump's $10,000 was given to O'Keefe specifically to have him produce negative material about his opponent? Well, if that is what you mean to say, you would be correct - the news sources can't reliably say that. BUT, our Wikipedia article also doesn't say that. What the sources say, and therefore our article says, is only this:

A month before the launch of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, the Trump Foundation donated $10,000 to O'Keefe's Project Veritas. O'Keefe also attended, as a guest of the Trump campaign, the final presidential debate, and was later available in the spin room following the Las Vegas event.

Now can a reader draw an implication from that basic factual information that Trump gave O'Keefe money to vilify his opposition? Of course. But we're not allowed to report, in Wikipedia's voice, that Trump paid O'Keefe to vilify his opposition. We must stick to what the sources say. So, returning to your analogy, Wikipedia can report that (1) Teapots exist; (2) Teapots fitted with equipment capable of carrying them into solar-synchronous orbit have been manufactured; (3) Witnesses have seen rockets carrying unknown payloads being launched from a private facility owned by Russel's Stellar Teapots Corp. (RSTC). Wikipedia, however, cannot report that Russel's teapot exists, until reliable sources are capable of confirming that fact. Can the implication be drawn by our readers that Russel's teapot may exist based on those verifiable facts Wikipedia can provide? Very likely.

We can simply report who made the claim that there is a connection...

Have to stop you right there. We presently don't have any "claims" that there is a connection. We presently convey what reliable sources convey without attribution, when it comes to simple facts. Are you suggesting that we expand the section by moving beyond those simple facts and adding in the rhetoric from the involved parties? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, re: snark, from one snark master to another, fret not - that comment had nothing to do with you. You were neither the first nor the only editor to raise the disqualification of that content from that section, and you weren't in mind when I typed it. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

So if I found a source that said "A week before a jury sentenced Dzhokar Tsarnaev to death for Boston Marathon Bombing, the Trump Foundation donated $10,000 to James O'Keefe's Project Veritas" I could insert that sentence into the Boston Marathon Bombing article? After all, those are both simple facts. Or would you want some evidence other than the source saying so that there is a connection before implying that there was a connection in Wikipedia's voice? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Given just the limited information you gave in your example, I'd guess you would likely encounter objections to inserting that sentence. However, if you found not just "a source", but instead found more than a dozen reliable sources which conveyed that sentence, and those dozen sources also noted that Project Veritas operatives dressed in prison guard uniforms broke Tsarnaev out of custody, and they noted that authorities have located the fugitive Tsarnaev holed up in a suite at Trump Towers — then you won't encounter any reasonable objections to adding that content. (But be careful not to add in Wikipedia's voice that "Trump paid to have Project Veritas break Tsarnaev out of custody", for that we should wait for more evidence and explicit statements from reliable sources.) Fun stuff, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest video on Trump innauguation

The latest video regarding the Trump innaugratin shows (clearly) a plot to sabotage it. The people on the video argue they were fooling the subject of this article, meaning the plot shown was fake. This is mentioned in the article, as it should be. However, the article says the video "allegedly" shows a plot bring planned, implying the video may have been edited to show that but in reality something else happened. This is the case for others video, but not this one. The people involved don't deny it, they merely say they were lying. Thus, I removed the word "allegedly". A user undid my revision. Hopefully we can resolve this little dispute here. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue of selective editing

No one likes selective editing, because it's not objective, although we don't even have an article on it - unless I'm missing something with a similar name. But smacks of Wikipedia:original research to take sides against a crusading journalist (and attempt to discredit his findings) by asserting in the introductory paragraph that he is guilty of such misleading tactics - merely on the say-so of a few sources. I wonder if this is only their opinion, or it's based on facts.

It would help our readers to make up their minds if we provided some examples of encounters which were selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not: it would only take 3 to 5 examples to convince me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"On the say-so of sources" is how we do things at Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of selective editing need to reference who made the accusation, not be stated in Wikipedia's voice as if they were established facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, throughout the article we have discussion of how particular videos were selectively edited. Different cases, different multiple sources. And they state it explicitly. So no, we don't need to attribute in this case (lest we end up listing dozen+ sources).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because you can find a lot of articles stating something doesn't mean you can ignore all of the articles stating the opposite. There's no question that controversy has arisen over O'Keefe's editing in certain cases. Some cases, I think, clearly would have better served the public and the subjects of the video if edited differently, but the extent to which various edits are materially deceptive, intentional or meaningful is highly disputed and for good reason. It should be covered that way - as controversy. Appropriate video editing is inherently a subjective matter, and even a hard news journalist saying so is still an opinion. Just ask Katie Couric, who used to anchor ABC's flagship program, then had her special on gun control cancelled over controversial editing. Any Wikipedia article clearly better serves the reader by informing him of the controversy, providing necessary information to understand relevant perspectives. Taking a hard, aggressive position on this matter as this page frequently does serves nobody but the people trying to impose their political views on this page. It seems clear there's quite a bit of that going on here. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Also note that in the particular cases being discussed the "accusations" *already are* attributed. But because it happens so much, when we summarize the text in the lede, there's no need for it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)