Talk:James O'Keefe

Falsehoods in opinion based biography

This article has a lot of opinion, which is why using Wikipedia in educational papers and presentations is not permissible in most schools. You guys control the spread of misinformation. Stick to reporting facts, without injecting your opinion. That’s on all sides of the political spectrum…. If I read one more Wikipedia page that is as opinionated as this one, I won’t be reading anymore. Best of luck to you all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:F701:A4D:5190:92DB:3D21:C891 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Have you read WP:NPOV? Our job is to document pretty much everything that is described in reliable sources (the "sum of all human knowledge"), and that includes facts, opinions, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, lies, etc. What is written in an article is not the opinion of the many editors who developed that content. It is based on the reliable sources available.

If you find a specific instance of abuse or vandalism, please mention it here and we'll be happy to help you get it fixed. For a deeper understanding of the NPOV subject, especially how it applies to dealing with biased sources, feel free to read my essay: Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It isn't policy but it's often cited in discussions. -- Valjean (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This is another ridiculously biased article, one if many that prevents me from donating to Wikipedia. I would rather see this Wikipedia disappear into the ether than waste $2.50 to keep it going. Fix the many articles like this and I may reconsider. Eegorr (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No one cares. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You are trying to bribe Wikipedia into changing articles to make them conform with your beliefs instead of with reliable sources. Won't happen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Review my edits and see if it more accurately represents him now. Tachyon (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No, your edits contradict the content of the article, which is derived from reliable sources; they have been reverted. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Far Right Label

What in the Lord's name do you call a reliable source? The literal opinion pieces on mainstream media that clearly push an agenda or the actual tapes that are up on Project Veritas which do not take anything said out of context, unlike many so-called "reliable sources". For someone to view themselves as a centrist or liberal and to be called conservative here is reasonable. But calling someone Far-Right, Far Left, Conspiracy Theorist, Nazi, Communist, or any other political pejorative is absolutely slanderous and I really hope this is changed soon, otherwise, I can only hope James goes after you just like he went after CNN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.83 (talk • contribs)

O'Keefe's modus operandi is imposture and fraud, followed by the issuance of doctored and edited tapes such as "those up on Project Veritas" which are bogus and often libelous. Everybody who has looked into his history knows that is how he has always worked. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Just a read of the "Abbie Boudreau (2010)" section should convince any reasonable person that he's a dishonest slimeball. Even Izzy Santa wouldn't stand for it. -- Valjean (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

FBI Searches

Would it be relevant to include the Justice Department investigation into the stolen diary, which resulted in FBI searching O'Keefe? . This came after the FBI searching a number of other Project Veritas associates. Saxones288 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be added to the article. X-Editor (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Change required

Line one reads: "to far-right[5][6][7] political activist and provocateur.[8][9]" Change(s): "Journalist" {period}

James O'Keefe is not a "Political Activist." "Politics" has no play in what he does. He is an undercover journalist seeking truth from those hiding or twisting it. Any other wording is ones mere "Opinion" and vile attempt at disparaging or hopes of belittling Mr. O'Keefe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AesopsRetreat (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The idea that politics does not play a role in what he does is laughable. The claim that he is a political activist is also backed up by reliable sources. If you have any reliable sources that say otherwise, please link to them. X-Editor (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The claim that he's a "journalist" is also laughable. An interest in journalism in high-school doesn't count. He's as much a "journalist" as Assange. -- Valjean (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

He is a journalist that secretly records corruption. He doesn’t edit his videos, you can always find the full video. This Wikipedia page about him is an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of press.

Change it because is misleading 2A04:4A43:428F:D099:3D69:C692:809B:6BC2 (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You can say that all you want; it's a free country. But since the reliable sources report otherwise, so does Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Any source that reports otherwise is not reliable. Eegorr (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to ignore the large number of sources that point out the multiple issues with his videos, but Wikipedia won't. Ravensfire (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

.

It’s articles such as this why my son’s HS has an automatic failing grade policy for any paper handed in with a Wikipedia citation. 2601:6C4:4003:CB00:43E:D808:F2D3:8A9C (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for letting us know how you feel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

You claim that James O’Keefe and his organization, Project Veritas, use “deceptive techniques,” and that their “recordings are often selectively edited to misrepresent the context of the conversations and the subjects' responses.” You then proceed to not source a single item for these ridiculous claims. I suggest you remove this from your page as it is a clear fallacy and an embarrassment to your company. 2601:283:487F:16E0:0:0:0:8C87 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There's literally hundreds of reliable sources cited in this article. Your disagreement with these sources is noted and ignored. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If you consider veritas “far-right” then what is center right?

Has Wikipedia gone woke? 74.102.213.212 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Compare Centre-right politics and Far-right politics. 2605:B100:D01:3D4A:936:D571:1EB3:C512 (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Shaped Content

I thought I'd make a comment here about this article. It's made in good faith and I hope it's helpful.

Until this morning, I'd never heard of James O'Keefe (I'm not American, obv). I listened to an interview on a British podcast and then checked his Wikipedia article. I can see it's contentious. For the record, I am a moderate leftie. I have done some Wikipedia editing recently (do check my edits for a feel of that if you fancy) and I feel quite protective of the value Wikipedia generally brings to the world. It does seem to me that there's something not quite right about this article. It seems shaped to create a completely consistent, and negative, narrative about O'Keefe. If that's an accurate narrative, then fair enough. But it's so awfully consistent with, if you will, plotlines which run so flawlessly along with the general narrative that it does not seem authentically WP:NPOV. Stories are never that consistent in real life. O'Keefe may be a bad chap, I really can't judge properly based on the last hour or so, but this article presents him wearing a black hat at every turn, and those he has pursued as always wearing a white one. I cannot be bothered, frankly, to go through all the items listed, and there are far to many, but the NPR section is quite seriously flawed. The CEO of NPR was sacked over that case; it was a very serious hit indeed. Any news agency would have considered that a legitimate and even important story. Yet the sacking gets a single sentence after a previous one seemingly, but perhaps inadvertently, designed to draw some of the sting from it. The broad thrust of that section is O'Keefe - black hat, NPR (which sacked its CEO over the serious errors) - white hat. There also seems to be far too much content which seems very small beer designed for inclusion to create a particular vector. @valijean says above that Wikipedia editors job is to include pretty much everything reliable sources say, but this is not correct. That would not be editing. I have noticed at some other biographical articles - which is what I'm quite interested in - that they are manipulated mainly not by cutting things but by adding things. The latter is easier to justify in each case, yet done poorly (or purposefully) creates an imbalanced article with, again, a fairly obvious vector.

I hasten to add two points. First, I have used cowboy hats above to refer to a simplistic goodie/bad dichotomy (in the old movies, the hero would wear the black or white hat he didn't normally wear so loved ones would see the wrong hat on the hatstand and know something was wrong...). I hope this is fine in the US, but if it is not I will edit it and use another analogy. Second, I am not suggesting bad faith editing for a moment. I am suggesting that a number of editing trends have come together to create a dodgy Wikipedia article. That said, I have no interest in getting involved in a war so I simply make these comments in the hope others reflect on it if they're interested and in that way make a modest contribution to improving the article. All the best Emmentalist (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that the article did not explain NPR CEO Vivian Schiller's resignation. I edited that paragraph with a contemporaneous description from the LA Times of the resignation. I found no reliable sources which say that O'Keefe's video implicated Vivian Schiller in any way. Your notion that he found or created some "serious errors" on her part doesn't seem to be supported.

Regarding your doubt that O'Keefe is uniformly a "black hat" whose work has no redeeming social value: if there are examples that are reliably attested and sufficiently noteworthy, they can be included in this article. -- M.boli (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Gosh, M.boli, I just made a single Google search and this article about Schiller's resignation being all about O'Keefe's video (on the world's 3rd most read newspaper website) came out at the top. Have you tried Google? Or maybe Safari? They're big search engines, just in case you're still using Webcrawler or something. ;-) All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian article does not say that the NPR CEO was implicated in any way by O'Keefe's video, neither does it allege she did anything wrong. It says she "fell on her sword" due to the public brou-ha-ha. The LA Times article which I cited in this Wikipedia page says the same thing, with additional information about Congressional funding. Over and out. -- M.boli (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, you may 'out' M.boli, but I'm not. My point above is that the CEO of NPR was sacked over the video. It's quite obvious she was in all the reportage. Literally no-one has suggested she was personally a feature of the video, least of all me. My point further above, which most most certainly stands, is that one organisation doing a video hit on a major news agency which directly results in the resignation of that agency is most certainly a scoop any news organisation would be proud of. The article is biased and this needs to be corrected. All the best Emmentalist (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That the CEO of NPR was terminated because of the fallout from the video is accurately described in this article and in Schiller's article also. You pointed out that this article did not explain the connection, I beefed up the article accordingly. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not a venue for breathlessly reporting 11 year old news, regardless of whether they were "scoops." The Project Veritas NPR deception is accurately described in Wikipedia, as is the fallout from same. -- M.boli (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the CIA behind the immediate left-biased edits?

Why does every Wikipedia page have such a strong far-left bias in that EVERYthing that goes against far-left narratives is labeled far-right, and the page is locked down?

If you remove the bias, considering this is supposed to be a plain information page, it’s immediately within minutes reverted back. That’s not evidence of users, those are concerted efforts and it happens broadly across Wiki.

Use your brains people! You’re being manipulated with fake information! The narratives are always conveniently controlled for mainstream establishment bs. 107.119.45.14 (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)