Talk:James O'Keefe

RfC about attributing accusations of selective editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per WP:WikiVoice and WP:ASSERT, should accusations of selective editing be attributed as opposed to being stated as facts in Wikipedia's voice?

(Also see WP:!TRUTHFINDERS, Wikipedia:Truth matters#Wikipedia's voice vs assigned claims and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#"If it's written in a book, it must be true!").

-- Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Support: Widely-held opinions and established facts are two separate things, and Wikipedia's policies ane guidelines forbid calling a widely-held opinion an established fact. We need to clearly state who said the videos were selectively edited, who said they weren't, and indicate how widely held each of those opinions are. We cannot call opinions facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Sure, "accusations" of selective editing" should be attributed. Since that's not happening here -- that ol' "statement of facts" thing -- then the question is irrelevant or misleadingly framed to elicit a preferred response. So Oppose. --Calton | Talk 14:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Snarky, and factually incorrect. Your own (also snarky) edit summary[1] calls them objective facts. See Talk:James O'Keefe#Trying once again to discuss this on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Snarky, because -- once again -- you're having trouble with that whole "fact" thing again. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support: Obvious support. It is the cornerstone of proper content editing: opinions should always be presented as what they are, opinions, and the sources of them should always be cited clearly. But what we currently have in edits like this [2] are opinions dumbed-down and made out to be unquestioned, universally held facts. While it is undoubtedly better, the earlier Guy Macon edit is still inadequate - there should be some content detailing what the alleged "editing in order to misrepresent" actually had consisted of, not just that it was alleged O'Keefe had done it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Obvious support, it is primarily in order to be fair to the reader IMO, not simply the BLP that we state who has made the accusation and its precise nature. As pointed out by Guy M in the related discussion, doing so will often strengthen, not weaken the assertion. Pincrete (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per everything I said below. Basically, this is a bad faith-ed RfC because it PRESUMES that statements aren't attributed currently. They freakin' already are. What this proposal appears to be is a cover to sneak in a bunch of weasel language into the article. It's also not clear exactly what the proposer wants to change. Badly formatted RfC and the idea behind is wrong headed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• Object and oppose. This RfC is malformed because it doesn't identify the specific "accusations" Guy is proposing to be attributed. From what I can tell, these "accusations" are actually analyses found in two generally reliable media outlets, NPR and Time. The statement that O'Keefe edited selectively does not appear to be an accusation; it appears to be based on reliably sourced factual content. In-text attribution would violate our neutrality policy by misleadingly presenting a reliably sourced fact as an unreliably sourced accusation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• The problem with this proposal is that it portrays it as a Yeay/Nay kind of thing. Also, by invoking WP:ASSERT, and WP:TRUTHFINDERS and portraying the disagreement as "attributed vs. Wikipedia voice" it misrepresents the nature of the disagreement - there's already tons of attribution, what some editors want though is to weasel and qualify everythign. Hence it is not neutrally worded, as RfC instructions require.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree. I believe that it is neutrally worded and represents the nature of the disagreement just fine. I say that the statements in question should be attributed. You say they should be presented as established facts in Wikipedia's voice. You argue that attributed opinions elsewhere on the page transform the statements made in Wikipedia's voice from widely-held opinion to established fact. I say that they do not. That being said, RfCs are usually closed by uninvolved administrators, and the closing admin will evaluate your objection above and take it into` account when evaluating the result. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• No, you are once again misrepresenting what I'm saying with your little " You say they should be presented as established facts in Wikipedia's voice". What *I say* is that *there already is plenty of attribution* and the additions you wish to make are just weaselin'. RfC are required to be worded neutrally.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Objection noted. It really looks to me like you just repeated your assertion that attributed opinions elsewhere on the page transform statements made in Wikipedia's voice from widely-held opinion to established fact, but I trust the uninvolved closing admin to evaluate your objection and decide whether it has merit. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek, if you keep presenting opinions as facts as you did here[3] we are going to end up at WP:ANI over this. In the section Talk:James O'Keefe#The issue of selective editing three editors opposed you on this and nobody supported you. Please stop trying to push you POV into the article against consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• You did it again,[4] so off to ANI we go: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Volunteer Marek --Guy Macon (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Annnnnnddddd ANI report closed as "Nah".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Revert instead of discussing again and we will see if WP:AE has the same opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• What's up with these weird RfC's? Please identify the specific content change being proposed. Otherwise this belongs at WT:NPV. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• There is nothing unclear about the RfC I posted. Either we state widely-held opinions about subjective value judgements "purposeful" or "misleading" as what they clearly are -- widely-held opinions -- or we pretend that they are established facts and present them in Wikipedia's voice without any attribution. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This RfC is garbage. How can anyone weigh in meaningfully without knowing what what "widely-held opinions" are being referred to and what sources they come from? I'm sorry but as it currently stands I see this as a meaningless RfC that could only lead to a false consensus. I wouldn't feel bound by it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I came here to close this RfC, but now I got more questions than answers. There are two parts where I saw accusations of "selective editing"

Keefe has selectively edited and manipulated his recordings of ACORN employees, as well as distorted the chronologies.

But the problem here is that he he agreed to pay Mr. Vera for "deliberately misrepresenting" his actions. Given the resolution of the lawsuit, it seems appropriate (to me) to keep this in WP voice. The other was this part about the NPR video:

Comparison of the raw video with the released one revealed editing that was characterized as "selective" and "deceptive" by Michael Gerson, opinion writer in the Washington Post, who wrote, "O'Keefe did not merely leave a false impression; he manufactured an elaborate, alluring lie."[79] Time magazine wrote that the video "transposed remarks from a different part of the meeting", was "manipulative" and "a partisan hit-job."[80]

But this part is properly attributed to who is claiming the selective editing. Did I miss something? Is there some other part you are referring to? Or was the ACORN part that was being refereed to? If so why shouldn't the resolution of the lawsuit be enough to keep it in WP voice?Obsidi (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Nah, you didn't miss anything, that's pretty much it. The stuff that needs attribution is indeed already attributed. This RfC is a demand for a blank check to sprinkle all kinds of weaselism throughout ON TOP of the attribution.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Obsidi: Some of the unattributed claims have since been attributed. The ACORN lawsuit and settlement were I believe for recording without permission. If someone can find the text of the settlement that would be helpful. Assuming we have one objectively clear case of misleading editing I see these as problematic:

In the lede (implies multiple)

• He has received criticism for editing videos to misrepresent persons as having said things they did not say.

In Career (implies multiple):

• O'Keefe has produced and distributed secretly recorded—and at times misleadingly edited—videos and audio files made during staged encounters with targeted entities or individuals.[4][15] Some of his work has received criticism for misleading editing.

NPR video (attribution should be stronger):

• As blogger Scott Baker wrote, analysis of the full video showed that a portion was seemingly edited to intentionally lie or mislead.

(implies truth)

• revealed editing that was characterized as "selective" and "deceptive" by Michael Gerson

Reception, The Blaze (bad source)

• Scott Baker of The Blaze wrote in March 2011 about the NPR videos, saying that O'Keefe was "unethical" because he calls himself an "investigative journalist" but "uses editing tactics that seem designed to intentionally lie or mislead about the material being presented."

Because of the history of this page it would be helpful to have an "official" conclusion re:attribution, even if it's preventative. Would it be reasonable to say we make the claim in wikivoice in cases where a court's found (or O'Keefe has admitted) deceptive editing, and attribute it in others? James J. Lambden (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Investigative Journalist

Come on Wikipedia. You can at least take your nonsense attacks out of the introduction paragraph and put them further down the page. He is one of the top investigative journalists in the world. His investigative reports are widely cited. He is widely respected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.5.117 (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

What specific content in the first paragraph are you objecting to? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There is more to the world than the echo chamber you've locked yourself in. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct, he would be better described as a hoax news reporter, who is famous for making hoax news reports that have been proven to be fake. Carewolf (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

If there was nothing to his videos, no one would sue him. You don't sue people who have evidence of nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2EE6:9BE0:3D2D:B20A:5AD2:2491 (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not what a lawsuit means! It means that the plaintiff (grieved party) feels they were damaged by the defendant (O'Keefe). Whether or not it's just is what the court will decide. Also, to refute your argument - if I claim that John Doe was a murderer, a baseless accusation, and that statement causes the subject harm, then I can be sued for defamation. DocDoLittle (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James O'Keefe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100531174024/http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no052610b.htm to http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no052610b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

CNN

Looks like his project recently released a new film on CNN. [5] [6] PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd caution editors to be careful when adding anything about this. As we've seen, there are two sides to every O'Keefe video, and it usually takes a some time for the full story to come out. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah its still in the breaking news phase, more should be coming out from better sources soon. PackMecEng (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@PackMecEng: @DrFleischman: Sarah Huckabee Sanders has just mentioned the video, recommending people to watch it. This was subsequently reported by Washington Post and many others. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 21:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, the Washington Post story is mostly about how hypocritical it is to complain about "fake news" and then tell people to watch O'Keefe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Yoshiman6464: @PackMecEng: @DrFleischman: I added it. Please, let me know what you guys think. Feel free to make some improvements. I also agree with Yoshiman6464 that it has become quite notable. Multiple news outlets are covering it and the WH Press Sec. made a statement regarding it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it, per DrF and PackMecEng. EtienneDolet - 1) what are you doing on this article? You've never edited it before, yet now all of sudden you show up 2) why are you adding controversial content which obviously has no consensus? 3) why are you adding what is potentially a serious BLP vio to the article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

1) Is it forbidden for me to edit this article or something? 2) Well, I wouldn't say there's no consensus to include. The comments by DrF and PackMecEng were made when there were very few sources covering it. Now we got plenty. 3) How is it a BLP vio when CNN and Bonifield are not even denying it? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

1) It's forbidden for you to engage in WP:STALK and WP:HARASS. 2) There's objections to inclusion and it's a BLP issue. 3) "Not denying it" is not a sufficient reason here. Maybe they don't feel like they should dignify this crap with a response (and actually CNN did make a statement). Not up to you invent some artificial bar for "BLP vio". "Not denying it" is nowhere to be found in WP:BLP so please drop it. And self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Might as well add that even BLP issues aside, the info was added in an obviously POV way. For example, no sources given refer to any "American Pravda". Or, another example, the word "merely" does not appear either in the sources nor in the video - that word was added by EtienneDolet to make the statement look worse than it was. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

1) Stalking and harassing you? How, when, and where? I simply added information about a bombshell video that has been the most trending video on YouTube for the past 24 hours. I really don't have to explain myself here. It's silly. 2) The only person arguing BLP on the thread is you. Hardly a consensus to exclude. 3) Soooo they shouldn't dignify it with a response. But they did respond, so they did dignify it. Okay.

...And the word "merely" isn't OR. It just goes to show that their coverage of Russia is merely (as in only or just) for ratings, which is what the sources say. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

1) You have a habit of showing up to articles that I've recently edited and starting up a fight. 2) Two other editors have objected to inclusion of this video, as you well know, so stop playing games. And you know very well that you need consensus to include, not vice versa. Stop playing games. 3) Again "didn't deny" isn't in WP:BLP, it's a bullshit standard you just conveniently made up. They issued a statement. You're demanding that they "deny". Two different things. Okay?

"And the word "merely" isn't OR. " - yes, yes it is. It's not in the source. You added it all on your own just to make it more POV. "which is what the sources say" - no, it's not what the source says at all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

VM: You can't cry BLP without explaining the particular BLP objection. Is there a claim you feel is inaccurate or insufficiently sourced? Be specific. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The BLP objection is that we are giving space to a political hit piece against a living person constructed by a person who has been known to, quote, "editing videos to misrepresent persons as having said things they did not say". Other aspects of the BLP issue (like adding the word "merely" and titling the section "American Pravda" have *already* been explained - so why are you asking? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere in this response is there anything more significant than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you have issues with the sources take it up at RSN. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You wanted an explanation, you got it. Here it is again "we are giving space to a political hit piece against a living person constructed by a person who has been known to, quote, "editing videos to misrepresent persons as having said things they did not say". If you think that is "not significant" then you need to read WP:BLP and consider whether you really should be editing this project or whether you're WP:NOTHERE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking through these "many other" sources linked to by Yoshiman6064 (a google search) it looks like most of these sources are about... Sara Huckabee Sanders, not actually this O'Keefe video. This (no idea if that's RS) is a typical example.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

1) See WP:BADFAITH. This video is trending all over the internet, it's very reasonable that someone, including myself, would edit his article. 2) Those two other editors objected when the only two sources were the Washington Times and Veritas itself. We have addressed their concerns by adding more sources. 3) Not really. You claim O'Keefe makes stuff up. But CNN said that they "welcome it and embrace it." Doesn't sound like it's very contentious material to me. 4) I disagree with you regarding merely. But if you feel that there's a better word to comply with sources, feel free to modify it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, whatever, you know what you're doing, people who follow these matters know what you're doing, it's more or less an open secret, just something hard to prove. And I'm really not interested in getting drawn into your time wasting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games. You need consensus to include. You know that. There's objections here to include. On BLP, and other grounds. Ignoring these objections you added it anyway and then claimed lack of consensus to exclude. Which is WP:TENDENTIOUS and... bad faithed (hence good faith need not be assumed - especially given your prior history). If you want to start earning some of that good faith back then self revert and wait for the discussion to commence here.

Also, you put your comment in the wrong place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• My previous comments are being misconstrued by some editors here. I support the content as written, there is a clear consensus to include it as written, and I do not see a valid basis for the {{POV-section}} tag. My only minor beef is that the section heading ("American Pravda") is confusing and unhelpful and should be changed to something more neutral and informative. I am switching the {{POV-section}} tag to {{pov-inline}} accordingly. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

  I think we should keep in mind that this is going to be a series of videos, much like PVA's previous releases. We don't really know what the other videos will be about (whether they still focus on CNN or another media outlet). One of these videos is supposed to be released today, according to O'Keefe on Twitter. ^Falling_Gravity 16:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• Now we're in clearly non-neutral territory. Volunteer Marek, please cut it out and discuss. Bold =/= reckless. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

How is that non-neutral? It's straight from the sources and context is important. Indeed, with regard to Bonifield this info is required by BLP - the fact that he is being misrepresented in the video by someone who has a history of misrepresenting people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

How's he being misrepresented though? WaPo couldn't find anything in the video itself that would misrepresent Bonifield's remarks. After all, that'll be an impossible task since it's his own words. Instead, the WaPo just focuses on inconsequential technicalities (i.e. O'Keefe didn't mention where Bonifield's office is based out of or that he didn't say he's part of the CNN's health department etc. etc). That's hardly a case to disprove Bonifield's own remarks which is crux of the extraordinary revelations we are dealt with here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The source and the text explicitly explained HOW he was being misrepresented - why not actually read what you revert? And yes, it's perfectly possible to misrepresent somebody with their "own words". Just take them out of context. Or misrepresent who the person is. In another video O'Keefe showed somebody saying something without bothering to show the fact that the person was actually quoting somebody else. Please stop playing ignorant here - you know perfectly well that it's possible to misrepresent others "with their own words". Hell, just look at some of the past WP:AE requests and you see it all the time. Some people even get banned from WP:AE for that kind of behavior. Regardless, the sources are explicit here so we don't really need yours or anybody else's "interpretation" and original research.

And in this particular case there is most certainly misrepresentation. It's as if I went to my local Walmart, found a manager who says "WalMart is a shitty store", secretly video taped them without their permission then made a video which said "WalMart executive admits that Walmart is a shitty store!". Bonifield is one of hundreds of "producers" employed at CNN. His position has nothing to do with political coverage. He is speaking in his own personal capacity. His opinion, ideology or anything else has zero influence on how CNN covers Russia and Trump... but the video dishonestly pretends otherwise. Guess some people just have some issues with the difference between truth and lies.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Some people even get banned from WP:AE for that kind of behavior."? Would you be referring to me? My self-imposed 6 month vacation from AE is over, by the way. I could file AE reports any time I want. But back to the real issue: just because O'Keefe didn't say he's based in Atlanta (he actually did say that) doesn't negate the fact that Bonifield said that the Russia stuff "Could be bullshit. I mean, it's mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don't have any giant proof" does it? Nor does is negate the fact the Russia stuff is "good for business". I mean, that's the crux of the issue here. Sidetracking on technical things like "oh he didn't say he was part of the health department" or whatever is just an attempt to deflect, divert, and distract. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

" just an attempt to deflect, divert, and distract." - not according to sources. And BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. I tried to fix some parts of it up but the edit contains easily verifiable untrue information (or information that cannot be proven true). Brian Karem did not "fire back" at Sanders mention of the O'Keefe video, as the edit suggested. He fired back at how he did not like the administrations attack on the media in general. The O'Keefe reference happened much before Karem interjected. Itsclange (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• VM, please stop cherry-picking the most anti-O'Keefe points and commentary. It is blatantly non-neutral. Context and commentary may be warranted, but then we have to include the full context and the full diversity of viewpoints. Personally, I think these CNN videos are a "nothingburger" and we shouldn't be devoting so much attention to them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, if you keep re-adding cherry-picked commentary without consensus then I will report you. Again, you are giving the videos more emphasis than they deserve and opening the floodgates to pro-Keefe commentary. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Quotefarm

A note to James and others. This article has an excessive amount of quotations, rendering it difficult to read and less than encyclopedic. Many quotations are simply recitations of facts by reliable sources that can easily be put in our voice. Other quotations are of opinions that can be paraphrased or at least trimmed to their essential points. If I or someone else paraphrases or trims a quote so that it loses its essential meaning, please see if you can paraphrase whatever is lost. If you can't, fine, then restore the entire quote. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your take on quotes. My objection was that O'Keefe makes three points the statement we paraphrase:

1. His goal is to "capture candid conversations"
2. His method "a form of guerrilla theater"
3. He "wouldn’t characterize [his method] as lying"

We paraphrased (2) and (3) but excluded (1), his justification, arguably his most important point. I included the whole quote because I could not paraphrase his response more clearly or succinctly but I would not object to a paraphrase that reflects all three. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The source already paraphrases him, we don't need you to do it (see WP:OR).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources, misrepresentation

Re [7].

The original article text says: "He has received criticism for editing videos to misrepresent their subjects as having said things they did not say"

The source says: "O’Keefe has previously spliced videos together to imply its subjects were saying things they were not."

The original article text is being changed to: "He has been criticized for editing videos to misrepresent the context of conversations and the subjects' responses"

I'm sorry but the source doesn't say crap about "misrepresenting the context of conversations" - it straight up says "saying things they were not".

This appears to be a fairly transparent instance of neutral text getting WP:WEASELed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and in response to the edit summary (quote: "rephrase per WP:BLP; article phrasing is ambiguous and ours is baesd on that single source. No one alleges he splices words together to create statements, serious BLP issue"):

1. Accurately reflecting sources is NOT a BPL violation. Misrepresenting sources is potentially a BLP violation.

2. The article phrasing is not ambiguous. It says "saying things they were not"

3. The source indeed does say that he spliced videos to have his subjects "saying things they were not". Lambden, did you even read the source?

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It is a single source. Does "saying things they were not" mean: saying words or sentences they never said or (as is the case) rearranging their responses to make it appear they were responding to questions other than those asked? The phrasing is ambiguous and to include ambiguous accusations is a BLP violation. There are far more sources that support my phrasing, here's one from NPR: Elements Of NPR Gotcha Video Taken Out Of Context you can search the rest many which are already included in the article. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's in the lede, which doesn't even need sources. So what if it's a "single source"? How does that justify you misrepresenting the source, single or not? The phrasing is straight from the source and there's nothing ambiguous about it, quit making stuff up. Accurately reflecting a source is not "a BLP vio". Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE - save for user talk or admin boards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You've also violated 3RR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Violated 3RR with 2 edits? My paraphrase reflects the consensus of sources. You're attempting to use a single source to suggest something contrary to fact, in a BLP. No good. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Four edits, which I listed on your talk [8]. The "paraphrase" (i.e. misrepresentation of sources) does not "reflect the consensus of sources". It just reflects something you yourself made up. I'm sticking to the source that is given - neither more nor less. And doing so accurately, unlike you. One more time - whether it's a "single source" or not, how does that give you the license to misrepresent it? Please self revert your 3RR vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC) 4 edits, 1 of which was not a revert by any interpretation, 2 of which are BLP vios and revert exempt. This pattern of following me to articles to harass is not constructive. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Which one was not a revert? And you can try the "BLP vio" defense, but since you're misrepresenting the source, it ain't gonna fly. Also you have been following my edits around for quite awhile now, starting pointless disputes and edit wars, admitted as much and have narrowly escaped sanction on account of it - so please stop trying to gaslight people.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC) Here are the four reverts, since you removed the notification from your talk page: [9], [10], [11], [12].Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC) The 4th diff is not a revert. A "revert" means restoring an earlier version of the text. If you can link an earlier version matching my edit I'll gladly self-revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Here's another example, cited to The Atlantic — O'Keefe paid a $100,000 settlement to an ACORN employee who was falsely portrayed as aiding and abetting sex trafficking, when in fact immediately after the contact with O'Keefe's "sting," he called police and reported the contact, then reported it up the chain to his supervisors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Vera was indeed falsely portrayed; he was however not portrayed "saying things he did not say." Using this source to support that phrasing is a misrepresentation of the source. The current phrasing is ambiguous, not supported by any but one source, and a disservice to the reader. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you think the given source is not reliable, take it up at WP:RSN. Otherwise drop these attempts to flaunt policy. And again, there's nothing "ambiguous" about current phrasing. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether the source is reliable is not in question. The question is whether the phrasing used in a single source, copied almost verbatim, reflects the consensus among all sources. It does not. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

According to you and you alone. This "consensus among all sources" - what is that? On Wikipedia "consensus" refers to editors. You've provided no back up for your assertion. Just making empty claims.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

According to our article only one source alleges he edits videos to suggest subjects "say things they did not say." If another exists, please provide it. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

It's your job to show sources which contradict that. Also NBSB just gave you another source. And here is another source which lists several examples [13]. So. Original phrasing accurately reflected the source. You WP:WEASELed it. Then you turn around and demand that... more sources are provided without bothering to provide any yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

He was falsely portrayed as having aided and abetted human trafficking; of course, we can't entirely spell that out in the lede, so we shorten it to "creating the implication that people said or did things they did not." If you have an alternative, concise, lede-worthy phrase which sums the situation up, you're welcome to present it. If you need more sources for the settlement with Vera, they are available, but we should avoid over-citing things in the lede, and I think four citations is enough. If you would prefer, though, we can always add more. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my attempt. I'm open to a number of accurate phrasings – misrepresented their statements or actions, edited questions and answers out of sequence, etc. My objection was and still is that the current phrasing is inaccurate.

You note there are four citations but only one of those four supports the claim he edited videos to make it appear subjects "said ... things they did not." That should tell you something. James J. Lambden (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You yourself state that the text is "copied almost verbatim" - how can it be "inaccurate" then? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with VM and NBSB. The current content is verifiable (supported by reliable sources) and neutral (representative of the reliable sources). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with Volunteer Marek, the original wording he reverted to better represents what the sources say. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Splitting this article?

The bulk of this article is about videos created by O'Keefe's team "Project Veritas", so I think it's about time this got forked. If I understand this article correctly, this would mean most of the post-2010 content would be moved over to the forked article and summarized here. ^Falling_Gravity 06:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not in favor. I believe PV is basically just O'Keefe, and this article isn't too long. Some of the sections could use some trimming to address WP:NOTNEWS/WP:RECENTISM/WP:QUOTEFARM issues though. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

@Volunteer Marek: Regarding this addition: Isn't it more relevant for an article about Sanders? For instance, why are Mother Jones and Think Progress used as refs for that? I can see that they are talking about criticism on Sanders, but a. they don't support the text that "the Washington Post criticized Sanders" and b. why are they relevant for an article on O'Keefe? Also, the WPo ref isn't an editorial so shouldn't it be attributed to the author, who is not "The Washington Post"? Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

CNN weight

It strikes me that we're giving way too much weight to the recent CNN videos, which really seem like a "nothing burger" to me, just not particularly encyclopedic in their details. Ten years from now, will anyone care exactly what these mid-level folks at CNN said about whom in which video? I think we should be able to consolidate our content down to a single paragraph that talks about the videos collectively. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, a paragraph should suffice. In fact this whole article seems a bit bloated, there are more things that could be condensed. Judging by the edit history I think there's a preoccupation with showing every facet of the stories given their controversial nature, which is a good thing but it leads to bloat some times. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2017

In the "Reception" heading, the 6th paragraph is currently the following:

" In a March 2011 interview with O'Keefe, NPR journalist Bob Garfield asked, referring to the ACORN videos, "If your journalistic technique is the lie, why should we believe anything you have to say?"[161] O'Keefe responded that his that his techniques should be characterized as a form of guerrilla theater rather than "lying" – "you’re posing as something you’re not, in order to capture candid conversations from your subject. But I wouldn’t characterize it as, as lying.”[161] "

The error here is "that his" is repeated twice. 84.198.88.87 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, Thanks for the help! PackMecEng (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: Marking as answered. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Foval - admission

The following bolded text was recently added: Foval also appeared to admit that Democrats have been rigging elections for 50 years, saying "We've been bussing people in to deal with you fuckin' assholes for fifty years and we're not going to stop now." I don't think this language is neutral or verifiable. The cited source does include this language, but I don't think the source is reliable for this particular content. Foval later said he was talking about busing people to rallies, not to voting stations. And looking at news coverage of Foval's statement, I couldn't find any other ordinarily reliable sources jumping to this conclusion. Given that O'Keefe has a known track record of using statements out of context, and that the raw footage or transcript was never made public, I do not think we should be jumping to any conclusions about what Foval meant without extremely solid sourcing. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anybody should be jumping to any conclusions about Foval's words, either. But there are no RS that back up a claim that Foval wasn't talking about voter fraud. He literally speculates about the consequences of using buses to commit "vote fraud" (Foval's words), so I don't know if there's any ambiguity there at all. The blog you provided (which I've personally never heard of) is the only website on the Internet that provided that quote. Do you have an established RS that carried his denial that you mentioned? RealClearPolitics is a non-partisan, independent source that is highly respected by Democrats and Republicans alike. I don't know if it gets more solid that RCP. They have zero retractions AFAIK, and had no inappropriate contact with either presidential campaign according to the WikiLeaks emails, which puts them in a very small club. But if RCP isn't enough, DNC-friendly WaPo also unequivocally and explicitly states that Foval was discussing voter fraud: "Foval spends five minutes discussing how voters might be brought from outside Wisconsin to commit voter fraud, buying cars with Wisconsin plates to avoid looking suspicious."[14] Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Isthmus isn't a blog, it's a reliable print newspaper that's been in circulation since 1976--unlike RealClearPolitics, whose reliability I question. (Just because you haven't heard of a media outlet doesn't make it a blog.) The WaPo source seems more reliable, however; thanks for that. I still have my doubts, but I'd feel a lot better if we used the WaPo source instead of RCP, and if we changed "admitted" to "said." "Admitted" is non-neutral because it implies that Democrats had actually been rigging elections, which is definitely not verifiable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, let's go with WaPo then. The language does seem pretty loaded when I say it out loud, and that is a pretty big jump to make from the quote. "Said" is fine by me, thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

DrFleischman - do you have any other source besides the Madison weekly newsletter for the Foval response? I would think if this was a real statement, at least one other source would have covered it except an alternative newspaper in Wisconsin. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No, but that's not surprising that a local weekly would get an exclusive interview with a bit player. Isthmus is a reliable source and the quote isn't particularly controversial. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not uncommon for a local paper to get an exclusive, but isn't it a bit odd that nobody else printed his response? Not a single national source that reported on the tapes felt it was appropriate to quote Foval's alleged response from the Isthmus? If a subject of the tapes responded to very serious allegations, I would think that it would be paramount to report on the development. And I do have to disagree - I'd say that Foval claiming he wasn't talking about "vote fraud" after he explicitly muses how to avoid a voter fraud conviction and RS agree that he was talking about voter fraud is more than a little controversial. The excuse doesn't make any sense, right? Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Does it matter? Take it up on WP:RSN if you're going to insist that Isthmus is unreliable for this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely matters, since we're talking about the content of the article. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, this can't be included as the quote is unverifiable and a Madison newsletter isn't going to cut it as the sole source of material. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Now it's a newsletter? I'm sorry but you're really straining AGF. Like I said, feel free to take it up on the noticeboards. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, edit warring isn't the solution, so I won't revert your reversion for now. However, Wikipedia:Verifiability really couldn't be more clear: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." As the editor who wishes to add the material, the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with you, DrFleischman. Thus far, you have provided one lone source (likely not a RS) for your material, and have not provided a citation that directly supports the contribution. As you can see, the material must be removed immediately, as you have not satisfied Wikipedia's guidelines for adding material to this article, and editors are not required to "take up" anything anywhere. Kindly self-revert. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I will not self-revert when your sole argument appears to be the unsupported assertion that an article published in an established print newspaper is fabricated. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)