Talk:James O'Keefe

Frequently asked questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q5: But what if the sources are biased?

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

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

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

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

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

Article policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography

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

Politics: American Low‑importance

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

Conservatism Low‑importance

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

New Jersey Low‑importance

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

United States: Rutgers Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Jersey - Rutgers (assessed as Low-importance).

"Far Right Wing"?

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

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

Universal in what universe? The echo chamber of the old media elite? The echo chamber of academia? How many conservatives are there on the faculties of university political science departments? The left has taken over institutions like the media and education, which sho0uld be neutral and turned them into partisan tools. Scottca075 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It used to be that to say X is Y, Y had a definition and a set of properties that could be compared against X...but since Y in this case is basically a slur that is used to bash pretty much anything that the far-left-owned media doesn't like, regardless of definition, nobody here can be bothered to prove that X is Y. They'll just cite a far left source like every other propaganda article on this joke of a site 98.156.185.48 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

nope Andre🚐 01:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The term "far left wing" is seldom used in U.S. political articles because the U.S. far left is microscopic and mostly non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term "far left wing" is seldom used in U.S. political articles because the people writing the majority of the articles are left of center themselves. One of the reasons I stopped supporting Wikipedia financially was the virtual suppression of conservative voices and any pretense of balance. The current Democratic Party is enthralled by the far left wing of 'the Squad'. That this is no longer the strong, anti-communist party and party of the working man is readily apparent. Scottca075 (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:NOTFORUM. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

James O’Keefe is mainstream America - not far right as this POS article claims… 2601:404:D600:EB80:C4FA:8312:5EA4:8616 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Read Q2 in the FAQ at the top of the page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Hey guys, I don't have a dog in this fight but you've got to be aware of how obvious it is that someone has come in here and smeared this group on their wikipedia page, right? Lol. It could not be more transparent that this is not an unbiased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.185.106.228 (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The article content is well-substantiated by the reliable sources cited in the article. If you locate reliable sources that contradict the article content, feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 20:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an embarrassing article. So unbalanced it just makes me laugh out loud. 118.148.78.44 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with the article, feel free to share the reliable sources that substantiate your point of view. — Newslinger talk 18:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commanders executive

O'Keefe media just got a top executive of the Washington Commanders fired. Probably should be mentioned. There are no allegations that the video was "deceptively and selectively edited," LOL. [1] 152.130.15.15 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was deceptive by definition. Remind me to frisk anyone I take on a date. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, most of the honey traps used by O'Keefe target gay men. The sources haven't addressed this, and I doubt they ever will because of political correctness, but political operatives and spies have a history of targeting homosexuals. It's how the Soviets turned the Cambridge Five, for example. 152.130.15.15 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation for other O'Keefe acts has generally been obvious. Do any RS indicate why he decided to mess up this man's life? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]