| Revision as of 12:58, 1 May 2013 editJohnMorse73 (talk | contribs)108 edits →Results/reception← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:48, 1 May 2013 edit undoXenophrenic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,497 edits +cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
| :First thoughts on this: I just reverted an edit summarized as ''"Breaking out results and reception for greater clarity vis a vis NPR section -- see talk page."'' The edit actually added 5K+ content, apparently from the main article. This article isn't the proper location to rehash the ACORN video controversy at length. It also broke several links. My second thoughts on this is that much of the material you would move to a new "Results" section actually fits well in a "Reception" section, including Congress moving to defund - that's a reaction, more than a "result". Maybe when O'Keefe was later sued and paid a former ACORN person, that might be considered a "result". ] (]) 03:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC) | :First thoughts on this: I just reverted an edit summarized as ''"Breaking out results and reception for greater clarity vis a vis NPR section -- see talk page."'' The edit actually added 5K+ content, apparently from the main article. This article isn't the proper location to rehash the ACORN video controversy at length. It also broke several links. My second thoughts on this is that much of the material you would move to a new "Results" section actually fits well in a "Reception" section, including Congress moving to defund - that's a reaction, more than a "result". Maybe when O'Keefe was later sued and paid a former ACORN person, that might be considered a "result". ] (]) 03:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::I disagree, Xenophrenic - most of that extra 5K content was citations, so the word length added was only about 150 words extra. Also, "reception" probperly describes how people and institutions ''commented'' on the work, and results properly describes events that ''happened'' because the work was made. I think it's a fair distinction, and it's one that made in the NPR section below. It's overall a solid article -- I'm just trying to make the article a bit more internally consistent and ID a few cite-needed areas. (That's why I first raised the issue on the talk page - just trying to see what other editors here thnk.)--] (]) 12:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC) | ::I disagree, Xenophrenic - most of that extra 5K content was citations, so the word length added was only about 150 words extra. Also, "reception" probperly describes how people and institutions ''commented'' on the work, and results properly describes events that ''happened'' because the work was made. I think it's a fair distinction, and it's one that made in the NPR section below. It's overall a solid article -- I'm just trying to make the article a bit more internally consistent and ID a few cite-needed areas. (That's why I first raised the issue on the talk page - just trying to see what other editors here thnk.)--] (]) 12:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::If internal consistency is your concern, then I would recommend removing the single "results" header, as none of the several other sections use it, and it doesn't exactly delineate ''results'' anyway (i.e.; the fact that Schiller had previously, before the incident, given notice that he was resigning in order to accept a different job, is not a "result"). Information about "what happened" (such as the release of videos, then defunding, resignations, etc.) should rightly be in the first part of the section, and doesn't really benefit from being split into two sections. It appears the "Reception" section is presently being used to convey not just "comments" but information developed after the initial event and fallout. | |||
| :::Regarding the "only about 150 words extra", I find those somewhat problematic as well. For example, your redefinition of a California law enforcement office as the office of a Democrat instead -- which brought to mind efforts by certain editors some time ago to characterize an investigation as a "Democrat effort". Those same editors also asserted that the description of O'Keefe's work as deceptive and misleading was merely what some people have labeled it, rather than proven fact. We can, of course, see what other editors think. ] (]) 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == "Widely viewed as deceptive" == | == "Widely viewed as deceptive" == | ||
| Line 77: | Line 80: | ||
| :Actually, reliable sources describe his work as deceptive, not that it is "viewed as deceptive". ] (]) 03:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC) | :Actually, reliable sources describe his work as deceptive, not that it is "viewed as deceptive". ] (]) 03:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::It's the "widely" that needs to be substantated. It's a slippery term that frankly is next to impossible to prove, so I don't think your reliable sources will confirm the extent to which Okeefe is viewed as deceptive.--] (]) 12:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC) | ::It's the "widely" that needs to be substantated. It's a slippery term that frankly is next to impossible to prove, so I don't think your reliable sources will confirm the extent to which Okeefe is viewed as deceptive.--] (]) 12:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::I think the "widely" term was used as a concession to those with a fringe dissenting view, rather than use "universally". It can only be said that the Earth is "widely" viewed as spheroid, as long as flat-earthers protest otherwise. We could solve the issue by changing the wording to read, "Because his work is deceptive, ..." ] (]) 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:48, 1 May 2013
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about James O'Keefe. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about James O'Keefe at the Reference desk. |
| 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 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. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
New disambiguation candidate
I've recently seen several news articles refer to another James O'Keefe, head of the Pirate Party of Massachusetts.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/vote-pirate-notes-from-a-pirate-party-conference.ars/2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.22.53 (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
POV Flag
Disputing the neutrality of this article. I found the following paragraph to be extremely biased. At the very least it needs some reliable citations.
"Due to his videos of ACORN workers supposedly aiding a couple in criminal planning, the US Congress voted to freeze funds for the non-profit, which had aided low- and moderate-income people for 40 years. The non-profit also lost most private funding, and in March 2010 had to close most of its offices. Shortly after, the California State Attorney General's Office and the US Government Accountability Office released their related investigative reports. The Attorney General's Office found that O'Keefe had misrepresented the actions of ACORN workers and that the workers had not committed illegal actions. Because his work has become widely seen as deceptive, O'Keefe's initial success in gaining extensive media attention caused controversy and discussions of journalistic standards..."
--24.136.181.38 (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- - Regarding the citations, since this is the lead and a summary of the article you'll find the citations in the main body.
- About the bias: Could you please clarify against or for whom your perceived bias is directed?TMCk (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"As the journalist Scott Baker wrote, analysis of the raw videos showed that O'Keefe's released video was edited to intentionally lie or mislead, that much of the context of the conversation was changed, and that elements were transposed and chronology shifted."
What is as Barker wrote? This seems to convey that this one person's analysis is correct. I'm not really even sure why we're relying on the interpretation of one person.
"On the edited, released video, it appears..."
Appears to whom? This seems like an obvious POV.
"then he appears to contrast the fiscally conservative Republican party of old..."
Again, appears to whom? This also seems like an obvious POV.
"Later in the edited video, Schiller seems to say..." Seems to say? Again, POV.
I didn't look over the whole thing, but this article has some clear POV problems. It also relies on a bunch of opinions of O'Keefe, which are almost always negative. I don't see the point of quoting his critics so much, especially without showing opposing opinions. As is this article doesn't meet Misplaced Pages standards. I think someone should rewrite it and either only stick to the facts, or present the opposing opinion for every opinion stated. I don't see any justification for leaving it the way it is. 207.42.135.25 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't look over the whole thing...
- That became evident rather quickly. If you continue reading, you'd see that the article doesn't rely on opinions, nor does it rely on just "one person". To answer your multiple "appears to whom?" questions: the viewer of those edited videos, of course. No "POV" involved there. Is there a specific POV problem that you can point out for us? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
This one seems unbelievable.
"His strategy has included releasing some projects only to conservative media outlets, such as Fox News Channel and the Big Government website; he has interviewed exclusively with the same media to control the story."
I noticed it first because it is unsourced and says his strategy is to release some projects only to conservative media outlets. I question if that's truly his strategy, or if those are the only ones that will run his videos. What is crazy to me is that it goes on to say that he interviews exclusively with those media outlets "to control the story". Where does that come from? How could we possibly know that unless he's said that himself, and if he said that, there should be a source. 207.42.135.25 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- That's not a "POV" problem. That's a cite-needed problem. I'll see if I can track something down. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Hacking phones?
In the paragraph about the Sen. Landrieu event, O'Keefe is claimed to have attempted "hacking" the Senator's office phone system. How does one "hack" a "phone system?" 174.50.99.112 (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- We can't instruct you in how to do that. Misplaced Pages is not a manual. The cited source used the word "tamper", so that should probably be used here as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- "Tamper" makes sense. 174.50.99.112 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Results/reception
Question for edditors working on this page: I think the breakdown of "results" and "reception" under the NPR video is a better format than just saying "reception" (like with the others.) ACORN getting defunded, for example, is more of a "result" than a "reception," which makes more sense for information about how the media responded to OKeefe. Any thoughts on this? I may try it out on the ACORN section to see if it works better --JohnMorse73 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- First thoughts on this: I just reverted an edit summarized as "Breaking out results and reception for greater clarity vis a vis NPR section -- see talk page." The edit actually added 5K+ content, apparently from the main article. This article isn't the proper location to rehash the ACORN video controversy at length. It also broke several links. My second thoughts on this is that much of the material you would move to a new "Results" section actually fits well in a "Reception" section, including Congress moving to defund - that's a reaction, more than a "result". Maybe when O'Keefe was later sued and paid a former ACORN person, that might be considered a "result". Xenophrenic (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree, Xenophrenic - most of that extra 5K content was citations, so the word length added was only about 150 words extra. Also, "reception" probperly describes how people and institutions commented on the work, and results properly describes events that happened because the work was made. I think it's a fair distinction, and it's one that made in the NPR section below. It's overall a solid article -- I'm just trying to make the article a bit more internally consistent and ID a few cite-needed areas. (That's why I first raised the issue on the talk page - just trying to see what other editors here thnk.)--JohnMorse73 (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- If internal consistency is your concern, then I would recommend removing the single "results" header, as none of the several other sections use it, and it doesn't exactly delineate results anyway (i.e.; the fact that Schiller had previously, before the incident, given notice that he was resigning in order to accept a different job, is not a "result"). Information about "what happened" (such as the release of videos, then defunding, resignations, etc.) should rightly be in the first part of the section, and doesn't really benefit from being split into two sections. It appears the "Reception" section is presently being used to convey not just "comments" but information developed after the initial event and fallout.
- I disagree, Xenophrenic - most of that extra 5K content was citations, so the word length added was only about 150 words extra. Also, "reception" probperly describes how people and institutions commented on the work, and results properly describes events that happened because the work was made. I think it's a fair distinction, and it's one that made in the NPR section below. It's overall a solid article -- I'm just trying to make the article a bit more internally consistent and ID a few cite-needed areas. (That's why I first raised the issue on the talk page - just trying to see what other editors here thnk.)--JohnMorse73 (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the "only about 150 words extra", I find those somewhat problematic as well. For example, your redefinition of a California law enforcement office as the office of a Democrat instead -- which brought to mind efforts by certain editors some time ago to characterize an investigation as a "Democrat effort". Those same editors also asserted that the description of O'Keefe's work as deceptive and misleading was merely what some people have labeled it, rather than proven fact. We can, of course, see what other editors think. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
"Widely viewed as deceptive"
Regarding Xenophrobic's removeal of citation needed tags, he said he took them out becuase the cites are further down in the text. But there's nothing that says Okeefe's work is widely viewed as deceptive -- just that some people have labeled it that. We can't say "widely" if ti's not substantiated.--JohnMorse73 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, reliable sources describe his work as deceptive, not that it is "viewed as deceptive". Xenophrenic (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's the "widely" that needs to be substantated. It's a slippery term that frankly is next to impossible to prove, so I don't think your reliable sources will confirm the extent to which Okeefe is viewed as deceptive.--JohnMorse73 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the "widely" term was used as a concession to those with a fringe dissenting view, rather than use "universally". It can only be said that the Earth is "widely" viewed as spheroid, as long as flat-earthers protest otherwise. We could solve the issue by changing the wording to read, "Because his work is deceptive, ..." Xenophrenic (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's the "widely" that needs to be substantated. It's a slippery term that frankly is next to impossible to prove, so I don't think your reliable sources will confirm the extent to which Okeefe is viewed as deceptive.--JohnMorse73 (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Biography articles of living people
- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Start-Class Conservatism articles
- Mid-importance Conservatism articles
- Automatically assessed Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles