Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:38, 2 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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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 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. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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.

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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.

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)

Comparing a difference of opinion to a difference of fact is not a good comparison. The earth being spheroid is factual and scientifically proven. Arzel (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As is the deceptive nature of O'Keefe's work. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, It sounds like you're allowing a degree of personal bias to intrude into this conversation. "Widely" is a subjective term, and there is no possible reliable source short of a public opinion survey that would establish the extent to which peple think Okeefe's work is deceptive. Since you have insisted on reverting even small changes to this article, would you mind changing the sentence yourself to read "because his work was seen by some/many as deceptive" (I'm asking purusant to WP:BRD).--JohnMorse73 (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Widely", "many" and "some" are all subjective terms. On what basis would you propose substituting one for another, other than to change the quantitative measure being conveyed? Reliable sources have investigated his work and found deception and I don't recall seeing reliable sources arguing that his work has not been deceptive (although I've seen an argument that his deceiving of viewers can be justified in order to convey a "larger truth").

Regarding your comments about bias, I believe you are projecting, as I have no opinions, affiliations or experience with the subject matter, and the only knowledge I have on it is from reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:38, 2 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