Talk:James O'Keefe/Archive 3

CNN Caper
Moving on to the CNN caper, there will be a number of issues that need to be reviewed here. I have already removed on short statement in accordance with WP:BLP that was both unsourced and inaccurate. The statement said that Izzy Santa told Boudreau that there were bizarre sex toys on the boat. That is incorrect. Izzy told Boudreau there was champagne and strawberries. If you follow along, you can see that CNN has at no point asserted that Izzy Santa confirmed the existence of sex toys, etc., and that is an important thing to note about CNN's reporting. If anyone disagrees with the removal of this statement from the page, please let me know, and I will also challenge you to demonstrate where Izzy Santa has ever made this assertion or where CNN has ever directly claimed that she did. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Concern duly noted, I checked the source citations, it appears the editor who inserted the statement about "sexual props" wasn't entirely accurate, the actual verbatim quote was "James has staged the boat to be a palace of pleasure with all sorts of props, wants to have a bizarre sexual conversation with her", and it was said to a project donor on the day of the incident, not to Boudreau, so I have fixed it accordingly and made sure the reference is more prominent. Let me know if you have any concerns. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, there are still considerable problems with the remaining section. Let's start with the first paragraph:


 * In August 2010, CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau, who was doing a documentary on young conservative activists, agreed to meet O'Keefe at his office in Maryland to discuss an upcoming video shoot of O'Keefe.[7][71] When Boudreau arrived at the address given by O'Keefe, she saw that it was not an office, but was a house located on a river with a boat docked behind it.[7] She was intercepted by one of O'Keefe's co-workers, Izzy Santa, who warned Boudreau that O'Keefe was planning to "punk" Boudreau on the boat by engaging in a bizarre attempt to seduce and embarrass Boudreau - which he would be filming on hidden cameras.[7][72] A 13 page written plan later leaked to CNN listed the props as including pornography, sexual aids, condoms, a blindfold and "fuzzy" handcuffs[7][15][73] and emails from O'Keefe to other members of his group indicated that he intended to follow through with the plan.[71] Boudreau never boarded the boat, and soon left the area.[15][74]

1) Minor point - there were several boats docked there, and I believe it was actually to the side of the house, not behind it, but that may be what the referene says.

2) It should be noted that according to Izzy (via Boudreau), Izzy was supposed to ask permission to film Boudreau. It was not going to be secret.


 * That might be important - can you refer us to the cites/material that indicates that Santa was going to ask permission to film Boudreau? We need to look at the material. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

3) This paragraph overwhelmingly gives the impression that it is settled and established fact that O'Keefe was following the plan as described in Wetmore's 13 page document. That is very much in dispute, and contrary to this paragraph's claims, the emails from O'Keefe to other members of his group do not indicate that he intended to follow the plan in the Wetmore document; they merely indicate that he was following "a" plan.  O'Keefe denies he was following this plan, and he denies, among other things, that there were any of the tawdry sexual props involved.  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The paragraph sets up the incident as alleged by the known witnesses; if there are inaccuracies (material or otherwise), please do bring them up as you did with the sentence which claimed Santa said "sexual props", etc. Obviously, statements from O'Keefe denying that he was following this plan, and/or denying the existence of the sex props, are relevant and warrant inclusion in the section; I see that we have included O'Keefe's statement that he "denied that he was going to follow the plan," and said that "he had not personally written it and that he found parts of it inappropriate and objectionable," among other things.  I don't see that we included his denial that sex props were involved, so I agree we should probably add that.  Can you find the cite for that? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Now, the next paragraph:


 * According to the leaked document, which was apparently written by O'Keefe's mentor, Ben Wetmore,[75] O'Keefe was going to record a preface to his encounter with Boudreau, during which he would say,


 * "... I've been approached by CNN for an interview where I know what their angle is: they want to portray me and my friends as crazies, as non-journalists, as unprofessional and likely as homophobes, racists or bigots of some sort.... Instead, I've decided to have a little fun. Instead of giving her a serious interview, I'm going to punk CNN.... This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath."[7][73]

This is a serious weight problem. Here we have the BLP dedicating considerable space to a quite sizeable block quote from a document that was not even written by James O'Keefe, yet it is being effectively attributed to him. I think at the least this has to be distanced from O'Keefe, though I'm also interested to hear thoughts on why this particular quote was chosen out of the 13 page document, and why it should be included. I suppose it summarizes the intent that Wetmore had in mind somewhat summarily. Is that the idea? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be my guess, that it's intended to summarize the 13 page plan down to the key concept/intent, etc. O'Keefe didn't write it, but the author who wrote it for him obviously intended for it to appear to be coming from O'Keefe, i.e., scripting a narrative, etc.  I'm going to make an edit shortly to help clarify the attribution; I don't think it's being attributed to O'Keefe but I am sensitive to the concern that it might mislead someone, so I will nuance it slightly.  Check out the edit, then post your further concerns here. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Azure- I think the changes you made are better. You’re also correct to point out that the BLP doesn’t directly “attribute” the Wetmore document to O’Keefe, but I do think the strong sense one gets when reading it is that O’Keefe is being held responsible for its contents. O’Keefe denies that he was following this plan, and points to his dress and appearance (the document apparently called for him to be dressed as a slicked back, gold chained lothario, but he was wearing normal clothes) as evidence reinforcing he was not. It does seem clear, however, that he was following a plan that use the Wetmore document’s premise involving some sort of faux seduction.

If you read the Wetmore document, it reads like a brainstorming document, which is what O’Keefe seems to be claiming it is. It’s fairly all over the place, from pitching ideas about getting CNN to report some fake story about Sarah Palin or the Tea Party to something involving the video of the alleged “n-word” incident. That doesn’t sound like final product to me at all. I’d imagine there’s a considerable amount of back and forth when these guys are contemplating ideas and there are a lot of bad ideas pitched that end up getting thrown out. I’d also imagine there’s a fair amount of juvenile humor that gets thrown in there. Some of the things in the Wetmore document just seem too absurd to be serious (like the part about Boudreau eventually breaking down crying and begging to be let off the boat, which apparently came from the part of the document CNN didn't release). I think we can all agree it would be bad enough to have the emails that we've written and the contents of our email outboxes publicized. But it's even scarier to think you could be held responsible for the contents of your inbox - things you didn't even write.

So for one thing, I'd like to have another look at this sentence:


 * "A 13 page written plan later leaked to CNN listed the props as including pornography, sexual aids, condoms, a blindfold and "fuzzy" handcuffs[7][15][73] and emails from O'Keefe to other members of his group indicated that he intended to follow through with the plan."

I'm not sure we can necessarily say that emails from O'Keefe to other members of his group indicated he intended to follow through with "the" plan. I do think we could say something like "emails from O'Keefe to other members of his group indicated he was executing a plan with similarities to the plan in the Wetmore document," or something like that. Any thoughts?

I also just think it might be better to note at the same point where we introduce the Wetmore document that James denies he was following it. Just my opinion. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This needs to be quick, I plan on turning in soon, LOL. I went ahead and moved up O'Keefe's denial that the plan was his to be the start of the first sentence after the plan was introduced, by using a quote from the same source about his emails, then I changed the wording of the rest of that sentence to be a direct quote from Boudreau regarding same.  It's important that we stay close to what the sources say; take a look at that and see what you think.  I also added a brief sentence about O'Keefe pointing out his dress and appearance did not match the plan.  Look for it where it appears with a "citation needed" tag, then find an appropriate cite to source that statement.AzureCitizen (talk) 04:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nicely done. I can take another look tomorrow but the whole section looks petty good now.  You seems to have found the quote from Boudreau that comes closest to suggesting Izzy Santa backs up the notion that the plan was being executed as written by Wetmore.  It still seems like they'd have emails more directly cofirming some of the things in the document if it were as clear cut as that.  James' claim is that Izzy had been out of the loop on the evolution of the plan, which could certainly be true, and CNN hasn't really demonstrated otherwise.


 * I added the needed citation to O'Keefe's statement. Cheers, and goodnight.  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing, re: Factual Basis document
FilmFluff, what's the issue here? I uploaded the court document to wikipedia. that way, if a website containing primary source like this ever changes, the reference will still exist. I noted in the wikipedia upload page from where the document was obtained. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are at least two issues here.


 * The first issue is that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, and that includes images hosted on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that this document or the image are forgeries, but because that has previously happened, the Wikipedia community doesn't consider any image, including images of documents hosted at Wikipedia, to be RS. The original source must be used, and it must stand or fall on its own merits.


 * Another issue is the use of primary sources, especially legal documents. They must be sourced to RS that are completely independent (IOW not sympathetic) of the subject, and thus no longer primary sources. That source is definitely not independent. Because this is a BLP issue, the matter must be neither a self-serving whitewash job nor be a hit job using poor sources. This seems to lean towards a whitewash, but a well sourced defense may be allowable, with emphasis on "well sourced" (3rd party, independent, etc.).


 * I notice that the same document is now used in two different places, once is the original source and once is the image. I hadn't noticed that. They should both be sourced to the original source, not to a Wikipedia image. Those are my concerns.


 * The RS Noticeboard would be a good place to mention this matter so we get clarity. If we don't get clarity, this article will never be stable as editors from various factions will come by here and change things. We need content that is solid and unassailable according to our policies. What James has done should be mentioned, but it should be done fairly, regardless of whether it makes him look good or bad. I hope I'm not being clear as mud.;-) Filmfluff (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets stick to the sourcing issue. Obviously we disagree about "whitewashing."  The primary source issue here was already discussed.  Consensus seemed to be reached, and I even cleared it with an admin. Regarding the issue of using images uploaded to wikipedia as a source, I suppose that makes sense, but can you point me to the rule?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialKCL66 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you please point me to the discussion about the primary source issue? As far as the image being used as a source, the RS Noticeboard is the place to ask. Filmfluff (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed heavily in the Landrieu Caper section of this talk page. I also discussed it with admin Magog the Ogre:

Here was his opinion:


 * "It looks like this discussion has been fruitful on the talk page. If a publication is clearly misrepresenting the facts (yes, this does happen sometimes, usually in the case where the reporter has a bias and/or doesn't do his job correctly), it seems OK to use a primary source. That's just my opinion though. However, if it is indeed a BLP issue, feel free to remove the entire assertion while the discussions is under way. BLP is the major exception to 3RR, so you would be exempt from edit warring to protect BLP, but I don't suggest you do that at the moment. I suggest instead posting at WP:BLPN for input. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)"

SpecialKCL66 (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearing that up. My next concern is using Wikipedia as a source. The original source should be good enough, since using Wikipedia as a source isn't allowed. Wikipedia is, by its own definition, not a RS. Filmfluff (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm not familiar with that rule yet, so I'm looking into it though. I went ahead and used the original source as the hyperlink in those citations for now though.  I used a more formal format on the citation though, and named it because it is used twice.  Not a big deal to me either way, I just uploaded it cause it seemed to make sense.  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for using the original source. Filmfluff (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Weight issue with coverage of ACORN in lead
I see you reverted me. My reasoning was explained in the edit summary. You reverted without explaining in the edit summary. You should have done that. The coverage is far too deep for the lead, and it leaves the impression that what he did was right. He was shown to have been deceptive, but the amount of coverage makes it look like he was justified in doing what he did. The rules for the lead allow for mention, not deep coverage. It's covered in the article and that should be enough. Filmfluff (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I did, but only by the same standards with which you reverted my stuff, and have done so in the past. I agree that things this significant should be discussed on the talk page first.  You removed a considerable amount of well sourced material without discussing it here, and this is a much larger issue than the reference edits of mine you reverted earlier.  Now, on to the issue at hand.


 * I wasn't the one who added the material that was removed, but I imagine it's been there a while. It all looked fine and relevant to me.  But let's analyze your position that the ACORN issue is given too much weight in the lede.  The ACORN story is far, far and away the defining affair for James O'Keefe.  He pretty much singlehandedly (along with Giles) brought down a multimillion dollar organization with considerable political clout (though clearly people disagree on whether they like that he did so or not).  It is the reason his wikipedia page exists (you can check the history to see that it didn't exist before the ACORN affair).  However, in the lede as it currently exists, the amount of space dedicated to the ACORN affair is barely greater than any other story despite it's overwhelmingly greater importance.  Also, the total size of the lede seems normal relative to others.


 * I have broken down the lede into the different subjects it covers to illustrate what I mean:


 * James E. O'Keefe III (born June 28, 1984) is a politically conservative American activist who has garnered media attention for hidden camera videos he has posted on the internet. A graduate of Rutgers University, O'Keefe founded a conservative student newspaper there and was instrumental in founding other conservative student newspapers throughout the U.S.


 * O'Keefe came to national attention for 2006 and 2007 undercover recordings which indicated that Planned Parenthood offices would shield perpetrators of statutory rape and would accept donations from white racists who wanted to support abortions for African Americans in order to decrease the number of African Americans in the population. The release of the recordings negatively impacted the public funding of Planned Parenthood.[3][4][5][6]


 * In September 2009 he again gained the spotlight for posting hidden camera videos which purported to expose wrongdoing by the community group ACORN. ACORN began an internal review of its training policies and fired several workers. The U.S. Congress stripped ACORN's public funding, and several months later, the organization disbanded. O'Keefe was lauded, particularly by conservatives, and a Resolution praising him and his co-worker Hannah Giles was introduced into the U.S. Congress. Investigations later found that the videos had been selectively edited by O'Keefe, and found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by ACORN.[7][8]


 * In January 2010, O'Keefe and three other conservative activists were arrested by the U.S. Marshall's Service in New Orleans, Louisiana[9] on felony charges of entering federal property with the intent of interfering with the telephone system of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu.[10]The government later confimed there was no evidence O'Keefe intended to commit any felony.[11] The charges were reduced to a misdemeanor of entering a federal building under false pretenses;[2] O'Keefe pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine.[2][12]


 * In April 2010, O'Keefe obtained a temporary job with the U.S. Census Bureau and released undercover videos that seemed to show a lack of concern by supervisors when O'Keefe told them he was being overpaid for three and a half hours of work he did not do during his three day training period.[13] The Census Bureau responded that the apparent extra pay was for travel and study time normally paid during the training period.[14]


 * In September 2010, news outlets described a failed attempt by O'Keefe to lure CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau onto a boat believed to be "filled with sexually explicit props," where he planned to make suggestive comments and "faux seduce" her while the encounter was recorded on hidden cameras.[7][15]


 * As you can see, the ACORN story could easily warrant considerably more weight. I'm not sure why you believe there is a WP:Weight issue.  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Correction: as it exists now, it isn't sourced. I'll try to see if it was at one point.  The statements are also correct, so if not, I'll find sources.  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues with that wording in the lead.

Here's my shortened version. It removed some material from the lead, not from the article, and left wording to indicate what was in the article "leading to negative consequences for ACORN". That sums up what is detailed in the article.:


 * In September 2009 he again gained the spotlight for posting hidden camera videos which purported to expose wrongdoing by the community group ACORN, leading to negative consequences for ACORN. Investigations later found that the videos had been selectively edited by O'Keefe, and found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by ACORN.

Here's your latest version:


 * In September 2009 he again gained the spotlight for posting hidden camera videos which purported to expose wrongdoing by the community group ACORN. ACORN began an internal review of its training policies and fired several workers. The U.S. Congress stripped ACORN's public funding, and several months later, the organization disbanded. O'Keefe was lauded, particularly by conservatives, and a Resolution praising him and his co-worker Hannah Giles was introduced into the U.S. Congress. Investigations later found that the videos had been selectively edited by O'Keefe, and found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by ACORN.

I didn't remove content from the article, but only from the lead, and I left wording that covered the deleted content, so it's just not necessary to use all that content there. It's a weight violation in the sense that it gives credence and support to his actions, when the later investigations found "no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by ACORN". (Leaving so much content in the lead that repeats his thinking and the consequences of his deception as if he was justified is improper. He essentially slaughteared a group that helped lots of poor people, and that injustice hasn't been made right yet.)

Another matter....note that my version applies the wikilink to different words than yours does:


 * My version: hidden camera videos


 * Your version: wrongdoing by the community group

Considering that "Investigations later found .... no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by ACORN", your version places an improper slant on the wikilink by repeating his deception, especially since wikilinks gain weight because of their visibility. My use of the wikilink is neutral, and a neutral use is mandated by our NPOV policy. Filmfluff (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well for starters, it's not my wording or my version. It was already there.  I've just been sourcing it (mainly using sources that have already been used in this BLP).  I also haven't done anything with the wikilink in this section.


 * Again, I really don't see any case that there is any sort of weight issue. O'Keefe is known for bringing down ACORN.  Bringing down ACORN should be in the lede.  That means congress' actions in defunding ACORN should be there as well.  Stating the consequences of his actions does not make any comment on whether he was "justified," as you say.  It simply states the consequences.  You seem to think he was not, but that's your opinion.


 * Regarding the Wikilinks matter, your argument is that because Jerry Brown found no "criminal wrongdoing," the wikilink improperly gives weight to the "wrongdoing" purportedly shown in the videos. Jerry Brown might not have found criminal wrongdoing that could be prosecuted from the content of the videos, but I think most people who either have a daughter or pay taxes would agree that there was certainly wrongdoing. What if we included "purportedly showing" in the wikilink?  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually "purported to expose" is the exact wording as it exists now. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually my placement of the wikilink would be valid regardless of the findings of the AG office. Note that I didn't change the wording of the sentence at all. The wikilink is simply used on the wrong words, thus highlighting O'Keefe's opinion, not the article to which they point. That should be changed. Filmfluff (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Highlighting O'Keefe's opinion? I think there are a lot more people than just O'Keefe that see wrongdoing in what the videos showed.  Even Bertha Lewis and ACORN agreed the tapes showed considerable wrondoing.  Attaching the Wikilink to a portion of the sentence that doesn't include any description of what the scandal was about (wrongdoing) or who the scandal was about (ACORN) wouldn't seem to make as much sense.  "Wrongdoing" is just about the weakest possible word to describe what was on those tapes.  I don't think it's being at all unfair to ACORN.  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 02:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(Read the above comments by FilmFluff and SpecialKCL66) I don't have a problem with "purported to expose wrongdoing," but we probably should wiki-link in the most neutral way, if possible. Originally, the link was to "ACORN undercover videos" as can be seen in a much slimmer version of the lead here from June 21st:. I suggest we leave "purported to expose wrongdoing" in place but reword that sentence and re-link it from this:


 * In September 2009 he again gained the spotlight for posting hidden camera videos which purported to expose wrongdoing by the community group ACORN.

to this:


 * In September 2009 he again gained the spotlight during the ACORN undercover videos controversy when he released videos which purported to expose wrongdoing by the community group ACORN.

What do you guys think? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not bad, except that it makes it sound like O'Keefe jumped into the middle of a preexisting controversy. How about:


 * In September 2009 he again gained the spotlight by setting off the ACORN undercover videos controversy when he released videos purportedly exposing wrongdoing by the community group ACORN.


 * Just makes it clearer that he started the controversy. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I like that better. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me too. Filmfluff (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead and changed it. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Good outcome. Also, it's good to see editors working out their differences and finding the right compromises to resolve disagreements; we've come a long way in a short period of time since this page flared up on October 10th.  We may have differences in opinion on Mr. O'Keefe and other subjects, but civility and thoughtful debate always settles disputes constructively and makes for the best articles. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yah my bad on that. I didn't really know what I was doing, and I generally learn by diving head first into things.  From talking to friends who have tried Wikipedia, it sounds like that happens a lot on here - new guys coming in and wanting to change stuff (or am I a girl...).  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

ACORN undercover videos (opening statement)
I'd like to start reviewing this section with anyone who would like to work together on this. One of the tricky issues regarding anything having to do with O'Keefe is that he's some sort of combination of a journalist, an entertainer, and an activist. This partly makes it difficult because even to this day, a lot of mainstream news outlets still aren't sure how to deal with him, and those are the outlets where wikipedia information comes from. However, even very liberal publications such as the NYT and the WaPo, as well as the Columbia Journalism Review have, eventually, come to acknowledge the considerable journalistic value of the ACORN videos, even though O’Keefe certainly wasn’t following the rules by which normal journalists must abide.

As of now, it seems that most if not all of O’Keefe’s opponents’ arguments against the legitimacy of the ACORN investigation point to Jerry Brown’s report. Jerry Brown’s report called the tapes “severely edited,” and I believe he himself has called them “misleadingly edited,” which is what ACORN spokespeople, officials, and supporters have claimed all along. We need to look closely at whether this declaration is really a sufficient basis to treat the ACORN investigation as wholly discredited, as many would like to believe and as I think the Wikipedia articles on the story seem to imply. After all, is Jerry Brown really a WP:RS? Certainly his investigation is part of the story and needs to be mentioned but we need to look at whether that should be the basis of the perspective with which articles on the ACORN matter are written.

Also, critics point to the fact that ACORN was “cleared of criminal wrongdoing” by a Brooklyn DA’s office as well as Jerry Brown’s office. I don’t know enough about the law to even know what rules there would be for prosecuting things captured on hidden camera (which I doubt would be admissible anyway). I also doubt you can prosecute people for criminal activity that was discussed but not actually perpetrated. Especially in light of what the NYT, WaPo, and CJR have had to say as noted above, I don’t think the notion that the ACORN videos must have been a fraudulent hoax because there weren’t any criminal prosecutions holds much water.

From this point, I hope to now get into the specifics in what is hopefully an itemized and organized fashion. I hope anyone with input will contribute their thoughts. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ACORN undercover videos (first paragraph)
I'm also starting on this page because it's a much simpler matter than the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy page, lol. Let's take a look at the first paragraph from the ACORN undercover videos section on the James O'Keefe page. It's pretty good, but there are a couple things I'd like to tackle. I'll paste the first part here for quick reference:


 * In September 2009, O'Keefe and his associate, Hannah Giles, published edited hidden camera recordings in which Giles posed as a prostitute and O'Keefe as her boyfriend in an attempt to elicit damaging responses from employees of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), an advocacy organization for persons of low and moderate income.

The first issue, though it's not as much a problem on this page as the other page, is that I think it's important to point out that O'Keefe and Giles did not break the story by publishing "edited hidden camera videos" online. The ACORN story broke on Fox News. Glenn Beck hyped it on his radio show on the first day of the video rollout by playing some of the audio on his radio show, then later broke the story (wide open) on his Fox News show that evening. Over the next several days, other shows on Fox also reported on the story and replayed the videos. From the beginning, Fox was making the decisions regarding how those videos were edited before publication on Fox News. Fox even released some of the full, unedited videos on foxnews.com, though not all. The videos were released first on Fox News, then shortly after, the versions of the video edited by O’Keefe (along with music done by a friend of his and music videos done by Christian Hartsock) were posted on BigGovernment.com, along with full, unedited audio and full, unedited transcripts.

This is a very important point, especially because of the persistent accusations of “misleadingly edited” etc. I think we should note this point in the opening sentence. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

How about:


 * In September 2009, Fox News published edited hidden camera recordings made by O'Keefe and his associate, Hannah Giles, in which Giles posed as a prostitute and O'Keefe as her boyfriend in an attempt to elicit damaging responses from employees of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), an advocacy organization for persons of low and moderate income also heavily involved in voter registration.< >

I'm leaving in the word "edited" for now. We'll deal with that later. Thoughts? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi SpecialKCL... just popped on again and saw the above; you are bringing things up the right way (slow, methodical, making your suggestions as to how text might be changed with before-and-after versions, explaining why you think the changes should be made, etc), but this thread really needs to be taken up on the main article page's Talk Page instead. What appears here on the O'Keefe BLP here is supposed to be a summary of what appears there plus biography related details (like the Congressional resolution from 31 house members applauding O'Keefe's efforts, etc).  Failure to make the changes there first (through the consensus process) is going to make the changes here subject to revert to match the main article.  Make sense?  You don't have to lose any of the work you've done already; I would recommend copying and porting over what you have here, to the bottom of the Talk Page over there, and continuing the process there...
 * On an unrelated note, you probably noticed my edit where I consolidated the factualbasis ref - I think that may be the cause of confusion that happened between you and that other editor earlier. I think he should have AGF'd rather than jumping to the conclusion that you were lying, but mistakes and misunderstandings happen easily on Wikipedia. AzureCitizen (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah you're probably right. Maybe I'll try to work simultaneously though.  What do you think about the proposed change to the first sentence?  SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You can work somewhat simultaneously, by working for change on the main article, then immediately porting the matching changes right back over here as they get incorporated - no one should oppose you back here, because you can simply point to the main article where the change was accepted there. Whenever an article contains a subsection synopsis from a main article, the main article controls - and when you stop to think about it, how could Wikipedia manage it any other way, etc?
 * With regard to Fox news publishing and what not, I will swing back through in a little while and post a comment over there, after you've ported your proposals over, to help get the ball rolling with looking at the edits. Other editors will probably kick their two cents in as well when they see the activity... --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to see it's moved there now... I will post a note here to help redirect anyone else who is interested. AzureCitizen (talk) 05:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

FOR ANY EDITORS INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THIS THREAD: The discussion has now moved to the main article talk page; you can find the start of this thread here:
 * Talk:ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy

Teachers Union
http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/25/new-o%e2%80%99keefe-video-shows-teachers-bragging-about-bulletproof-tenure-rules-2/

New video from O'Keefe. I'll let you guys handle this. ProfessorLoesch (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

http://www.app.com/article/20101025/NEWS03/10250330/Web-video-takes-shots-at-teachers-union - Ashbury Park Press ProfessorLoesch (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

hmm...I just watched the videos. I don't think I understand this one quite as well, but I'll give it a shot. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Loesch, I entered a New Jersey video section. What do you think?  There's weird problem with the references that I still can't figure out.  There were two references that I used multiple timees, but wikipedia is somehow listing them all under the same reference. I still have to add the NJEA's statements. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Loesch is dead. DoctorFuManchu rose from his grave (I changed usernames).

Fine by me... - the NJ thing that is. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

updated with Christie and union responses DoctorFuManchu (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
This BLP article is obviously about a contentious subject and should be checked for neutrality. It seems to contain POV from numerous different sides, but that doesn't make it neutral. Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In that regard, I just removed a "POV" tag that an IP editor had placed on the article. I don't particularly agree with the IP editor's comment that the article is unduly flattering, but I do agree with Athene cunicularia, there are some uneven spots.  Criticism & accusations + defensiveness & denial does not equal balance, it makes things doubly biased.  Although I completely understand these concerns, it would be a lot more helpful to start looking at specific things in the article that could be changed. Tagging is best as a last resort, if attempts to improve things fail. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a controversy section for this article? Right now it just seems like a summary/commentary of all of his exploits so far, which by it self is biased IMO.  I think having a section that outlines the controversy that surrounds him, it might even things out? 132.178.2.64 (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, controversy and praise sections are discouraged (see WP:CRIT, a widely respected essay but not a formal guideline). They tend to increase editing difficulties and become magnets for bias, instead of easing it out.   I guess one man's controversy is another man's good deed.  Generally, if there is a controversy over something and the controversy itself is relevant to the subject, it gets treated as a fact to be reported.  But we don't try to assess whether someone is liked or disliked, unless that's relevant.  Let's say we took a poll and 55% of Americans believe that James O'Keefe is nut, something that will likely break down along all kinds of political divisions.  Does it matter even if most people think that?  If it doesn't stop him, if he keeps doing what he does, if it doesn't affect his work, it's not really relevant.  Many people don't like bittermelon, and we don't say that in the article because it doesn't matter.  On the other hand, we do mention the popular conception of spinach as being disliked by children, because that's part of its public image.  Does that make sense?  I think instead of opining that there is a controversy over something he did, better to simply say what he did, then say how people reacted.  If the sources all say that a controversy arose, then we can say that too.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be a criticism section, but more criticism of his tactics needs to be entered into this article. He cuts and pastes to make videos that are deliberately misleading. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

NPR Video
Changes were made that implied that Schiller explicitly states in the video that he is speaking personally and not for NPR because he had already resigned. He was working in his capacity as an executive tasked with fund-raising when the meeting took place and his resignation did not take effect until today. He may or may not have been speaking in an official capacity but I haven't seen any sources that show that he explicitly said that. If a source can be provided, then please include it. Warfieldian (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the video itself, Schiller prefaced the sharing of his opinions, "personally speaking," or something to that effect.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)"the academy award for performance in a documentary should go to that bushy-bearded 'Arab' who, on hearing NPR executive Richard Schiller say, 'Let me take off my NPR hat' and launching into his Tea Party rant, intones in a marvelously phony North African accent, 'I like it when you take off your NPR hat.'---American Spectator (link)"--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Schiller never said he was speaking personally because he had already resigned, and neither does this present Wikipedia article. Schiller simply indicated he was giving his personal opinion, and not speaking for NPR.  According to the NY Times:
 * Mr. Schiller indicates that he is sharing his personal point of view, not NPR’s.
 * Also, from that same source:
 * Early on in the conversation, Mr. Schiller says, “Now I’ll talk personally as opposed to wearing my NPR hat.” Later, he adds caveats like “in my personal opinion.” At one point, one of the fake group members jokes, “I like it when you take your NPR hat off.” The fake group members bring up topics in an apparent effort to keep Mr. Schiller talking.
 * I find it interesting that Schiller's disclaimer was edited out of the video version released to the news media -- I'm sure that was just an accidental oversight on O'Keefe's part. As was, I am sure, the omission of Schiller's comments indicating the belief that the Republican party was "hijacked" by radical Tea Party people was actually held by "highly placed" conservative Republicans.  The released video version accidently snips-out the "they believe" wording, leaving the listener to assume Schiller was speaking for himself. Fun stuff. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Schiller was indisputably speaking for NPR because his sole function at the meeting was to raise money for NPR. No qualification regarding what "hat" he was wearing should appear in the article. It's a clear violation of POV -- it promotes the false view that Schiller's statement that he was "speaking for himself" was meant seriously.


 * This article also needs to be edited to include references to Schiller's extreme antisemitism. He greeted the investigative journalists' comments about how the Jews run the media with obvious approval.  I'll get to work on that section.


 * Were any of Schiller's comments about the Coffee Party edited out by O'Keefe? It seems highly improbable, if not impossible, that he'd mention the Tea Party without mentioning the Coffee Party in the same breath.  After all, the Coffee Party has far outshadowed the Tea Party in national political influence and it would be hard to have a discussion without referring to this fact.NeutralityPersonified (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

As usual, the videos were selectively edited and The Blaze has a good rundown of it here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.89.12.255 (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone else beat me to the Blaze link. It needs to be noted that O'Keefe once again selectively edited the video to mislead viewers into thinking Schiller said and did things he did not say and do. Black Max (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC) Black Max

This page is locked (might be because I'm on a public connection), but it should be noted that the NPR videos were edited. It should also be noted that O'Keefe is referred to as unethical and corrupt. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2011/mar/14/npr-okeefes-corrupt-editing 67.221.65.65 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This should indeed be added. I may later, if noone beats me to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Stanwood Duval
I was just going to put in the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanwood_Duval, but I can't because the page is protected and I am not yet confirmed. Does someone else want to do it?JLA87 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll take care of it. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Labeling O'Keefe as a provocateur
Hello ZZsignup! I think we should parse out the issue of labeling O'Keefe as a provocateur in the lede sentence of the article a bit more. For quite some time, editors working on this article have sought to label O'Keefe in varying ways. Some have wanted to call him a radical filmmaker or an investigative journalist. Others have chosen far less flattering descriptions. In the body of the article, we already reference people calling him a "guerrilla documentarian", a "daredevil videographer", a "gonzo journalist", a modern-day "muckraker" and a "guerrilla videographer". Much of this comes down to point of view, however. For a long time now, the standing NPOV consensus has been that O'Keefe is a political activist (specifically, a conservative political activist). I think that trying to add in that he is a (slash) "/provocateur" returns to the problems that were seen in this article early on, regardless of whether or not you can find citations where people refer to him as a provocateur. I would suggest that if you want to keep provocateur included, you should considering adding it with the other labels in the 5th paragraph of the biography section rather than trying to force it to a prominent position in the first sentence of the lede. If you disagree and think it should be maintained in the lede as you've placed it, let's discuss the matter here first per WP:BRD before changing the long standing consensus version. Thank you for your consideration! Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The first edit was reverted due to not being sourced. A source was provided then it was reverted due to it being 'needing discussion' - okay... I don't see where this has been previous discussed by the way.


 * Doesn't O'Keefe's methods fit the definition of a provocateur? From Wiki "a person or group that seeks to discredit or harm another by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action." It maybe a strong word, but it accurately reflects O'Keefe's actions. I understand the desire to remain 'neutral', but that shouldn't mean watering down the description of someone's behavior in the name of neutrality. Calling him only an activist (or even 'journalist') is not accurate considering his methods. In general, activists do not engage in deception, commit felonies (what he was charged with), consistently 'bait' people with outlandish statements to induce them to say embarrassing things on camera, and selectively edit their works to reflect their targets in the worst possible light. With his pattern of questionable ethics in obtaining his videos, it's misleading to only refer to him as simply an 'activist'.


 * I note also that Andrew Breitbart (O'Keefe's previous employer/sponsor) also refers to O'Keefe as a 'provocateur':


 * http://www.breitbart.tv/independent-journalist-provocateur-okeefe-strikes-again-this-time-its-npr/


 * http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/breitbart-the-politicized-art-behind-the-acorn-pla/?feat=home_headlines&


 * Zzsignup (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that you're making the case for labeling him a provocateur on the basis that he engages in deception, commits crimes, baits people with outlandish statements on hidden camera, selectively edits his videos to mislead, etc. All of that may be true, but adding POV labels into the first sentence of the lede just isn't appropriate.  Neutrality is more important for an article subject which evokes strong feelings (be they among supporters or detractors) and we should strive to keep that balance.  Suppose other editors begin insisting that the lede sentence include a descriptor that O'Keefe is an independent journalist (per the sources you supplied above).  I would find that highly objectionable, but you're opening the door to it by adding/describing him as a provocateur at the start of the lede.  Do you see what I'm getting at?  :)  Can't we just solve the problem by adding a sourced "provocateur" descriptor to the 5th paragraph of the biography section instead? AzureCitizen (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually my contention is that O'Keefe is a provocateur because he fits the description, not because it's sourced (I provided a source because you requested one). If someone can make the case that O'Keefe fits the definition of a journalist, I'll have no problem with that. However since O'Keefe creates his own stories (and narratives), rather than merely reports them, I think that would be difficult to justify.


 * The reason I feel it should be in the lead sentence is that it is a better description of what he does then simply 'activist'. Provocateur is not a POV, it has specific meanings which O'Keefe fits into, as I noted above, and further expanded here from the Wiki article "a person employed by the police or other entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit an illegal act." If it's controversial, it's because his actions ARE controversial. The word 'activist' also has a positive POV connotation because it implies benignity and altruism. As I noted above the majority of political activists do not engage in deception, inducement, felonies, nor discrediting others in achieving their goals. Calling him simply an 'activist' is akin to referring to anti-government guerrillas as 'freedom fighters' to minimize negative stigma. Zzsignup (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think "freedom fighter" is a far greater stretch in terms of attempting to relabel for POV exploitation purposes when compared to using the word activist here. At the very least, calling O'Keefe an activist doesn't put him on a pedestal of benignity/altruism in my view, and whether or not you like his politics and tactics, he is undeniably an activist pursuing his political ideology while people can readily take issue with whether or not he's really a journalist or a provocateur based on their POV.  I note that you've referred to the Wiki definition of a provocateur as someone who provokes others to commit illegal acts, but O'Keefe hasn't provoked anyone into committing illegal acts.  Nor has he himself committed any felonies, and I'm not sure that I'd agree that the majority of political activists don't engage in deception and/or discrediting others to achieve their goals.  Certainly some are highly ethical but for others I suspect it's all highly influenced by their own subjective POV.  He has a single misdemeanor conviction on his record, but of a lot of activists have misdemeanor convictions in connection with their pursuit of their causes.


 * O'Keefe may very well be a form of provocateur, but I still think for WP:BLP purposes it would be best to avoid applying that label directly at the start of the lede since POV on a controversial figure like O'Keefe varies widely. Better to identify him as a political activist, then add the various labels other people have called him down in the biography section and let the reader decide whether he is a provocateur or not rather than us declaring him to be one in the lede.  Are there any other editors currently reading this thread who would like to share their take on this? AzureCitizen (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "he is undeniably an activist pursuing his political ideology" So far all he has done is attack organizations that he feels favors the left, rather than promote his ideology as activists often do. "but O'Keefe hasn't provoked anyone into committing illegal acts." That's not true, in fact his ACORN accusations were that their actions on the videos were illegal (providing advice on tax evasion, child prostitution, etc.) "Nor has he himself committed any felonies" He was jailed and charged with felonies for the Landrieu incident - meaning authorities had enough cause to believe felonies were committed. BTW the term provocateur is not limited to illegal acts - "the term may refer to a person or group that seeks to discredit or harm another by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action." Zzsignup (talk) 09:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Attacking organizations that favor the left is clearly part of his agenda as a conservative activist.  2)  O'Keefe hasn't provoked anyone into committing illegal acts; all of the ACORN investigations (CA AG, NY DA, et al) proved that conclusively.  Providing advice on tax evasion and child prostitution is not illegal.  3)  O'Keefe was not convicted of any felonies; in the United States you are presumed innocent until proven guilty and it doesn't matter what the authorities think in the interim, hence it isn't very relevant here to be insisting he has committed felonies in discussing changes to the article.  4) Again, O'Keefe may very well be a provocateur (I can think of several other less flattering adjectives to describe his tactics), but POV laden descriptors belong in the biography section with sourcing indicating others are describing him as such, not in the first sentence of the lede stated as a fact. AzureCitizen (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The authorities found that ACORN did not commit illegal acts, not that O'Keefe did not provoke ACORN into committing them (that wasn't what they were examining). Just because he did not make a legally convincing case doesn't prove that there were no attempts - those are two different concepts. Again, by O'Keefe's own stated allegations ACORN committed illegal acts (why would the authorities investigate otherwise?). Dressing up as a prostitute and soliciting help in establishing an illegal brothel IS provoking someone into committing illegal acts. If this was done by law enforcement it would make a strong case for entrapment.


 * Also I note again that 'provocateur' is not limited to provoking illegal activities. The activities can also be rash or embarrassing acts.


 * "O'Keefe was not convicted of any felonies; in the United States you are presumed innocent" - I'm aware of that, but I'm not arguing for O'Keefe to be labeled as a felon (or even a criminal - which he IS from his Landrieu conviction). I'm arguing that committing (and being charged with) felonies, taken with his other activities, is not typical of political activists and that using that term lends a flattering POV.


 * I understand your concern for neutrality and appreciate (and enjoy) your input, I see that I am unlikely to convince you here that O'Keefe pushes the bounds of merely being an 'activist'. We will disagree, but I feel that placing that description in the biography section dilutes 'provocateur' into one of the many labels placed on O'Keefe, rather than an accurate description of his modus operandi. Zzsignup (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe O'Keefe really does push the boundaries of "merely being activist" (and not in an ethical way), but I think it is more important for us to constrain personal POV in favor of article neutrality or you end up seeing edit wars erupt again in this article as they have many times before between editors who think O'Keefe is contemptible and editors who think O'Keefe is a hero. O'Keefe is a living WP:BLP subject so there is a slightly higher standard to adhere to there as well.  That being said, if several other editors want to chime in and lend their support to changing how things are currently phrased, I am always open to reconsidering it.  In the interim, let me suggest we add "provocateur" to the biography section anyway and see how that looks... AzureCitizen (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While you both appear to agree that "provocateur" may be an accurate description (to varying degrees), there is disagreement as to whether or not it should appear in the lede section. My suggestion, to comply with both WP:LEDE and WP:BLP, is to first apply its use appropriately in the body of the article, accompanied by high quality sourcing and any necessary context (since the adjective seems to apply in different situations).  If it survives editor scrutiny, and is established by the sources as a pertinent factor in the subject's notability, then it can appear in summarized form in the lede.  It appears AzureCitizen has already taken the first step in that process. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Conservative?
Perhaps the lead should be changed slightly. It seems to me that it should be noted earlier in the article that Mr. O'Keefe identifies as a "progressive radical". Even though it's obvious to most that he has conservative ideals, it should not be asserted as fact when the man himself claims otherwise. Maybe something like "O'Keefe describes himself as a "progressive radical", but most in the media label him a conservative due to his views on a variety of issues." Also, it seems that the paper cited for the "conservative" bit in the lead is in fact a humorous publication.-RHM22 (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if no one objects, I would like to edit the article accordingly.-RHM22 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi RHM, I saw your comment here a few days ago but didn't respond sooner because I've been trying to weigh the suggestion and sort out what seems most appropriate. From what I understand of O'Keefe and his interview statement that he is a "progressive radical," the term is actually undefined and non-existent in political discourse.  O'Keefe has not explained what he means by it, likely a deliberate and shrewd move to obfuscate the obvious.  Also, although the paper cited in the lede has some very humorous panels like the faux NYT front page on page 1, the rest of it leaves little doubt over the issue and it is worth reading O'Keefe's statements as the Founder and Editor-in-Chief on page 3; at one point, he alludes to his new paper as the "journal of conservative thought" of Rutgers University.  Nonetheless, I'd be okay with at least moving up the piece about O'Keefe saying that he is a "progressive radical" into the first sentence of the lede to allow his BLP to air that contention right at the outset without tossing out the fact that he is a "politically conservative American activist."  I will make that edit now and wait for people to comment and see what they think... AzureCitizen (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Azure! Your changes look good, and I think it looks quite a bit better. Obviously it would be a bad idea to strike the bit about O'Keefe being a conservative, as that certainly appears to be the case.-RHM22 (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

videos need to be characterized as severely edited and deceptive
Reworked content begins- The page talks at length about what videos are portraying before briefly mentioning wodrs to the effect of "oh yea, it all turned out to be severely and deceptively edited" This is not opinion, the characterization has many citations including in the Washington Post, NYT, Salon, etc.

In general, the organization of each section tends to be awkward and probably would benefit from reworking so that the truthful main point is clearly made. A straight chronological narrative doesn't tell a truthful and encyclopedic story, mostly because we don't yet have the language to refer to a video that has been severely edited in a misleading way. Most people still believe that they see "with their own two eyes" and don't understand the manipulations that can be accomplished with video "slight of hand". Therefore, referring simply to "edited" or even "heavily edited" doesn't communicate the idea that they are what amounts to "video lies and video falsehoods". This is not an opinion, many objective people, including the Attorney General of CA and OKeefe's mentor himself, Andrew Bretbart, have agreed that the videos are edited with the intent to mislead and deceive.

Maintaining encyclopedic neutrality is tough give these complicated semantic challenges. Telling a story that is objective and neutral demands relentless and tiresome qualifiers or very clever constructions. The page doesn't yet have either. What's needed is to refer to the content of the videos as "a severely edited video that led the viewer to believe that..." But language such as this must be used everytime one of okeefe's video's is referred to because there are multiple highly credible sources that label o'keees videos as misleadingly edited. This is a recipe for an unreadable page unless a solution is found.

Please consider whether the people who lost their job because of the Acorn video -- later proven to be misleading and edited to deceive -- would agree the page is neutral and objective. Also consider whether the people who lost their jobs at NPR because of the misleading and edited to deceive NPR video would agree.

It seems to me that the problem is partly to do with the meaning of the word "edit". Edit is generally understood to mean "cutting or deleting information" abridging if you like. "Edit" in the article is being used to describe a process of reordering, splicing, changing context, and a host of video editing tricks that create the illusion of an authentic documentary. Moreover, after having done such things, critical conventions of reporting weren't followed that would indicate that the videos have been edited, reordered, and do not reflect an accurate documentary or chronological treatment.

Also, Okeefe didn't get attention because of undercover videos, he is notorious for severely edited and deceptive videos. This is the way he should be introduced. Well, maybe notorious might be questionable, but it is accurate. rubbernecking 00:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Deceptively edited" is, in fact, POV. It is fact that they edited, but whether or not said editing is deceptive is a matter of opinion. Perhaps a quote from a politician or some other prominent individual saying that would be appropriate, but to assert it as fact certainly is not.-RHM22 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless, of course, it is a fact. In which case, we'd need a high-quality reliable source conveying as much.  Xenophrenic (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a fact they were edited, but whether or not it was deceptive is purely opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Whether or not a video is (or has been) deceptively edited is a demonstrable fact.  One's opinion has nothing to do with it.  There have been deceptively edited ACORN videos; as for the NPR video, I haven't looked into it. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems difficult to quantify to me.-RHM22 (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * See reworked comment above. This is no small issue. I hope the page can be majorly revised to eliminate the ambiguous and slanted story it tells about the deceiving videos. Perhaps what's needed is an expert on video theory. rubbernecking 00:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NPR videos heavily edited
It should be mentioned in the "NPR Videos" section that these videos were heavily edited, and that even Glenn Beck details this fact on his site, The Blaze: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/does-raw-video-of-npr-expose-reveal-questionable-editing-tactics/. I would do this myself, but I don't seem to have access quite yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephensol (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've made many attempts to clearly characterize the video's, as many respected sources have, as not just heavily edited but edited "severely" "deceptively" and "with the intent of misleading". I've discussed an important consideration about the word "edit". I think just "edited" is not accurate or objective. There can be numerous citations for stronger language than just "heavy editing" 76.15.29.125 (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)rubbernecking 00:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that they were probably deceptively edited, but it's important to consider how adding something like "deceptive" or "with the intent to deceieve" to the article is at its core POV. To you, they might be deceiving, but it might have just been a way to shorten the running time. When there's a controversial topic, adding an opinion like "they were deceptive" will make the article appear entirely different. Gauging the deceptiveness of any video or story or anything else is highly subjective, especially on such a controversial topic. Any POV editing, whether the subject is a huckster or a saint, is still POV. That would be like saying "Megan Fox is a very attractive actress." Sure, most would say it's true, but it's impossible to quantify and inserting such would be POV. Now, on the other hand, if you were to add an exact quote from a well known entertainment reporter who said "Megan Fox is attractive", that is stating the fact if it can be proven that that particular entertainment reporter said that. There's a big difference, and it should always be considered before imparting an article with a personal opinion.-RHM22 (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * :::Good and valid points RHM but I wonder at what point they're agreed to be deceptive? Would it be after some number of citable authorities described it as so, or would it be when some number of editors agreed, or some number of users, or when it becomes a common sense interpretation, or is there some other wikipedia standard? As more is reported on the video editing and fabrication, I fear that it's becoming clear -- when the raw video is compared with the OKeefe video -- that O'Keefe's video editing is meant to mislead, deceive, and at the very least present an alternative reality. To question the deceptive quality of the videos is more questioning whether black is really black and white really white, than to wonder whether Megan Fox is attractive. Here, the legal standard of a "reasonable person comes to mind. But anyway, I think a solution might be to start a new section that looks at the qualities and characteristics of O'Keefe's controversial video style. This would provide an invaluable background and context for undertanding the mostly chronological -- and thereby sometimes slanted -- style on the current page. What do others think about adding this section? It would go long way toward improving the objectivity and accuracy of the page while relieving some concerns that several commenters have had above. rubbernecking 00:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Biography Section flawed and tending toward hagiography
The biography section seems OK as long as you read quickly and charitably. When you stop and think, they you realize that all the quoted titles, adjectives, and labels, along with the quoted descriptions of his personal philosophies, missions, and justifications, tend to be more hagiographic than biographic. A biography should be much more factual, objective and chronological than analytical as this seems to be. This criticism of a biography remains valid regardless how will sourced are the opinions. Perhaps these things belong elsewhere on the page (although I don't think so) but they do not belong in the biography section. Pause and think, from scratch, what this page should be and what the sections ought to be in order to provide an encylopedic, objective, neutral page about James O'Keefe. The current one is somehow wrong.

At least, and for a start, I propose to remove the last paragraph that begins with O'Keefe describing himself and goes on to say what selected other people think of him. Interestingly, there are none of the volumes of critical descriptions of him. This section is the most hagiographic and reads like his it's from an introduction to a speech at CPAC. Gcherrits (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What do others think of this? rubbernecking 00:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It reads a little slanted, but there are a few slightly negative descriptions also. I would strongly oppose any removal of reliable information. Instead, why not add some negative quotes from reliable sources? Removing positive statements about an inidividual does not create neutrality.-RHM22 (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. That's a valid point about removing information but I would argue that much of it didn't belong in the biography in the first place. And your observation about some 'negative descriptions' rang true to me but when I went back to reread, I found that they are all essentially laudatory but use edgy and scintillating words like "gonzo", "guerilla", "provocateur". Each of the usages is positive and meant to thrill and praise. But more importantly all are out of context: In context, OKeefe is "a 'guerrilla documentarian' who records himself and his cohorts performing outlandish, politically charged stunts"; and the daredevil videographer was "Another man who was arrested, "daredevil videographer" James O'Keefe, has said the group wanted to investigate complaints that constituents calling Landrieu's office couldn't get through to criticize her support of a health care reform bill. Landrieu's office has said O'Keefe's explanation is feeble, and the case should be thoroughly investigated."; the 'gonzo journalist' was applied on the editorial page of the Star Ledger as follows, "Rather than directing people to the gonzo journalist’s hidden videos and tape recordings of teachers, administrators and union reps, Christie should have said: “Look, I’m not the NJEA’s biggest fan, but I don’t condone what O’Keefe did. It’s sleazy.”; and... wait for it... 'modern day muckraker' is from OKeefe's own website, Project Veritas! His own website! I didn't realize that until I did this research. Something is rotten in the state of wikipedia. The quotes are carefully selected like advertising blurbs for a lousy movie surgically excerpted from bad reviews. This explains the out of context, selective and misleading quality of this page. Where before, have we heard about this sort of editing. It explains the hagiographic quotes. It explains a lot. It's time to end this. I'm feeling like we're being duped.  It's time to rethink most of this page. rubbernecking 01:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RHM, in the absence of other comments, I took your suggestion and added a couple of negative quotes. I also added the full context that surrounds the existing "praising" quotes. Thanks for suggestion. Gcherrits (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay in responding. I was working on some other stuff and I forgot to come over here and check out what has been added. The negative quotes look good to me. I would suggest, however, moving all opinions of O'Keefe to a special "public perception" (or something to that effect, not "criticism" though, as that implies that everything there is critical) section to keep the biography section strictly biographical.-RHM22 (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Great idea. I completely agree. That would go a long way toward making the page make clean sense. It sounds like a biggish sort of job though. For now, the page does seem pretty OK and trending responsibly. (Albeit with some 'sneaky punk' whimsical, snarky fun. Gcherrits (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would take a lot of rearranging, which is why I don't want to do it! This is really not something that I normally have a lot of interest in (it's a little too recent and obscure to be history!), so I'm leaving most of the major work to those who are more familiar and interested in the subject.-RHM22 (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Give flavor of commentary about O'Keefe?
Could the critical quote that keeps being deleted (diff) be reinserted as a sidebar, balanced with this quote ("Institutions I’ve gone after are the institutions that investigative reporters have refused to investigate"--Jms O'Keefe)?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That reverted edit was bizarre anyway. We can't have people calling him a sneaky little punk in the article unless it's a direct quote from a notable figure. Of course some people call him a sneaky punk, but who and why is it notable? For instance, would you object if I were to say "some people call him a messenger of God" with no source? Obviously that's hyperbole, but it's the same thing as adding an unreferenced statement like "sneaky little punk" in there.-RHM22 (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It did make me smile a lot and he is one but, there are plenty of colorful disses from sourceworthy authorities. I put a few into the bio simply by adding the context to quotes that seemed clearly -- to me at least -- placed by OKeefe operatives if not the kid himself. evidance: their sourcing from OKeefe's own website! OKeefe is an extremely red hot topic. This is a time when one hopes the Wikipedia community will rise to its neutral, sourced, encylopedic, with history's judgement in mind, best. Gcherrits (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's acceptable to use the subject's self published source as long as that's not the main source for the article and if it's only for facts (born in this year, did this in that year, etc).-RHM22 (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is true, of course. But the quote from his website is stuck in at the end of the heinous string of hagiographic honorifics (source #26). Yup, I'm purely conjecturing here but as I reread the page more, I started to see a pattern of extremely smooth storytelling and chronology combined with frequent 'insightful' observations about his purposes, motivations, mission or state of mind. There was also some deep sourcing that would take a great deal of work if you weren't the person with a clip book full of the articles. Again, this is purely my feeling and it should not color my editing or others editing. I hope it doesn't and trust the community to keep me from applying my pique to the page. Perhaps it's time to remove the citation 76.15.29.125 (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

cat

 * Added later - I've started a somewhat parallel discussion here: wp:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Per NPOV, an American engaging in current affairs exposes really should be in the category:American journalists (eg, self-identified "gonzo journalist" Ian Murphy (writer)). Thoughts?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Do any reliable non-partisan sources identify him as a journalist? Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Although wp:RS doesn't specify non-partisan, I'll look. (Another day. It's the weekend.)--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur that it doesn't specify non-partisan, but if Fox and the WSJ are the only ones calling him a journalist, that certainly calls the accuracy of that label into question. Gamaliel (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While Googling, I didn't bother to click on links to the NY Post or other news sites or opinion journals known to have at least a somewhat conservative rep--and here is what I came up with:
 * UK Progressive magazine: "...the right wing ambush ‘journalist’ James O’Keefe..."
 * From Time critic James Poniewozik's piece "The Twisty, Bent Truth of the NPR-Sting Video": "[...T]he dilemma of any journalist[...]is: reality takes forever. You condense, you edit, you quote; you try to get a full sense of the actual story and relate it as best you can in the space you have available--whether limited by actual word count, minutes on air, or your audience's attention span. You cut a lot of nuances and hope for the best. - ¶ - You can do that with a mind toward presenting the fullest, fairest picture you can and earning your readers' trust on the rest. (And you don't have to be a nonideological, MSM outlet to do it[...].)"
 * Kansas City Star opinion piece: "James O'Keefe and the Ethical Bankruptcy of 'Gotcha!' Journalism"
 * cyber-JournoLister David Weigel in Slate: "[...]James O'Keefe does describe himself as a journalist. (I agree with O'Keefe that he is.)"
 * Baltimore Sun's media critic's article subtitled "Good or Bad Reporting": "...by citizen journalist James O'Keefe...."
 * Lede to "What James O’Keefe Knows about Media (and You Should Too)" in Poynter Institute's journalism-resource mag: "It’s a credit to James O’Keefe that amid the diverse vocabulary in the English language, so many terms inadequately describe him and what he does. Is he a provocateur, a prankster, an activist, a muckraker, a citizen journalist, an investigative journalist? Do we call these shaky videos undercover stings, gonzo journalism, political theater, political art? Does he take after Matt Drudge? Michael Moore? Julian Assange? Yes. As a nod to O’Keefe, I will call this “entrapment journalism”[...]."
 * Reason magazine (Note: Reason is libertarian, thus arguably right of center; but the piece doesn't reference O'Keefe...and, in any case, I'm only including it to provide context with concern some of the other items I've listed): "[...T]he government has never used the Espionage Act to prosecute a journalist, which is what Assange claims to be. - ¶ - His critics disagree. 'WikiLeaks is not a news organization,' writes Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen. 'It is a criminal enterprise. Its reason for existence is to obtain classified national security information and disseminate it as widely as possible….These actions are likely a violation of the Espionage Act, and they arguably constitute material support for terrorism.' - ¶ - There is a circular quality to this argument: Assange is not a journalist because he's a criminal, and he's a criminal because he's not a journalist. [... ...]" Self-described "investigative news nexus" The Raw Story: "[...]State Dept. Assistant Secretary Philip Rowley [sic?] said that the United States does not consider WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to be a 'journalist' or 'whistleblower.' He insisted that, under US law, he's to be considered a 'political actor.' - ¶  - His criteria for reclassifying someone from protected 'journalist' to a legally vulnerable 'political actor': 'Mr. Assange obviously has a particular political objective behind his activities, and I think that, among other things, disqualifies him as being considered a journalist,' Crowley said. - ¶ - Asked what Assange's political objective is, he replied: 'I think he’s an anarchist, but he’s not a journalist.' - ¶ - That seems to bump up against the opinion of Charlie Beckett, who directs journalism studies and media criticism at the London School of Economics and Political Science. In a presentation published online Friday, he argued that much of WikiLeaks' activities meet the definition of 'traditional journalism.'"
 * The Raw Story: "...the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which funded the conservative journalist James O’Keefe...."
 * Newspaper media critic (and occasional NPR contributor) Eric Deggans: "Journalism has a long history of such stings. One of the most legendary, The Mirage Tavern, involved the Chicago Sun Times teaming with a better government advocacy group to buy a bar in the city and document the culture of corruption in city code enforcement. The series of articles that resulted was, according to legend, denied a Pulitzer Prize because judges didn't want to encourage lying to get stories. - ¶ - But a central component of successful journalism stings is transparency about the process. The audience must know what reporters did to get the story and have the sense that the reactions they are seeing from the subjects are genuine. - ¶ - In other words: You can lie to many people in creating a journalism sting, but you can never lie to the audience. - ¶ - That is something O'Keefe and Breitbart are trying to change. they want the world to focus on the heat of the scandal and the burn of the embarrassment, without looking closely and what actually happened when their stings unfolded. [... ...]"
 * Columbia Journalism Review: "Is James O’Keefe a 'journalist'? [... ...] Brooke Kroeger, director of the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute at New York University[... ...]argues that undercover reporting is incredibly valuable for its power to reveal truths and affect reform in our society, and that it should not be dismissed by the more traditional journalistic community; just look at the results, she says. In fact, she points out, mainstream news outlets have often partnered with advocacy groups to do this kind of work, all throughout the history of journalism in the US."
 * From same prof./academic pub: "Stingers from Our Past: James O’Keefe’s Predecessors, Their Stings, and Their Ethics": "With James O’Keefe’s latest video sting taking two scalps at NPR this week, we thought it timely to revisit some infamous recent and not-so-recent journalistic stings. From The Mirage Tavern to, yes, James O’Keefe—we didn’t go back so far as Nellie Bly—we’re checking out what happened in each case, what went down after the sting went public, and then giving our thoughts on just how much merit the controversial deception approach had in each case."
 * From column subtitled "Living Among the Guerrillas" – Bill Keller, exec. ed., NY Times: "[...] Assange aims to enlist the media; O’Keefe aims to discredit us. But each, in his own guerrilla way, has sown his share of public doubt about whether the press can be trusted as an impartial bearer of news. I don’t intend this occasional essay to become the Editor’s Pulpit, but right now — when we are buffeted between those on the right who think we are agents of liberalism and those on the left who think we should be, and when we are asking devoted readers to pay for us online — it seems like a good time to pause and review some first principles. [... ...] Some years ago, a colleague tried to sum up the essentials that set us apart from agenda-driven journalists of the right and the left. [...]" My conclusion - O'Keefe is not considered a mainstream journalist and fits better along with Ariana Huffington, et al, in category:American alternative journalists--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the same evidence, I come to the conclusion that he's clearly a journalist. Not one of the sources identify him as "Alternative Journalist" and, contra Gamaliel above, I think that Fox and the WSJ calling someone a journalist is perfectly good evidence - whether you like Fox or not (I don't) and whether you like the WSJ or not (I do).  Finally, I'll note that this discussion inadvertantly raises a big question about category:American alternative journalists - what is the category for, does anyone belong in it at all?  I note that the category page gives no explanation nor justification, and it seems to me from checking a few links, that it is a POV category to stick people who someone, somewhere, wishes not to have identified as a "real" journalist (leftie or rightie, it seems to be a mix).  I question the viability of the category at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with calling him a "journalist", even in a cat. He is self described as a "citizen journalist". Did he graduate from an accredited recognized school of journalism? Is he a "working reporter", in that he regularly works at the craft of reporting and makes his living doing so? Does he work for a recognized news organization, one with editorial oversight and a fact checking process, and that could clear the bar set by WP:RS? Does he belong to any professional associations for journalists?  Could he get a "Press Pass" as a working journalist?  The answer to all those, I believe, is no. He is clearly not a journalist. — Becksguy (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree with you, Becksguy (...but I will mention that your contentions remain a bit "original researchy," at least as of yet...).-Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. With a Physician the issue is quite clear, either the person has a state issued license to practice medicine, or not, and so there is nothing for us to debate. Same with Professional Engineer. There is no license for journalists. Press passes (credentials) are issued by local authorities who vet the person to pass police lines, to take pictures, and to ask questions, but not all journalists have them, only the "working" journalists that actually need them. So the defining line isn't as clear, which means we have to ask questions. In a similar vein, there were multi-archive raging battleground debates (in which I was involved) about whether Joe the Plumber, from the 2008 presidential election, was actually a plumber or not. And that hinged on which was defining and/or required, having a plumbers license (he didn't) or working as a plumber (he did as a helper). If all the reliable sources refer to O'Keefe with a qualifying modifier, I accept that, as we go where the RS take us. I'm fine with category:American alternative journalists, (assuming that covers "citizen journalists", "gonzo journalists", and the like), just not the unqualified mainstream category:American journalists. Really nice job on the references, BTW. — Becksguy (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No-one ever calls James a, quote unquote, journalist--without a qualifying modifier: see the following sources (continuing on now from the ones I listed above):
 * • TPMMuckraker, 2011 (about current civil suit, with O'Keefe as defendant): "'There is no special or disparate treatment accorded 'expose journalism' under the Constitution. Any bully or a felon dressed as a telephone repairman can claim to be a 'journalist' after committing a crime," Iredale wrote."
 * • The Wrap, 2011: "James O'Keefe, the man who slew ACORN and on Wednesday toppled the CEO of NPR, is some new kind of journalist...."
 * • Media Matters, 2010: "I prefer to put the oxymoronic phrase 'conservative journalism' in quotation marks since it seems to exist more as an idea than a functioning entity. Instead of being in the news gathering or analysis business, 'conservative journalism' today appears to be more akin to propaganda/name-calling -- or, thanks to O'Keefe's Keystone Kops routine, more like dirty tricks/propaganda/name-calling."
 * • New York Times, 2010: "[...O'Keefe] and others have been perfecting for years, a kind of gonzo journalism ... a sort of political reverse image of the left-wing Yippies of the 1960s. They studied leftist activism of years past as their prototype.... He and some friends started an alternative conservative publication called The Centurion...."
 * • NYT, 2010: "...raised questions about the nature of the journalism practiced by Mr. O’Keefe.... have backgrounds in campus journalism. Both Mr. O’Keefe...."
 * • Politico, 2010: "James O’Keefe and Accomplices Trained in Conservative Journalism"
 * • Politico, 2010: "Conservative bloggers were also careful in what they said about O’Keefe, not ready to discard the young journalist, but also not willing to defend him."
 * • Politico, 2009: "...James O'Keefe would release the first video of his undercover journalism...."
 * • A very balanced news piece (unsurprisingly!) from NPR's "All Things Considered," 2010: "...incident has raised debate about the value and boundaries of advocacy journalism.... The group of men includes 25-year-old James O'Keefe...."
 * • AlterNet, 2010: "The Leadership Institute, where James O'Keefe was employed to train young activist/journalists.... ...Giles, O'Keefe's partner in the ACORN scam, enjoyed an internship at Young Americans for Freedom's National Journalism Center."
 * • Washington Post, 2010: "...Virginia organizations that train conservative journalists (the latter boasts ACORN sting artist James O'Keefe)..."
 * --Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, and no obvious answer. A scam artist isn't (necessarily) an artist, although a trapeze artist arguably is, yet neither belongs in a category devoted to "artists". Becksguy makes a good point about the usual defining characteristics of journalists, but I can't help thinking that (1) these characteristics may be changing, as traditional news sources disappear or morph into something unrecognizable and (2) there are exceptions to the rule, anyway—people we wouldn't hesitate to call journalists who had atypical training and employment. The article's lede neatly sidesteps the question with the wording "self-described 'citizen journalist'", but that doesn't help much with the question of the category. I think that if the preponderance of reliable sources use the term "journalist" only with a qualifier, we probably shouldn't place him in a general American journalists category. "Alternative journalists" doesn't bother me; it seems neutral, both ideologically and in terms of not being judgmental. Rivertorch (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree it's not as clear cut as a doctor, Rivertorch. Even who's a plumber can get quite political and highly fought over. Interesting quote follows: "Journalists traditionally have not gone to school to learn their craft. Post-secondary journalism education is mostly a 20th-century phenomenon in Canada and the United States (Dornan, Johansen & Weaver, 2001). Up until the latter half of the 20th century, journalists learned how to do their work by working at a newspaper or broadcast outlet and gleaning knowledge from the grizzled veterans around them." from . On press passes, as an example, the basic NYPD requirement is that the applicant be a "member of the press" and used to require a letterhead document from the news organization's editor before issuing press passes, but now also requires documentation showing that the applicant, in person, covered at least six actual eligible news events over a two year period. More generally, reporters can work for the newsroom of a news organization, or they can be independent stringers. As to the cat, O'Keefe is currently listed in the American Alternative Journalists cat, and I think he should stay there. He's simply not a mainstream journalist. This does, of course, not address any potential problems with the journalism cat structure or definitions. — Becksguy (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)