Talk:James O'Keefe/Archive 9

Retract
Retract this line immediately. I would but I cannot because the article is protected.

"He has selectively edited videos to misrepresent the context of the conversations and the subjects' responses, creating the false impression that people said or did things they did not"

Reason: the two outlets cited have retracted their statements, one which repeats the others' falsity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0ypcCCsgwU

No I'm not going to learn your special wiki markdown, sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.58.5 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither O'Keefe nor YouTube are RS. We can't take his word for it. Do you have independent RS which document your claim of retractions?
 * Interestingly, they can retract all they want, but the fact remains that that is exactly what he has done. He really "has selectively edited videos to misrepresent the context of the conversations and the subjects' responses." We may need to revise how we've written this, but we are not going to disbelieve what we have seen with our own eyes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Two particular sources do not directly follow the claim of O'Keefe's manipulation of selectively edited videos:
 * Source 9, an article from the Atlantic, does not insinuate a direct manipulation of O'Keefe's videos. A lawsuit was filed against O'Keefe for taping an ACORN employee without consent. This lawsuit did not entail of a direct manipulation of O'Keefe's footage.
 * Source 7, an article from the Los Angeles Times, has no direct mentioning of O'Keefe nor his controversy with ACORN footage in the article.
 * Editors should either replace the sources that more directly correlate with this statement's claim or remove the sources as per overkill and irrelevant information. -- CybaltM 21:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , a source does not have to support every element of a sentence. Guy (help!) 15:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Slate is definitely not a reliable source and neither is the majority of mainstream media. We've been proven that many times. Also your last "we are not going to disbelieve what we have seen with our own eyes" is very hypocritical. Were's your reliable source on that? Or are you referring to Slate eyes? This just makes Wikipedia look bad and I gave up supporting it because of this. Wikipedia is good when it sticks to facts, not when it starts having opinions. It's in fact very easy to stick to facts if you just say Slate *says this* instead of Project Veritas *is* this. Seems like every protected Wikipedia page should just be ignored since protected pages are not reliable, just full of misinformation and opinion of others. Unit73e (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you truly believe that "the majority of mainstream media" are not reliable sources, you should find some other volunteer Internet project to participate in, because reliable sourcing is foundational to Wikipedia and mainstream media are, indeed, considered highly-reliable sources here. You're not going to succeed at anything but making yourself angry and sad. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Internet projects such as Conservapedia.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 00:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, if that's how you want to manage Wikipedia. However I cannot and will not recommend anyone to take Wikipedia politics articles seriously because the main stream media is very biased and mixes opinions with facts and Wikipedia is doing exactly the same, using opinions as if they were facts. Unit73e (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's the exact opposite of the truth. Per Yochai Benkler's Network Propaganda, there is solid evidence that the conservative media bubble is self-reinforcing and amplifies false information if it's ideologically acceptable, while the mainstream media tends to self-correct and cross-check, so that conspiracy theories do not propagate (e.g. the claim that Trump raped a 13-year-old, which went nowhere because it was rapidly fact-checked into oblivion).
 * Mate, I don't care which side is more truthful, both lie a lot. What you're doing is exactly the same problem with Wikipedia, taking sides instead of sticking to facts. The mainstream media is not the minister of the truth and often resorts to disinformation when attacked. What I would rather have is Wikipedia be precise but it seems that's not what the administrators want to do. I know this article is full of made up nonsense by the left wing media because Project Veritas is not friendly to them. What Wikipedia is doing is letting the wolf take care of the chickens. Just because a lot of the mainstream media says it is something it doesn't mean it is a fact. I much rather Wikipedia says "the media said this" instead of "it is this". I find it very concerning but it's not like I'm going to push any further. It's not like I have a saying anyway. Either way I'm not going to recommend Wikipedia articles anymore since they want to use opinions instead of facts. Unit73e (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, a lie is a deliberate falsehood. While partisan media may lie occasionally, there are more common sources of error, including honest mistakes and sloppy fact-checking. The crucial difference between the mainstream media and the right-wing media bubble is that in the mainstream, sloppy fact-checking is usually picked up quickly and corrected, whereas in the right-wing bubble it tends not to be challenged if it's ideologically acceptable. Hence the "Trump raped a 13-year-old" falsehood rapidly died, whereas "Pizzagate" resulted in someone turning up with a gun to rescue children from the basement of a restaurant that doesn't have one.
 * To err is human. It's what you do about the error that matters. Significant academic analysis shows that there are penalties in the right wing media for publishing facts that go against the prevailing narrative, whereas the mainstream has penalties for failing to correct factual errors regardless of ideological consonance. That's why right-wing sources like Breitbart are not considered reliable reporters of fact. If you want to challenge that, you need to go to WP:RSN, not here. Guy (help!) 10:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said and NorthBySouthBaranof suggested, I'm not going to bother with it because it's not worth it. If that's what Wikipedia wants to do, so be it. There's no point in making me think otherwise because I've seen more than enough with my own research. Besides, why would I trust academic analysis when the majority is left wing? It's well known that fact that most of the media and universities are left wing biased and have been caught being biased very often. It's also obvious that there's an agenda in CNN, MSNBC and friends. It's rigged from the start. Also that doesn't excuse the fact that Wikipedia is using the media opinions instead of facts. You have been assuming left-wing vs right-wing matters. This isn't a left-wing vs right-wing problem, it's a fact vs opinion problem. Unit73e (talk) 11:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Facts don't care about your feelings, and it's a fact that O'Keefe's videos are manipulatively edited and have often misrepresented or outright lied about their subjects. That you disagree with that fact is irrelevant. Your belief that all media that don't support your personal viewpoint have an "agenda" is unsupported twaddle. You are welcome to exist solely in Trumplandia; this encyclopedia project does not. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mainstream is not the opposite of conservative, it's the opposite of fringe. Guy (help!) 18:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality
The introduction makes it sounds like O'Keefe is primary a commentator but he is most well known for being a convicted criminal. As such the introduction should be focused around this and not what blogging he does on the side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.206.19 (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I am glad that I am not the only one. According to MOS:FIRST, the first sentence should "introduce the topic [accurately, but concisely]". To me, "conservative political activist" is rather misleading, because it is an overly broad term that suggests that the person is working to forward conservative causes. What makes it more misleading is that because Conservatism in the United States is understood as being simply right-wing and no further, it ignores any suggestion of the person's radical actions.


 * While keeping in line with WP:BLP, James O'Keefe as we know it is a far-right conspiracy theorist political provocateur who regularly produces and publishes fraudulent "undercover" videos of political entities. These defamatory and unfortunately powerful videos often target what he perceives to be progressive organizations and individuals, although sometimes they target Republican or moderately conservative individuals. In case you ask me to provide sources, you can find numerous credible sources labeling him as a far-right conspiracy theorist. In other words, to call him conservative is to blur the line between moderate conservatives and factions of the far-right such as the alt-right. As a matter of fact, I am inclined to start a request for comment on whether we should change the lead. I had already stated my position and my rationale—the latter of which, while employing some loaded language, otherwise accurately describes his actions. I shall precede with it below, neutrally.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 19:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC
Should the lead describe James O'Keefe as a "far-right conspiracy theorist political provocateur", rather than a "conservative political activist"?  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 19:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In principal I'm in favor of something along those lines but what is he a conspiracy theorist about?  Nevermore27  (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour as well. I agree it would be useful to say what the main topics of his conspiracy theories are -- but that information can come a bit later in the lead.  It doesn't need to sway us from editing the article in the way this RfC suggests.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * When I said "conspiracy theorist", I was thinking of his accusations against entities like ACORN and producing videos purportedly surporting them. He appears to endorse claims suggesting conspiracy when much more probable explanations exist. Perhaps the label is not accurate, but definitely less accurate is calling him a "[legitimate] whistleblower". Would provocateur work? I see some news outlets using that label to describe his "undercover" actions.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 16:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is what we call D'Souza I think. It works for me. Guy (help!) 16:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , to avoid problems, please add a proper RfC heading immediately above the opening of this RfC, as required by the RfC rules. I've seen other RfCs get totally f***d up because of a violation of that rule. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So that is what the editor meant by "properly formatted". I did indeed read that, but opted not to because I found it to be a waste of subsection, it being too close to the top header. They should have clarified that ambiguity.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 18:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know. It is a problem that fringe nutbags like O'Keefe are in the same category as regular political activists, but the meaning of the word conservative appears to be changing to match the O'Keefes rather than the George Conways. Guy (help!) 15:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that "conspiracy theorist" isn't right, largely because O'Keefe doesn't appear to believe in his own grifts. (How could he, he has the full footage?) I would personally call him a "right-wing grifter" or "right-wing con man" or something along those lines. (I also like provocateur as a slightly more neutral alternative.) Loki (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Isn't promoting conspiracy theories enough to be a conspiracy theorist? Who says you have to believe the theories you're peddling? NickCT (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would call someone who promotes conspiracy theories they don't personally believe in a "promoter of conspiracy theories", not a "conspiracy theorist". But feel free to ignore me if you think most people would think differently. Loki (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would call someone who concocts a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theorist whether or not they believe. I would call someone who promotes a conspiracy theory a Fox host. O3000 (talk) 20:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - "far-right promoter of conspiracy theories" versus "far-right conspiracy theorist" seems like six-of-one, half-dozen of another to me. If you feel the former is more precise, let's use that. NickCT (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Less accurate and more POV. Also this RFC is not formatted correctly. PackMecEng (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The word 'provocateur' is somewhat better, but O'Keefe is more along the lines of a disinformation artist or somesuch.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If possible, I would prefer to incorporate both. Couldn't we say that he is a conservative activist, and then later in the lead say that he has been described as "far-right" and a "conspiracy theorist"? LoosingIt (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * LoosingIt, I agree that we should mention both, but due weight would indicate that we first mention what he is notable for:
 * "He is primarily known for using his misleadingly edited videos to push conspiracy theories as part of his conservative activism, and he has been convicted and successfully sued for these activities."
 * That should be the second sentence, with small tweaks to the other lead content to accomodate it and reduce duplication. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Provocateur" carries a opinionated, negative connotation and is therefore cautioned against based on the spirit of MOS:WORDSTOWATCH. It is not a factual term, like "activist", about what O'Keefe has done; rather, it is based on the judgement of certain sources or individuals that Mr. O'Keefe is trying to provoke trouble or that his viewpoints/behaviour are obnoxious. Thus, even if it has been used by multiple sources to describe Mr. O'Keefe, it would be improper to use it in WP:Wikivoice. Furthermore, stating a negative opinion about a living person in WP:Wikivoice violates WP:BLP. Jancarcu (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware of descriptions used to refer to individuals. I realize that calling them names does not make them so from a realist viewpoint. That said, I also understand that I must find the right descriptors that are based empirically on a person's actions, yet what I cannot allow is using an overtly imprecise (if still accurate) term when other more appropriate terms exist. The word conservative activist, even though it may be accurate, does not strike me as implying pushing conservative causes, as opposed to merely advancing them. I have noticed, however, that no one appears to be opposed to the label "far-right", and if the application of provocateur exists only to smear him and treat him like trash, I would be glad to use something else, but to call him conservative is to obscure the line between the reasonable right and the fringe right. I admit I was blunt in my criticism of the media's use of such labels (which then became my own suggestion), but at least I made my point.  GaɱingFørFuɲ 3 6 5 23:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Zero sources for conspiracy theorist claim
O'Keefe is a self described reform Muckraker. As for the claims of being a conspiracy theorist, this needs a reliable source to be cited, if true. Take a close look at the two sources that are bundled together at the end of the lead line - neither one supports the assertion that O'Keefe is a conspiracy theorist. At all. That's troubling for wikipedia that the claim exists on a locked page, with citations that don't support the assertion. J Rockets☯  11:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Neither source classified him as a conspiracy theorist. The first called him a journalist and the second one called him an activist. Quite disturbing this was allowed to stand, given WP:BLP needs caution. The RfC above didn't arrive at any meaningful conclusion other than there could or should be another description besides "activist", but it's unacceptable to classify him as something there isn't a source for. I found one source that calls him a conspiracy theorist, but Forbes contributors aren't considered reliable sources WP:FORBESCON. -Pudeo (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 *  Volunteer Marek  03:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 *  Volunteer Marek  03:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Excessive discussion of the ACORN controversy in the lead?
Most if not all of the paragraph about ACORN and the ensuing scandal effecting both the organisation and O'Keefe seems as if it should be later on in the article and isn't fit for the lead, especially when his later activity (such as the 2016 CNN recordings) have since become more notable. thorpewilliam (talk) 07:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that there's too much detail about the ACORN stuff, but I can't see how the 2017 CNN recordings are "more notable." They were a complete nothingburger with zero lasting impact on anything. In fact, that's sort of the problem - everything O'Keefe has done since the ACORN thing has had objectively little to no impact outside a small echo chamber. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2020
Under the section titled: "CNN undercover videos (2017)"

The quote by Sarah Huckabee Sanders (citation 150) reads: "whether it's accurate or not"

It should be changed to reflect what she actually said: "There's a video out there circulating right now, whether it's accurate or not, I don't know, but I would encourage everybody in this room, and frankly, everybody across the country to take a look at it"

The current edit leaves out that she said she doesn't know if it's accurate. It's quite a biased and obviously disingenuous rewording of what she said. LoneWiseMan (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Add "postal worker affidavit" incident?
This story seems relevant, no? NickCT (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2020
Funny how this page leaves out all the thing James has done in 2019 and 2020. Why is Wiki deliberately leaving out information? 72.235.171.112 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * -- no requested edit. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021
Change the word activist to journalist. Num123 (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what reliable sources describe him as. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021
Some of the citations do not bring up any information, for example citation 11. 2001:569:FCE2:B500:20B8:D2C8:C74B:4E (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Does that work better now? Elizium23 (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic
This page includes an unusually large number of opinions and citations of opinions without citation of fact regarding the claims and subjective adjectives used to describe the person and his behaviors. The article is more politics and argument than encyclopedic reference, which is inappropriate for a biographical entry. kc (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting opinion, but I disagree. He's a public figure with a criminal record who has purposefully interjected himself into the national conversation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Biased wording discredits the information on the page on 5 July 2021
In the sentence, "Project Veritas uses methods not employed by reputable journalists, " the word "reputable" is subjective and makes this sentence sound like a biased attempt to discredit the subject of the article. There's no clear way to measure reputation. "Reputable journalists" should be changed to "traditional journalists" or something more objective to restore some credibility to this wiki article and allow the reader to make of that what they will. Hmeyer5 (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, no, the methods in question are not merely unconventional but unethical and disreputable. That is borne out by all reliable sources; it is not a conclusion reached by our own editors. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  12:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2021
The final section should note that project veritas has never lost a lawsuit, and has had nearly 200 retractions printed in main stream newspapers. RDF2 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Defamation
I would say James has a law suit against Wikipedia for allowing such slander about someone to be left up and believed as “fact” when the labels given to James here are totally incorrect. 82.14.34.220 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ostensibly reliable sources are more opinion than obective
Writing things like "He has selectively edited videos to misrepresent the context of the conversations and the subjects' responses" is done in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:13F0:8110:2889:4D3F:6739:A424 (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * These claims are supported by reliable sources cited in this article. Here is an excerpt from one of them:


 * —  Newslinger  talk   01:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

"Far Right" Label may be incorrect.
According to Far-right politics in the United States, far right is a label to describe "militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism such as Christian Identity, the Creativity Movement, the Ku Klux Klan, the National Socialist Movement and the National Alliance." I don't see any overwhelming evidence about James O'Keefe being any of the above. It seems that the media has slapped a term on him as a buzzward, and if we on Wikipedia are going to put this term in a biography, I think it should reflect the articles on Wikipedia. Calling him "Far-right" does not seem to fit the criteria above. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. I'm not making this edit right now, as I understand it could be quite controversial, and I would like the community's input. Thanks! Lectrician2 (talk) 02:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles go by what sources say directly about the subjects, not about self-applied self-referential consistency with other articles. So, sources:

Project Veritas as "far right"


So, with that in mind, why don't you see the above sources as evidence? --Calton &#124; Talk 03:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't say that it was evidence, I was just pointing out in-continuity between different articles, but I was not aware we should choose evidence over continuity, so thanks! Lectrician2 (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Falsehoods in opinion based biography
This article has a lot of opinion, which is why using Wikipedia in educational papers and presentations is not permissible in most schools. You guys control the spread of misinformation. Stick to reporting facts, without injecting your opinion. That’s on all sides of the political spectrum…. If I read one more Wikipedia page that is as opinionated as this one, I won’t be reading anymore. Best of luck to you all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:F701:A4D:5190:92DB:3D21:C891 (talk) 02:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:NPOV? Our job is to document pretty much everything that is described in reliable sources (the "sum of all human knowledge"), and that includes facts, opinions, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, lies, etc. What is written in an article is not the opinion of the many editors who developed that content. It is based on the reliable sources available.
 * If you find a specific instance of abuse or vandalism, please mention it here and we'll be happy to help you get it fixed. For a deeper understanding of the NPOV subject, especially how it applies to dealing with biased sources, feel free to read my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. It isn't policy but it's often cited in discussions. -- Valjean (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

This is another ridiculously biased article, one if many that prevents me from donating to Wikipedia. I would rather see this Wikipedia disappear into the ether than waste $2.50 to keep it going. Fix the many articles like this and I may reconsider. Eegorr (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No one cares. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are trying to bribe Wikipedia into changing articles to make them conform with your beliefs instead of with reliable sources. Won't happen. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Review my edits and see if it more accurately represents him now. Tachyon (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, your edits contradict the content of the article, which is derived from reliable sources; they have been reverted. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  20:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

.
It’s articles such as this why my son’s HS has an automatic failing grade policy for any paper handed in with a Wikipedia citation. 2601:6C4:4003:CB00:43E:D808:F2D3:8A9C (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for letting us know how you feel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If you consider veritas “far-right” then what is center right?
Has Wikipedia gone woke? 74.102.213.212 (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Compare Centre-right politics and Far-right politics. 2605:B100:D01:3D4A:936:D571:1EB3:C512 (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the CIA behind the immediate left-biased edits?
Why does every Wikipedia page have such a strong far-left bias in that EVERYthing that goes against far-left narratives is labeled far-right, and the page is locked down?

If you remove the bias, considering this is supposed to be a plain information page, it’s immediately within minutes reverted back. That’s not evidence of users, those are concerted efforts and it happens broadly across Wiki.

Use your brains people! You’re being manipulated with fake information! The narratives are always conveniently controlled for mainstream establishment bs. 107.119.45.14 (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh shit -- my CIA cover is blown -- I'll need a new fake identity... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Anyone complaining about bias in this article is a straight up clown.
Keep as is and I would even argue there should be more language about the propaganda and conspiracies perpetuated by Project Veritas and O’Keefe. Also, what about his involvement in Jan 6th and the insurrection? I see nothing here about that. 159.39.72.246 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Absent any reliable sources, I think accusing O'Keefe of involvement in the insurrection might be a violation of BLP. Which means it should be removed, even from the talk page. See WP:BLPTALK. -- M.boli (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Far Right Label
What in the Lord's name do you call a reliable source? The literal opinion pieces on mainstream media that clearly push an agenda or the actual tapes that are up on Project Veritas which do not take anything said out of context, unlike many so-called "reliable sources". For someone to view themselves as a centrist or liberal and to be called conservative here is reasonable. But calling someone Far-Right, Far Left, Conspiracy Theorist, Nazi, Communist, or any other political pejorative is absolutely slanderous and I really hope this is changed soon, otherwise, I can only hope James goes after you just like he went after CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.241.83 (talk • contribs)
 * O'Keefe's modus operandi is imposture and fraud, followed by the issuance of doctored and edited tapes such as "those up on Project Veritas" which are bogus and often libelous. Everybody who has looked into his history knows that is how he has always worked. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  05:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a read of the "Abbie Boudreau (2010)" section should convince any reasonable person that he's a dishonest slimeball. Even Izzy Santa wouldn't stand for it. -- Valjean (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

FBI Searches
Would it be relevant to include the Justice Department investigation into the stolen diary, which resulted in FBI searching O'Keefe? . This came after the FBI searching a number of other Project Veritas associates. Saxones288 (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This should be added to the article. X-Editor (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Change required
Line one reads: "to far-right[5][6][7] political activist and provocateur.[8][9]" Change(s): "Journalist"   {period} James O'Keefe is not a "Political Activist." "Politics" has no play in what he does. He is an undercover journalist seeking truth from those hiding or twisting it. Any other wording is ones mere "Opinion" and vile attempt at disparaging or hopes of belittling Mr. O'Keefe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AesopsRetreat (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that politics does not play a role in what he does is laughable. The claim that he is a political activist is also backed up by reliable sources. If you have any reliable sources that say otherwise, please link to them. X-Editor (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The claim that he's a "journalist" is also laughable. An interest in journalism in high-school doesn't count. He's as much a "journalist" as Assange. -- Valjean (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022
You claim that James O’Keefe and his organization, Project Veritas, use “deceptive techniques,” and that their “recordings are often selectively edited to misrepresent the context of the conversations and the subjects' responses.” You then proceed to not source a single item for these ridiculous claims. I suggest you remove this from your page as it is a clear fallacy and an embarrassment to your company. 2601:283:487F:16E0:0:0:0:8C87 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's literally hundreds of reliable sources cited in this article. Your disagreement with these sources is noted and ignored. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

== He is a journalist that secretly records corruption. He doesn’t edit his videos, you can always find the full video. This Wikipedia page about him is an attack on freedom of speech and freedom of press. ==

Change it because is misleading 2A04:4A43:428F:D099:3D69:C692:809B:6BC2 (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can say that all you want; it's a free country. But since the reliable sources report otherwise, so does Wikipedia. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:23, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Any source that reports otherwise is not reliable. Eegorr (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to ignore the large number of sources that point out the multiple issues with his videos, but Wikipedia won't.  Ravensfire  (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Shaped Content
I thought I'd make a comment here about this article. It's made in good faith and I hope it's helpful.

Until this morning, I'd never heard of James O'Keefe (I'm not American, obv). I listened to an interview on a British podcast and then checked his Wikipedia article. I can see it's contentious. For the record, I am a moderate leftie. I have done some Wikipedia editing recently (do check my edits for a feel of that if you fancy) and I feel quite protective of the value Wikipedia generally brings to the world. It does seem to me that there's something not quite right about this article. It seems shaped to create a completely consistent, and negative, narrative about O'Keefe. If that's an accurate narrative, then fair enough. But it's so awfully consistent with, if you will, plotlines which run so flawlessly along with the general narrative that it does not seem authentically WP:NPOV. Stories are never that consistent in real life. O'Keefe may be a bad chap, I really can't judge properly based on the last hour or so, but this article presents him wearing a black hat at every turn, and those he has pursued as always wearing a white one. I cannot be bothered, frankly, to go through all the items listed, and there are far to many, but the NPR section is quite seriously flawed. The CEO of NPR was sacked over that case; it was a very serious hit indeed. Any news agency would have considered that a legitimate and even important story. Yet the sacking gets a single sentence after a previous one seemingly, but perhaps inadvertently, designed to draw some of the sting from it. The broad thrust of that section is O'Keefe - black hat, NPR (which sacked its CEO over the serious errors) - white hat. There also seems to be far too much content which seems very small beer designed for inclusion to create a particular vector. @valijean says above that Wikipedia editors job is to include pretty much everything reliable sources say, but this is not correct. That would not be editing. I have noticed at some other biographical articles - which is what I'm quite interested in - that they are manipulated mainly not by cutting things but by adding things. The latter is easier to justify in each case, yet done poorly (or purposefully) creates an imbalanced article with, again, a fairly obvious vector.

I hasten to add two points. First, I have used cowboy hats above to refer to a simplistic goodie/bad dichotomy (in the old movies, the hero would wear the black or white hat he didn't normally wear so loved ones would see the wrong hat on the hatstand and know something was wrong...). I hope this is fine in the US, but if it is not I will edit it and use another analogy. Second, I am not suggesting bad faith editing for a moment. I am suggesting that a number of editing trends have come together to create a dodgy Wikipedia article. That said, I have no interest in getting involved in a war so I simply make these comments in the hope others reflect on it if they're interested and in that way make a modest contribution to improving the article. All the best Emmentalist (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the article did not explain NPR CEO Vivian Schiller's resignation. I edited that paragraph with a contemporaneous description from the LA Times of the resignation. I found no reliable sources which say that O'Keefe's video implicated Vivian Schiller in any way. Your notion that he found or created some "serious errors" on her part doesn't seem to be supported.
 * Regarding your doubt that O'Keefe is uniformly a "black hat" whose work has no redeeming social value: if there are examples that are reliably attested and sufficiently noteworthy, they can be included in this article. -- M.boli (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Gosh, M.boli, I just made a single Google search and this article about Schiller's resignation being all about O'Keefe's video (on the world's 3rd most read newspaper website) came out at the top. Have you tried Google? Or maybe Safari? They're big search engines, just in case you're still using Webcrawler or something. ;-) All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The Guardian article does not say that the NPR CEO was implicated in any way by O'Keefe's video, neither does it allege she did anything wrong. It says she "fell on her sword" due to the public brou-ha-ha. The LA Times article which I cited in this Wikipedia page says the same thing, with additional information about Congressional funding. Over and out. -- M.boli (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, you may 'out' M.boli, but I'm not. My point above is that the CEO of NPR was sacked over the video. It's quite obvious she was in all the reportage. Literally no-one has suggested she was personally a feature of the video, least of all me. My point further above, which most most certainly stands, is that one organisation doing a video hit on a major news agency which directly results in the resignation of that agency is most certainly a scoop any news organisation would be proud of. The article is biased and this needs to be corrected. All the best Emmentalist (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * That the CEO of NPR was terminated because of the fallout from the video is accurately described in this article and in Schiller's article also. You pointed out that this article did not explain the connection, I beefed up the article accordingly. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and not a venue for breathlessly reporting 11 year old news, regardless of whether they were "scoops." The Project Veritas NPR deception is accurately described in Wikipedia, as is the fallout from same. -- M.boli (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Not identified as journalist?
On what basis are we not identifying him as a journalist? Why would CPJ publish this if he was not a journalist on some level?

Is there a COI with news outlets O’Keefe has targeted, like the NYT, and their label of choice, which would determine what we use? CPJ is nonprofit, so less of a COI there. 2600:1012:B04F:B6AF:3907:530D:3B39:52AC (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Good citation! I included it in the article. I also took the liberty of fleshing out the citation within your post, so people could see it better. Thank you!
 * As for your question, I suppose if there were reliable sources characterizing O'Keefe as a journalist, we could include it. CPJ expressed a parallel between law enforcement raiding the PV people and raiding journalists for sources. However CPJ described PV as "conducts exposés on groups it considers left-leaning" and amplifies disinformation. In short, CPJ didn't describe O'Keefe as committing journalism. -- M.boli (talk)
 * “The documents, a series of memos written by the group’s lawyer, detail ways for Project Veritas sting operations — which typically diverge from standard journalistic practice by employing people who mask their real identities or create fake ones to infiltrate target organizations — to avoid breaking federal statutes such as the law against lying to government officials.”


 * The article is titled “ Project Veritas and the Line Between Journalism and Political Spying”. At least we should say it’s a topic of dispute. That’s different than not identifying him as one, or identifying him as a non-journalist (which implicitly is what we are doing). 2600:1012:B02B:6EE:601F:B15:3A18:7918 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That article, which is amply referenced in the Project Veritas Wikipedia article, is about how PV is different from journalism. The story starts with O'Keefe's claim that PV a) stays legal and b) does journalism. Then the rest of the Times article shows that a) it is legal and b) it is not journalism. The very sentence you quote describes what PV does as "sting operations" which they say "diverge from standard journalistic practices." Later they consulted a journalism professor, former editor at two major news organizations, about the two questions. He said the legal advice is sound but the practices are not what journalists do. Nowhere does the article say journalism is what PV does, except as a characterization by PV or its lawyers. -- M.boli (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The NYT is in active litigation with PV and is a shit source to cite, regardless of your reading of it. 174.193.129.181 (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay boomer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022
Project Veritas is NOT a far right activist group. They have exposed voter fraud from people on the right as well as the left. To call them far-right is false. They are more center-right. 136.49.163.23 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

New Hampshire double-voter
I moved the 2020 New Hampshire double-voter allegation to the Project Veritas wikipedia article. It is not clear why so many PV items are duplicated in this James O'Keefe article. In any case, it seems to have been a genuine incident, reported by reliable sources. It was reverted from this page because the writeup relied too heavily on PV's own videos. I kept only the one video with the allegation, it is suitable as a reference for the statement that PV released a video with the allegation. The rest of the paragraph is sourced from reliable sources. -- M.boli (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks @M.boli. I'm the one who added that section, and I think it makes sense on the Project Veritas Wikipedia article. I do have some feedback on your using the word "man" however-- the person who was prosecuted was using both male and female identities while voting twice, so I liked using a non-gender specific term. It's not clear to me if the person who got prosecuted is trans, or if it was just a silly disguise when the person committed their crime. I get that it sounds awkward but I think it's worth it in this instance to avoid controversy.
 * I also agree with your overall point about too many duplications of videos between the two pages -- but shouldn't we move more of these to avoid being redundant? How do you think we fix the issue overall.
 * Also, someone whom I was disagreeing with on an unrelated article also went and deleted my addition here of the hot mic video where Amy Robach complained that her network quashed her Jeffrey Epstein reporting. I don't want that unrelated disagreement with the other editor to continue to spiral, so I didn't add that one back in yet. What do you think?  JArthur1984 (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Robach hot-mic video, there is a Jeffrey Epstein story heading on the Amy Robach wikipedia web page. The Project Veritas wikipedia page has a short paragraph ABC not broadcasting Jeffrey Epstein accuser, with a main article pointer to the Robach page writeup. So I guess you could put something similar here: a short description with a main-article pointer to the main entry.
 * Regarding the issue of duplicated content: I'm reluctant to undertake the restructuring that would be needed to refer a lot of PV-related content over to the PV page. PV and James O'Keefe are hard to separate in the public mind. Also the practical details of merging content of two pages on a contentious topic seems likely to raise a lot of disagreements, it is a swamp I am reluctant to step into.
 * By the way, thank you for finding and including the three reliable sources for the New Hampshire double voter incident. That made it fairlyh painless to create the paragraph for that incident on the PV page. -- M.boli (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the gender specific terms for the New Hampshire double-voter: I didn't think about that question when I edited the paragraph. But all the sources all refer to the perp as "man" and "him", so I guess it is harmless. -- M.boli (talk) 00:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestion on the Robach point and added it.  JArthur1984 (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Why was "bait" removed?
the source says " two of his collaborators tried to bait Democratic field staffers into approving voter fraud involving Colorado’s universal vote-by-mail program," Doug Weller  talk 10:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like that editor was trying to make the article more neutrally worded, which is a very good goal as there are issues here, but "bait" doesn't seem too contentious and is supported by the source. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We shouldn't interpret sources. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * From the 'Perennial Sources' wiki page, "There is consensus that Mother Jones is generally reliable. Almost all editors consider Mother Jones a biased source, so its statements (particularly on political topics) may need to be attributed" [emphasis added].
 * Contrarily, we have National Review's report on the matter - a 'differently biased' source, https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/10/james-okeefe-strikes-again-john-fund/, which unsurprisingly nowhere uses the term 'bait'.
 * Is Mother Jones the most appropriate (or only) source for this article? I don't think so. Is using the more pejorative, rather salacious characterization 'bait', rather than the more directly descriptive 'induce', the more neutral path? I would say so. Is it 'interpreting' sources to characterize them neutrally? That's a new one on me.
 * I'd be happy to add the NatRev source to provide balance to the content.Anastrophe (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your approach of removing "bait" and using a different but comparable source sounds to me like a good way to address the issue. I support it. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Much better to find a real reliable source with no caveats, esp for a BLP. Doug Weller  talk 20:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I found a Denver Post article and took a shot at re-working this subsection based on the Denver Post. It turned out that as previously written, this was not a very accurate summary of what had occurred anyway. I did retain Mother Jones for a couple of sentences that were more directly made by the Mother Jones article. JArthur1984 (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @JArthur1984 Thanks. That's the sort of source we should be using whenever possible. Doug Weller  talk 08:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for accepting and further cleaning up my edits. It seems fine to me now. As noted in a previous talkpage discussion, PV and O'K articles contain a lot of duplication. I'll add the Denver Post reference over there. -- M.boli (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thank you. JArthur1984 (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Citizen journalist"
"Citizen journalist" is evidently how O'Keefe describes himself. Many news articles note he self-describes as a "citizen journalist." To my mind including "self-described 'citizen journalist'" in the lede sentences is debatable, it could go either way.
 * On the one hand, O'Keefe is a right-wing activist and provocateur. It is what makes him notable, it is what he does, adding his self-description can muddy the lede.
 * On the other hand, knowing that he describes himself that way is a short and direct help toward understanding the O'Keefe phenomenon.

There is no evidence that O'Keefe commits any kind of journalism. Wiki-linking O'Keefe's self-serving self-description to actual journalism, even of the citizen-journalism variety, strikes me as a disservice. -- M.boli (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * You may not like what he does, but he is an investigative journalist. He/Project Veritas are described as journalists in quite a number of legal actions, including ACLU's amicus brief in PJ v New York Times. Anastrophe (talk) 23:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, is any of that in an RS where it can be cited? JArthur1984 (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * from the ACLU, I presume RS:
 * https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/project-veritas-v-new-york-times-amicus-brief
 * and here is the decision, in which the judge referred to PJ as "Plaintiff Project Veritas, a non-profit journalistic organization ("Veritas")". True, James O'Keefe is not PJ in toto, but the distinction is small.
 * https://casetext.com/case/project-veritas-v-ny-times-co
 * Anastrophe (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Journalism is just "the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the "news of the day" and that informs society to at least some degree." (If we use the current wikipedia definition).
 * Or if we want to use a dictionary definition, "the collection and editing of news for presentation through the media"
 * And so he is clearly a "journalist." It doesn't really matter if we think he's a "good" or "bad" journalist, insightful or sloppy, reporting with a slant or with neutrality, whether we dislike or like the videos, if we think his audience is crazy or not, etc.
 * By the way, you and I have together edited parts of this page that show O'Keefe does journalism. Think back to that Amy Robach hot mic story about ABC suppressing her Epstein reporting, or the Colorado story where some staffers took the bait about absentee ballot fraud, or the New Hampshire voter who got prosecuted for voter fraud and the NH Attorney General's office had to reform its procedures (that was the one you moved to the Project Veritas page). JArthur1984 (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What O'Keefe does is amply described in this article and the PV article. Actual journalism professionals and academics say it isn't, the quote in this article reception section is representative.
 * And since somebody mentioned the ACLU, I'll quote the ACLU press release on the FBI raids on O'Keefe et al.: "Project Veritas has engaged in disgraceful deceptions, and reasonable observers might not consider their activities to be journalism at all." The ACLU was opposed to the raids, but not because O'Keefe is legitimately a journalist.
 * Occasionally getting something correct in a career of manufacturing agitprop doesn't make somebody a journalist. The three incidents you mention are all deceptive propaganda on the whole. It is incumbent on Wikipedia to be accurate and balanced, I tried to do that, and appreciate that you and I can cooperate on this endeavor in good faith. -- M.boli (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My reason for bringing those three videos up was just because you said "there is no evidence that O'Keefe commits any kind of journalism," so I was reminding you of three examples of O'Keefe journalism that I know you've specifically read about in the past.
 * But the concrete question you ask is focused on whether self-described guerrilla (or citizen) journalist should be in the lead. We've got the negative labels ("provocateur", "deceptive editing," "attacks") more than well represented in the lead, it's important to represent the other view, especially since this is a BLP. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You left out the line immediately after in ACLU's statement: "Nevertheless, the precedent set in this case could have serious consequences for press freedom.", with regard to the raid on O'Keefe's premises over speech. Substitute "journalistic" for "press" as you please. Frankly, the sorts of tactics JO'K and PJ engage in are precisely the same sort of sting investigative journalism that's been going on since forever. The "problem" is that they do it from the right. Anastrophe (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You are creating a narrative of victimhood with your last sentence. At Wikipedia, we go with WP:RS. Insinuating that the article’s subject is “from the right” and that’s why he is not described as a journalist is disingenuous. His work as described by dozens of RS already cited in the article involves manipulatively editing undercover content to create a false narrative. That is why RS does not call him a journalist. If you have any helpful edits I would be happy to hear them. But please consider not insinuating some level of bias unfairly attacking conservatives; that is not helpful nor something that is reason to make additions to this article or any article here. Tyrone (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please fix your indentation. Thanks for your interpretation of what I wrote. And for the condescension. Recommended reading: WP:CIVIL. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That was seriously snarky. My apologies. I disagree with your interpretation of what I wrote. On an entirely different note, there's something goofy, or at least odd, with your signature construction. Not exactly sure what, but I'd be happy to try to figure it out with you if desired.. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm still not seeing any sources or evidence that O'Keefe is a journalist. Start with the ACLU brief. Twice in the middle of this 100 page document, the brief refers to legal advice that PV receives about how to do journalistic operations. That's it. This is an awfully thin thread to hang a claim that James O'Keefe does journalism. The New York Times article in question --- which I used in some edits here by the way --- is about how PV gets good advice from journalism lawyers on how to stay on the right side of the law. And in the same NYT article experts explain that what PV does isn't journalism. (Also my understanding, from having been dinged on this in the past, is there is a Wikipedia guideline against using court filings as sources. But clearly they are sometimes used as sources, so there might be some nuances there.)


 * An ironic aside. The ACLU brief is about press freedom from prior restraint. The ACLU brief defends the NYT journalism from PV's prior restraint. It is a bit ironic that PV demanding government suppression of legitimate journalists is being held up as evidence that James O'Keefe is a journalist.


 * The Colorado 2014 mail-in voting incident. It was the subject of three sources cited. The news story was that PV people pretending to be interested campaigners showed up an multiple politically active organizations and tried to suborn election fraud. They were kicked out of almost all places they showed up. They recorded a couple of people appearing to go along with illegal schemes, but these people didn't agree to do anything and PV did not succeed in suborning illegal behavior. Did PV then publish a news report? No, they published a deceptive propaganda video. They left it to the real journalists to follow up with yet another installment of the ongoing news story PV again publishes deceptive propaganda.


 * I completely agree that PV occasionally finds some wrongdoing and publishes it. The New Hampshire voting fraudster's case was just sitting in the AG's office, unprosecuted. It is proper to put in the Wikipedia article that PV found and publicized this problem, and the AG seems to have reacted appropriately. I haven't viewed the PV report to see if it is an honest accounting, honestly framed, of what they found. But looking at the long list of O'Keefe and PV's activities, it sort of doesn't matter. Taken as a whole, what PV does very much ain't journalism.


 * Having said that, I go back to my original statement. I think that O'Keefe's own description of his activities is helpful to the reader of this article, for understanding his activities and how his activities are perceived by his audience. I think it is good to include that in the lede paragraph, because it works well as a one-phrase explanation. (Which is likely why O'Keefe uses it.) But I have a problem with using Wikipedia voice to say that O'Keefe is a journalist. -- M.boli (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the resolution for now is to leave as self-described guerilla journalist in the first sentence. A change to Wikivoice can be addressed when/if someone has specific language with sourcing. I still don't think the quotes are necessary around "guerilla journalist", they seem duplicated by the phrase self-described which already communicates that we are quoting O'Keefe himself and makes the marks superfluous and read as scare quotes. But, I don't want to bog down on the issue of quote marks around guerilla journalist if there's major disagreement with my quotation mark interpretation JArthur1984 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think that it's leadworthy; per WP:MISSIONSTATEMENT, self-descriptions like that are generally considered inappropriate for the lead unless backed up by strong secondary sourcing to show that they're taken seriously. --Aquillion (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I‘m a citizen nuclear, time traveling, proctologist. No problem with such in the text along with self-described. Iffy in the lead without great care. Do we suggest that all terrorists are freedom fighters in leads because they all self-describe as such? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Additional information
James O’Keefe is an award-winning journalist and writer. He is the founder and President of Project Veritas and Project Veritas Action, non-profit organizations dedicated to investigating corruption, dishonesty, waste and fraud in both public and private institutions.

James O’Keefe’s investigations have led directly to the passage of new legislation, federal and state investigations, congressional inquiries, the de-funding of taxpayer-funded groups, resignations, firings, re-trainings and disciplinary action.

O’Keefe’s investigations have exposed voter fraud, corruption at ACORN, bias at NPR, racial discrimination at Planned Parenthood, corruption at Enroll America and Battleground Texas, incompetence in Medicaid, hypocritical Hollywood environmentalists, Al Sharpton, the heartbreaking failures of the VA, and lawbreaking in Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. He famously crossed the border dressed as Osama bin Laden and ISIS terrorists. Richinstead (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for you to write whatever you like about your favorite political figures. We require content to be reliably sourced. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

“Far right” or “right wing” terms need to go
The political references of “far right” or “right wing” terms need to go. Those are like adding the moniker “crazy” or “beautiful” to a persons bio. It’s opinion, not fact, and not measurable. Please remove. Richinstead (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the article. Your screed above reveals you haven't done that. He and PV are dishonest.
 * What he did to Abbie Boudreau was so nasty and unforgivable that his own people sabotaged him. He's no hero.
 * Multiple RS describe him and the actions of PV as far-right, so we are required to do the same. If you are unwilling to follow policy, then stop editing political articles. Be a wiki gnome instead and stay away from controversial topics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been explained to you over and over regarding Doug Mastriano. It's not opinion when there are sources backing it up. Political ideology is a real thing that is studied academically. It's not subjective. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * He is far-right according to multiple WP:RS. It is an objective term, and comparing it to words like "crazy" or "beautiful" is a false equivalency. Saxones288 (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, keep it in. Andre🚐 00:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2023
In the first paragraph, change “political activist” to “journalist” and “far-right … group” to “independent media company. Because FACTS DON’T HAVE BIASES. And disagreeing with that is bias. 2600:1700:55B0:7C60:A5A7:3D5F:A70E:55B2 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * -- thanks for asking... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Deceptive Editing is not true
There is no proof that they use deceptive editing. 66.218.36.249 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is well sourced. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023
In the first paragraph, change "uses deceptive editing techniques to attack" to "uses investigative journalism techniques to uncover scandals in" 96.82.50.189 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That’s not true too. Pzifer employee caught on the video and it’s proved. Game over!
That’s not true too. Pzifer employee caught on the video and it’s proved. Game over! Mutating on purpose on vaxxed people for just a profits. 2600:8804:1500:2CC0:9CCA:6666:1D0B:97C6 (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any actual reliable sources for this, or just O'Keefe? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Remove the quote “uses deceptive editing techniques to attack” unless you can provide a credible source for this claim
You can’t tell us to give you a source proving that deceptive editing is not being used; the burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. this is known as the “philosophic burden of proof.”

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot 2600:1700:1F2:D870:3C6F:C0E3:41C5:EA27 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In the current version, you can consult references #90 and #164. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Massive duplication of text between this article and Project Veritas.
This article copies huge amounts of the text as Project Veritas. I think that generally speaking, that text should only go there unless it's specifically about O'Keefe. The fact that he's resigned from it makes this more obvious - the organization isn't him, and never was, so detailing coverage of it here makes no sense. --Aquillion (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree.
 * This might be a bit of a project, because the two articles may have diverged somewhat in their desriptions of the incidents. So some updates which occurred on the O'Keefe article would be merged into the corresponding section of the PV article.
 * I think the result should be highly condensed summaries of the PV projects in this article, with a main-article pointer for each summary. It would be a mistake to completely erase the PV projects from this article. O'Keefe ran the organization and its operations, he was the public face, he in effect narrated a lot of their work.
 * I can work on this, if that's what people decide. -- M.boli (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the result should be highly condensed summaries of the PV projects in this article, with a main-article pointer for each summary. It would be a mistake to completely erase the PV projects from this article. I absolutely agree with you on this, definitely the best way forward. I'll help however I can but would definitely endorse you working on it. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * There definitely needs to be some editing done to this article, especially with the recent news of the separation of James O'Keefe from Project Veritas. It is important to keep notable PV projects in his article as his history is very interconnected with PV, but a strong editing of O'Keefe's article is warranted. Pickalittletalkalittle (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2023
You put up deceptively edit, well if you put that on this group you have to put it on all news outlets because abc did it with the Kentucky gun show saying it was the slaughter of the curds and I have plenty more so you will be fixing this or face getting exposed 2600:1017:B104:FCF5:35A4:409:EEB4:D4AA (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, cupcake. We like being exposed.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ It is unclear how the request relates to this article. It seems that in October 2019 ABC World News Tonight showed an incorrect video in conjunction with a report on a Turkish invasion of Syrian territory. The video showed activity at a gun range in Kentucky. ABC news retracted the video and apologized for the mistake the next morning. Contemporaneous news sources describing this blooper are easy to find. If you think this was a notable, encyclopedia-worthy event, I suggest you post an edit request at the ABC News article. -- M.boli (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Incomplete picture of Reception
Conservative political groups view James O'Keefe as a champion for uncovering government abuse and waste. His videos enjoy viral spreading. Upon separation from Project Veritas - His Twitter followers increased dramatically while PV followers dropped correspondingly. 67.8.79.180 (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can document that using reliable sources, we might be able to update both articles. What do you have? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Likely not possible. Despite Wikipedia's purported mission statement, it became just another tool in the modern propaganda war the moment articles became protectable from public edit. Now only "approved" ideas are accepted, which means those with clout and money, chiefly those with government backing.
 * So, the idea that a right-wing outlet would offer up their support for a man who's lost his own support in Project Veritas? Merely so they can update the wording of a far-left propaganda outlet to be slightly less prejudicial? That's just laughable.
 * What happened to the days when Wikipedia didn't involve themselves in prejudiced and predatory language? Why is proof now required to remove one line of many prejudices? What will happen when this newly-minted war machine is inevitably turned upon yet another minority? You know, as history tells us they always are.
 * I ask not because I expect you to change this article. You can't. I know even if you wanted to, you can't. Even if you did, it'd just get re-worded to be prejudiced in some other way. I merely want you to think about what level of prejudice you find acceptable. I want you to consider whether any level of prejudice, to say nothing of THIS travesty of an article, is something that we as a civil society should find acceptable. 24.61.163.167 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)


 * what has happened in recent years is the advent of bot-assisted social media trolls who have succeeded in driving lies viral on a massive scale such that people believe popular = true and they come here convinced such trash belongs here, and if it isn't allowed then it's just totally unfair, and sometimes articles need to be protected to prevent determined vandals from forcing trash into articles. then, when they see they can't find reliable sources that support falsehoods they've been led to believe are true, well, Wikipedia is just left-wing propaganda. you can't find any reliable sources to support what someone wrote in the first paragraph here? not one? soibangla (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Add Right-Wing
For those of you who continue to revert my changes despite citing multiple journalistic sources, I'm curious on why you are doing this. I don't like James O'Keefe and I'm not defending him. This was a simple edit to be as accurate as possible with a controversial person. CNN, NPR, The Independent, etc have refereed to Project Veritas a "Right-Wing" activist group. I included the citations. User Greyfell said it was "Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, and weasel-words about being "right wing" isn't appropriate" I wasn't using weasel-words, I don't see how saying "right-wing" isn't accurate, they're literally described as such. You're really showing bias here.

Here's a list of describing them as such:

https://apnews.com/article/workplace-culture-florida-james-okeefe-business-1df6176308a14577ce9ba603fd227237

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/21/1158505780/project-veritas-james-okeefe-forced-out-financial-malfeasance

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/20/james-okeefe-exits-project-veritas/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/20/business/james-okeefe-project-veritas/index.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-okeefe-was-never-going-to-leave-project-veritas-quietly

https://journalnow.com/asheville-woman-suing-right-wing-group-project-veritas-founder-for-libel/article_8ba28850-3269-52ea-9e11-cb6cf571869e.html Noshisenpai (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * See the FAQ at the top of the page. We don't care whether or not you like him. Many sources consistently describe O'Keefe as far-right. Few, if any, reliable sources dispute this, not even those you have cited, since far-right is a subset of right wing. "also described as" is textbook WP:WEASEL since it was being used to imply a distinction which is not supported by sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling them "right-wing" doesn't meet the definition of weseal words. They are described as such by reputable outlets. It would be fair to say "they are described as right-wing" or "far-right". If you're telling me CNN, NPR, Washington Post, etc are not reliable enough sources to change this description. I believe your intent is to implement a biased narrative within this specific article Noshisenpai (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The terminology that we use to refer to a group is based upon an overall source review of how they are described. We already have a dozen high quality sources which describe it as "far-right." This has been subject to numerous voluminous discussions at Talk:Project Veritas, which had a consensus in favor of "far-right" as the descriptor. That's why your edit was reverted. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes and I'm giving you a list of reputable outlets that describes them as the same "right-wing" they are some of the same journalistic outlets that refer to them as "far-right" from that perspective it seems fair to include both definitions as they fit both.
 * Yes and I'm giving you a list of reputable outlets that describes them as the same "right-wing" they are some of the same journalistic outlets that refer to them as "far-right" from that perspective it seems fair to include both definitions of "right-wing" and "far-right" as they fit both described by journalistic outlets. Noshisenpai (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * from that perspective it seems fair to include both definitions of "right-wing" and "far-right" as they fit both described by journalistic outlets Nope. As I said, things on wikipedia are determined via consensus, and we have a consensus that the most accurate descriptor is "far-right." You may disagree, but that's how this website works, and it doesn't move based on your (or my) personal opinion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Who exactly is "we"? You're saying "it doesn't move based on your (or my) personal opinion." However, this appears to me, based on a few users opinions not as a general consensus, if you can link me where this was discussed that would be helpful as I'm not as savvy on some of these things on Wikipedia. It seems to me that ignoring reputable pundits and journalistic outlets to specifically label a group only far-right, despite reputable journalists labeling them differently; is politically motivated or at a minimum biased towards them, which does go against Wiki's rules. Noshisenpai (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - these discussions are what I was referencing. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's covered by the FAQ at the top of this page. Not sure why anyone is wasting time on this. --McSly (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's lovely that you see properly labeling groups on a freely edited encyclopedia as a waste of time. I'm not of the same opinion. Please don't comment if you have nothing to contribute. Noshisenpai (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ at the top of the page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. It seems like an issue to take up on the Project Veritas wiki discussion. I will do that. Noshisenpai (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you can also read the FAQ on that page to save you the time. --McSly (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Add Right-Wing
For those of you who continue to revert my changes despite citing multiple journalistic sources, I'm curious on why you are doing this. I don't like James O'Keefe and I'm not defending him. This was a simple edit to be as accurate as possible with a controversial person. CNN, NPR, The Independent, etc have refereed to Project Veritas a "Right-Wing" activist group. I included the citations. User Greyfell said it was "Wikipedia isn't a platform for public relations, and weasel-words about being "right wing" isn't appropriate" I wasn't using weasel-words, I don't see how saying "right-wing" isn't accurate, they're literally described as such. You're really showing bias here.

Here's a list of describing them as such:

https://apnews.com/article/workplace-culture-florida-james-okeefe-business-1df6176308a14577ce9ba603fd227237

https://www.npr.org/2023/02/21/1158505780/project-veritas-james-okeefe-forced-out-financial-malfeasance

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/20/james-okeefe-exits-project-veritas/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/20/business/james-okeefe-project-veritas/index.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-okeefe-was-never-going-to-leave-project-veritas-quietly

https://journalnow.com/asheville-woman-suing-right-wing-group-project-veritas-founder-for-libel/article_8ba28850-3269-52ea-9e11-cb6cf571869e.html Noshisenpai (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * See the FAQ at the top of the page. We don't care whether or not you like him. Many sources consistently describe O'Keefe as far-right. Few, if any, reliable sources dispute this, not even those you have cited, since far-right is a subset of right wing. "also described as" is textbook WP:WEASEL since it was being used to imply a distinction which is not supported by sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling them "right-wing" doesn't meet the definition of weseal words. They are described as such by reputable outlets. It would be fair to say "they are described as right-wing" or "far-right". If you're telling me CNN, NPR, Washington Post, etc are not reliable enough sources to change this description. I believe your intent is to implement a biased narrative within this specific article Noshisenpai (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The terminology that we use to refer to a group is based upon an overall source review of how they are described. We already have a dozen high quality sources which describe it as "far-right." This has been subject to numerous voluminous discussions at Talk:Project Veritas, which had a consensus in favor of "far-right" as the descriptor. That's why your edit was reverted. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes and I'm giving you a list of reputable outlets that describes them as the same "right-wing" they are some of the same journalistic outlets that refer to them as "far-right" from that perspective it seems fair to include both definitions as they fit both.
 * Yes and I'm giving you a list of reputable outlets that describes them as the same "right-wing" they are some of the same journalistic outlets that refer to them as "far-right" from that perspective it seems fair to include both definitions of "right-wing" and "far-right" as they fit both described by journalistic outlets. Noshisenpai (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * from that perspective it seems fair to include both definitions of "right-wing" and "far-right" as they fit both described by journalistic outlets Nope. As I said, things on wikipedia are determined via consensus, and we have a consensus that the most accurate descriptor is "far-right." You may disagree, but that's how this website works, and it doesn't move based on your (or my) personal opinion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Who exactly is "we"? You're saying "it doesn't move based on your (or my) personal opinion." However, this appears to me, based on a few users opinions not as a general consensus, if you can link me where this was discussed that would be helpful as I'm not as savvy on some of these things on Wikipedia. It seems to me that ignoring reputable pundits and journalistic outlets to specifically label a group only far-right, despite reputable journalists labeling them differently; is politically motivated or at a minimum biased towards them, which does go against Wiki's rules. Noshisenpai (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * - these discussions are what I was referencing. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's covered by the FAQ at the top of this page. Not sure why anyone is wasting time on this. --McSly (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's lovely that you see properly labeling groups on a freely edited encyclopedia as a waste of time. I'm not of the same opinion. Please don't comment if you have nothing to contribute. Noshisenpai (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ at the top of the page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that. It seems like an issue to take up on the Project Veritas wiki discussion. I will do that. Noshisenpai (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you can also read the FAQ on that page to save you the time. --McSly (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

What about OMG and the Veritas lawsuit?
James O'Keefe is no longer with Veritas, yes? 158.123.57.254 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Gannett
Why did yall remove the reference to Gannett? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gannett --Massintel (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry now Tegna. Massintel (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)