Talk:Kenneth O'Keefe

Removing sections that do not have any reliable sources
I removed the following sections from the article since they are not supported by any WP:RS, thus failing WP:V. If anyone wants to reinsert them, I suggest opening a new section here on the talk page and including the relevant reliable sources.

In 1999 O'Keefe became an active supporter of the Hawaiian Independence Movement. He also began the process of formally renouncing his US citizenship. In November 2000 he naturalized as a Hawaiian citizen, served as the election commissioner for the Hawaiian Kingdom elections and professed his allegiance to the Kingdom of Hawaii and a "reinstated Hawaiian government". On November 30, 2000 O'Keefe (at the time known as Kenneth Nichols) was issued with a bench warrant for his arrest in the amount of $11,000. O'Keefe claims that this warrant was unlawfully issued and that this was proof of US government persecution. He officially entered this claim into his asylum request in The Netherlands. In January 2001 he produced 'The United States of Hypocrisy', an attack on American imperialism that charges current administrations of the United States with continuing fraud by ongoing theft of Hawaiian national lands. He also charged the US Government with carrying out an unstated policy of genocide in Hawaii by the measuring of "blood quantum." In his film former president of the American Indian Movement, Russell Means, claims that only two other nations have used blood quantum, "Nazi Germany to measure Jews and Gypsies" and the "Apartheid regime to identify blacks in South Africa." O'Keefe's charge in the film is that the US measuring of blood is intended to eliminate Hawaiian nationals by making citizenship status contingent upon a 50% blood quantum. He says that, over time, the Hawaiian people (kanaka maoli) will have diminished blood quantum below 50% and the policy of genocide will be complete, allowing the US to take adverse possession of Hawaiian national lands.
 * Involvement in Hawaiian independence

In 2006 he returned to Hawaii and was elected as a representative of District 6 in Oahu, serving one year in the Hawaiian Legislature. During that time he wrote resolutions calling for the ratification of international human rights treaties in Hawaii, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He also wrote and lobbied for a resolution that would outlaw weapons of mass destruction in Hawaii; that resolution was subsequently approved in June 2007. In the aftermath of 9-11, in November 2001, O'Keefe left his family and business in Hawaii to seek political asylum in the Netherlands, claiming increasing persecution from US agents over his political activities. O'Keefe's claim was determined to require a long procedure that typically takes several years for a final decision. While in the asylum procedure he lived in a refugee camp in the north of The Netherlands, in Stadskanaal. Initially he represented himself, but later he secured pro bono services of Dutch asylum attorney, Pieter Bogaers. Understanding that the process would take years and seeing the upcoming invasion of Iraq he removed himself from the asylum process and initiated the human shield action to Iraq in December 2002. In 2004 O'Keefe founded P10K and attempted to organize a group known as the "P10K Force", a group of 10,000 Westerners intended to act as international observers in the occupied Palestinian territories and help bring peace with Israel. P10K secured endorsements from Noam Chomsky, former Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, Tanya Reinhart along with Israelis who refuse to serve in the IDF. O’Keefe sought meetings with leaders within the main resisting factions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades in order to obtain an ‘Agreement in Principle’ that would effect a ceasefire in return for the arrival of the 10,000 international observers within the ‘P10K Force.’ He was arrested for attempting to enter Gaza. The IDF offered to release him if he signed an agreement stating that he would not attempt to re-enter Gaza; O'Keefe refused and spent twenty days in jail before being deported as a security threat. While in Israeli custody he initiated a hunger strike, alleging he was being beaten and denied access to an attorney and use of a phone to call his family. In 2007 O'Keefe joined the Free Gaza Movement and in July 2008 he arrived in Greece to serve as a captain and first mate in the transport of two boats to Gaza via Cyprus. The Free Gaza mission was an open challenge to the Israeli blockade of Gaza. Ultimately he was one of 46 who succeeded in reaching Gaza by sea despite Israeli threats all the way up to departure from Cyprus. The boats arrived in Gaza on August 23, 2008, the first boats to sail into Gaza for 41 years, tens of thousands of Palestinians greeted them as they arrived. O'Keefe piloted one of the two boats, the 'Free Gaza,' into the Port of Gaza. O'Keefe and Lauren Booth co-founded Aloha Palestine, a social enterprise to conduct 'safe trade' with Palestinians in Gaza. Aloha Palestine is supported by Noam Chomsky, Tony Benn, UK MP Jeremy Corbyn, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet and John Pilger. "'The commercial exchange of non-hazardous items that pose no danger to society. Trade conducted transparently and fairly that develops prosperity while fostering stability and building security in the region where it is conducted.'"
 * Seeking political asylum in The Netherlands (this one has sources, but they're in Dutch. I asked for a translation a few months ago but nobody bothered)
 * P10K and international observers in Palestine
 * Free Gaza Movement
 * Aloha Palestine
 * Safe trade

the above was me No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And I removed the following:
 * Marine conservation in Hawaii
 * In 1996 O'Keefe created a social enterprise 'to protect and defend the marine environment we operate within". To date his scuba diving operation has conducted 13 ghost net recoveries and over 55 rescues of endangered Green Sea Turtle wrapped in monofilament fishing line. O'Keefe pioneered these rescues with over 40 such rescues personally, he also taught others his methods and led a campaign to create a marine sanctuary (Pupukea MLCD) on the North Shore of Oahu. In 1998 and 2000 he crewed with the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) in anti-whaling and sealing campaigns in which he was mentored by Captain Paul Watson. In 2000 he became the regional director for SSCS in Hawaii, earned a US Coast Guard captain's license and was branded the 'ecopreneur' by Skin Diver Magazine, the worlds largest selling scuba diving magazine.

above posted by Cptnono

O'Keefe is an ex-U.S. Marine who served in the 1991 Gulf War and subsequently spoke about the use of depleted uranium as a crime against humanity and the US military allegedly using soldiers as "human guinea pigs" with experimental drugs that were directly linked to Gulf War syndrome. On January 7, 2004, O'Keefe burned his US passport in protest of American Imperialism and called for US troops to immediately withdrawal from Iraq. He replaced his US passport with a World Passport, subsequently proclaiming himself a "Citizen of the World" with "ultimate allegiance to my entire human family and to planet Earth."
 * Iraq War and related activism (sourced only to an interview and an article O'Keefe wrote)

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit attempt
I do not know if this is going to show up here. I attempted to edit Kenneth O'Keefe's page citing only documented sources. It seems they were edited out. These are nothing but facts

History of Ken O'Keefe's non-profits:

Universal Kinship Society, founded August 25, 1999, Involuntarily dissolved June 2, 2006

P10K according to Ken O'Keefe, a non-profit founded by him with the purpose of placing peace-keeping forces in Palestine

Website for P10K registered to Ken O'Keefe

Aloha Palestine, incorporated Oct 2008, documents available for purchase at Companies House

Deep Ecology Academy Inc., incorporated Jan 2010

— Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Facts2Please (talk • contribs)


 * Please read WP:RS and WP:N. Self published sources such as these are not enough to establish the notability required to include something in an article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about Mr. Nice Guy? Those are not "self published sources", they are government websites. For Universal Kinship Society and Deep Ecology Academy Inc. both are taken from Hawaii government source, the Aloha Palestine information is taken from Compainies House, the UK organization which registers corporations, CICs (community interest companies", the P10K website information is proven to be Ken O'Keefe's registered website by doing a domain search. How could you possibly state that these are "self published sources"?  Ken O'Keefe was soliciting funds for P10K via Paypal which has since closed and he claims clearly there that P10K is a registered non-profit.  Could you please explain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts2Please (talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * pk10.net is a self published source. The issue here isn't whether the companies exist or if Ken O'Keefe registered a domain. The issue is the notability of this information. You should also read WP:NOT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that I have provided documented proof of Ken O'Keefe's non-profit history. His Wiki page was recently edited to where several sentences have been edited to read, "O'Keefe said. Ken O'keefe's proven registered website "says" P10K is a registered non-profit.  It had a paypal attached to it in which he was taking funds in from what he "said" that website represented, a registered non-profit.  Would you be satisfied if that portion of the edit I attempted to make was reworded accordingly?  I already proved the website is registered to him  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts2Please (talk • contribs) 23:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You need this information to be covered by a 3rd party reliable source, in a non-trivial way. Read the links I gave you above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me no more mr. nice guy, what other reliable source is needed other than GOVERNMENT websites? It is not "trivial information" when this is the way in which his various ventures have been funded, through these very non-profits. This is his business history, he now states that Aloha Palestine is his employer and he is the director of the company. I will now give you the links to some of the documentation concerning that.

Articles of incorporation

Change to a Community Interest Company

Late filing/strike notice sent October 2010

Filings for Aloha Palestine made in Dec

Note that this last filing will make it clear, also from the previous document search given for Companies House for all documents concerning Aloha Palestine, that the only two people on the board of directors are Ken O'Keef and Fadwa Dajani who claims to be his wife. Please note that I am stating "claim" because this is the claim by Fadwa herself, and by Mr. O'Keefe without having proof of a marriage license to link to here per your claim that documentation is needed for everything, yet government documents still are not satisfactory for you.

What more proof is needed other than a website for this corporation and then even that is not needed to verify because the company exists.

Aloha Palestine website

Is there any reason you can give for attempting to keep verifiable information from government websites being added to his Wikipedia page when it concerns the business/non-profit history of Mr. O'Keefe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts2Please (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We need *secondary* sources. Primary sources, such as government official records, tell us a certain limited fact is true.  But, they give us no context.  They give no explanation.  More importantly, they don't show how significant or notable something is.  Also, aside from sourcing, your addition to the article was frankly a mess.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not a dumping ground for all true information.  Even we could use the facts provided, we need it presented in a better form.  You should read and edit other articles, to learn what a good article is.  You should look at articles you don't have a personal connection to.  Unfortunately, if you are personally connected to a topic, it is often impossible to write in a beneficial manner.  So, you may need to just move on.   --Rob (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop creating multiple users to make the same edits. This kind of behavior will likely get you blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Puppets
I object 100%. I have not created multiple users to try to do anything. I have ONE account here on wiki by the name of Facts2Please. I have not attempted to post one thing other than by THIS account. I will take your advice to put into context and will post it here first for any suggestions, if that is acceptable to all here. Again, I have no multiple accounts and do not appreciate being accused of this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts2Please (talk • contribs) 17:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't really care who you are. You are *acting* like you're the same person.  Maybe you are the subject of the article, or a friend who wishes to help out.  Maybe you've read that you should help out the article at a blog or forum.  Regardless, you're engaging in blatant promotion of the subject of the article, in violation of Wikipedia's policies.  You've shown no interest in any other article.  You, and others, have shown an interest in the subject, that only a connected person would have.  So, we're pretty much treating you as though you are the subject, engaged in self-promotion.  Don't like that?  Then, change course, and contribute to subjects you are unconnected to and you'll have changes are treated as an addition, and not reverted.  --Rob (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Now you really have gone out of line. First saying I have created multiple accounts, then saying you don't care who I am, then saying I am blatantly "promoting the subject", Ken O'Keefe. No, Ken has a history of creating non-profit organizations which has been his method of funding all his various ventures. Try linking to the links I provided and then say I am "promoting him" When you here at Wiki allow for a living person to be featured here, then facts regarding his fund raising activities over the years which have funded his various ventures are not allowed, this is censorship. Either you want Wiki to be a source to turn to to educate the reading public or you don't. I joined Wiki and my first edit over a subject that I know something about in regards to his various non-profits. It is you here who have censored who have an agenda of your own. Is this the rule at Wiki? First time editors get attacked until they have edited other articles? Or is it just THIS subject, Ken O'Keefe who merits this behavior on your part because it seems you all seem to have your own obsession with this subject. Thank you, I leave here with the links to government documents showing his non-profit history. Make of it what you will. Signed, Facts2Please which is one person and one person only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts2Please (talk • contribs) 01:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My initial interest/involvement in the subject, was trying to get it deleted. Unfortunately, with people who aren't famous, it's very hard to give them a  fair article.  What happens, is certain limited facts get reported in reputable media, but other important facts aren't properly covered.  So, we can only include those facts that are adequately covered.  That produces results that seem unbalanced to the subject of the article, and those who know of them personally.  To be fair, there's nothing particularly negative about O'Keefe in the article, and I don't see grounds for a complaint.  --Rob (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Covered in the article: his Human Shield Initiative. He funded this through the Universal Kinship Society which stopped filing it's annual required filings after 2003. In fact, his last filing was in 2003 shortly before the Human Shields deployed to Iraq. Those had been delinquent and were never filed again, resulting in the involuntary closure of that non-profit. Fast forward to what he claims was a non-profit registered in the UK, P10K. No records can be found, though this does not mean it never existed. Any monies left over from that non-profit (per the statement on the donate page of Pa0K) were supposed to go to a Palestinian cause. Fast forward to 2008 at which time he founded Aloha Palestine, which one year later became a Community Interest Company bound by UK laws. Those filings were also late, only Ken and Fadawa Dajani who claims to be his wife on that board of directors. Fast forward to January 2010 when he opened his fourth non-profit in 11 years, this one attached to the dive business registered only to his mother. Yet Deep Ecology Academy Inc. has Ken O'Keefe as Agent of Process (the entity to which all legal correspondence goes). Ken claims he renounced his citizenship and no longer resides in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts2Please (talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * None of that can go in the article unless it's reported/discussed by a reliable source (like a newspaper, an academic work, etc. See WP:RS). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I am going to go point by point: First I will point to an article right here on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_shield_action_to_Iraq   Topmost reference  http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2002/12/3533.shtml   "U.S. Gulf War Vet Calls for Support for the Universal Kinship Societies Human Shield Mission to Iraq Strategy It is the intent of the Universal Kinship Society to purchase or acquire a bus that can carry as many as 40-50 people to Iraq in order to act as Human Shields. This bus will be used to transport volunteers to and from Iraq and later used for similar missions to Palestine and/or Chechnya after the Iraq campaign.

I request your response nomoremrniceguy since I used Wikipedia itself citing a source cited in their article on the Human Shield action in Iraq. Is this a sufficient source to prove point #1, that the Universal Kinship Society non-profit was used to fund the activity of the Human Shield action as I stated and then you stated "None of that can go in the article unless it's reported/discussed by a reliable source" I await your response. Still not knowing how to sign here, knowing that Wikipedia automatically signs for you, signed Facts2Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Facts2Please (talk • contribs) 01:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning that. Clearly that article is badly sourced, and also requires massive removal of content and repairs.   The link you gave is to something written by O'Keefe, who's clearly not a reliable source.  The fact there's junk in another article, doesn't mean you can put junk here. --Rob (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy-wise, indymedia can't be used because anyone can publish there. There is no editorial control or peer review. Wikipedia itself also can't be used as a reliable source.
 * What O'Keefe writes can be used to describe his opinion on something, but only if the notability of the issue has already been established by other reliable sources.
 * To sign you use 4 tildes at the end of your post, like this ~ No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Photo
Please don't remove photo again. Evidence of permission has been provided. It is due to be deleted 26 January if evidence is not provided. Leave it until then. --Christiaan (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So, take it easy with your bad faith allegations of bad faith .. the pic has been without permission for too long, the pic is in another article so won't be deleted anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I only found out today that evidence of permission is required. Thanks, by the way, for letting me know (was that policy even around when I uploaded the image?). Anyway, I didn't mean to accuse you of acting in bad faith. All I meant to say is that removing it from the article would be an act of bad faith based on the fact that I've explained that an email containing details of the permission has been sent in accordance with WP:OTRS. If there's a policy for removing files from articles that are under OTRS then fair enough. But is there one? --Christiaan (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The pics in another article anyway so would not be deleted, it is good practice to remove any pic that has not got permission as this pic has not got currently permission - the pic is available to re-upload even if it was deleted, its not like the wheels drop off is it. Are you the owner of the copyright to this picture then? I was looking at your uploads and this one seems a cut and copy from the web without any metadata at all like your other claims pictures have. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked for and received permission from the author by email to "use the pic in anyway you like as long as I'm credited." Unless there's a strict policy I oppose removing it from the article. It's a photo of him. We're not improving Wikipedia by removing it. --Christiaan (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's obviously him and the picture has been in the article for quite a while. So unless someone complained I see no harm in leaving it there for another week until the copyright issue clears up. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is quite irrelevant, oh, no one has complained so it must be ok. The actual issue is that the image has been in our article for a lengthy period of time and we never had the correct permission for it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * - To Christiaan - you need to ask the owner of the pic to contact the foundation themselves - contact through you is not sufficient at all. The owner of the copyright needs to contact the foundation and release the picture directly, not through a wikipedia user. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what the deletion tag said. The deletion tag said "Unless a link to a webpage with an explicit permission is provided, or an email from the copyright owner is sent or forwarded to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, the image will be deleted after Wednesday, 26 January 2011" (my emphasis) --Christiaan (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's also not what the permissions page explains to do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Permission#When_permission_is_confirmed


 * Not sure what your saying but - The copyright owner has to contact the foundation directly and clearly state what commons comparable license they want to donate the picture under - you are not a viable authority for the owner to act as a conduit for the owner to operate and release pictures through, you should direct the copyright owner to the correct OTRS location and they will help him there.  Off2riorob (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you mind linking to instructions that say this? --Christiaan (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been my experience from picture uploading and similar issues. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure but there must be instructions somewhere. The instructions I linked to above appear to suggest the opposite of what you're saying. --Christiaan (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * So does the link rob provided. It doesn't say or imply the original author needs to provide permission directly to wikipedia. In fact it seems like it's saying that whoever uploads the pic needs to get permission, and then send a copy of that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not provided any links - Well, lets see, I have given my advice from my experiance of claims I have had rejected and other such - I have an email from the owner claims and when the email is received we can access the copyright release claim. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've cleared up thread to be clear who provided links.--Christiaan (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, I appreciate your advice Rob. I've emailed the author again asking him to to provide a direct email in case you're right. --Christiaan (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea, there is a link somewhere that supplies a good note to send to copyright owners with the correct place and licenses to choose between but right now I can't find it, perhaps ask at media help. Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries I've sent it to him. --Christiaan (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that the one and it preferably should come from him direct to the foundation, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship
Putting these two links here for future reference, might be enough to start a citizenship section
 * information about his renouncement of US citizenship.
 * when he got his Irish citizenship and why. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * NOTE: SEE MY COMMENTS BELOW ON THIS TOPIC. Quis separabit?  20:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Those sources seem reasonable enough, to mention something. --Rob (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We now know he naturalized Irish in 2003. That came up before. I'm not sure how much information about his renouncing American citizenship we should put in (What do you call it if the renounciation was not accepted?). That he renounced it twice and both were not accepted seems important enough. What about the burning of the passports? Getting a new passport when he was stuck in Turkey after renouncing, then burning it? The World Passport? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * this says he "also goes by the name Kenneth Roy Nichols", which is as close as I could find a RS talking about that issue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship again
We're going to need reliable sources (per WP:RS) if we want to include claims about his nationality/citizenship in the article. So far only the Irish citizenship has been established.


 * Then we should add Category:Naturalized citizens of Ireland; but it will have to be created unless it already exists under different wording. I thought Category:Irish people of American descent was good and it already exists. Quis separabit?  04:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, someone who renounces his citizenship is not of "X descent", he's a "former X citizen" or "has renounced his X citizenship" No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * He claims he renounced his US citizenship, but, like a lot of his claims it apparently is inaccurate, according to what appears to be an impeccable source:"'... O'Keefe has tried officially to renounce his citizenship twice without success, first in Vancouver and then in the Netherlands. His initial bid was rejected after the State Department concluded that he would return to the United States—a credible inference, as O'Keefe in fact had returned immediately. After his second attempt, O'Keefe waited seven months with no response before he tried a more sensational approach. He went back to the consulate at The Hague, retrieved his passport, walked outside, and lit it on fire. Seventeen days later, he received a letter from the State Department informing him that he was still an American, because he had not obtained the right to reside elsewhere. He had succeeded only in breaking the law, since mutilating a passport is illegal. It says so right on the passport' (as per ). Quis separabit? 05:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)"
 * I don't really have an opinion about categories, so you can do whatever you like with those as far as I'm concerned.
 * I'm aware of the Harper's article (I posted it about a year ago in the section above). I'm not really sure how we should put the whole renounciation issue, so if you have any suggestions I'd be happy to hear them. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, the fact that he is an "ex-Marine who was discharged, according to his website, under "other than honorable conditions", should be included in the article, so much for his vaunted military experience (also as per ) Quis separabit?  05:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with that either, we just need to word it in a non-BLP violating way. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try to craft something everyone can agree to after the 24 hours 1RR policy to which the article is subject expires tonight. Quis separabit?  22:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that should be in the lead, though. Also, you seem to have copied a bit from the talk page and put it in there by mistake. I'm going to remove this part so we can discuss where it belongs. The rest of the changes seem fine. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, the citizenship section is also problematic. I think the large quote should be summarized and saying "he claimed... but..." is editorializing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I am always open to compromise, but why rv the fact that he was not honorably discharged from the Marines? Quis separabit?  02:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it belongs in the lead. Unless we develop a section about his military service that discusses it, it seems a bit UNDUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Experience
It is disgraceful that yet again malicious information from a 'secondary' source that would clearly be part of the same establishment media that would not at all consider this subject friendly, is allowed to be placed in this article while secondarily sourced information that gives context and greater understanding from the subject himself is provided and promptly removed. It is beyond transparent that the major players in this article, especially No More Mr Nice Guy, do not care about achieving a well rounded understanding of the subject in question, quite the contrary. So now a little section only saying that O'Keefe was discharged in a dishonourable way from the US military, yet information exists, secondarily sourced, that gives context to the discharge. But once again No More Mr Nice Guy deletes vital information that is highly useful to understanding the subject. It truly is a disgrace and Wikipedia discredit themselves by allowing this to persist.

The truth of the matter is that according to O'Keefe, he was a whistleblower who reported abuse of power and paid a significant price for this. Now it may or may not be true, but given that it is coming straight from the horses mouth from international news sources and nobody claims otherwise then it is just plain wrong to maintain a section that only sheds negative light with no attempt at balance. In this case there is only one side of the story and that is told by an establishment media source. Is that Wikipedia, establishment media driven, smaller guys need not apply, we state the truth just as the mainstream does or not at all. Again I say disgraceful.

Here is what you said Rob; 'We need *secondary* sources. Primary sources, such as government official records, tell us a certain limited fact is true. But, they give us no context. They give no explanation. More importantly, they don't show how significant or notable something is. Also, aside from sourcing, your addition to the article was frankly a mess. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (sic), and is not a dumping ground for all true information. Even we could use the facts provided, we need it presented in a better form. You should read and edit other articles, to learn what a good article is. You should look at articles you don't have a personal connection to. Unfortunately, if you are personally connected to a topic, it is often impossible to write in a beneficial manner. So, you may need to just move on. --Rob (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As it is this section is completely unbalanced, very misleading and this is only a carry over from No More Mr Nice Guy's blatantly harmful deletions of highly informative and valuable information which includes (in the case of Marine Conservation) Animal Planet and BBC sources of the subject. So when No More Mr Nice Guy cannot point to a lack of a verifiably and validly sourced information as the reason to delete, he simply makes up another excuse. Again it must be said, disgraceful. Wikipedia = Propaganda in the hands of the likes of you No More Mr Nice Guy, enjoy your little power trip while it lasts, one can only pity your loyalty to anything but the truth. Mmcitizen101 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I once again suggest you read WP:V and WP:RS.
 * I disagree with your characterization of the section about his military service as "unbalanced". He was a marine. He was dishonorably discharged. He acknowledges this himself. If you find a reliable source reporting about the problems he had during his service or why he was dishonorably discharged, we can add that. His autobiography is not a reliable source for this purpose. These things are explained quite clearly in the two links I provided above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy you really have no morals and you hide behind this vaneer of integrity. First off he was not dishonourably discharged according to his own words, and when I prove this it will show just how transparent you are because you will not admit your mistake. When sections like Marine Conservation were put up you took the whole lot down, yet, the reliable source for that section was Animal Planet and the BBC. You took the whole section down, totally voided a verifiable and important aspect of the subjects life and you have done this repeatedly. Your life seemingly revolves around this. clearly, you pop up within seconds of any post that might actually improve this article and then hide behind Wiki acronyms as a cover. If anyone is to connected to this article it is you, they really should ban you from it. To make this point I am going to re-write the Marine Conservation section with completely valid, reliably sourced and objective writing. Let's see how long it lasts with you on the prowl.

Going back to the discharge; If a subject has repeatedly said on major international news media such as BBC HardTALK, CNN, Press TV, Russia Today and countless others that he was a target as a Marine because he spoke out and not once has he been accused of lying about this, then there is no valid reason to leave this information out. Especially when it is a quote from the subject and there is nothing else to contradict it in terms of any successful challenge. As an example, O'Keefe was interviewed on HardTALK in early 2003, nearly ten years ago, in this interview which has probably been seen millions of times now he says what I have already posted and again you delete. He says that he spoke out against abuse of power and that from day forward his life in Marines was hell. He says that his platoon commander or sergeant told him he was gonna fry his ass or words to that effect, this No More Mr Nice Guy is what they call context. If we look at the rest of his life it is not surprising at all that he would have clashed with authority and clearly he challenges authority continuously. A quote from him giving his side is the best we have and it has stood the test of time and nobody has challenged or even questioned the truth of what he is saying. But thanks to you and practically you alone, this and other vital information is excluded from this article. Here is an example of supporting evidence for what O'Keefe says in Haaretz; 'He enlisted in the Marine Corps at the age of 19. He was, he says, a good soldier, popular with his buddies, until during a six-month mission aboard a ship in the Mediterranean he complained about unbecoming behavior on the part of a veteran sergeant. His life then became hell.' (http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/rough-passage-1.315481)  So here is more verification that his story is true, he has told it over and over, nobody has disproved it, to the contrary everything supports it. Here is another BBC article where he speaks about speaking out and being punished; (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2664297.stm).

Here is where you are dead wrong No More Mr Nice Guy, it is your belief, as you state it, 'He was a marine. He was dishonorably discharged. He acknowledges this himself.' Wrong, here is what he acknowledges himself in his own words; "Ultimately I was blessed/punished by being discharged (made redundant) one year ahead of schedule, Bush Sr.’s post War downsizing assisting me greatly in this matter. Officially I received a ‘general discharge’ under ‘other than honorable conditions’; a discharge sure to be used along with other admissions in this auto-biography by my enemies as a testament to my dishonorable nature. This general discharge is actually a rare middle of the road act in my life of the five possible discharges and I quite frankly wish I had ‘earned’ the worst discharge of all; the ‘dishonorable discharge’ which comes with a keepsake certificate."

So, here we have the actual person saying what he received, above this seems to be what you feel is of great importance. Now let's take this a step further, here is what good ole Wikipedia says about discharges from the US military; (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_discharge) Surprise, surprise, it says what O'Keefe says, there are five types of discharge and a general discharge is in the middle. It is totally different from a dishonourable discharge which you say above, 'He was a marine. He was dishonorably discharged. He acknowledges this himself.'  No he did not get a dishonourable discharge and no he did not say he got one, in fact here is what he says, which again you seem to think matters; "I quite frankly wish I had ‘earned’ the worst discharge of all; the ‘dishonorable discharge’ which comes with a keepsake certificate. Walt Disney had earned one of these and had it framed upside down at his Disney headquarters." (http://www.p10k.net/ken_autobiography.htm)

So now we can see that No More Mr Nice Guy is dead wrong about what O'Keefe says, and he is also dead wrong about what kind of discharge he received. All the while he is deleting entire sections and removing context which gives a much better idea of who the subject is.

I return to my agenda at this point, returning the Marine Conservation section with perfectly reliable sources. Once again let us see what excuse is made to remove it. After that I will return the quotes from O'Keefe that have stood the test of time and give critical understanding to his character and life with regard to his 'Military Experience'. Mmcitizen101 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will once again suggest you read WP:V and WP:RS. I also suggest you read WP:NPA.
 * Regarding his discharge, the article says he "was discharged ... [under] other than honorable conditions". So I'm not sure what you want exactly.
 * If you restore the material that was deleted without gaining consensus for it first (see WP:CONS, WP:BRD and WP:ONUS), it will be deleted again. If you put it in the article repeatedly without consensus, you will be reported and likely be banned from editing. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Anything that O'Keefe produced himself is a reliable source for his own opinions and for his own version of his history. So, unless reasonable doubt can be shown that O'Keefe did produce the material, I don't think that there is a WP:RS issue. On the other hand, if O'Keefe's version does strongly contradict content obtained from other, probably unfriendly, sources, I'm sure that omitting it causes BLP and neutrality issues. This being an article whose subject is O'Keefe, it should be outlining what O'Keefe says about himself.     ←   ZScarpia  21:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding his discharge his version is in the article, quoted from an interview in a reliable source.
 * I hope you're not trying to say that anything a person writes or says about themselves belongs in a wikipedia article. Why don't you have a look at the new stuff Mmcitizen added to the article and let us know if you think it's properly sourced (most of it is sourced to youtube) and notable enough to go in the article. Keeping in mind WP:ABOUTSELF of course. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:ABOUTSELF says that, providing certain conditions are met, "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ..." Which of the conditions do you think the material fails?     ←   ZScarpia  05:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the youtube links to TV shows are probably copyright violations. I think the claims about 3rd parties are unacceptable under SELFPUB. I think the section about his movie fails WP:V.
 * A wikipedia article is not a place to showcase the activities of its subject if they were not covered by reliable 3rd party sources, and most of the new stuff wasn't.
 * Are you saying you support all the material put by Mmcitizen in the article, or did you not bother to even look at it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What I have said and what I meant to say up to this point, is what I said in my 21:01 UTC 6 March 2012 comment.     ←   ZScarpia  20:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So would you be so kind as to look at the actual edits rather than make general statements about ABOUTSELF which may or may not be applicable in this case? I was trying to see if the edits have actual support, not get a partial quote from policy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

NEUTRALITY VIOLATION
To the unsigned-in, anonymous editor who has edited the article to imply that O'Keefe himself believes that he was dishonourably disharged from the US military. The page previously cited a quote that was said to come from his own biography on his own website. I see that you have deleted the actual quote from there, favouring instead a quotation for which the citation is Harpers magazine. I could not verify that Harpers reference without buying a subscription. But as his own website/blog CAN be checked and it shows that if Harpers DOES say that then the Harpers piece of journalism gave false information, therefore I have undone your edit. I.e. according to his own website, which is cached, and which is supposedly being quoted, he himself believes the exact opposte of what the article stated. This is the reason for my undo of your edit.

As to the question of whether his own blog/website IS a reliable source for his own views (which is what is being stated), here is what the wiki policy states:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kenneth O'Keefe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110926145352/http://www.p10k.net:80/ken_autobiography.htm to http://www.p10k.net/ken_autobiography.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Accusations section
I've asked about this section at BLPN since I'm not sure the sourcing is acceptable. FYI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality as regards attention being given to "attempt" to renounce citizenship
Remarkably, the short lede contains a statement that the subject person "attempted" to renounce his U.S. citizenship. There is also an entire section on this topic too. To my mind, this is not neutral. It strikes me as pushing a POV on the subject person and on the U.S. I initially removed the reference from the lede only. This was reverted. I then described the attempt as "feeble". That description is open to question but leaving the remarkable assertion in the piece in an unqualified way is not neutral. Many, many former U.S. persons have renounced their citizenship over the years. I encourage persons to read Renunciation of citizenship where there is a description of the routine procedure for renunciation specifically in reference to U.S. persons. The U.S. permits persons to freely and readily renounce their citizenship. Following the fairly simple procedure is all that's required. A symbolic act of burning a passport, unsurprisingly, is not part of the procedure and can hardly be counted as a serious, sincere attempt to renounce. I called it feeble but would rather the entire matter was left out because of the nature of what in fact transpired which really can hardly be described as an attempt to renounce citizenship. Anegada (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User: Alex Cohn - bringing above to attn. of interested user. Anegada (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I found your change while reviewing recent changes. I don't know the subject of the article well enough to have an informed opinion of whether or not his attempt to renounce citizenship belongs in the lede. I do object to describing the attempt to renounce citizenship as feeble - that seems like too contentious a WP:LABEL to use in Wikipedia's voice to me. I get your point that if he had actually wanted to renounce citizenship he could have easily succeeded, but if you're going to say that, it needs to be worded more neutrally (and explaining renunciation of citizenship in sufficient detail to convey how easy it is to do it successfully definitely does not belong in the lede). Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 18:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You say you get my point...but then you also say you don't know the subject of the article well enough etc. I knew absolutely nothing about the subject of this article. I happened to come across this article the other day because I was perusing the category of persons described as Naturalised Irish citizens. I never heard of the subject before that. I quickly identified that he was not in fact a naturalised citizen but rather, his grandmother was a native born Irish person and therefore he was an Irish citizen from birth. I removed him from the Naturalised Irish citizens category, which no one objected to so far. I then spotted the remarkable claim contained in the lede (the first two sentences, no less) that he had "attempted" to renounce his U.S. citizenship. I explored the topic of renunciation of U.S. citizenship. There is a Wikipeida article directly touching on the topic; the one I referred you and others to. It's very clear that there are routine procedures that should be followed and he followed none of them. I encourage you to consider: if users of Wikipeida, like you and me, do not participate in content development (i.e. form opinions on content and contribute to it) we leave it to others to steer content. That's not neutral. That's simply not contributing. It's quite obvious that the sentence in the lede is not neutral. I've now replaced it with a sentence that reads instead that he set his passport on fire in 2001. That's backed up by sources and perfectly defensible. Although my first preference would be to leave it all out of the lede, that is, in my opinion, more balanced than the assertion he "attempted" to "renounce" his citizenship: something thousands of persons do each year without problem; if he wanted to renounce, he could obviously have done so. All we can say is that he set his U.S. passport on fire. Anegada (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm going to bow out of this discussion, because I don't think it's going anywhere productive. As long as the wording is neutral and verifiable, I won't object. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia that do not directly involve content development. Recent change reviewing, which includes patrolling for vandalism and clearly non-neutral edits, is one I enjoy. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 02:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kenneth O'Keefe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202065850/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/world/gaza.aid.ship_1_gaza-bound-ship-convoy?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/world/gaza.aid.ship_1_gaza-bound-ship-convoy?_s=PM%3AWORLD
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403102718/http://vodpod.com/watch/3777381-dual-irish-palestinian-citizen-ken-okeefe-was-on-board-flotilla to http://vodpod.com/watch/3777381-dual-irish-palestinian-citizen-ken-okeefe-was-on-board-flotilla

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Critics of Islamophobia from this article and removal of category by User: Cpt.a.haddock
This article is in the category "Critics of Islamophobia", but there seems to be no source to this.

There is a discussion about the inclusion of articles that are in this category at category "Critics of Islamophobia".

I am trying to understand if a source is needed to categorize it also for this and all other articles. There are many articles where the article is categorized and it is sourced to a published article.

User:Cpt.a.haddock is removing this category from several pages even though it is sourced to published article. He says it is not enough for categorization. (For example, at Vinay Lal the categorization is sourced to this article: V. Lal: Implications of American Islamophobia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, Issue No. 51, 19 Dec, 2015. But even then, the category was removed by User Cpt.a.Haddock.)

See his contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cpt.a.haddock

The question is, is this enough for categorization? If this source is not good enough, I do not understand how this article is categorized in the category without sources. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Mavi Marmara "feigned providing humanitarian support in an effort to support Palestinians with armaments"
The quoted phrase from the lead paragraph has no citation. Moreover, although I followed the Mavi Marmara incident closely, I have never seen any article that would suggest the quoted passage is true. However, I won't attempt to edit this controversial page so ask that someone who does edit it to deal with this issue. Marbux (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"Attacking" or "disarming"?
The intro text currently states that O'Keefe "...participated during clashes on the ship including the attacking of two Israeli commandos[5][6]" with two dead links as references for this "attacking" claim aboard the MV Marvi Marmara. This wording contradicts the more detailed and referenced text under the 'Gaza Flotilla involvement' section, which states he was involved in "disarming" two Israeli commandos. I corrected this, but someone has undone my amendment claiming 'whitewashing'. I'm going to undo that edit as it appears to be unreferenced vandalism motivated by a wish to denigrate someone who is the object of a living persons biography. If anyone has issues with this, a different point of view or an explanation for why we should have contradictory text in the lead and in the article, please leave comments here.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * O'Keefe himself clearly describes the attack. However, following this source - I modified this to one-on-one combat. I also added references to unreferenced bits. Note that the subject's interviews are a poor source here for any statement in our voice.Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I could find nothing in the cited source that fits your new wording. So I have rewitten to more closely fit the cited source material. Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh? Why the cited source says clearly, in its own voice - Nina Simone and Louis Armstrong play softly in the background while O'Keefe describes his one-on-one combat with an Israeli commando unit...Icewhiz (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the relevant passage from one of the cited sources:
 * O'Keefe recounted his experience from the lethal flotilla. He said he was involved in disarming two of the Israeli soldiers, taking a handgun from one and a rifle from another. He said the Israeli violence came without warning, and noted that it was in international waters.
 * The moment the first commanded landed, O'Keefe said, he saw a body between him and the soldier, and it was clear that lethal force was being used against the ship's passengers. He said when the second commando descended he could see three dead bodies, and added, "It was clear that it was either me or them".
 * As soon as they descended, the former marine snatched their weapons and emptied their magazines. He said he did this to ensure there would be evidence in the event of a trial. Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Which source? Note also this is O'Keefe himselfnsaying this in an interview, which would always have to be attributed back to him and not said in our voice. "One on one combat" was said by a RS.Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As I see it, this wiki text is not written in any 'voice'. Its just detailing the known facts. Which is that O'Keefe disarmed two commandos. According to the cited sources, he did not attempt to fight the commandos to harm them or to cause them injury. The use of the word 'combat' for that succesful attempt at 'disarming' would therefore be inappropriate and misleading in my view. Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Again - we have a source saying "one-on-one combat" specifically when describing this description by O'Keefe. An interview with O'Keefe (from an unspecified source to boot) carries little to no weight.Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree, 'we' have one of two sources that says that. But it is a source that then includes a description that contradicts itself. It is also an Israeli source, so possibly biased. In the interests of maintaining a neutral point of view in a living person biography, can you explain why you are so keen on a wording that empasises 'combat' rather than using the defensive 'disarming' word that both the cited Israeli sources use and are in agreement on, and which they provide supporting detail of? SUMMARY: when both sources say he "disarmed" the attackers without harming them, and when he assisted another person in disarming the second one, why do you want the article to say he engaged in "one-on-one combat", when he clearly wasn't even engaged alone with the second commando. Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * NPOV requires relying on RS. Claiming bias for Haaretz which is a RS has little weight when we comparing it to words of the BLP subject (who is not a RS - also when RS report what he says). Disarming is used by O'Keefe himself - which is fine for an attributed stmt to him, but not for a neutral description in Wiki voice.Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven't answered the question. If the sources describe O'Keefe helping disarm another person to prise the fingers of a commando from his weapon, why are YOU PERSONALLY insisting on using the false wording of "one-on-one combat"? Do you not understand the question? Two people disarming someone CAN NOT be described as "one on one". Are you perhaps motivated by a hasbara pro-Israeli bias? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA please. I am following the language in the source. So far you have presented o'Keefe's own words which are not an appropriate source.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

There have been no personal attacks. I am trying to reach an agreement with you by asking you questions about your edits and the reasoning/motivation for them, which you have repeatedly avoided. I have also explained my reasoning and NPOV motivation to help achieve better understanding between us, which you have also repeatedly avoided responding to.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

World Citizen Scandal (2016)
As of 2019, the stolen funds of $113,470 USD are still without trace or refund.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/world-citizen-solutions--3#/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.2.252 (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

SPLC in lead.
The SPLC is inherently notable given their high profile and expertise in the field; removing their opinion as a WP:BLP violation, as it was here, does not seem justified. BLP doesn't mean removing anything that could potentially make the article's subject look bad, it means removing stuff that is poorly-sourced - and the SPLC is an entirely valid source for its position on someone, which, in this case, clearly passes WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Concur - clearly DUE, and not a BLP violatiin given this is properly attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The SPLC is just one source, and its description I regard as extremely harsh, emotionally charged and personally damaging in its extreme criticism. I therefore regard it as a contentious critique of a living person and therefore a "poor source". Wikipedia has rules forbidding derogatory, defamatory material in biographies of living people. Plus I suggest we need to be aware that there is an unfortunate tendency of wiki editors who work predominantly on stubs with a regular pro-Israeli bias to sometimes approach biographies of persons who are known to criticise Israeli policy with not enough neutrality. “Contentious material about living persons that is... poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". SUMMARY: One extreme and personally critical description from one lone source I argue is "poorly sourced". Mystichumwipe (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Lede is supposed to summarize the content in article, and there's an entire section covering O'Keefe's relation to David Duke. What makes you think a sentence based on a source from the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't belong in the introduction anyway? It's a known organization fighting racism in America (unrelated to what you call "pro-Israel bias") and its opinion is properly attributed. No reason to keep it out.--37.142.163.230 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

O'Keefe says the Holocaust was a good thing, Adolf Hitler was a "great man".
https://twitter.com/canarymission/status/1638888331152072711?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1638888331152072711%7Ctwgr%5E2c5374a803b2d33bade00f28520f9b2c63f692b9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Felderofziyon.blogspot.com%2F2023%2F03%2F0323-links-pt2-netanyahu-im-taking-over.html

"I consider it a duty to speak out about who he really was".

This is clearly an important part of his public persona. 66.44.95.66 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Fake 207.188.143.35 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2023
Subsequently, he led the human shield action to Iraq and was a passenger on the MV Mavi Marmara during the Gaza flotilla raid, where he disarmed two of the Israeli commandos who boarded the ship,[5] initiating a confrontation in which ten Turkish activists were killed.[6] Farukozderim (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This an argument without proof, hence the other side of the story also should be provided. According to Ken O'Keefe he only disarmed a soldier after he saw a person dead.

https://youtuDOTbe/OgKVRtUczRg?t=192
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: we're not linking that video, see WP:YOUTUBE and WP:RSPYT Cannolis (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Reference #7 (SPLC)
This is trash. Putting aside all the problems with SPLC as a tainted Zionist shill organization, their website is basically a NGO-flavoured Sunday Times, replete with logical fallacies, butchered quotes and contextual torquing. The entire line should be deleted. End of. 142.126.188.216 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship section - Lacks context
Seems like someone's trying to pass off an editorial opinion as a fact from a state. The link is broken, which can be viewed by the archive page (https://web.archive.org/web/20070705031918/http://harpers.org/archive/2004/10/0080240). WobInDisguise (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2024
Mentioning that he speaks at white supremacists rallies and endorses david Duke is unequivocally false and clearly there to defame his character. There is bias in whoever left that edit. 70.30.246.146 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: looks sourced Cannolis (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)