Talk:CNN 2017 undercover videos controversy

SYNTH tag

I've asked at least twice for an explanation of the "synth" objection (1, 2) and none has been given. There is no active discussion of SYNTH objections. I'm removing the tag. If it's restored it should accompany a specific objection. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

POV

The article has serious problems, starting with the Scaramucci sentence being in the lede, the omission of relevant info about O'Keefe and so on - mostly enumerated above. And since this concerns living persons, it also violates BLP. So why (in addition to all the other problems) is the POV tag being removed? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

blind reverting with false edit summaries

Re [1].

The objection to this text was originally that the source provided (Time magazine) did not specifically mention the CNN video. However, the new source, LA Times does explicitly mention the video and connect it to O'Keefe's background.

The edit summary by James J. Lambden is completely false. It says "much of your edit preserved". This is completely untrue as can be easily seen from the fact that the edit undoes the entire change. On top of that, Lambden claims "I explained my SYNTH objection". No, you haven't. Likewise demanding "more neutral language", when the language is about as close as you can get to the source without copy-pasting it directly is disingenous and betrays that it's really just a WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT edits.

One more time. This is a BLP issue. The video is being used to attack a living person. You cannot present this video as if it was legitimate or without providing the background on the person who makes these videos especially because the person and organization making these videos has established a reputation (backed by multiple reliable sources) that they deceptively edit these videos to smear people. If you do that you're enabling attacks on living people. Which... I'm guessing is the purpose behind these blind reverts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Please try to collaborate and AGF. "Much of your edit preserved" refers to your earlier series of edits, which you accused me of blind reverting. The first edit you link removes mention of Scaramucci citing SYNTH, which cannot be because the NYT sources connects the video with Scaramucci's firing.

Re: BLP, as I asked before: who is the "P" in BLP and which statements about them cause you concern? James J. Lambden (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, somebody who stalks your edits, engages in harassment and follows you around making blind reverts, has no business demanding of others that they "AGF".

If you want to put the Scaramucci firing somewhere else in the article that could be possible - but what is it doing in the lede? And if you're gonna include it on the basis that "NYT connects" it to the video, why are you removing the LA Times description of PV which ALSO connects it to the video? This is a clear cut case of WP:TENDENTIOUS.

And I've already pointed out repeatedly who the "P" is, and it's obvious. Hell the guy's name is the title of a freakin' section, so quit it with pretending you don't know. The video is being used to smear Bonifield, and you cannot pretend that there's no context or background to O'Keefe's and PV's videos - that they have a history of releasing deceptively manipulated videos which construct lies about what people said. This background is *essential* for BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

If you demanded AFG I missed it, but I'll give it regardless. I already moved Scaramucci out of the lede. I don't see how anything in the video could be construed to smear Bonifield; as the sources and our article point out he's not involved in political coverage. Not even O'Keefe suggests Bonifield did anything wrong. James J. Lambden (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's obviously an attack on Bonifield. And he is a living person so BLP applies. You asked who the "P" was, pretending not to realize it (riiiiggghhhhht). You got your answer. Please stop violating WP:BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality?

It seems like there is an issue with the neutrality of the article. It is favoring a view distrusting Mr. O'Keefe and mentioning his prior attempts to supposedly deceive the audience. How should we word these statements that his reputation is tarnished by his history while still maintaining the article's neutrality? --Smghz (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Should a video be embedded?

Should there be the YouTube video embedded on the right-hand side for viewers to view? Or there should just be a link to the original YT video?--Smghz (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with including it as an external link. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes there is. It's called BLP.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have removed material as an unreliable source and a violation of original synthesis. YouTube videos are not acceptable sources and the material creating an alleged connection to a separate incident was not sourced, a classic example of prohibited synthesis. The claim that "The video stirred controversy and outrage" is similarly entirely unsourced; reactions in the cited reliable sources can hardly be described as "outraged" or "controversial." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand YT is not reliable. But it is the only source for this; it's a video. I cited it more as a link where readers can directly click to verify the views rather than as an indication of reliability. But again, CNN has said the video is leg and even stands by the producer. I would love your thoughts on this. Thanks.--Smghz (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If a YouTube video was actually "the only source for this," then it wouldn't belong on Wikipedia at all,. However, it's not "the only source," we have independent reliable sources commenting on it, which is why we can have any article at all here. As a tertiary source, we must rely on what is published in independent reliable sources; this is particularly true when we are writing about issues involving living people, such as Mr. Bonifield. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

• I see no issue linking to O'Keefe's published video; where he chooses to publish is irrelevant and youtube is acceptable as a primary source given secondary (RS) coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Not when it's a BLP vio.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

If you stomp your feet and shout "BLP!" does the BLP fairy appear? You have to articulate your objections. I assume you don't need me to explain that given your history . James J. Lambden (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No, but the WP:NPA fairy might if you don't cut it out. And seriously, the BLP issue is pretty obvious - the video is an attack piece directed against a living person. Made by a subject who's known for manipulating statements. Including it in the article is BLP violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I partially agree with Marek, but I still feel as if this Wikipedia article is attempting to neutrally discuss an allegation. All over Wikipedia there are similar claims "defaming" a person, from OJ Simpson to Donald Trump, all of which are living people. O'Keefe's history is particularly troubling, and this video is indeed an attack, yet Wikipedia has kept other similar pages detailing things like the Trump dossier, whose authenticity is in question and definitely smears Donald Trump in major ways. I'd like to know more of your thoughts on this, Marek. Thanks.--Smghz (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Who do you feel is being "attacked" in the video? CNN (the organization) isn't covered by BLP. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That is the thing, this story has been written (originally by me) pretty early. So we haven't heard from Mr. Bonifield himself. But CNN has indeed officially said that the video is legitimate and that it stands by the statements as is. Sure, there are other arguments to make about whether Mr. Bonifield's assertions represent CNN writ large, esp. that he is part of the medical, not political, team. But to this very moment, CNN has abstained from virtually **any** coverage of the story. Looks like we also have to abstain until more info emerges. But, to answer your question, it seems like Marek is implying Mr. Bonifield. CNN is not a living person.--Smghz (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Neither our article nor the source video makes any claims about Bonifield. If they did, I agree that would present a potential BLP issue. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Marek wants to wait for Mr. Bonifield's say about this. Until then, if Mr. Bonifield does not rebut Mr. O'Keefe's allegations, then maybe it's better to remove the video. But I'm not feeling good about taking out a video that is essentially the heart of this article. --Smghz (talk) 07:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. Ok, guys, please stop trying to use Wikipedia to spread what could very well be fake news. There's absolutely no reason to link to the hit piece. Indeed, policy forbids it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, do as you please.--Smghz (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Scarramucci

This edit removed Scarramucci claiming WP:SYNTH. The cited article mentions both the Scaramucci retraction and the CNN video in context. There is no SYNTH. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH

This edit added content and a source that makes no connection between the video and and the claim; it's SYNTH and should be removed. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Per WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You can't exclude pertinent background information, especially because of the nature of this article. You have a video which is an attack on a living person. It's required by WP:NPOV that the fact that previous videos by this outfit have been edited in ways to make people seem to say things they didn't say. This is like BLP 101. Really, stop it with the POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Here is a source which makes the connection [2]. If you hadn't been so trigger happy with the revert button I would've had the chance to add it in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Mine is not the petard by which we are hoist. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, ok. Anyway, you asked for a source which makes an explicit connection, you got it. Can you restore the text with the extra source? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ryk72: - Please restore the text with the new source rather than continuing the edit war. Your objection was to the Time source. At your request I've provided a new source. Please add it - it's your responsibility since you're the one who removed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, don't see the SYNTH here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Well there's an ip user who is pretty crazed about keeping it out so not sure what can be done. ValarianB (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@ValarianB: Protect the page, ban the IP. We have procedures to deal with disruptive IPs. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Another source, which is already being used in the article, in the lede no less is this la times] article. The article says: "The video was released by Project Veritas, the conservative activist group that has built a reputation for producing selectively edited videos and audio recordings designed to smear liberal and left-leaning groups. The organization has been criticized for deceptive editing and sketchy reporting methods that have gotten its founder, James O'Keefe, convicted of phone tampering." You can't get clearer than that. The Scaramucci thing is clearly undue for the lede. But this info is not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This is just Part 1...More to come...so this article might need to change its name...

This video is just Part 1 of an ongoing series. O'Keefe said there's a lot more to come and that it will be about other news media outlets. This articles name might have to change to incorporate all the outlets under investigative reporting by Veritas. Better yet, it should be best to just change it to its official name: American Pravda. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This is one more reason why the article shouldn't be deleted. More info is emerging in the next few days. Let's give the article a chance; if nothing significant comes out of this, let's delete it. Mr. O'Keefe implicated here that more videos are emerging. But it seems like it is still about CNN; see tweet here. So the title should be changed, but the current one is not very inaccurate either, and if anything it's decent for those still learning about the event. They would probably be searching "CNN tape" not "American Pravada". But it's your call. Thanks for suggestion. --Smghz (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. If more info comes out then maybe then you can write an article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

What the latest James O’Keefe video leaves out

New piece [3] from WaPo that can be used in this article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Was just in the process of adding very much the same thing. While WP:RSOPINION, this is direct discussion/criticism of the article subject itself, published in a notable source, and should be used in preference to sources which do not directly discuss the subject. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

However, O'Keefe's response to the WaPo piece should be added too for NPOV (see here). For example, O'Keefe did mention in the video that Bonifield is in Atlanta. WaPo said he didn't. That's factually incorrect. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You need a reliable secondary source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Um, no I don't. In fact, WaPo corrected their error (they call it an "update") after O'Keefe called them out. If the WaPo wants to defend CNN, they should do a better job at it so as to not give O'Keefe and Trump any more ammunition. At this point, that WaPo piece, with its factually incorrect information, makes O'Keefe look better, not worse. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While retractions happen less often, corrections happen all the time. You can't compare a guy with a beleaguered credibility record like Mr. O'Keefe with an organization as credible, reliable, and influential as the Washington Post.--Smghz (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Van Jones Rebuttal: Include?

Van Jones has published both an article + video on CNN (here). I'm positive this can be included in this page and can greatly serve as rebuttal for the allegations posed by O'Keefe. Should this rebuttal be included? Thx.--Smghz (talk) 06:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

It's already been added. Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

I object to the use of The Daily Caller to support a contentious factual claim about CNN; it's not a widely-respected independent media source but rather a notable right-wing house organ founded by notable right-wing Trump supporter Tucker Carlson; the site was paid $150,000 by Trump's campaign according to independent reports. We should rely on high-quality, non-partisan sources such as The Hill, Politico, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Times isn't really any better, because it's hardly a high-quality non-partisan source, but I won't revert (just tag; if we can't find a better source for it, it should be removed down the road.) Also, we can't state O'Keefe's claims about the videos as fact. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't even get me started on TDC or WT. I had trouble finding a reliable source for a lot of the stuff in this page. Also, importantly, source #12 (The Hill) is NOT authored by Geoffrey Rowland. It is authored by Joe Concha, who has appeared as a commentator on FN and written for the WT. I don't know if he is credible enough. We should nevertheless be extremely careful not to paint conservative outlets as non-credible.--Smghz (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree we should hold off on covering part 4 until more sources pick it up. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Combine all responses into one heading

There is no synchrony between the responses/reactions. One heading is exclusive for CNN while another deals with others. Why not just combine both into one heading? Thx. --Smghz (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Done. Adelsheim (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!--Smghz (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

New Van Jones video

There is a new video released less than an hour ago by PV (here). It concerns Van Jones reportedly calling the Russia investigation a "nothing burger". This was again recorded by a person affiliated with O'Keefe. How should we go about discussing this now? Thanks.--Smghz (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

He called it a nothing burger? Wow. Anyways, the current article name is an improvement from the last because at least it signifies that this is a series in a sense. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

description of O'Keefe and PV in the lede

Since this a series of videos attacking living people, NPOV requires that the organization and persons who made these videos are accurately described in the lede. Indeed, pretty much every source which has written about this mentions O'Keefe's and PV's "reputation". You can't omit it. It'd be like having an article on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but only presenting its claims, without telling the readers that it's a hoax. And again - sources do it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No interpretation of BLP requires undue negative information. In fact it explicitly forbids it. Persistent edit-warring with no consensus is not helpful. Please stop. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

BLP applies to the living people who O'Keefe is trying to smear. As has already been explained to you several times, including once when you tried to play ignorant and acted like you did not realize that that was the issue. As far as O'Keefe himself, the info on him is extremely well sourced, which is why it's in his article - we had the same argument there and consensus was against you - and it's essential to the topic so it needs to be in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Your view that it is "essential" to the lede is not supported by consensus here. This page is where you make that argument to convince other editors, it is not a forum for personal attacks. That is unproductive and you have been asked repeatedly to stop. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

And btw this edit uses a false edit summary as itself it removes "vital information".Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Not what the source says and the original source is more relevant to this story. Neutrality means accurately reflecting reliable sources. The lede is suppose to summarize the article so it makes no sense to remove something as "redundant" because it's "already in the lede" (or vice versa).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer, the left-leaning LA Times states that Project Veritas has built the reputation, not James O'Keefe. Your edit reflects your point of view, not the point of view of the LA Times. Since it seems that you have initiated an edit war which James J. Lambden has previously politely asked you to cease, I am pinging him as a courtesy. In the meantime, as a gesture of good faith, I suggest you self-revert and build consensus on the talk page before escalating your edit war. Thanks in advance. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

First time I hear that LA Times is "left-leaning", and even if so, who cares? Let me also suggest that meat puppeting for Lambden and tag teaming with him (while accusing others of "edit warring") in an area from which you were topic banned (and then indef banned) up to like what, one day ago? is probably a bad idea.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

As to the substance of your complaint, it's called "paraphrasing". But I rewrote the sentence to address your concern.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

VM: Hidden Tempo and I agreeing on one edit to one article is not "tag-teaming." Enough. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The reader gains nothing from repeating a lede sentence directly after in a new section. NorthBySouthBaranof did a good job trimming the lede. I suggest we keep it trimmed. Primary is what happened; secondary is reactions, responses and background. James J. Lambden (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the reader does gain something, indeed, something crucial - important context. And the lede summarizes the text so any objections that this is "redundant" are obviously spurious. Furthermore, NBSB trimmed other parts of the lede, in between your edit warring edits which removed this important info. One more time - both NPOV and BLP require this info.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I said the reader gains nothing from repeating the same claim, twice, one right after the other. Argue in good faith and get consensus for your changes. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am discussing in good faith. You, on the other hand are engaging in straight up WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT obscurantism and obfuscation. The statement is well sourced, highly relevant and summarizes the article. Those are the arguments. What are your "good faithed" responses? And not just "I said so". But actual arguments.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The opening paragraph introduces the subject to the reader, the undercover video and background on the past deception of the hoax creator/leaker. Nothing seems wrong with this as presented currently. ValarianB (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless a preponderance of sources mention phone tampering in relation to these videos (they don't) neither should we. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Many of them do, and almost all mention either O'Keefe's or PV's "reputation".Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and lambasting someone as a "hoax creator" without diffs is really BLP-problematic also (ValarianB). My stance on this is that it's fine to mention a "phone tampering" charge on O'Keefe's main page, but to cherry pick a CNN-sympathetic source and use that phrase in conjunction with his name seems like an attempt to poison the well and discredit the work of his organization. For example: "Jane Doe, a prostitute, claims she was raped," is completely unacceptable. This follow-up would be equally intolerable: "John Doe, an alcoholic, says that he witnessed the assault." While O'Keefe may have been charged with a crime in the past, it is highly POV and undue to attack his integrity (twice in the same article) based on unrelated accusations. Furthermore, as CNN does not dispute the authenticity of the video footage, it is pointless to call O'Keefe's/Project Veritas journalistic integrity into question or raise the specter of his criminal history as it has no relevance to these videos. CNN said it stands by Bonifield, and Van Jones clarified his "nothing burger" remark, but did not refute the footage.Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Wut? I don't care if he was talking about Satan, if he has a questionable record, one should be totally wary of anything he claims. By your rationale even if he makes claims based on anonymous sources it'd be fine. Even if everything he says now is true and there is no deceptive editing (wrong), still we cannot talk about him as if he's making legitimate statements. As Volunteer Marek mentioned numerous times, there is an issue of WP:BLP here, and we just can't smear figures with something coming out of the boy who cried wolf. --Smghz (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Smghz. I disagree with your premise - if one has committed a misdemeanor 7 years ago and has been accused of a journalistic lapse, that does not necessarily mean we must be wary of "anything he claims." If that would be our standard, then we would have to extend that to half of news personalities today, especially with the marked increase in fake news from mainstream sources since January of this year. I see no sources who have accused O'Keefe of "deceptively editing" any of the CNN videos. Van Jones claims the video was "edited," but then again, so is every pre-recorded show on CNN and other networks. Also, his statements are not in question, but the videos released by his organization are - the content of his introduction and analysis of the videos probably shouldn't be in this article at all. I'm unsure of the BLP issue to which you were referring. Who is being "smeared," here? O'Keefe? Thanks for helping out, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Hidden Tempo (talk). This is not about a person committing just one thing. This guy is a professional hoaxster. The Post's Farhi's article clearly mentions his record: the ACORN controversy, his $100k fine, him being currently sued for $1m, LA Dem Senator's phone tampering, use of innuendo to lure in a CNN reporter. This excludes his deceptive editing of videos. All in all, this is ****ing evidence of taking in more than a little grain of salt when evaluating his claims. This is not about the content, even if they are all true (and it looks like the statements in the videos are not false albeit their value is questionable); it is about his credibility. I wish he's a credible guy; we'd report the events as neutrally and objectively as possible no matter CNN likes it or not. Do you wonder why Wikipedia is not a reliable source? That is because I can't establish your status or you establish mine. Second, there is huge difference between editing for time and convenience, and editing for conveying a particular message that wouldn't be conveyed otherwise. Third, I am perplexed as to your claim of mainstream media being "fake news". Are you saying that organizations like NYTimes, WP, CNN, Fox News, BBC, NPR, ABC, NBC, MSNBC are fabricating stories? Point that out to me, please. There can be misfortunate retractions and occasional corrections, but...fake news!? Finally, the WP:BLP notice concerns Bonifield: that he is being smeared by O'Keefe. I would love to hear your response. Thanks.--Smghz (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to violate BLP here, so I'm not going to impugn O'Keefe's character or call him any names. But again, it's not about O'Keefe, is it? Any discussions about the man should go on his main page. This is about video footage from an organization that he runs. It would be different if a RS says that the video footage was falsified. Then he would be relevant. Nobody's denying the authenticity of the footage - not CNN, and not its subjects. It happened. Bonifield, Jones, and Carr said what they said. The only purpose of dredging up a man's probation sentence would be to poison the well.

The reason I mentioned that every news organization "edits," is because Van Jones attacked O'Keefe for "editing" his footage as if it somehow diminishes or debunks the footage. In reality, it doesn't. PV likely has hours of footage, and they cut it down to save the relevant bits. I see no smears on Bonifield. Which specific phrase in this article is a smear on Bonifield? And about the fake news, I can provide you with an avalanche of links showing MSM sources reporting false stories and retracting several Trussia "stories", but not on this page because I don't want to get too far off track. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's about O'Keefe, since it's historganization that made the videos and since he is the one publicizing them. It's sort of ... strange, to try to argue that we shouldn't say anything about O'Keefe here. And the RSs that are reporting on this consistently mention his reputation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I disagree. This essentially amounts to a smear campaign against O'Keefe, to try to get the reader to believe the videos were faked before they even view the footage. It's wholly inappropriate to attach salacious material to any sentence that contains the man's name. You would never write, "Greg Hutchinson, whom has a history of hating the police and has previously advocated for racial equality, filmed the Rodney King footage." Why not? Because his past is irrelevant. This page is about the footage, not the respectability of the founder of the organization that gave it to us.Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh my God, where did reliability disappear? Now we are smearing O'Keefe? This is his own history and his own purposeful actions. He knew well that he did something wrong, and paid financial and societal retribution for it. It's like saying we have to report on Wakefield's new study linking autism to obesity without reporting his fabrications and conflicts of interests, or Madoff making a new company without saying he had a Ponzi scheme. If we did not report on the guy's reputability we'd be doing a disservice to the world bc it'd mean the person reading may be entirely new to this and by clicking on Wikipedia as his first page, he/she would not know this person's reputation and whether something fishy is going on. I am sorry, but debating whether to consider reputation is beyond mind-boggling.--Smghz (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)