Talk:James O'Keefe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Dressed as a pimp?

Our article currently states that "there is no evidence that he was dressed as a pimp while in the ACORN office ...." That seems to understate the available information, in that it omits the considerable evidence that he was not dressed as a pimp, as detailed in the cited source.

There is an indication in this criticism of O'Keeffe that he has falsely claimed to have been dressed as a pimp. If he did make such claims, they should be reported here, along with an indication of the contrary evidence. JamesMLane t c 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: In this link there are many additional sources about O'Keefe's (and Breitbart's) duplicity. JamesMLane t c 01:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully we can get a better source, but that's a fascinating post at BradBlog.--Milowent (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahem

Mudskippermark claimed (just above)that the AP never ran a story mentioning O'Keefe's living with his parents. He says he'd like to see it. Funny--because that is exactly what I'm complaining about being deleted--that VERY proof! Even though the cited statement of mine (which I keep finding removed) was published by the New York Times...IT IS (ahem) AN AP STORY! (And published all over the place.)ACORN Foe: Phone Scheme Meant to Embarrass Senator, By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Published: January 29, 2010, Filed at 5:09 p.m. ET.

So, in seeing that Mudskippermark was wrong in saying, "...the AP (which every major U.S. paper runs articles from) DID NOT find it important enough to report," wouldn't one have to agree that in his own description of what it would mean to have an AP citation, Mudskippermark has made the absolute best case for including the very mention he's seeking to omit?

Let's take a good look at the subject matter we're facing here: The leader of a politically motivated, self-described group of pranksters. People whom have lost control of the narrative they were trying to create--and have already demonstrated a willingness to go to great lengths in the attempt to control a news story. Consider the appropriate response to the valid question about how Madoff's home incarceration was handled on Wiki --prior to his being found guilty--and note Mudskippermark's response. Scroll back and check it out.

How much proof of calculated BS do monitors need?

I'm on here because I (both) care about history--and am personally offended by such defacement of my own writings. But ask yourself--who would care so much to remove on Wiki what is an already widely reported event? Another thing--that I should have mentioned earlier. All politics aside--there is a human interest aspect of a prankster--even if innocent--being ordered to live with his parents. O'Keefe is a political Balloon Boy. Is, "We did it for the show," going to be deleted because it was spoken by a minor? No. How about because of the pain Raven may have over blowing it for his parents? Nope. "We did it for the show," stays. It only happens to be funny.

When was the last time--in a well publicized news story--an adult man was released into the home of his parents? Off hand...I can't think of one. That makes this a part of the story regardless of an innocent or guilty disposition. Just the fact that it happened! Big Orange (talk) 20:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing a fact with notability under due weight. The principles of his arrest are included, there is no reason to try and denigrate the subject further. Please read up on WP:WEIGHT. Also please read up on WP:BLP and WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA Arzel (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You Need To Answer This

Why was Madoff's home confinement recorded on Wiki prior to a guilty disposition? YOU (and Mudskipper)NEED TO ANSWER THAT ONE--AND HAVEN'T. You start talking about guilty this and guilty that. You're BSing. Madoff's home confinement was part of his story--and I want to hear you explain why. Your own words. See,I think it was because of human interest and the natural irony of an ivory tower becoming a prison. But you need to provide a reason other than that. Because with O'Keefe it is not different. Jesters have been punished by those in power from the earliest of times. That O'Keefe was sent to live with his parents was notable in itself--forget the politics. As I've asked, when was the last time an adult in a noteworthy case was sent to live with his parents? Citations please. That this board is being over-run with people that have no regard for truth is apparent. First, the continued deletion of AP material (after AP material had been demanded, and-amazingly- when presented... suddenly denied--in some sort of weird cover-up--not unlike the very work of our subject matter). Then we find the word "journalist" is re-inserted (and stays?) with an un-cited reference to O'Keefe denying entering the Senator's office under false pretenses ---when actually, the references--(and even O'Keefe's own BigGoverment.com account) make no such claim. The existent citations merely reiterate O'Keefe's statements about wiretapping, which were discussed (and removed) earlier (*and are not my posts). What good does typing "citation needed" serve at this point? These defacing editors, if this edit is by the same small group, have demonstrated no interest in providing citations. None at all. Why does this obvious BS stand? I'll tell you why. Kids and activists. I can't wait for the outcome of this--to make a new addition! Big Orange (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right that neither O'Keefe's statement on BigGovernment.com nor his other statements explicitly deny the charge of entering a federal building under false pretences. Unfortunately, the Politico article mentioned early in this wiki explicitly states that O’Keefe has been arrested along with three the men by FBI agents for allegedly trying to tamper with the phones of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) while other articles just mention the entering under false pretence and intent to commit a felony charge, confusing matters greatly, I'm sure. I reverted my previous edit reading your comment here and noting how O'Keefe, in his statement, denies tampering with Landrieu's office phones, but it doesn't appear he was charged with that specifically.

As far as all this parent's house business, obviously such a fact must be posted with citations that mention the facts. Sadly, at this moment, the sentence with that statement about his current living place and his bail are cited with two broken links. I'm about to fix the one that mentions the $10,000 bail, but I don't know the title of the AP article that mentions the other conditions of his release. I will attempt to address this...

--Enderandpeter (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is disappointing... I am trying to correct two dead links in the 2010 New Orleans arrest section, specifically for the sentence: After posting $10,000 bail, O'Keefe was released on the condition that he live with his parents and not travel outside New Jersey without court approval in the second paragraph. The first dead link, which is currently endnote 64... which I see is now a link to a source that actually corroborates this sentence thanks to an edit by AzureCitizen. Kudos, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enderandpeter (talk • contribs) 01:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiretapping allegation

I've revised the sentences about the intentions behind the Landrieu incident a bit. Previously, the article cited three sources to support the claim that "no wiretapping equipment was found, and O'Keefe was not charged with wiretapping." The sources cited actually don't support that wording. One (the Washington Post article) says nothing one way or the other about wiretapping or related equipment. A second source is simply a Talking Points Memo reprint of the FBI agent's affadavit, which again does not address the issue of wiretapping and so cannot be used to source such a statement. The third is an MSNBC piece quoting an unnamed law-enforcement official to the effect that O'Keefe's intention was to disable Landrieu's phones and record her staff's response. This is the only one of the 3 sources that actually supports language about O'Keefe's intentions, and so I've revised the text accordingly to reflect the sources. MastCell ^Talk 21:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

MastCell, this is DIRECTLY from that reference you took out which DOES say something about wiretapping: "The headline incorrectly referred to a plot to bug the phone and a caption incorrectly referred to an alleged wiretap scheme." No plot to bug the phone, incorrect allegations of wiretap scheme, case closed. The affidavit in question failed to mention any sort of wiretapping equipment, nor did the initial report of the cops at the scene.

Plus which, I've double-checked the charges against him and the only thing that is mentioned is that he and his co-workers/friends are charged with entering federal property under false pretenses. To be clear, I think his attempt to enter said property under false pretenses was stupid. I have no problem if he wants to do that with ACORN, or the Village Voice, or the NY Times. That's what investigative journalism sometimes entails. But in a Senator's office? Bad idea.

Needless to say, that answers conclusively that he has not been charged - either at this date or a past date - with wiretapping anything. The link in question backs that up. I would love to hear from you, but I've re-inserted it in the meantime. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

2/12/10 Hello All. Mudskipper, your point is well taken, but I dont think we can ammend the article to slant things in favor of either your assertion, or James' excuses. Consider O'Keefe's last appearance on Hannity (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/28807390/hannity-exclusive-with-james-o-keefe.htm).

O'Keefe flatly admits to a camera being hidden one of the helmets. While that does not constitute "wire-tapping a phone", it still does fall under the legal rubric of "bugging", (maybe not "bugging a phone," but "bugging" all the same.) In fact, this very matter forms the basis of Baltimore ACORN's legal case against O'keefe.(For a succinct legal definition, see: http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wiretapping/ -note, the definition applies to "oral communications" as well as electronic [phone, email etc...]. On that note, the term "wiretapping" has a number of applications, and it's definition morphs somewhat from state to state.)

Such a laugh. Your, and ACORN's, excuse for a case boils down to "he was bugging his helmet" . . . which if I am not mistaken is his property. Can't commit a felony on your own merchandise, bud. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Laugh away sunshine, it doesnt change the hard facts. Your argument here makes absolutely no sense. O'Keefe explicitly states that there is video of the event from the camera in his friends helmet. The helmet wasnt filming O'Keefe's scalp, alright? The hidden camera was filming the very intrusion James admits to coordinating. Now, read the definition for "bugging" on any website dealing with litigation.

In cases like this one, if your own property is being used, by your own consent, in an illegal act, your ownership of it does not absolve you. I honestly cant see how you might think otherwise. In your haste to white-wash O'Keefe, it really seems that you haven't thought the argument through.

E.g., If someone is selling drugs out of another person's house, that other, as a homeowner, is guilty. If you lend your gun to someone, and help that person coordinate a shooting, you are as guilty as the shooter. And in this case, the hidden camera in the helmet IS incriminating, and the argument you are making eats itself from the get-go. Still, your devotion to O'Keefe's cause is moving all the same.Ceemow (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Filming in a public place is not illegal, your example of selling drugs is simply not even close. The recording of sound without the consent of all parties varies from state to state, but in general is not illegal. To say that this was "bugging" is a huge leap. Arzel (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Arzel. Well, once this court case is completed, we'll know exactly what was, and what was not, illegal in this situation. As far as laws surrounding electronic surveillance in Louisiana, you might want to consult this- http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78938

I dont think O'Keefe & co constitute "persons acting under the color of law."

The examples with drug-trafficking or shooting was only offered to demonstrate the relevance of possession in cases like this one.

Anyhow, we dont need to add all that "legaleeze" to the article, but you'd be hard pressed to make the case that O'Keefe's possession of a hidden camera is an innocuous fact in this situation. All the same, that is for a court to settle, not us. Sorry if it all makes O'Keefe look less than perfect, but thems the breaks.

Again, despite Breitbart's conspiracy theory (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201002010034), the fact remains that the FBI wouldnt be involved if they didnt find this serious enough to prosecute. Agian, if you have a problem with that, it is better addressed to Agen Rayes and the FBI, not to people who are working from their sworn statements. Ceemow (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In the cited interview, O'Keefe regularly dismisses Hannity's questions by saying "this is an ongoing investigation, so I cant really talk about (fill-in-the-blank)". He has a point. The matter is too amorphous right now. So we cant make Wiki a place to rehearse O'keefe's defense, or slam what he calls his "enemies". In the fullness of time, once the case is settled, we'll know what we can charge as "false" or "true" regarding this matter.

The retractions made about the charges were printed accomodations to Breitbart's attempts at faulting the media over minutiae. That is quite self-evident. Since they didnt get the "exact" verbage surrounding the charges to the letter, Breitbart and O'Keefe accuse them of "lying", and move from there to claim that James is not just innocent, but a "martyred hero." It ridiculous. The FBI wouldnt be wasting their time and resources on a media-mispronounciation, or to indulge Breitbart's bizarre fantasies of persecution. They have an interest in the exact activity that James & co were committing. I think that's obvious. O'keefe did something illegal, foolish, inexcusable, and really quite suspicious (ESPECIALLY considering his past behavior, and considering the "war" which he and Breitbart claim to be waging against all things "left"). THAT behavior is why he's in court.

The truth is (much like those bits of ACORN footage left on O'Keefe cutting-room floor), we really dont know what happened. And we WONT know anything until after the case, or until the FBI releases the tapes. Much like ACORN had stated last fall, James says that a full release of the FBI tapes will "clear up any misunderstanding" (see Hannity Interview above.) Outside of being incredibly ironic, the statment makes clear that the deatils are just too cloudy, and O'Keefe is in no position to air them out. Furthermore, O'Keefe has an extensive history of working by deception, so his little caveats dont really hold much water. Okeefe's defense is therefore conjectural, and we cant submit something so conjectural as fact (unless we label it as such), no matter how much so many people might love James.

We should really only add the updates to the New Orleans story as they play out. If I'm not mistaken, the case is already on the court-room floor (I believe James went in today, Feb 12, for the pre-trial process, but no updates so far.) So we will know what we can properly label as a "false" or "supportable" charge once all these matters come to light. But until then, I dont think we should make this a place to either trash or glorify James. We just want reliable facts. Putting in arguments between Breitbart & what he calls the "msm", without labeling that argument as such, is not justifiable.

Look, the case is still happening, and in time we'll know what's up. We dont have to rush into anything, anymore than we'd have to rush into the issue of "racism." Let's see what comes to light. James has countless little red-state-esque websites that sing his praises and tirelessly try to vindicate his name. We dont need to make this Wiki entry one of them. Thanks for your time.Ceemow (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Mudskipper, one more thing.--The cited reference given for the claim that "the Government did not charge that wire-tapping had taken place" is not faithful to the statement. What the article DOES state is as follows--

Correction to This Article

Earlier versions of this story incorrectly reported that James O'Keefe faced charges in an alleged plot to bug the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu. The charges were related to an alleged plot to tamper with a phone system. The headline incorrectly referred to a plot to bug the phone and a caption incorrectly referred to an alleged wiretap scheme. The story also incorrectly reported that Landrieu had proposed a replacement for William Flanagan. Landrieu had proposed a replacement for the U.S. attorney, but Flanagan did not hold the post at that time.

Okay, that correction is VERY different from saying that "The government did not charge that wire-tapping had taken place." The latter conclusion can only be labeled as "original research", unless it is presented as O'keefe's perspective on the matter (i believe it is a direct quote from him.) The statement in the affadavit makes it clear that the FBI had probable cause to deduce activities that were "malicious" and that constituted "interference." The charge is "tampering".

Because of that, i am changing the scentence. Otherwise, it's too extrapolative, it is not faithful to its cited reference, and it appears to be phrased as a defense to an unspoken argument about James' and the media. Its all phrased in the negative, as if it were rebutting a "positive"... why would we need to add the statement that "the gov had not charged etc...", when we havent had any statement in this entry saying that the government DID chrge him with wire-tapping? And if we wanted to back-track that argument to James' claims about "journalistic malpractice", we'd find ourselves sorting through a nagging back-&-forth of minutiae cited as "lies" by Breitbart, when they really amount to minor, irrelevant and moot misnomers.

Let's keep it clean.Ceemow (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will show you again:

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/acorn_gotcha_man_arrested_for.html

All four men were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony. I don't see anything about "tampering" or "interference" in that, most of which came from Rayes' opinion in itself. It is spelled out for you in black-and-white: That is the charge they face. You're claiming the right to make up non-existent charges simply because - being non-existent and all - they have been omitted from press releases.

Do you give more weight to ACORN's case against O'Keefe than you do to his defense in this matter? He is innocent until proven guilty. That is something I don't think you understand, and comprehension of that fact does not turn Wikipedia into a "red-state-esque" cheering section. It just brings balance to the situation. Let's keep that clean. MudskipperMarkII (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mudskipper, I hope this message finds you well. With all due respect, you really haven’t shown me anything, other than your steadfast devotion to BigGov's fabricated narrative about the incident. Furthermore, you have shown a propensity to misquote and extrapolate, and your links above are testament to that. I think a review of your contributions to this discussion demonstrates quite clearly that you are making up "non existent charges and all". Check your press releases again, and see what has been dropped, and what has been clarified.

First, the article which you cite does NOT support your argument at all. In fact, it pretty much goes against it, in that it solidifies what is already clear: O'Keefe allegedly attempted to commit a felony. If you have read the FBI report (see link in Wiki article), then you'd know that the felony in question consists of the "malicious interference" which Rayes alleges as the purpose of James' poorly thought-out scheme. "Tampering" is a succinct and valid term for the activities in which O’Keefe was engaging, and he himself admits to carrying a working, concealed camera in his partner's hat (http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/28807390/hannity-exclusive-with-james-o-keefe.htm). For the record, that IS a form of bugging (http://definitions.uslegal.com/w/wiretapping/), but we don’t need to add that to the article.

SA Rayes' affadavit is far more valid than any re-arranging of words which BigGov.com is trying to peddle. Like it or not, Rayes's affadavit remains the most reliable source (as far as Wiki guidelines go) surrounding this matter as it stands (yes, that could change, but it hasnt yet, okay?) It's certainly more substantial than any politically driven commentaries on either side of the aisle. Not only is it the most reliable, it is also the principal source. If you find O'Keefe's ACORN videos valid as a principal source (despite their edits, contradictions, and voice-overs), I think you might give at least the same consideration to a sworn statement by an accredited agent of the FBI acting in good faith.

Look, no offense, but you are talking as if none of us are reading the updates to this story, when, ironically, you dont seem to be reading the very articles which you cite (that really does seem to be the case.) You seem to be "READING INTO" these cited articles vrs actually reading them, and your citations are a case-&-point (e.g., going from the addendum in the aforementioned WaPo article to stating that "the government did not charge etc...", or using the NOLA article to bolster your point, when it clearly contradicts it; both attempts make it clear that you are not reading the either article in its totality, and are selectively misreading them out of loyalty to BigGov.) On the other hand, the rest of us ARE reading those articles, but we cannot extrapolate conjectural info from them. And we are not saying in this Wiki entry that "James is guilty,” Only that “James has been arrested, and here’s why.” Its really that simple. No statement of a verdict is present in the article as of yet, and wont be until the case is over.

Also, if you are going to preach about being "innocent until proven guilty", then I would suggest that you revisit the whole ACORN video fiasco, and observe O'Keefe's own outlandishly shady behavior. While he continues to peddle SERIOUS charges that have already been proven false (even ultra-conservative FoxNews reported on that- http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,553423,00.html, and Fox’s Megyn Kelly conceded on Sept 22, 09 that “ACORN did the right thing” by reporting to the police), he makes a complete mockery of the “innocent until proven guilty” principle. (BTW, his refusal to update and correct the misleading info on the videos DOES need to be added to the body of this article.) By contrast, again, NO ONE has entered that "james has been found guilty" in our entry. We have only stated that he has been arrested, why he has been arrested, and associated relevant material. Any complaints about "journalistic malpractice" can only be labled as the opinions of O'Keefe and his following, not stated as facts.

Look, if James is found innocent, then you can come in and revamp this whole section into whatever accommodates that possibility, and I will happily aid you in that endeavor, as well as eat crow in his honor. But for now, the entry meets the rubric of reliability, while the caveats which you offer on O'Keefe's behalf absolutely do not.

Finally, please do visit a real ACORN facility. See what they really do. Thank you for your time.Ceemow (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mudskipper, Please understand that what I am writing here is just an observation, not a judgment on you. I dont mean this to be snarky, but (after reviewing your arguments) it appears that you have the terms "allegation" and "conviction" confused. Remember, we are writing about what James is ACCUSED of by the FBI, not about what he is/is not guilty of doing... the latter is being worked out in court.

Rayes alleges an attempt at tampering (and the word "tamper" succintly describes what Rayes is alleging in his affadavit... lets not mince words over it, okay?) That means that he has probable cause for what you refer to as his "opinion." Nevertheless, his informed opinion IS the allegation. That allegation, in turn, is on a sworn affadavit, which by all counts is the most reliable, as well as THE principal source for this story. If that is a problem for you, then you'll have to take that up with Special Agent Rayes and the FBI, not with those of us who are working from their sworn statements.

Again, alleging something is a very different thing from saying that "James is guilty of (fill-in-the-blank)" I think you might feel less compelled to try and spin this story if you develop a more concrete understanding of the terms "allege", "convict" or "accuse", as well as "interference","tampering", "wiretapping", & "bugging". Ceemow (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

@Ceemow: You are too nice, but I disagree. Mudskipper is NOT confusing "allegations" and "conviction." It's clearly intentional. Whenever someone posts an interesting and well sourced fact--she/he pops up like clock work--not to debunk (as that would be okay if the facts were on his side) but to "shout" it down by dissembling in some fashion. He's made far too many errors (many repeatedly) for all of them to be innocent mistakes. Mudskipper(and is it a troika?), has been corrected numerous times, presented with the very AP stories he has denied the existence of (which is called: LYING), and still reverts to the exact same behavior-- about the exact same material--often defacing the legitimate additions of others. And, all of this in the name of "protecting" O'Keefe from having the TRUTH included in his biography--like only a mother would--(that is, if one's mother were dishonest).

To allow Mudskipper--at this point--to continue participating on Wiki: is a slap at truth loving people everywhere. Wiki should block her/his computer (not just his screen name) from ever posting again. This article has gotten out of control--and Mudskipper is the biggest reason why. ENOUGH! {Wikipedia--I'm not rich. And I haven't donated as of yet. But if you want me, on my budget, to consider it...you better be worth the while. Letting this demonstrated Goof (his own posts are the only citation I need) run rampant doesn't cut it. It bothers me that monitors would let this happen.} Big Orange (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Big Orange, I think your analysis of the problem is spot-on correct. Mudskipper has, indeed, offered a number of sources apparently without checking them. And often, the sources he cites make the opposite point from the one he offers. He clearly admires O'Keefe and wont allow for any valid criticism to be posted regarding the subject. The same behavior is evidenced by a few other contributors, who seem to want this article to just be an echo of the ideas on BigGovernemnt.com (I have had that problem with them since the begining of these entries.) I guess Mudskippers spirited defense of O'Keefe must show his loyalties, but he doesnt seem to be able to temper it with recorded fact.Ceemow (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The Deal

Key sentence in this link: "And even worse is the Times' implication that it's O'Keefe who gets to decide which version of the pimp story is true, despite all the contrary evidence." There are indications that a good number of the edits of this entry have been intentionally falsified--and that board moderators are pussyfooting because they want everyone to play nice-nice.http://mediamatters.org/columns/201002170008 Big Orange (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

New Observation

MudskippermarkII made a nasty, rambling, comment on my talk pages. One sentence was particularly revealing:

MudskippermarkII: "Is it going to cause a fender-bender for Rayes' expensive car?"

KEY WORD: Expensive.

Funny, I have searched and searched- and have not been able to find one reference to Agent Rayes car, especially one indicating an expensive model over an unmarked heap.

That is a heck of a slip. Why not just say car? What's the source? I think what we've got here is FIRST HAND original reporting. (And if this gets deleted--like the last post I wrote regarding this matter...I'm going straight to Bill Moyers. The heck with Wiki moderators...this is a story unto itself...and may very well find itself as an legitimate chapter in the O'Keefe story.) Big Orange (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place for journalistic research. If you have a problem with another editor take it to WP:ANI. Finally, WP is not your Soapbox. Arzel (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, Arzel, as for being my soapbox, I wouldn't be saying much if this article wasn't constantly being defaced. Your (and others) deletions are a form of perverse censorship that is much, much, more than a soap box. Furthermore (and you know better), there is "reporting journalistic material on Wikipedia," and there is, "doing journalistic research ABOUT Wikipedia." Two very different things. I'm clearly describing the later. I don't plan on putting anything I've "found" on Wiki -unless reported in the mainstream press. What I'm doing here--what you are really objecting to--is me simply discussing edits, and complaints made against me by other editors about those very edits, in an open way--on a discussion page-and NOT the body of the article. Your problem is that I'm doing what a good Wiki editor is supposed to do. You, however, make the majority of your controversial/wholesale changes to the actual article--and often against the weight of opinion voiced on these pages. You don't think that is easy for me to demonstrate? Well, you are entitled to your opinion. However, that MudskippermarkII's (and others) comments, in and of themselves, may now lead somewhere else, is (quite specifically) due to the lack of citations on their/your part--not mine. Your opinion doesn't trump that fact. If there were a citation somewhere indicating a make or type of car for Agent Rayes, that would be one thing. That there isn't...another. I didn't make MudskippermarkII write the word,"expensive." He did that on his own. That it stands out like a sore thumb (as possible evidence of something else)... is on him. A likely Freudian slip recorded for posterity on Wiki. And, with each additional post...more rope. Yes, I have filed reports (on several defacers) with the administration. But that doesn't mean I can't report somewhere else about it, too. Big Orange (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Big Orange (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Big Orange. You are absolutely correct. This Wiki entry -as well as those for Giles, Breitbart and the ACORN Video Scandal- have all been battlefields for Breitbart fans. And most of those fans want Breitbart's interpetation of events to overshadow (even replace) less-biased and more factual coverage. With them, even basic facts (ones which every source can attest to) have to be revamped in order to make O'keefe look like a martyred hero. It's as if RedEye and BigGov.com are not enough for these guys, and the article suffers as a result. It becomes not a record of fact, but a contorted ideological place-mat, and as such is useless as an encyclopeadic entry. I agree with your point whole-heartedly.Ceemow (talk) 08:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Is O'Keefe a "Journalist" by contemporary standards?

On 2/14/2010, an IP edited the first sentence of the lead to add the title "guerilla journalist" right after "activisit filmmaker", citing an opinion piece by columnist Howard Kurtz. In the column, Kurtz does not call O'Keefe a journalist or guerilla journalist (in fact he specifically asks the question, is what O'Keefe did actually journalism?), but the name of the piece is "Guerilla Journalism". I agree with The Magnificent Clean-keeper's revert because a single opinion piece like that isn't really a valid cite in the way that was used, but it makes me return to something I had asked myself previously: is O'Keefe really a "journalist" per se, by contemporary standards? Looking at the journalist article, a journalist "collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues", and are usually reporters or columnists. Reporters "find sources for their work," and are expected "to report in the most objective and unbiased way," while columnists write opinion pieces that "appear regularly in newspapers or magazines." Further, a more formal definition of the term is "those who may be admitted to membership of a national or regional association (union) of journalists." O'Keefe doesn't seem to be a "journalist" in these regards, and the term "activist filmmaker" is more descriptive and accurate. For these reasons, the first sentence of the lead probably shouldn't call him a journalist unless appropriate sourcing can be developed for it. Meanwhile, O'Keefe himself has personally claimed to be a journalist (specifically an "investigative journalist") and it is fair and relevant that he be allowed to assert this, by using his own words with attribution. This has already been included in the lead where he states he is a "progressive radical and an investigative journalist without formal training". If anyone else would like to weigh in on this, please share your perspective; for now I am going to edit the lead sentence accordingly. --AzureCitizen (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• He is not a "journalist", as discussed before on this page. See in the archives here: Talk:James_O'Keefe/Archive_1#Is_he_really_a_journalist.3F--Milowent (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I missed it previously.--AzureCitizen (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, that's the problem with archives :-) --Milowent (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Minor point. He may be a journalist, but there haven't been RS's that classify him as such, and concensus was that he shouldn't be labeled a journalist. However, we don't want to present the idea that he is not and end up with any kind of edit war that turns into a negative evidence argument. Arzel (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that, and it is currently covered nicely by the inclusion of O'Keefe's statement (that he considers himself an "investigative journalist") with attribution and citation in the middle paragraph of the lead.--AzureCitizen (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

ACORN Undercover Videos material moved to the Main Article

On 4/23/2010, I moved a large chunk of new material plus old material from the ACORN undercover videos controversy subsection of the James O'Keefe biography article to the main article because it was rapidly expanding and becoming divergent in content from the main article. The subsection here now consists of the lede of the main article as a synopsis with main article link; this prevents the problem of the articles slowing changing over time with new material appearing here which isn't in the main article itself.

As the lede of the main article now serves as the subsection synopsis here on the O'Keefe biography article, if an editor wishes to make changes to the section, please do not edit it here while ignoring it on the main article. Instead, edit it on the article mainpage, and if the edits are in consensus, copy it back here to the O'Keefe page subsection so that they continue to match.--AzureCitizen (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

White supremacist literature

Please stop reverting the change dealing with white supremacy. O'Keefe was at an unsavory conference and this should be in Wikipedia. But to write in addition the allegation he was "handing out white supremacist literature" is to treat hearsay as fact. The article is clearly an op-ed. Its only witness to such an event is an anonymous D.C. area freelance photographer Isis, who is referenced might I add in brackets, and who refuses to be named. Her photograph of O'Keefe is no more than a mugshot.

There is no ground to print that James O'Keefe was handing out white supremacist literature. There is plenty of ground not to. If the hit piece you are linking to with the aforementioned flaws is sufficient ground for us to record fact, we might as well start linking to the tabloid press.

It is easy to find accounts of the convention online written by those who went. Perhaps we can read some of them together and work out what happened? I think that might be helpful.

For now perhaps you can suggest a compromise. Ogo (talk) 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is probably important to note as well that the Blumenthal story is flawed and shouldn't be used as a reliable source.[1][2][3] Truthsort (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

O'Keefe as a "reporter"

I noticed that the lede was modified to indicate that O'Keefe shoots his videos as an undercover reporter. I remember it previously being discussed (in the Talk page archives) that O'Keefe is not considered a journalist per se by contemporary standards. While it is certainly fair to attribute O'Keefe's comment that he considers himself to be a journalist (see the section "personal life"), I think the statement that he shoots his videos as an undercover "reporter" or "journalist" should be sourced appropriately if it is to remain in the lede. --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK that seems wise. Ogo (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead section

Since CNN has accused James O'Keefe of attempting to sexually seduce one of its own reporters [4], has it nonetheless maintained its journalistic independence from O'Keefe, such that its determination of the importance of facts should guide this article's discussion of the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, in preference to the press release issued by the California Office of the Attorney General [5] upon the conclusion of its investigation? Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding [6], the "hedge" is from the California Attorney General himself:

"A few ACORN members exhibited terrible judgment and highly inappropriate behavior in videotapes obtained in the investigation," Brown said. "But they didn't commit prosecutable crimes in California."[7]

Is this conclusion by Jerry Brown better represented by saying "the videos produced in California provided evidence that 'a few ACORN members' engaged in unprofessional conduct, but no criminal acts for which charges could be filed" (as I support), or "subsequent investigations found no evidence of criminal acts by ACORN" (the version written by MastCell)? This second version is inaccurate: "no evidence of criminal acts" is not an accurate description of the California Attorney General's report, which states only that "they didn't commit prosecutable crimes in California" ("no crime" isn't the same thing as "we can't prosecute them for any crimes"). The investigations by the California and New York attorney generals relate only to videos taken within their home states, but MastCell's version exonerates ACORN throughout the country. And it isn't neutral to mention Brown's conclusion of no "prosecutable crimes" without his finding of ACORN's unprofessionalism. Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your wording, Peter Karlsen. It is indeed fair to mention how Brown found that some of the members acted unprofessionally yet not in a criminal way that could be prosecuted. MastCell is correct in his assertion that Brown found no criminal wrongdoing, which your edit also asserts. However, Brown does admit to another kind of wrongdoing-- that of acting unprofessionally. So it's important to note that O'Keefe did document shenanigans, but not of the type that were so extensively publicized. Unfortunately, MastCell's edit neglects to mention the pertinent information that Brown did find that a few of the employees did something wrong. Enderandpeter (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to the lead of an article (an article about O'Keefe, not ACORN), we need to briefly summarize cogent points. When CNN summarized the cogent points, they focused on a) the lack of criminal wrongdoing by ACORN, and b) the "selective" editing of the tapes by O'Keefe. Our emphases should mirror those of reliable secondary sources, like CNN, rather than reflecting the specific excerpts that we as anonymous Wikipedians find most interesting.

For example, the Attorney General's statement also said: "The evidence illustrates that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor." That quote is actually much more apposite - particularly to an article on O'Keefe - than the one you're highlighting. I'm not suggesting we include it, because I don't want to get into cherry-picking our preferred excerpts, and would rather mirror the summaries found in independent, reliable sources like the CNN piece.

I'm fine with elaborating on Brown's findings about ACORN in the article body, but the lead can't turn into a lengthy rehash of the Attorney General's report. Look at how CNN handled this in summary style for their article on O'Keefe - that's what we should be shooting for, and where my edit was aiming. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think you have a point regarding the succinct style leads for articles should have. Indeed, Brown's investigation was primarily, if not solely, responsible for investigating criminal conduct, of which he found none. In that case, it would definitely be a good idea to briefly include information about Brown's admonishment of ACORN employees in the ACORN undercover videos section. Enderandpeter (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's say that we're going to source this portion of the introduction solely to the CNN article. Here's the original paragraph from CNN:

But prosecutors in New York and California eventually found no evidence of wrongdoing by the group, and the California probe found the videos had been heavily and selectively edited.[8]

Now MastCell's version:

However, subsequent investigations found no evidence of criminal acts by ACORN, and determined that O'Keefe's videos had been misleadingly edited to portray ACORN in a negative light.

This misrepresents the source: all information about locality is discarded. Whereas CNN makes it clear that only videos taken in "New York and California" were investigated by the respective states attorney generals, and only "the California probe" found misleading editing of videos, MastCell's version exonerates ACORN throughout the country.

So, even if CNN were an "independent, reliable source" on James O'Keefe, they haven't been represented fairly or accurately. However, based on [9], it's obvious that CNN has taken leave of its journalistic independence from O'Keefe by accusing him of attempting to sexually seduce one of their own reporters. In the absence of secondary reliable sources that don't have a beef with O'Keefe, the press release by the California Office of the Attorney General [10] is one of the most reliable sources available. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should read: "Subsequent investigations in New York and California found no evidence of criminal acts..." That would address the locality concern, right? I'm pretty strongly opposed to disqualifying CNN as a reliable source solely because you believe they've "taken leave of their journalistic independence" or "have a beef" with O'Keefe. If you want to base this on the California AG statement, then as I noted above, there are other excerpts equally or more pertinent to this article, which is about O'Keefe rather than ACORN after all. MastCell ^Talk 00:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've added locality information to the article [11], placing "in New York and California" in quotation marks, as necessary to attribute this direct use of text from CNN. I doubt that we'll agree on the qualifications of CNN as a source on James O'Keefe; unless other editors support my view that CNN has forfeited its independence by entering a personal dispute with O'Keefe, I'm willing to leave the content of this portion of the introduction determined by the CNN article. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask about something Peter Karlsen said. I'm not sure I understand you when you say, it's obvious that CNN has taken leave of its journalistic independence from O'Keefe by accusing him of attempting to sexually seduce one of their own reporters. No where in that article does CNN or even Boudreau outright accuse O'Keefe of trying to seduce her. The article merely repeats Boudreau's summary of her conversation with Izzy Santa, namely: "Izzy told me that James was going to be dressed up and have strawberries and champagne on the boat, and he was going to hit on me the whole time,". They also include an excerpt from the "CNN Caper" document where O'Keefe was apparently to say Abbie has been trying to seduce me to use me, in order to spin a lie about me. So, I'm going to seduce her, on camera, to use her for a video. This bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five will get a taste of her own medicine, she'll get seduced on camera and you'll get to see the awkwardness and the aftermath. How is this an example of taking leave of journalistic standards of disinterest or independence? If at some point in the text it said O'Keefe attempted to seduce a CNN journalist, then you'd have a point. However, CNN merely repeats statements from sources and avoids positing any of their own theories about O'Keefe's motives. Enderandpeter (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking in broad generalities about the situation to avoid restating every gory detail here; obviously, our article must use more careful and measured language. I want to clarify that I'm not citing [12] as an example of obviously biased reporting that inherently indicates a departure from journalistic independence. Instead, the situation itself indicates that CNN can no longer be an impartial source with respect of O'Keefe: we'd hardly trust CNN to fairly and accurately report stories concerning someone who was suing it, even in the absence of obvious bias; what has arisen between Abbie Boudreau, CNN, and James O'Keefe is similar in terms of the level of implicit animosity. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It's also far from ideal that the "Attempt to embarrass CNN correspondent" section utilizes CNN as its sole source. It would be really helpful, from an NPOV perspective, if we incorporated reporting from other media organizations - even material like [13] appears to simply re-report the CNN allegations, attributed as such, without any independent investigation. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Boudreau's comment in [14] succinctly summarizes the issue: "I never intended to become part of the story." What Wikipedia considers to be independent reliable sources aren't "part of the story": they've maintained a journalistic distance from it. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that you did indeed cite the Zamost article as an obvious example of CNN taking leave of its journalistic independence from O'Keefe. If I understand you correctly, it seems that you meant to speak about a more general view of their coverage, specifically in the frame of CNN being involved in a dispute with O'Keefe which causes you to fear that they now have a non-journalistic interest in his portrayal.

I am not aware of any lawsuit between CNN and O'Keefe. As soon as there is one, then you will be completely justified in wanting to avoid citing information with CNN coverage (and even then, only coverage that occurred after such a lawsuit [god-forbid]). Though we can safely assume that Boudreau and CNN are not pleased with O'Keefe, the Zamost article is the furthest thing from a hit piece. Again, it's a very disinterested overview of the facts. The only assertions the writer makes are based on evidence. Had the Wikipedia article cited the piece Boudreau herself wrote about the incident then, again, you would have a strong point against using such a source.

Now you are absolutely correct that it is better on the whole to rely on sources outside of CNN to write about this incident because the potential for a conflict of interest between CNN and O'Keefe is great, although I disagree that this has already occurred (except in the form of O'Keefe's desire to smear CNN). Also, though Boudreau does not wish to become part of the story, the fact that the story involves a failed attempt to punk her and the organization she works for makes her association with the story unavoidable. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, including her own coverage of the event would be a grave violation of WP:NPOV, and so we should rely on independent reports, even if they are written by CNN reporters, as long as they aren't editorials and as long as CNN isn't involved in any kind of lawsuit with O'Keefe or Project Veritas. Enderandpeter (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see any big differences between CNN's coverage of the incident and, say, CBS. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

<--[redent] - Well, I saw the notice on the RfC board for this article and thought the issue was the text here regarding the CNN incident. Now I see that the section name for the RfC is "The Lead", although the description is about the CNN incident. In any case, went directly to the article, as I did not particularly care to comment on the CNN controversy. The first thing I noticed when looking at the article was the dark pic, which I lightened, and the second thing I noticed was that the lead did not represent the major points of the article. So I re-did the lead after reading the article and some of the associated references. (I was already familiar with a lot of his story, due to my earlier editing here.) In any case, I believe the lead is now much more reflective of the major points of the bio. It gives the basic details re. his education, profession and his the four or five major, notable works ″ r-Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that's change I can believe in :-) Seriously, your edit for the lead is both comprehensive and succinct regarding O'Keefe's most notable actions. Thanks a lot, good sir. Enderandpeter (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Attempted punk of CNN anchor gone awry

I thought that this was notable enough story to be included in the article if anyone wants to add it. [15]. Remember (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been done and the deceptive nature of his attempted denial has also been made clear, which is obvious from the sources. Her article also has the same content now. Filmfluff (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Wikidemon disagrees with some of your edit. I do understand the objection regarding too much antagonism in regard to mentioning here his attempted denial. Unfortunately, given the nature of what he said and did, there's not a much lighter way of putting it. Now I decided to change Even though O'Keefe, at the time, had attempted to get her to enter the boat, he later attempted to deny involvement... to Although O'Keefe..., since saying Even though in this case can come across as only slightly too hostile. The difference is very small, but with subjects that are so sensitive, the tiniest barbs can add up.

I was going to change ...attempted to deny involvement... to denied involvement, but upon second glance, it looks like his statement to CNN specifically referred to not liking the idea discussed in "CNN Caper" and then not thinking about it again, rather than denying that he ever met Bordreau or tried to get her onto the boat. This definitely comes across more as the attempt to deny (albeit a poor one) rather than a complete denial of any involvement in this scheme whatsoever (e.g. Claiming he was somewhere completely different, never asked her to board the boat, never planned a hoax, etc.). Even if he no longer aspired to the particular plan that the paper CNN obtained laid out, it would appear a trap had been set for her, and one of a sexual nature given Santa's warnings.

Also, Filmfluff is right that everyone can't be expected to read all of the sources. Only in that sentence is it made clear in the Wikipedia article that, according to Bordreau, O'Keefe truly did try to get her to enter the boat. Hopefully, the small change I made gives that factual information less of the appearance of an attack, which it is not meant to be at all. Enderandpeter (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just restored some important and properly sourced details. I'm not sure how they got deleted, but leaving them out makes this look like a whitewash of O'Keefe. Filmfluff (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"misleadingly edited"

A common manner in which political partisans attempt to dismiss the ACORN videos is to characterize them as "misleadingly edited" or "heavily edited." They claim this because they say the video "misleads" people into believeing that O'Keefe was dressed in the same "pimp" costume that he wore for the music videos he shot that accompany some versions of the ACORN videos. Not only is this completely irrelevant, but it is untrue anyway. The videos show O'Keefe actually entering ACORN offices dressed in normal clothes.

Even the New York Times ombudsman agrees on this:

“Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes.”

Jerry Brown calling them "misleadingly edited" is irrelevant, as he is not even close to an unbiased source. That is why I am removing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialKCL66 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My only comments here are that there are several sources that say the videos were misleadingly edited, and this conclusion was reached after criminal investigations were done. The criminal investigators have more expertise, more resource and likely better access to the full version tapes than a NYT ombudsman.

Jerry Brown was acting in his capacity as an attorney general. I believe all the state attorneys general are either political appointees or elected through the political process. Are we to say that no investigation or action that comes out of an AG's office is valid because the AG himself may be politically biased? It may be your personal POV to mistrust government and place your full faith in the opinion of a NYT writer when that writer agrees with your POV, but that is just your POV. In these articles we have to go by WP:RS rules, and there are many RSs that say the tapes were misleadingly edited. There are even RSs that say O'Keefe overdubbed some of the dialog! - Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 10:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Jerry Brown's comments should not be mentioned, but his conflicts of interest should also be noted. Jerry Brown's opinion is mentioned in the main article, but it is not remotely significant enough to put in the introduction without any caveats. Any unbiased person with the faculties of reason can tell that Jerry Brown's claim does not hold water in any remotely meaningful way. It is not just the New York Times. This doesn't have anything to do with "trust in government;" just watch the videos itself. Also, you seem to be suggesting that Jerry Brown did some sort of thorough investigation involving voice analysis and video experts. No support exists for that. Jerry Brown may have analyzed the content of the videos to determine if ACORN workers had committed a prosecutable crime, but that is different, and does not somehow render O'Keefe's ACORN investigation to be meaningless or dishonest.

O'Keefe did not "overdub" some of the dialog. That is simply false. He did provide narration in some of the condensed versions of the ACORN videos to explain the situation, which partisans like to claim is "overdubbing" to make it sound like there's some sort of deception. That is a transparently dishonest characterization.

This page seems awfully geared toward smearing O'Keefe. I'm just trying to make it a little more non-partisan. SpecialKCL66 18:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources are consistent in their negative characterizations of O'Keefe's actions, and his own emails and material from his own organization and coworkers reveal he is very deceptive. These are reliable sources, and we are required to follow them. Filmfluff (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That all depends on which sources you look at. He is "deceptive" in the sense that undercover work is by definition deceptive, sure. We also have to keep in mind that CNN and O'Keefe and Breitbart (who helped to promote the ACORN videos) have a history. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Heavily and selectively edited"

The words "heavily and selectively edited" are right out of the source citation. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And it's also inaccurate and dishonest. A discussion of Jerry Brown's editorializing can be had in the main article, but it is not appropriate to state it unchallenged, certainly not in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialKCL66 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate that it is your opinion that it's inaccurate and dishonest, but Wikipedia is about WP:VERIFIABILITY, not your opinion of WP:TRUTH. If you're new to Wikipedia, you should probably check out those links to familiarize yourself with the relevant policies. You may even want to consider doing some research of your own on trying to find reliable secondary sources that agree it's inaccurate and dishonest to characterize the videos as heavily and selectively edited if that is what you believe. In the interim, the videos have consistently been characterized as edited and misleading in the official investigation report and in the media sources, and the source citation says "heavily and selectively edited." --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well put. Filmfluff (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there are some media hat characterize them as "heavily edited" and "misleading edited," but I have already shown you what they use to make this claim. I offered the quote from the NYT because he says quite concisely what others believe, and he speaks for one of the most liberal papers in the country. When Fox News, the WSJ, and the NYT agree, it's probably a legitimate analysis. You guys are trying to assert the opposing opinion as fact, when it is an opinion, and a poorly supported one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialKCL66 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It’s also worth noting that O’Keefe has posted some videos that are edited (condensed into a reasonable time frame) and some that are posted in their complete and unedited form. It is incorrect to characterize all of them as “edited” as they have also been provided in their complete and unedited form. Everything broadcast by CNN, MSNBC, or FOX News could also be referred to as “heavily edited” or “misleadingly edited” if that is the opinion of the viewer, as everything they broadcast is edited to fit an appropriate amount of time. O’Keefe, however, has also provided the unedited tapes, but his opponents (CNN is one of them) frequently refer to the edited ones so they infer that O’Keefe somehow doctored them. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at some of the controversy surrounding Jerry Brown that I added to the main article. Jerry Brown's opinion deserves to be mentioned, but it can't be stated as simple fact. Let me know what you guys think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpecialKCL66 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Biggovernment.com isn't a reliable source, and in fact should be on our blacklist. It would only qualify, by our rules, as a RS for an article on its owner. The coverage of Brown is a BLP and weight issue and unbalances the article. The reports from the California AG office aren't a personal matter, but a state government report. You're making it into a personal one from Brown himself. The heavily edited version was the one first released by O'Keefe. His original intention (which hasn't changed) was to slant things and he did it in a dishonest manner. Later he was forced to release unedited material, but not voluntarily. He would have preferred to leave the heavily edited version out there alone. Filmfluff (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Biggovernment.com is a reliable source, particular for this purpose. I am linking to pages that contain significant primary source material. There is legitimate controversy and it is dishonest to assert Brown's opinions as gospel. Why should it be on anyone's blacklist? The language about O'Keefe's videos being "misleadingly edited" comes from Jerry Brown himself. Moreover, it is Jerry Brown's office, and he is running it. You are removing well sourced evidence that there is considerable debate about Brown's report to advance what you just stated is your opinion of James O'Keefe's motives. You are incorrect in your claim that he did not release unedited material until he was forced to. He released it within days of the story breaking. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, i have been intentionally avoiding my contributions just to see how this conversation worked out.

First, lets be honest here. BigGov.com may have primary sources on the now discredited ACORN videos (and yes, they ARE discredited... otherwise the supposed "crimes" on the tapes would have been prosecuted.) But BigGov.com is NOT a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. The episodes with Shirley Sherrod, “Dr.” Kevin Pezzi, and even O’keefes census video makes that abundantly clear (he was caught by George Stephanopoulos for omitting portions of his census video that countered his advertised narrative.... in one day, Breitbart went from calling Stepanopoulos a “Profile in media courage” for interviewing O’Keefe, to a “sandbagger” for questioning his behavior.)

There is little hope of cleaning up the situation with Abbie Boudreau, and the evidence is stacked against James. That isnt liberal media bias, thats just the bed that O’keefe and his pals made for themselves. And even his boss, Andrew Breitbart, says he owes his fans an explanation for that kind of perversion (that kind of set up, with that much planning, is what a serial rapist does, not a “journalist”.) BTW, Breitbarts statement ought to be added to the article.

That being said, I don’t know why someone like O’Keefe needs to be handled so delicately now. A year ago, you had to make a hard case against an avalanche of disapproving young conservatives if you offered a counterpoint to those provided by James. But now, he really has forfeitted the right to be considered reliable. The disgusting "prank" on Boudraeu makes a solid case in point. His unconvincing attempt to clean it up (against a mountain of verifiable evidence) makes it even moreso. Just because he has a loyal fan-base does not make him or his organization credible in the slightest. He deserves no more special treatment on this site than any other subject. And like any other subject, the facts must be rendered as per reliable sources (not as per a website like BigGov, whose owner has a habit of avoiding sensible questions with hostile hyperbole, and whose stated goal is to "take down the institutional left"... I can provide the links if necessary.)

Trying to equivocate O"keefe's behavior with such delicate hop-scotching is one clear example of why Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously at all as a properly citable source. No respectable grant board, school, publisher etc... accepts Wikipedia as reliable , and thats because of the type of interested emotional injection that shapes articles like these. (I have witnessed that myself, and have even been accused of being an ACORN “agent” just for pointing out reliable, citable facts about O’Keefe and his work.)

On that note, please read this article.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-10-10/news/bs-ed-pitts-20101010_1_conservatives-for-investigative-journalism-cnn-correspondent-abbie-boudreau-citizen-mechanic

Please consider what Pulitzer Prize winner Leonard Pitts Jr. has to say not just about O’keefe, but also about the degree of negligence which the rubric of so-called “citizen journalism” has now provided (and which is far too much in evidence in the Wiki articles about this subject.) This is of special interest to all of us, as contributors to this site.

(from the article in the link above) "But I don't believe in citizen journalism because journalism — like any profession worthy of the name — has standards and ethics, and if you don't sign on to those, I can no more trust you than I can a doctor who refused the Hippocratic oath or a lawyer who failed the bar exam."

"You cannot be a journalist, citizen or otherwise, if credibility matters less to you than ideology. So please, let's find something else to call James O'Keefe III."

Likewise, as contributors to a forum that makes the pretense of showcasing accessible and throughly vetted info, everyone here HAS to be mindful of Pitts Jr’s caveat. You cant just jump around skewed definitions of Wiki standards just to make a case for patently bogus information. And, too often, thats just what winds up happening here.

Anyhow, BigGov.com has, with Sherrod, with Pezzi and by countless other examples, demonstrated that it doesnt vet its info, nor does it check the reliability of its contributors. It looks for information that helps Breitbarts own explicitly stated goal of “taking down the institutional left.” That means it has to be taken with far more than just a grain of salt, it has to be regarded with the very scepticism which it itself has generated by its own recklessness. I mean, at this point, you might as well have Ahmedinajad give you the skinny on the US Constitution.

Honestly, this is really all I want to say here. Be responsible. Be accurate. Don’t just make this a hall of distorted mirrors to ease the conscience of a mendacious political operative like James O'keefe. But if you opt to shape this article into a story that only reifies a number of already proven falsehoods, and that for a peron who has shown, time and again, a completely indignant lack of accountability (thats not opinion, its a fact), then you are indeed reinforcing Wikipedia's reputation as a low-brow, online novelty catering only to those too lazy to do their own homework.

Bye, and have a terrific autumn. Ceemow (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a long riff there, but if the Huffington Post, Salon, Atlantic, talkingpointsmemo.com etc. all count as reliable or credible sources on here (they're frequently referenced in this article), then by that standard, so is Big Government. Big Government does have an editing process. Breitbart admitted he should have waited to get the whole tape on the Sherrod issue, but a lot of media outlets also falsely claim the tape Breitbart posted ommitted the redemption part of Sherrod's story.

Regarding O'Keefe, the media's coverage of him is a story in and of itself, and I will submit that it warrants a section of its own in O'Keefe's BLP. An astonishing number of reputable news outlets have had to issue scores of retractions and corrections in their reporting on O'Keefe. Over time, the facts have consistently shown that O'Keefe has a considerably better record of telling the truth about matters related to James O'Keefe than those reporting on him. The Landrieu caper, with the "wiretapping" allegations, is a good example.

Regarding the CNN caper, that is also an issue that needs to be revisited on O'Keefe's page. CNN's past knee-jerk coverage of O'Keefe, the corrections they have had to issue, and the general pattern of reportage on O'Keefe by the general media frequently being proven wrong all suggest patience might be warranted regarding the CNN caper. There is not, as you suggest, overwhelming evidence against O'Keefe, and there are contradictions and/or glaring holes in CNN's reporting of this incident.

Exhibit A in extremely shoddy reporting by CNN: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/abbie-boudreau-reveals-stunning-details-to-james-okeefe-prank/. They even try to claim O'Keefe committed a "break in" of Landrieu's office. Nice try, CNN.

You have tried to suggest O'Keefe's ACORN videos have been "discredited." Good luck with that. If even the New York Times can't say that with a straight face, you're way, way out there. A story that does not result in criminal convictions is not therefore discredited. Nice try. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You also bring up the issue of whether or not O'Keefe is a "journalist." That is legitimate topic of debate, and perhaps the section I just proposed on media coverage of O'Keefe would be a good place to mention the existence of this debate/controversy. The article you just linked to is probably not a great starting point to make your argument considering Leonard Pitts seems to be struggling with the facts surrounding O'Keefe and particularly the Landrieu Caper we've been discussing. Pitts' entire argument against calling O'Keefe a journalist is this:

Earlier this year, prosecutors declined to prosecute ACORN employees amid reports that the videos were selectively and misleadingly edited. Meanwhile, Mr. O'Keefe and three others were arrested for trying to tamper with telephones in the office of Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu. Now comes a report of a bizarre plot to embarrass CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau, who was seeking an interview. Mr. O'Keefe had apparently planned to lure her aboard a boat filled with sex toys and secretly record their meeting; thankfully, one of his henchwomen warned Ms. Boudreau off.

The main point I would make about this passage is that I don't think O'Keefe would claim the "CNN Caper" was journalism the way the Landrieu and ACORN investigations were. He wasn't trying to uncover anything, it seems. He was merely screwing around with CNN in response to their dishonest and inaccurate reporting on him, apparently seeing if he could make them look bad. That's a "prank" or a "punk," as it has been described, not an attempt at journalism. If a reporter for CNN makes naughty home videos in her spare time, she's not doing "journalism," but she never claimed it was, so why would that discredit her as a journalist?

Also relevant to this discussion: much to the chagrine of his critics, the judge in the NOLA matter declared O'Keefe to be a "journalist"

Some say O'Keefe is merely doing what a number of networks have done in the past by doing undercover operations. Others (such as Breitbart) are of the opinion that he has created a new genre, and that a big part of the flare and humor that O'Keefe introduces into his work is to penetrate the gatekeeping of the mainstream media. That was also the reason for the rollout strategy Breitbart developed for the ACORN videos. I don't think many people can seriously say at this point that the ACORN videos were not newsworthy. Whether they resulted in convictions or not is irrelevant. There was a great deal to be learned from them. And because it's all on tape continuously rollin from beginning to end of every investigation he did, the video speaks for itself, and people can take from it what they wish, and anyone skeptical of their authenticity can see for themselves. Problem for ACORN is that nobody watching can come up with any remotely plausible explanation that excuses what they saw on there. If nothing else, it illustrates the kinds of lending standards required. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello SpecialKCL66, I am sorry, but we are not talking about conjectural points, we are talking about verifiable facts. The verifiable fact is that O’keefe is dishonest. For example, he cant even admit to being a conservative, even though he receives money from conservative groups and founded a magazine whose own title describes it as a “Journal of Conservative thought.” His strong insistence to the contrary shows that he cant even be honest on that basic level.

If a person has a roster of lies that weighs far in excess of any purported truth he claims to tell, then that person is a liar. James OKeefe has a roster of lies that far outweighs any purported truth he claims to reveal. This is now a provable fact. Thats not something that can be argued away.

Now, we don’t have to announce James in this article as “a proven liar.” But we certainly cannot make the article a place to jumble and rehash everything in order to make James look like a hero. We have to be accountable to truly reliable sources, and to verifiable facts as they stand.

And, with all due respect, almost everything which you have argued above is absolutely distorted as per verifiable, material facts. I am not trying to insult you, its just evident in your points.

For example, you claim that the disgusting "prank" on Boudreau is O'Keefes response to the "dishonest and innacurate" coverage CNN leveled at OKeefe. Thats just wrong.

CNN has absolutely NO "dishonest or innacurate" reports on James. You will be hard-pressed to findeven one. The worst you'll find is Candy Crowley claiming that one should be careful about what one sees on the net. In fact, as far as CNN goes, we see James acting absolutely dishonorably-- Last year, he claimed they "ignored" him when in fact, they requested him for an interview, and had been reporting on his story since day 1 (the transcripts are all avaiable on Turner.com) He declined the interview publically, and with much hostile hyperbole, simply because CNN also interviewed Joe Conason. How does that make any sense at all? Especially for a "journalist" who claims to have such an important story? And then to lie and say "they ignored my story" when he publically refused their request the very day after his release on Fox? Thats not excusable, or even rational, AT ALL.

And, contrary to your claim, Pitts is not "struggling" with anything in his article. Pitts is quite certain in his posture. He is blatantly stating the obvious fact that, with unconscionable capers such as that attempted on Abbie Boudreau (a truly disgusting plan at sexual humiliation more proper to a committed predator), O'Keefe has shown himself to be neither responsible, accountable, honest nor even decent. You dont have to like the fact that this is the exact consensus which even many republicans now share about Okeefe, but it doesnt change the reality.

I don’t know where one could see a “struggle”in Pitts’s article about this issue. The statement is strong, solid and completely spot on. It is even a caveat to those on sites like Wikipedia. If one wants to see that “struggle” in the article, it could only be for the sake of whitewashing Okeefe from the results of his own behavior.

As for Breitbart, even Fox News’s Shepard Smith has defined BigGov.com as a totally unreliable source. Regarding the Sherrod video, Smith said--

“We here at Studio B did not run the video and did not reference the story in any way for many reasons, among them: we didn’t know who shot it, we didn’t know when it was shot, we didn’t know the context of the statement, and because of the history of the videos on the site where it was posted, in short we do not and did not trust the source.”

John Stewart pointed out that Breitbart should not be taken at his word, since by his own admission, he claimed that he is “at war to take down the instiutional left.” Those were Breitbarts exact words. As Stewart pointed out, THAT is Breitbart’s goal... not being honest, fair, decent or even reliable. If a source prioritizes ideology over actuality, especially while using such militant imagery as that employed by Breitbart, that source is not reliable for solid fact.

Again, we dont have to say that in this article, but we certainly cant use BigGov.com as a reliable source. They arent, and they have only themselves to thank for that.

Remember an innocent (even noble) woman was ridiculed, maligned and fired from her job because of Breitbarts negligence and angry hyperbole. There is no excuse for that.

Nor is there any excuse for a disgusting attempt at filming sexual harassment as entertainment for disturbed youths who think this behavior is okay. I dont know how you can so easily dismiss that with the argument "he was just getting even." At that point you might as well try to sell the “softer side of Charles Manson.”

And while "some might say that what OKeefe does is what journalists have done all along" as per undercover work, let me add that other journalists fill out what is called an IRB (Internal Review Board) form before going undercover. An IRB is a form you have to fill out if you want to record human subjects without their knowledge. You have to submit to the proper authorites that you have good reason to violate an American citizens right to privacy for the greater good. O'Keefe never filled out an IRB. If he did, he wouldnt be having the legal woes he has now. Since he doesnt even know what one is, he hardly deserves the title "journalist". As Pitts pointed out, you might as well call yourself a "doctor" just for having a syringe.

While I am not really interested in pursuing this issue anymore, I do want to assert that even on Wikipedia, facts cannot be distorted to meet the needs of ideology over actuality.

If this were a year ago, and O’Keefe was less known, we could say that he deserves the benefit of the doubt. But over the past year, by his own hands, through his own work, by his own lies (proven as such), and especially by the lies surrounding his most recent, and most indecent “prank”, he has totally forfeited that benefit. Its up to him to do something to change that... not you, me or Wikipedia.

Anyhow, all that aside, have a great weekend. Fall is here, and our time is probably better speant enjoying the last of the summer wine than trying to clean up O'Keefes hard-earned reputation as a liar.Ceemow (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well this is just getting silly. I won't respond point for point because I can see this will go on forever. You are entitled to your opinions, but you seem to frequently mistake them for "proven" verifiable fact." O'Keefe's generally pretty clear about his conservatism. He sometimes makes a semantic point of calling a "progressive radical" because he doesn't view himself as "conserving" anything, and also because he views himself as using the tactics of progressive radicals. That's semantics. Not exactly a smoking gun to attack someone's credibility. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, no, Breitbart saying he wants to take down the institutional left does not mean he is dishonest, nor does it mean he is confessing he will try to do so through dishonesty. Breitbart has a political view, he takes a side, and all of his websites are quite clear about that. But so do a number of other outlets that are used as references frequently in Wikipedia and in this very page. My point is only that BigG and BigJ etc. are every bit as legitimate as the Huffington Post or Salon (considerably more so in my opinion, but whatever). And the Shirley Sherrod story is considerably more complicated than you seem to think, and she is definitely not noble. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Landrieu Caper

Ok lets start over here a little more methodically. Given that the article currently states, incorrectly, that O'Keefe's felony charge was reduced as a result of a plea bargain, can anyone explain to me what is wrong with me posting this:

The government acknowledged it had no evidence of intent to commit a felony by O'Keefe and his friends, and confirmed that O'Keefe's explanation was truthful:

"In this case, further investigation did not uncover evidence that the defendants intended to commit any felony after the entry by false pretenses despite their initial statements to the staff of Senatorial office and GSA requesting access to the central phone system. Instead, the Government’s evidence would show that the defendants misrepresented themselves and their purpose for gaining access to the central phone system to orchestrate a conversation about phone calls to the Senator’s staff and capture the conversation on video, not to actually tamper with the phone system, or to commit any other felony."

Here is the exact document, signed by the prosecutor: http://patterico.com/files/2010/05/OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf

That document also notes that the video obtained by the government proved O'Keefe's investigation was a success:

One of Senator Landrieu’s staff members (WITNESS 1) told BASEL and FLANAGAN that she did not report any phone problems and that the office was not experiencing any issues with the phone system.

That video was ordered deleted by the judge.

Let me note that previous editors on O'Keefe's page have used the following primary sources, among others and other unreliable or questionable sources for this BLP:

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1888& http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no012610.htm http://ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1888_acorn_report.pdf http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr111-809 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPM145_joseph_basel_et_al.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Factual_basis_joseph_basel_etal.pdf http://neworleans.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel10/no052610b.htm

My goodness...

Not to mention citations from the likes of the Huffington Post, Salon, Atlantic Monthly...yet for some reason I can't reference something from Big Government or primary source material? I will wait to hear a legitimate rational for why all of these other things can be submitted but not the very clear quotations I provided from a very straightforward primary source that debunks some slander in this BLP.

Thanks SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You've hit on something that is clearly incorrect, that it was not a plea bargain but the Government deciding to reduce the charges in accordance with the factual basis. Good find! There also aren't any primary source concerns here, because you can use the document directly to verify the matter being asserted as long as you don't embellish it with additional (original) commentary. My only reservation is in the WP:UNDUE weight aspect of ballooning it into a sizable quote. Couldn't it be covered effectively in a single sentence of its own, incorporated into the paragraph? For example, the section currently states:

Several months later, the charges were reduced under a plea bargain from felonies to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses,[59][60][61] with the judge admonishing the defendants that: "perceived righteousness of a cause does not justify nefarious and potentially dangerous actions."[62] O'Keefe pleaded guilty on May 26 and was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine. The other three men received lesser sentences of two years' probation, 75 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine.[63]

Suppose we changed it to this (bolding only used to emphasize):

Several months later, the charges were reduced from a felony to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses,[59][60][61] with the judge admonishing the defendants that "perceived righteousness of a cause does not justify nefarious and potentially dangerous actions."[62] Entered with a guilty plea on May 26 was a factual basis which found there was no evidence to indicate that the defendants intended to commit any felonies, nor did the defendants intend to actually tamper with the phone system.<CITATION TO DOCUMENT>. O'Keefe was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine. The other three men received lesser sentences of two years' probation, 75 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine.[63]

If you look closely, the words "...no evidence to indicate that the defendants intended to commit any felonies, nor did the defendants intend to actually tamper with the phone system" is based very closely on wording lifted straight out of the factual basis, so it's very close to the original source and sets forth the key facts but doesn't require ballooning up into a standoff quote. How does that idea strike you? --AzureCitizen (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's better, but I think it might be a bit incomplete. I think it's important to point out that they didn't simply lack the evidence to convict him, but they also said the evidence confirmed his story. How about:

Several months later, the charges were reduced from felonies to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses[59][60][61] in accordance with a factual basis finding no "evidence that the defendants intended to commit any felony after the entry by false pretenses." <<reference>> The factual basis also asserted the evidence confirmed that O'Keefe's objective was simply "to orchestrate a conversation about phone calls to the Senator’s staff and capture the conversation on video, not to actually tamper with the phone system, or to commit any other felony." <<reference>> The judge admonished the defendants that: "perceived righteousness of a cause does not justify nefarious and potentially dangerous actions."[62] O'Keefe pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor on May 26 and was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine. The other three men received lesser sentences of two years' probation, 75 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine.[63] SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any strong (and legitimate) objections to that, I'll go ahead and updated it in, say, 20 hours or so. I'll go ahead and remove the plea bargain part now as this is a BLP and that's simply wrong. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Glad you went ahead and just removed the plea bargain part and didn't wait. Also, on review of the above, I'm in agreement that it's important to point out the part about orchestrating the conversation to capture it on video, not to tamper with the phone system. We're very close to resolution, but two minor technical details pop out at me again. The first is that in criminal court procedure, the factual basis isn't what reduces the charges; instead, a factual basis is a finding which must be entered at the same time and place that a defendant willingly pleads guilty. A judge can not accept a guilty plea from a defendant, even if the defendant wants to, if a factual basis isn't entered concurrently that supports it. For O'Keefe, and for all cases generally, the concurrent factual basis / guilty plea happened at a later court date (the felony charges were dropped earlier if you check the cites and the timeline). Hence the reason for my tweaks to the structure with "Entered with a guilty plea on May 26 was a factual basis which found there was no evidence," which you re-ordered and modified back to "the charges were reduced... ...in accordance with a factual basis", etc, and in the process you also separated/disconnected the Judge's statement which actually happened at the proceedings where the felony charge was dropped. The second technical detail is that since we're working with a primary source, we should avoid all commentary on the source and just present it in it's own words verbatim, hence concern for "asserted the evidence confirmed that O'Keefe's objective was simply". So here's my suggestion for a (hopefully final) reworded version, with the change from the existing article page version highlighted in bold:

Several months later, the charges were reduced from a felony to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses,[59][60][61] with the judge admonishing the defendants that "perceived righteousness of a cause does not justify nefarious and potentially dangerous actions."[62] Entered with a guilty plea on May 26 was a factual basis which found no "evidence that the defendants intended to commit any felony after the entry by false pretenses," and the "defendants misrepresented themselves and their purpose to orchestrate a conversation about phone calls to the Senator’s staff and capture the conversation on video, not to actually tamper with the phone system, or to commit any other felony."<<PRIMARY REFERENCE> O'Keefe was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine. The other three men received lesser sentences of two years' probation, 75 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine.[63]

Note that this way, only exact quotes were pulled from the primary source with no editor commentary, and the technical/legal procedure is spot-on (everything is described correctly and in clear chronological order). Does this sound good to you? --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I'll go ahead and slap in on there. Nice work. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking earlier that we should provide a link for "factual basis" so that people know it is a formal term and the name for a legal document, but wikipedia doesn't seem to have a page on "factual basis," and other sources on the web aren't very helpful, even legal dictionaries. Any thoughts?

Yep, good idea, a link for "factual basis" would be useful, so I went ahead just now and whipped together a quick article for it. It's rudimentary but helps describe the basic aspects to clue the reader in as to what a factual basis is in United States criminal law. If you can see any ways to improve it, please do. On my next edit, I will link it in the article... AzureCitizen (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the link. One other quote for consideration from the factual basis:

One of Senator Landrieu’s staff members (WITNESS 1) told BASEL and FLANAGAN that she did not report any phone problems and that the office was not experiencing any issues with the phone system.

The Landrieu office caper is frequently referred to by the press as a "failed" caper (I don't believe it was called that in this BLP though). O'Keefe has maintained that it was actually a success, which is confirmed by this statement from the factual basis. However, the magistrate ordered the videos to be erased from O'Keefe's equipment before it was returned to him (a source of considerable controversy and ire in the conservative blogosphere - many are unsure if he even has the authority to do so).

I think both of these points are important to mention - that the factual finding said Landrieu's staff member asserted the office was not experiencing any issues with the phone system and that the judge ordered the tapes erased. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something like:

Several months later, the charges were reduced from a felony to a single misdemeanor count of entering a federal building under false pretenses,[59][60][61] with the judge admonishing the defendants that "perceived righteousness of a cause does not justify nefarious and potentially dangerous actions."[62] Entered with a guilty plea on May 26 was a factual basis which found no "evidence that the defendants intended to commit any felony after the entry by false pretenses," and the "defendants misrepresented themselves and their purpose to orchestrate a conversation about phone calls to the Senator’s staff and capture the conversation on video, not to actually tamper with the phone system, or to commit any other felony." [63] The factual basis also noted "One of Senator Landrieu’s staff members (WITNESS 1) told BASEL and FLANAGAN that she did not report any phone problems and that the office was not experiencing any issues with the phone system."<<reference to factual basis>> Not long after the guilty plea, the AP reported that according to the US Attorney's office, "U.S. Magistrate Daniel Knowles III ordered the footage removed" from O'Keefe's recording equipment.<<reference to AP>> O'Keefe was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine. The other three men received lesser sentences of two years' probation, 75 hours of community service and a $1,500 fine.[64] SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, read the above, thought it over, and decided it would be reasonable to introduce the information, but fear that the way it's been inserted above (in the final paragraph describing how the court proceedings played out), it mucks up the tempo and flow. I think it would be better inserted into the requisite parts of the preceding paragraphs, while the part about the magistrate ordering the video erased (May 29th) belongs at the very end because it happened after the guilty plea (May 26th); I suspect he did that because it is normal and routine to deny a criminal defendant the fruits of his actions/intentions when convicted of a crime, similar to forfeiture. In any event, I am going to be WP:BOLD and just insert the information where I think it should go. If it anyone thinks there are problems with the edit, feel free to revert and we'll go back to discussing it here.--AzureCitizen (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Solid. The placement of the first part seems little odd as it doesn't seem like the scenario doesn't feel like it's been explained enough leading up to it, but that's minor. This point might be rendered moot in the next few weeks anyway as I suspect O'Keefe will be releasing the recovered-deleted footag in an upcoming video, so we'll probably be revisiting this anyway. I also made one tiny addition at the end of the segment adding, "before it was returned to him." It's not realy necessary but if one were skimming quickly, he might interpret it as the judge obtaining the footage rather than deleting it.SpecialKCL66 (talk 03:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Good addition, it makes it clear the equipment went back to O'Keefe. I share similar thoughts on how the scenario sets up, but this is mostly due to the fact that the notoriety of the event (WP:NOTABILITY) correctly centers on the arrest rather than O'Keefe's activism/intentions regarding the Senator, so the arrest comes in the first paragraph, then the reason for O'Keefe's actions in the next paragraph, and the resolution in the last paragraph.

If O'Keefe recovered deleted footage and is planning on releasing it, I'm sure we will be revisiting this subsection down the road, LOL. He would be smart to say nothing and publish it without forewarning, otherwise the Justice Department might seek an expanded court order regarding fruits of the crime. If it's on the Internet before an order issues, then the cat is out of the bag and no concerns regarding potential contempt charges, although if he is on probation for three years then he should read his probation terms very carefully first.AzureCitizen (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, another thing we need to address is the intro regarding this issue:

"In January 2010, O'Keefe and three other conservative activists were arrested by the U.S. Marshall's Service in New Orleans, Louisiana[9] on felony charges of entering federal property with the intent of interfering with the telephone system of U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu.[10] The charges were later reduced to a misdemeanor of entering a federal building under false pretenses;[2] O'Keefe pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years' probation, 100 hours of community service, and a $1,500 fine.[2][11]"

From this description, it doesn't explicitly say so, but it sounds like the charges were reduced as a result of a plea bargain. How about:

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

If there are no objections, I'll insert that correction in a few hours. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead and made that correction. The wording is aligned with the wording from the factual basis. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)