Talk:James O'Keefe

Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation, click the [show] link to the right of a question.

Q1: Why does this article describe James O'Keefe and Project Veritas negatively?

A1: Wikipedia's aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources say; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This means that if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative. Since most reliable sources describe O'Keefe and his organization negatively, this article also describes them negatively.

Q2: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is far-right?

A2: The "far-right" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. Over a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas as a far-right organization. Please see these references for details.

Q3: Why does this article say that Project Veritas is an "activist group"?

A3: The "activist" descriptor is based on many multiple independent and reliable sources. These sources describe Project Veritas as an activist organization or a group of activists. Please see these references for details.

Q4: Why does this article say that Project Veritas edited videos "deceptively"?

A4: The "deceptive" phrasing is cited to many multiple high-quality reliable sources. More than a dozen independent and reliable sources describe Project Veritas editing its videos in a "deceptive", "misleading", or "manipulative" manner. Please see these references for details.

Q5: But what if the sources are biased?

A5: Reliable sources are, according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources, not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you have reliable sources that express contrary points of view or refute any statements in this article, please feel free to discuss them here. If you are unsure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Sources or search the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if its reliability has been discussed in the past.

Q6: Shouldn't this article avoid using as sources media outlets against which Project Veritas has published exposés?

A6: Some editors have made the argument that, because Project Veritas has targeted various news outlets (such as The Washington Post, CNN, and NPR) in its operations, those news outlets should be considered unreliable with respect to Project Veritas due to conflicts of interest. A 2020 discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability found that disqualification of sources based on alleged conflicts of interest such as this did not have community consensus. In addition, many of the cited outlets that are critical of Project Veritas have not been targeted by them.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James O'Keefe article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9: 21 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article.

The entire article relates to the following contentious topics:

post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles

Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Rutgers Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New Jersey - Rutgers (assessed as Low-importance).

Commanders executive

O'Keefe media just got a top executive of the Washington Commanders fired. Probably should be mentioned. There are no allegations that the video was "deceptively and selectively edited," LOL. [1] 152.130.15.15 (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was deceptive by definition. Remind me to frisk anyone I take on a date. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And, most of the honey traps used by O'Keefe target gay men. The sources haven't addressed this, and I doubt they ever will because of political correctness, but political operatives and spies have a history of targeting homosexuals. It's how the Soviets turned the Cambridge Five, for example. 152.130.15.15 (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The motivation for other O'Keefe acts has generally been obvious. Do any RS indicate why he decided to mess up this man's life? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Encampment 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

.

According to Justin Leslie of https://justintegrity.net, James Edward O’Keefe III went to the Bohemian Grove in the summer of July, 2023. There is evidence that Justin provides in his documentary https://justintegrity.net/project-whistleblower/. The Bohemian Grove is a Satanic gathering of only wealthy males, notorious males, high profile males, and other males around the globe held once a year in July. Citation: Just Integrity. (2023). Just Integrity Network. Just Integrity. https://justintegrity.net/ ‌WhitePapertowel (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

This does not appear to be a reliable source. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about now? WhitePapertowel (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue wasn't the formatting of the citation, the issue is the source itself. See this page for some explanation of what a reliable source is, for Wikipedia purposes. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is reliable. WhitePapertowel (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't. "Reliable" has a specific meaning in the context of Wikipedia, and this does not meet its requirements.

On the face of it, it's just some guy writing on a website, which isn't a reliable source. Anyone can make a website and call themselves an "independent journalist". If you click that link I just posted, you'll see that Wikipedia relies on publications with some kind of editorial oversight and/or reputation for accuracy.

So that's a bad start. But the fact that the website is full of conspiracy theories about Covid etc means that this website doesn't just lack an established reputation for accuracy, there is evidence that it is regularly inaccurate. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I submitted screenshots of the evidence to Wikimedia commons. WhitePapertowel (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia also has a policy against original research; facts, evidence etc must have been published in reliable sources to be used in Wikipedia articles. User-uploaded evidence is not something we can use, I'm afraid. AntiDionysius (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch the project whistleblower documentary, James Edward O’Keefe III is on the record stating that he “…went to this Bohemian Club.” How much proof, evidence, and reliable support do you need? WhitePapertowel (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable source. WhitePapertowel (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And how much more empirical evidence do you need to understand that James Edward O’Keefe III went to that summer encampment of 2023? WhitePapertowel (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is not a reliable source has been explained already. I suggest that you re-read it. Also, I don't think anyone is gonna waste their time watching that "documentary". --McSly (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/project-veritas-james-okeefe-rise-fall-1235036748/ What about this source? Is it a reliable source? Thank you. WhitePapertowel (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably interesting. But, "According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011"[WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS ] O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean Rolling Stone was considered a reliable source before 2011? By implication to me at least it was considered a reliable source before 2011. How can it change from being a reliable source to a non-reliable source? And why is it generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011? WhitePapertowel (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is encyclopedia-worthy of O'Keefe one time attending the secret Bohemian Grove confab? I'm not seeing the point here. -- M.boli (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The public has the right to know that he went there. That’s the point. WhitePapertowel (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He exposes these corrupt agencies, organizations, institutions, people, etc. and he is holding them accountable to what these people say on the record in an undercover investigative audio and video recording. Is it not corrupt for attending the Bohemian Grove and not being held accountable as to why he attended? He is considered by some as the king of investigative journalism. Why can’t he be held accountable? If he went there to expose what the Bohemian Grove is and was about, wouldn’t he have already exposed it by now? WhitePapertowel (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is encyclopedia-worthy because that is the thing, the secret Bohemian Grove is secret. And if it’s that secret, why didn’t he already expose that place and the people who attend that summer encampment? Which it seems it’s pretty secret that not even the king of investigative journalism seems to have evidence that he will or intend on exposing what happens there. WhitePapertowel (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Agency Board Takeover

In the interest of transparency, there needs to be some mention of the fact that the board was infiltrated and the takedown of O’Keefe was in response to his refusing to share information with DoD agencies. Nousernamesreallyremaining (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources? A quick google search found nothing.

Note also that your use of "in the interest of transparency" conventionally means that you were one of the perpetrators of this act, and are being transparent about it. -- M.boli (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is an extremely biased page that is nothing but slandering james

He doesn't edit his videos to create deception. He is doing proper journalism and doesn't edit anything out. 2600:1001:B14F:A4E0:5590:E8A5:E892:B21B (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No edit proposed, marking as complete. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See FAQ Q4 at the top of this page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your right! I read the article & it is most certainly biased. I didn't know who he was, but I will do my own investigation on him now. True journalism is gone forever I'm afraid, & only ones emotional feeling's are left. 2600:6C52:417F:8743:D86D:48D0:EE56:1BA (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]