Eisspeedway

Talk:James O'Keefe

"Far Right Wing"?

"Far right wing": Such a depiction is, on its face, from the get-go, POV, and has no place at Wiki. It needs to be dropped. 2600:1700:BF10:69D0:A584:1053:9043:8374 (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the universal description by RS and is supported by a consensus that it is accurate. Andre🚐 15:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Universal in what universe? The echo chamber of the old media elite? The echo chamber of academia? How many conservatives are there on the faculties of university political science departments? The left has taken over institutions like the media and education, which sho0uld be neutral and turned them into partisan tools. Scottca075 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a POV, but it's the POV of RS, not just editors here, so we include it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPOV on Wikipedia has a specific meaning: ...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. It doesn't mean that editors can just arbitrarily decide that what the sources say is POV and remove it or downplay it; in fact, doing that would be introducing your POV to the article. Even if you personally dislike the term "far-right", and even if you don't personally believe it is applicable, it has extensive usage in academia and similar high-quality sources, who use it as a neutral term to categorize a specific, reasonably well-defined ideology; and numerous high-quality sources use it in the way we're using it here. --Aquillion (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be that to say X is Y, Y had a definition and a set of properties that could be compared against X...but since Y in this case is basically a slur that is used to bash pretty much anything that the far-left-owned media doesn't like, regardless of definition, nobody here can be bothered to prove that X is Y. They'll just cite a far left source like every other propaganda article on this joke of a site 98.156.185.48 (talk) 01:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nope Andre🚐 01:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a term that should not be used. Note that the term "far left wing" is almost never used. The ratio of usage is an evidence of bias in the editing of these articles. The editors should learn from Sgt. Joe Friday (Dragnet TV show) and publish "Just the facts, Ma'am" then let the readers decide for themselves if it is "far" anything.173.62.193.38 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAQ at the top of the page. --McSly (talk)
The term "far left wing" is seldom used in U.S. political articles because the U.S. far left is microscopic and mostly non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "far left wing" is seldom used in U.S. political articles because the people writing the majority of the articles are left of center themselves. One of the reasons I stopped supporting Wikipedia financially was the virtual suppression of conservative voices and any pretense of balance. The current Democratic Party is enthralled by the far left wing of 'the Squad'. That this is no longer the strong, anti-communist party and party of the working man is readily apparent. Scottca075 (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:NOTFORUM. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

James O’Keefe is mainstream America - not far right as this POS article claims… 2601:404:D600:EB80:C4FA:8312:5EA4:8616 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Read Q2 in the FAQ at the top of the page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Hey guys, I don't have a dog in this fight but you've got to be aware of how obvious it is that someone has come in here and smeared this group on their wikipedia page, right? Lol. It could not be more transparent that this is not an unbiased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.185.106.228 (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "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". The article content is well-substantiated by the reliable sources cited in the article. If you locate reliable sources that contradict the article content, feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 20:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What an embarrassing article. So unbalanced it just makes me laugh out loud. 118.148.78.44 (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with the article, feel free to share the reliable sources that substantiate your point of view. — Newslinger talk 18:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_O%27Keefe