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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Ryk72: Here is a source which makes the connection [1]. If you hadn't been so trigger happy with the revert button I would've had the chance to add it in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New piece [2] from WaPo that can be used in this article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Re [3].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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