RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2120Goal: $3500

Talk:James O'Keefe

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Icon politics.svg

This Political activists related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Possible addition?[edit]

Today: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/10/james-okeefe-laughed-out-of-journalism-school/ --Sethpeck (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


This article was originally set up chronologically, which worked well because the "Misfires" were in succession prior to the NPR and Teacher's attacks. Now the voting thing has gone blammo. It's been added to Misfires, but that puts the order out of whack. Should we leave it as it is, move it to chronological order at the bottom, or reorganize/rewrite and ignore chronological order?--ADtalkModerator 20:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I added that one...I think chronologically makes more sense, so reorder as needed. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that chronological order for the stings section would be a good idea. The ACORN thing happened before the Planned Parenthood thing.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The ACORN sting was years after the Planned Parenthood sting.--ADtalkModerator 02:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Really? Huh. Was he the one that pretended to be a pimp looking to procure abortions for his underage hookers?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes.--ADtalkModerator 02:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I recall hearing about that after the ACORN incident --"Shut up, Brx." 02:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Unless I was very much mistaken when I wrote this article, the PP sting was in 2006, whereas the ACORN stings were in 2008.--ADtalkModerator 02:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
NYT--ADtalkModerator 02:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess I just wasn't paying attention when PP first came up, then.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

unnecessary pronoun[edit]

Yeah, but it seems so awkward without it. I guess you're the language professor, though.--"Shut up, Brx." 02:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Moran Moron[edit]

Should that be under misfires? Also, Voter Fraud part II is confusing. Did they obtain ballots that weren't theirs or something? Is that what they were trying for?--"Shut up, Brx." 22:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be under misfires? It was completely successful - the guy resigned within the day in shame.
I will take a look at the other section and see if the language needs to be clarified (or you can do it if you see the problem). Yes, they were getting ballots in the names of other people.--ADtalkModerator 22:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't look at the section headings and assumed everything below "Misfires" was in the Misfires section. Also, if you can just get some stranger's ballot, wouldn't that be something to worry about? I mean, can I show up and say I'm John Smith, and then vote on behalf of some guy named John Smith? --"Shut up, Brx." 22:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Voter fraud is an almost nonexistent problem. O'Keefe's efforts are part of the conservative smear campaign to try to pretend it is a huge deal, because that allows them to institute steadily more restrictive requirements to vote. Poll taxes and tests have been banned by SCOTUS, so draconian ID requirements are the only way to stop minorities from casting their vote for Democrats.
So yes, in theory it would be something to worry about. You could try to vote again under someone else's name, or something like that. In practice, very few people risk years of prison for themselves to incrementally affect the results.--ADtalkModerator 23:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Here in Arizona, there's an issue where voter ID cards have the wrong election date listed--"Shut up, Brx." 23:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The level 4 headlines under misfires are nearly indistinguishable from the level 3 headlines. This was the source of my confusion. I think it'd be nice if things were reorganized without level 4 headlines. But I don't know how. Bullet points, maybe?--"Shut up, Brx." 23:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Better?--ADtalkModerator 00:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm come to be reluctant to go with level one headlines, but that looks better, thank you.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


The link between seducing a reporter and planting a fake news story with CNN makes no sense. Is there a clearer narrative out there? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 00:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that I know of - I agree, it doesn't make any sense.--ADtalkModerator 00:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
From what I gathered, he was going to get her in the sack with some kinky shit, somehow feed her a false news story, and bust her and prove shes just some sexual deviant woman who needs a man to get her back into the kitchen.
Seriously. --Revolverman (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Can you write that into the article? Theory of Practice Still tryin' to figure it all out. 01:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure. --Revolverman (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. --Revolverman (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Last thought. Just look how many of these "stings" have a sexual vibe to them. This guy isn't just a dishonest asshole, hes creepy as fuck. --Revolverman (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

$$$PAID SHILL$$$[edit]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-foundation-paid-activist-filmmaker-james-o-keefe-n670381 Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

WARNING! a Wikia devoted to Alt-Right..[edit]


http://terrible-tv-and-web-shows-and-news.wikia.com/wiki/CNN This user made Grust is a James O'Keefe lover and Alt-Right...

http://terrible-tv-and-web-shows-and-news.wikia.com/wiki/Terrible_TV_and_Web_Shows_Wiki The main heading for this wiki is Why It Sucks. Unlike the now dead Terrible TV Shows Wiki, show and ad bashing is welcome but only on this wiki as long as you don't make violent threats against the people behind the show. On the articles where real-life events that are broadcasted on television, it is not welcome. Reasons for deleted comments are harassing other users, the comment makes no sense, contains SJW/feminazi propaganda (which also nets a permanent ban) or using the "It's Made for Kids" excuse to defend a bad kid's show. Harrassing other users is not acceptable. Exceptions are permanently banned users, account disabled users (i.e. Molemann 9000) non-users, terrible celebrities, lolcows and SJWs and feminazis as long as it doesn't turns into drama. Web reviewers are not acceptable unless they have an extremely poor reputation (or possibly turned out poor) like Anita Sarkeesian, SammyClassicSonicFan or the Irate Gamer. Only user ratings from IGN, tv.com or imdb are acceptable sources as well as trustworthy web reviewers. Game Journalists aren't the only critics that can be corrupted. For articles on real-life events, only reliable news sites that don't cater to SJWs are acceptable for example, Breitbart or the Daily Caller. Removing information (unless if they are TBD) or vandalizing articles will net a permanent ban. In case of drama involving one of the reviewers we know, we will add a disclaimer stating that were are neutral to the drama. There will be articles for celebrities but only if they had a bad reputation. Deleting articles of shows because you like them will be strictly prohibited except for those that are on the Best TV Shows Wiki. What we meant my this is that any shows that are on the Best Shows Wiki will not have an article on this wiki. We don't accept unsolicited ideas, we can only find anything that is bad by ourselves. We are not "Shows With Bad Scores Wiki", we are a database of terrible things. Please do not add scores.

This Wikia Wiki loves Breitbart and Daily Caller, They HATE SJWs so much, so Wikia needs a RationalWiki Article, investigate The Contributors of The Terrible TV and Web Shows and News Wiki.. Please.. you don't have too, I just want to see RationalWiki's take on Wikia? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs