Talk:Kenneth O'Keefe

message: I do not know if this is going to show up here.  I attempted to edit Kenneth O'Keefe's page citing only documented sources.  It seems they were edited out.  These are nothing but facts
History of Ken O'Keefe's non-profits:
Universal Kinship Society, founded August 25, 1999, Involuntarily dissolved June 2, 2006  
http://hbe.ehawaii.gov/documents/business.html?fileNumber=116399D2&view=info
P10K according to Ken O'Keefe, a non-profit founded by him with the purpose of placing peace-keeping forces in Palestine
http://p10k.net/donate.htm
Website for P10K registered to Ken O'Keefe
http://whois.domaintools.com/p10k.net
Aloha Palestine, incorporated Oct 2008, documents available for purchase at Companies House
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/aloha-palestine-cic
Deep Ecology Academy Inc., incorporated Jan 2010
http://hbe.ehawaii.gov/documents/business.html?fileNumber=228190D2&view=info
— Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Facts2Please (talk • contribs) 
:Please read WP:RS and WP:N. Self published sources such as these are not enough to establish the notability required to include something in an article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: pk10.net is a self published source. The issue here isn't whether the companies exist or if Ken O'Keefe registered a domain. The issue is the notability of this information. You should also read WP:NOT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

text: You need this information to be covered by a 3rd party reliable source, in a non-trivial way. Read the links I gave you above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

text: We need *secondary* sources.  Primary sources, such as government official records, tell us a certain limited fact is true.  But, they give us no context.  They give no explanation.  More importantly, they don't show how significant or notable something is.  Also, aside from sourcing, your addition to the article was frankly a mess.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not a dumping ground for all true information.  Even we could use the facts provided, we need it presented in a better form.  You should read and edit other articles, to learn what a good article is.  You should look at articles you don't have a personal connection to.  Unfortunately, if you are personally connected to a topic, it is often impossible to write in a beneficial manner.  So, you may need to just move on.   --Rob (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please stop creating multiple users to make the same edits. This kind of behavior will likely get you blocked. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit attempt 

message: Putting these two links here for future reference, might be enough to start a citizenship section
* information about his renouncement of US citizenship.
* when he got his Irish citizenship and why. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  NOTE: SEE MY COMMENTS BELOW ON THIS TOPIC. Quis separabit? 20:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Those sources seem reasonable enough, to mention something.  --Rob (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: We now know he naturalized Irish in 2003. That came up before. I'm not sure how much information about his renouncing American citizenship we should put in (What do you call it if the renounciation was not accepted?). That he renounced it twice and both were not accepted seems important enough. What about the burning of the passports? Getting a new passport when he was stuck in Turkey after renouncing, then burning it? The World Passport? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship 

message: To the unsigned-in, anonymous editor who has edited the article to imply that O'Keefe himself believes that he was dishonourably disharged from the US military. 
The page previously cited a quote that was said to come from his own biography on his own website. I see that you have deleted the actual quote from there, favouring instead a quotation for which the citation is Harpers magazine. I could not verify that Harpers reference without buying a subscription. But as his own website/blog CAN be checked and it shows that if Harpers DOES say that then the Harpers piece of journalism gave false information, therefore I have undone your edit. I.e. according to his own website, which is cached, and which is supposedly being quoted, he himself believes the exact opposte of what the article stated. This is the reason for my undo of your edit.
As to the question of whether his own blog/website IS a reliable source for his own views (which is what is being stated), here is what the wiki policy states:
Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEUTRALITY VIOLATION  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kenneth O'Keefe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110926145352/http://www.p10k.net:80/ken_autobiography.htm to http://www.p10k.net/ken_autobiography.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've asked about this section at BLPN  since I'm not sure the sourcing is acceptable. FYI. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations section 

message: Remarkably, the short lede contains a statement that the subject person "attempted" to renounce his U.S. citizenship. There is also an entire section on this topic too. To my mind, this is not neutral. It strikes me as pushing a POV on the subject person and on the U.S. I initially removed the reference from the lede only. This was reverted. I then described the attempt as "feeble". That description is open to question but leaving the remarkable assertion in the piece in an unqualified way is not neutral. Many, many former U.S. persons have renounced their citizenship over the years. I encourage persons to read Renunciation of citizenship where there is a description of the routine procedure for renunciation specifically in reference to U.S. persons. The U.S. permits persons to freely and readily renounce their citizenship. Following the fairly simple procedure is all that's required. A symbolic act of burning a passport, unsurprisingly, is not part of the procedure and can hardly be counted as a serious, sincere attempt to renounce. I called it feeble but would rather the entire matter was left out because of the nature of what in fact transpired which really can hardly be described as an attempt to renounce citizenship. Anegada (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User: Alex Cohn - bringing above to attn. of interested user. Anegada (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

text: I found your change while reviewing recent changes. I don't know the subject of the article well enough to have an informed opinion of whether or not his attempt to renounce citizenship belongs in the lede. I do object to describing the attempt to renounce citizenship as feeble - that seems like too contentious a WP:LABEL to use in Wikipedia's voice to me. I get your point that if he had actually wanted to renounce citizenship he could have easily succeeded, but if you're going to say that, it needs to be worded more neutrally (and explaining renunciation of citizenship in sufficient detail to convey how easy it is to do it successfully definitely does not belong in the lede). Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 18:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You say you get my point...but then you also say you don't know the subject of the article well enough etc. I knew absolutely nothing about the subject of this article. I happened to come across this article the other day because I was perusing the category of persons described as Naturalised Irish citizens. I never heard of the subject before that. I quickly identified that he was not in fact a naturalised citizen but rather, his grandmother was a native born Irish person and therefore he was an Irish citizen from birth. I removed him from the Naturalised Irish citizens category, which no one objected to so far. I then spotted the remarkable claim contained in the lede (the first two sentences, no less) that he had "attempted" to renounce his U.S. citizenship. I explored the topic of renunciation of U.S. citizenship. There is a Wikipeida article directly touching on the topic; the one I referred you and others to. It's very clear that there are routine procedures that should be followed and he followed none of them. I encourage you to consider: if users of Wikipeida, like you and me, do not participate in content development (i.e. form opinions on content and contribute to it) we leave it to others to steer content. That's not neutral. That's simply not contributing. It's quite obvious that the sentence in the lede is not neutral. I've now replaced it with a sentence that reads instead that he set his passport on fire in 2001. That's backed up by sources and perfectly defensible. Although my first preference would be to leave it all out of the lede, that is, in my opinion, more balanced than the assertion he "attempted" to "renounce" his citizenship: something thousands of persons do each year without problem; if he wanted to renounce, he could obviously have done so. All we can say is that he set his U.S. passport on fire. Anegada (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:   At this point, I'm going to bow out of this discussion, because I don't think it's going anywhere productive. As long as the wording is neutral and verifiable, I won't object. There are many ways to contribute to Wikipedia that do not directly involve content development. Recent change reviewing, which includes patrolling for vandalism and clearly non-neutral edits, is one I enjoy. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 02:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality as regards attention being given to "attempt" to renounce citizenship 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kenneth O'Keefe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202065850/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/world/gaza.aid.ship_1_gaza-bound-ship-convoy?_s=PM%3AWORLD to http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/world/gaza.aid.ship_1_gaza-bound-ship-convoy?_s=PM%3AWORLD
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403102718/http://vodpod.com/watch/3777381-dual-irish-palestinian-citizen-ken-okeefe-was-on-board-flotilla to http://vodpod.com/watch/3777381-dual-irish-palestinian-citizen-ken-okeefe-was-on-board-flotilla
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is in the category "Critics of Islamophobia", but there seems to be no source to this.
There is a discussion about the inclusion of articles that are in this category at  category "Critics of Islamophobia".
I am trying to understand if a source is needed to categorize it also for this and all other articles. There are many articles where the article is categorized and it is sourced to a published article.
User:Cpt.a.haddock is removing this category from several pages even though it is sourced to published article. He says it is not enough for categorization. (For example, at Vinay Lal the categorization is sourced to this article: V. Lal: Implications of American Islamophobia, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 50, Issue No. 51, 19 Dec, 2015. But even then, the category was removed by User Cpt.a.Haddock.) 
See his contributions:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cpt.a.haddock
The question is, is this enough for categorization? If this source is not good enough, I do not understand how this article is categorized in the category without sources. --Sebastianmaali (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Category:Critics of Islamophobia from this article and removal of category by User: Cpt.a.haddock 

message: The quoted phrase from the lead paragraph has no citation. Moreover, although I followed the Mavi Marmara incident closely, I have never seen any article that would suggest the quoted passage is true. However, I won't attempt to edit this controversial page so ask that someone who does edit it to deal with this issue. Marbux (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mavi Marmara "feigned providing humanitarian support in an effort to support Palestinians with armaments" 

message: As of 2019, the stolen funds of $113,470 USD are still without trace or refund. 
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/world-citizen-solutions--3#/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.2.252 (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Citizen Scandal (2016) 

message: The SPLC is inherently notable given their high profile and expertise in the field; removing their opinion as a WP:BLP violation, as it was here, does not seem justified.  BLP doesn't mean removing anything that could potentially make the article's subject look bad, it means removing stuff that is poorly-sourced - and the SPLC is an entirely valid source for its position on someone, which, in this case, clearly passes WP:DUE. --Aquillion (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur - clearly DUE, and not a BLP violatiin given this is properly attributed.Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  The SPLC is just one source, and its description I regard as extremely harsh, emotionally charged and personally damaging in its extreme criticism. I therefore regard it as a contentious critique of a living person and therefore a "poor source". Wikipedia has rules forbidding derogatory, defamatory material in biographies of living people. Plus I suggest we need to be aware that there is an unfortunate tendency of wiki editors who work predominantly on stubs with a regular pro-Israeli bias to sometimes approach biographies of persons who are known to criticise Israeli policy with not enough neutrality. “Contentious material about living persons that is... poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". SUMMARY: One extreme and personally critical description from one lone source I argue is "poorly sourced". Mystichumwipe (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Lede is supposed to summarize the content in article, and there's an entire section covering O'Keefe's relation to David Duke. What makes you think a sentence based on a source from the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't belong in the introduction anyway? It's a known organization fighting racism in America (unrelated to what you call "pro-Israel bias") and its opinion is properly attributed. No reason to keep it out.--37.142.163.230 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPLC in lead. 

message: https://twitter.com/canarymission/status/1638888331152072711?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1638888331152072711%7Ctwgr%5E2c5374a803b2d33bade00f28520f9b2c63f692b9%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Felderofziyon.blogspot.com%2F2023%2F03%2F0323-links-pt2-netanyahu-im-taking-over.html
"I consider it a duty to speak out about who he really was". 
This is clearly an important part of his public persona. 66.44.95.66 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fake 207.188.143.35 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Keefe says the Holocaust was a good thing, Adolf Hitler was a "great man".  

message: Subsequently, he led the human shield action to Iraq and was a passenger on the MV Mavi Marmara during the Gaza flotilla raid, where he disarmed two of the Israeli commandos who boarded the ship,[5] initiating a confrontation in which ten Turkish activists were killed.[6] Farukozderim (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: we're not linking that video, see WP:YOUTUBE and WP:RSPYT Cannolis (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2023 

message: This is trash. Putting aside all the problems with SPLC as a tainted Zionist shill organization, their website is basically a NGO-flavoured Sunday Times, replete with logical fallacies, butchered quotes and contextual torquing. The entire line should be deleted. End of. 142.126.188.216 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference #7 (SPLC) 

message: Seems like someone's trying to pass off an editorial opinion as a fact from a state. The link is broken, which can be viewed by the archive page (https://web.archive.org/web/20070705031918/http://harpers.org/archive/2004/10/0080240). WobInDisguise (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship section - Lacks context 

message: Mentioning that he speaks at white supremacists rallies and endorses david Duke is unequivocally false and clearly there to defame his character. There is bias in whoever left that edit. 70.30.246.146 (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: looks sourced Cannolis (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2024