Talk:ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Balance of the lead

I don't think the lead section reflects the balance of reporting in the reliable sources. It seems like it's giving equal weight to the arguments that have been put forward by ACORN. However, my review of sources doesn't square with this interpretation. For instance, we're seeing reaction from across the political spectrum that demonstrates revulsion at ACORN's actions - on how many issues do we see Jon Stewart and Barney Frank in rough agreement with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity? We've seen strong condemnation of ACORN from government agencies, lop-sided votes in the House and Senate, etc. I propose that the lead should be re-written to better reflect the tone of the coverage. Ronnotel (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The lede is still not fixed, so I've tagged it again. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I put in a statement about the backlash, though it will need more as the story develops. Soxwon (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now added a specific section to detail the actual events that initiated the entire controversy. This should make it easier to begin to clean up the lede (a summary of the entire article) from scratch, while moving any detailed specifics out of the current lede and into the Video release section. I concur that the lede is not yet cleaned up. As of right now (26 Sep), it is still essentially the content of the lead paragraph of the section of the ACORN article that dealt with the controversy in the early days, which was used to stub out this article a few days ago. N2e (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Is there a consensus on whether the article is still perceived by editors as not nuetral? The lede has been substantially rewritten since 25 Sep when User:Bearian added the POV tag. I believe the lede exhibits neutral point-of-view now. What do other editors think? N2e (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it could be a bit longer than it is now. I wasn't arguing that ACORN's response be completely removed - just tightened up a little and made proportionate to the coverage in the reporting. However, I think this is a step in the right direction. Thanks! Ronnotel (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So does anyone have an ongoing WP:POV issue with the balance of the lede? If so, please weigh in with your thoughts and rationale. If not, I propose the POV tag be removed after Wednesday evening US time. N2e (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The issues that were identified have now been met. Sure there is still plenty of stuff that needs to be added but it is now balanced so the tag should now go. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lede

Per above discussion, the lede could definitely use a good copyedit, or perhaps total rewrite, to better reflect the evolving article. Anyone want to have a go at writing a good nuetral descriptive lede? N2e (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Several editors have edited the lede since the POV tag was placed on 25 Sep. N2e (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted a good faith edit in the lede that had modified the description of the situation to be only two employees in one city (which was true, as of 2009-09-11, but was not as the events unfolded) rather than "Acorn, the national community organizing group, caught its low-level employees in five cities sounding eager to assist with tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution." (which is a direct quotation from the New York Times which is describing the situation as of 2009-09-26). I think it reads okay now, but wonder if we should leave the second citation (one from CNN on 2009-09-11, the day after the scandal broke) sourcing that sentence. My opinion is that the second source, from the second day of the scandal breaking, will only confuse the lede sentence that, to my mind, should probably take an "after the first couple of weeks" point of view, and is, after all, a direct quotation from that 2009-09-26 article in the NYT. But I will leave it for other editors to review and decide. N2e (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello N2e. Are you saying that the September 18, 2009 article in the NY Times is correct? That ACORN employees in five cities sounded eager to assist with tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution, is correct? Isn't that actually incorrect? ACORN employees were videotaped in five cities, but wasn't it only one city (Baltimore) in which ACORN employees were videotaped sounding eager to assist with tax evasion, human smuggling, and child prostitution? --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely not saying the NYT is correct. Wikipedia does not deal in truth but verfiability -- truth is a bit more obscure. I am however saying that the story started out breaking in one city with two employees, as you correctly asserted with the 2009-09-11 citation. The story clearly expanded into substantial assistance being offered to the dressed-up, play-acting pimp and prostitute in a number of cities over the following week; as is backed up in a number of the references later in the article. The NYT story is one source that, looking back at the facts two weeks after it broke, made the explicit statement now quoted in the lede. If there are other reliable secondary sources that articulate such is not the case, then those should be cited later in the article and the lede should be changed to reflect that, and we can deal with the media disagreement later in the article. But if not... N2e (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice that the quote is inaccurate, and has changed the meaning of the original author? The text in the NY Times article reads as follows:

"Their travels in the gaudy guise of pimp and prostitute through various offices of Acorn, the national community organizing group, caught its low-level employees in five cities sounding eager to assist with tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution."

The NY Times author is therefore asserting that Giles and O'Keefe's travels caught five employees, not ACORN catching five employees. If this isn't fixed, the quote is misleading. What do you suggest to fix this? --AzureCitizen (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I took a look. You are correct about the lede needing a change. The entire NYT paragraph reads:

"But never has his work had anything like the impact of the Acorn exposé, conducted by Mr. O’Keefe and a friend he met through Facebook, 20-year-old Hannah Giles. Their travels in the gaudy guise of pimp and prostitute through various offices of Acorn, the national community organizing group, caught its low-level employees in five cities sounding eager to assist with tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution."

It seems pretty clear that it was O'Keefe and Giles who did the catching. How about replacing that part in the lede with something like:

"The videos were recorded over the summer of 2009. Through the pair's travels to various ACORN offices, Giles and O'Keefe "caught [ACORN's] low-level employees in five cities sounding eager to assist with tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution." (cite with the ref "NYT20090919shane"

What do you think? N2e (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's pretty good (kudos). But I'm also thinking we should give the wiki reader a frame of reference that this is how a newspaper reporter interpreted the "facts" (rightly or wrongly so), rather than leaving that ambiguous. What if we modified it to look something like this:

"The videos were recorded over the summer of 2009 while visiting a number of ACORN offices. According to a New York Times reporter, Giles and O'Keefe "caught [ACORN's] low-level employees in five cities sounding eager to assist with tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution." (cite with the ref "NYT20090919shane")

I think putting it that way puts it in fair context with appropriate weight as a direct quotation from an individual reporter. Your thoughts? --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the feedback, and the improved suggestion. With no other editors weighing in, I'll go ahead and change the lede to your proposed (now consensus?) text, if it hasn't already been done by someone else. In any event, it will no doubt evolve further over the coming days. But this gets it correct. Thanks AzureCitizen for noticing the confusion/misimpression created by the existing quotation. N2e (talk) 05:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

possible sources - media coverage

• This is an interesting article by Clark Hoyt, public editor for The New York Times. APK say that you love me 01:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for listing a potential source. Others feel free to add more as there has been a lot of media criticism thrown around and this section will need to be developed with reliable source citations supporting every assertion that is made. N2e (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a piece published Sept. 24th in The Atlantic that criticizes both the right and left for playing favorites when spinning malfeasance on their end of the spectrum. Example: "activists, advocacy groups, politicians, and pundits, left and right, display equivalent moral hypocrisy when rationalizing illegal or unethical conduct by some of their own. It's the hypocrisy bred by the self-righteousness of people convinced that they're on the side of the angels, that their commitment to the right cause makes them incapable of doing wrong." It also contains specific media criticism of Huffington Post and mediamatters.org with respect to the video controversy. Thus, it is a media piece critical of Acorn as well as a media piece critical of the media. Use the source in the article if you want to. N2e (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Media reaction/response/controversy

An editor keeps changing this section heading to 'Media controversy'. In my view this is incorrect. Though there has been a controversy over the initial role of the media, the main content of this section has been the response of the media. Whether the section is called 'Media response' or 'Media reaction' I don't mind but 'Media controversy is surely wrong. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Clarification. Actually, the section was, when first created as a section stub in this relatively new WP article, was Media Controversy as that controversy was evident in media criticism I had read, and was evident in the comment of, for example, Jon Stewart, which was quoted. Thus, it was only "changed" to Media controversy once, on 2009-09-28, by me, User:N2e. On the other hand, an editor has indeed changed the title of the section twice. That editor was User:Bridgeplayer, for whom I assume good faith in his/her doing so, both times changing it from Media controversy to Media response or Media reaction. That is just the facts.

2) There really is a media controversy where some parts of the media are charging other parts of the media with being slow to cover the story, in some cases making allegations of political motivations. Some media critics too. Seems Wikipedia-worthy! Yes, this needs more fleshing out from the rapidly growing sources but that is why this section was tagged (by me) as a stub. There were two cited sources about the controversy as of this morning, 2009-09-28, the NYT story and the Stewart quotation.

3) Before the changes today by User:Bridgeplayer, the section really was a section about the controversy, not about merely the reaction of the media. However, after the edits by User:Bridgeplayer and retitling the section the second time by Bridgeplayer, his/her reorganization has left most all of the controversy represented only in the first paragraph. But that is not how it was prior to Bridgeplayer's edits.

4) I don't have any particular axe to grind here. Quite simply, It appears to me that there was/is an ongoing controversy over media coverage of this "event" at ACORN. I don't think it is worthy of a separate WP article to encyclopedically represent the matter. I do think it probably warrants a section in this article.

5) Having said all that, I will recuse myself from any further editing of this particular section for a month, and will let other editors weigh in on whether there is or is not a media controversy and whether that controversy should/should-not be explicated in Wikipedia.

6) So, what do other editors think about the matter? Are you aware of other sources? If so, please discuss here on the Talk page or leave your sources. N2e (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw the "keeps changing" remark which was sloppy writing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the entry on "Media Response". The original Wiki entry states: "The controversy became a media event in the U.S. with charges that the traditional media may not have been doing their job. The initial response was substantially limited to blogs and non-traditional web media. For example, the New York Times first took note of the controversy only on "September 16, nearly a week after the first video was posted." [44] By contrast, the Fox News cable channel devoted extensive coverage to the story.[45][44][46]"

The statement is both extrapolative and untrue. Both CNN & CBS covered the story on Sept 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR5hHN9lsqg&feature=PlayList&p=A8DC40B0B1215A6B&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2 http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/10/acorn.prostitution/index.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/11/politics/main5303578.shtml?source=related_story&tag=related

This was only a day after the story was launched by Fox News, not "nearly a week" later as offered by the NY Times example. The entry as it originally stood voices the general opinion voiced on conservative talk shows, but does not take into account the coverage by CNN or CBS.

Even its own citation, footnote number 46 in the original entry (now number 47) contradicts the general tone of the original entry. The reference is cited, but the reference states that Fox News did not fact-check the story. It doesnt jive well with the puported theme of the original entry. Ceemow (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)Ceemow

10/01/09 After I had last edited as per above, the "media reaction" section was re-edited in such a way that asserted the claim that there was scant media coverage by sources in "traditional media" when the story broke (which is wrong).

The user had re-pasted the section regarding the tardy Washiongton Post article after the statement that "traditional media was not doing its job". The effect was to convey a lack of media coverage around the scandal. That claim is a self-interested talking point by BigGovernment.com, but doesnt reflect the sequence of events as it happened.

In light of how thorough the CNN report on Sept 11 was (involving a discussion/commentary among 3 reporters, see Youtube link above), and considering that there indeed was AP coverage when the story broke (see other links above), it is entirely wrong to assert that there was no media coverage. Ceemow (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Ceemow

I think the first scentence of the "media" entry needs to be edited. At present, the first scentence in this entry reads: "The controversy became a media event in the US with charges that the traditional media did not respond promptly nor cover the story in sufficient depth." It needs to be clarified as to who was leveling the charge that "the traditional media did not respond promptly." The majority of people making that charge were people on Fox News, BigGovernment.com, the Media Research Center, conservative bloggers, radio hosts etc... basically, conservative interest groups or conservative watchdog groups. This is evident in the existing footnotes, I can add more references if necessary. Again, in light of the CNN and AP coverage cited above, the idea conveyed in the first scentence does not reflect a properly recorded sequence of historical facts, as much as the talking point asserted by those same watchdog groups.

Also, the phrase "traditional media" is sloppy. Since CNN, Fox and the AP all reported on the first video within a day of its initial posting, it would be inaccurate to say that "traditional media etc...". Perhaps it might be better to say that "most media sources did not etc..." Ceemow (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Ceemow

By all means suggest whatever neutral POV term you think appropriate. I've read criticism of some subset of media being late to the party on this story; e.g., the NYT criticizes itself, and there have been charges by various media critics that were not all in-house. I've seen the term "mainstream media" or MSM used in some criticism, but am not sure that term would not be considered POV here in WP. So what do you suggest? N2e (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

10-03-09 ... Hi N2e... I think the whole "media reaction" section needs a serious re-thinking. The entry, as it stands, seems to revolve around the point that the story was neglected by conventional media outlets. That point is countered by the CNN YouTube upload (see above), which displays a complete report on the matter as it stood on the 11th of Sept (although it lacks the exclusive interview with Giles which Fox News was able to broadcast.)

Perhaps in response to criticism that it hadn't followed through on this story, Turner.com listed all the CNN-transcripts that covered the ACORN scandal. This is a selection which covers the first week of the videos' release, from the day the story broke (9-10-09) through the 17th. A review of these shows us that the existing Wiki entry is wrong. To say that "...the traditional media did not respond promptly nor cover the story in sufficient depth" is completely untrue, despite the politically charged complaints on BigGovernment.com and the like. Here's the link to the list of CNN transcripts: http://news.turner.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4657#

Lou Dobbs had an impassioned write-up on the very day the story broke: http://www.loudobbs.com/blog?action=viewBlog&blogID=479265585913818511

The aforementioned CNN segment cited in the previous entry above (i.e., the YouTube link above) shows Boudrieau, Blitzer and Crowley all discussing the video after a lengthy explanation by Boudrieau. It also includes responses from ACORN staff. O'Keefe refused to meet with CNN (see below), so he's not in the coverage. This may not be the coverage that the filmamakers wanted, but it is still thorough coverage all the same.

(The Squicks says below that the Youtube reference is unacceptable. I included the YouTube link only to demonstrate that there was coverage and commentary on the subject the day after the story broke. If a transcript for that particular CNN broadcast is more acceptable than a YouTube upload, then we can use that instead. Here's the link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/11/sitroom.03.html)

Not only had CNN reported on the videos as they were released, they also attempted (unsuccessfully) to reach Giles & O'Keefe for commentary on the very first days of the story. On 9-11-09, the day after he first broke the story, Jason O'Keefe posted a sharp and unapologetic statement outlining why he refused CNN's request for an interview. He claims that CNN, by including ACORNs response to the matter, was biased in favor of them (the aforementioned transcript from Boudrieau shows that the reporters remained non-committal, but hardly biased in favor of ACORN.) He flatly refuses to meet with them, despite their request for correspondence, and accuses them of wanting to do a "hit job" on him. Here's the link: http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/11/on-why-i-dont-return-phone-calls-from-an-intrepid-cnn-producer/#

All of this occurred the day after Giles and O'Keefe first broke the story on Fox News, with Giles making an exclusive appearance for Glenn Beck: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGDd_iXMNYo&feature=related

If CNN is not only reporting on the story, but is also getting into a tangle with its producer the day after the story broke, can it really be said that CNN "did not respond promptly" or was "lacking depth in coverage around this issue"? No. It only shows that CNN and other news sources weren't favored by Giles and O'Keefe the way that FoxNews was. O'Keefe makes it clear that he wont have anything to do with CNN, Giles gives an exclusive to Fox the very day she releases the videos, then their colleagues claim that CNN etc... are trying to "ignore them" (as stated by the Wiki article on O'Keefe himself.) The whole thing seems really self-serving and somewhat contrived.

I dont think that all of the above needs to be worked into the Wiki article, but i do think these are facts which strongly counter the party-line about a "lack of media coverage". Certainly, these facts ask one to reconsider the existing Wiki entry on a purported "improper" or "slow-moving" media response to the scandal. The closest thing that really could count for such a charge was the frank admission by ABC's Charles Gibson (on Sept 15th) of not being familiar with the story. However, even though Gibson was in the dark on this one, his colleague, ABC's Jake Tapper, already had a write up on the story by Sep 11: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/census-severs-relationship-with-acorn.html#

Again, the charge that the "main stream media" was moving slowly, or avoiding coverage, remains more strategically polemical than it could ever be factual.

Thanks, Ceemow (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Deviancy amplification spiral

This is in the 'See also' section. This term isn't directly related to the article and seems to be making a point. My inclination is that it should be taken out. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the removal of the wikilink. N2e (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories/See also

I have removed the 'See also' link to Political controversies because I fail to see how it is helpful. Also, neither of the existing categories, Media issues | Mass media, are particularly helpful since they seem too broad. I have replaced the 'See also' and those categories with the new categories: Media bias controversies | Political controversies in the United States | Surveillance scandals. I don't feel strongly about any of these, but I hate revert wars, so if I have got these wrong please bring alternative suggestions here so we can agree the best categorisation. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It works for me. I always find cats difficult to select in the early days of an evolving article. I think the cats you set are fine, and others will no doubt weigh in over time. N2e (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comedians

Personally, I can't see how their opinions deserve so much weight. A sentence of two in and of itself is questionable- given WP:RS concerns about the notability of the opinions- but two paragraphs does not make sense. The Squicks (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Stewart, it has substantive relation to the media criticism-- he explicitly criticizes some media in his comments. For Leno, not so much direct criticism but it illustrates the commedians getting on it earlier than some of the major traditional media outlets. (For example, there is a citation in the article where the NYT criticizes the NYT with respect to late coverage of the story.) N2e (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

Youtube is only acceptable as a source under very specific circumstances. The way that it is being cited now is not acceptable. The Squicks (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Or tag after the occurrences you have questions with the {{Primary source claim}} so others can look at it. Most Youtube citations will not stand muster with Wikipedia policy, but I don't believe the policy disallows all Youtube videos. But if you mark the ones you are concerned about someone could look into it. N2e (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

10/02/09 The Squicks says that the Youtube reference is unacceptable, but I included it only to demonstrate that there was coverage and commentary on the subject the day after the story broke. If a transcript for that particular CNN broadcast is more acceptable than a YouTube upload, then we can use that instead. Here's the link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/11/sitroom.03.html Ceemow (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Ceemow

Updates On Story

10/03/09 There have been updates on this story, and I wonder if these might deserve some space on the section regarding "ACORNs response".

Juan Carlos Vera, the man seen on the Aug 18 footage, had actually reported the matter of "possible human smuggling" to the police after consulting with his cousin, a police detective. See link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,553423,00.html

On Sept 22, 2009, FoxNews anchor Megyn Kelly reported the following: "And speaking of this tape, by the way, it appears that not every ACORN worker did go along with it. ACORN had been saying that the purported pimp and prostitute had failed in certain offices to actually convince the ACORN workers for help, and police in California say one ACORN worker at one office out there did, in fact, contact them after the filmmakers approached him about this human smuggling ring, or this trafficking ring. That worker realizing several days later that the whole thing was a hoax, but as ACORN pointed out when this thing first broke, some of their workers did the right thing."(http://mediamatters.org/research/200909220026)

There is also the matter of the police report issued during the attempt to conduct the sting in Philadeplphia. See link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-shea/despite-news-reports-acor_b_290265.html

These are both relevant to the story and do deserve some reference in the Wiki entry. Ceemow (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Updates

12/13/09. Hi all, and happy Sunday! There have been some significant updates to this story that merit mention in this article. There has been another video release from LA (http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/16/acornthe-la-story-part-iii-acorn-employee-of-the-year-felix-d-harris/). That footage was criticized for showing that Giles had either lied or mispoken when she said no ACORN office had refused either her or O'keefe (http://mediamatters.org/research/200911200044). It also calls into question why the audio from Katherine Conway Russel was muted in the Philly video-release. We were told that, owing to the Baltimore court-case and Pennsylvania wiretapping laws, the Philly audio could not be released "without ACORNs permission" (note: it is a matter of public record that ACORN has always asked for a full release of the footage). However, California has the same restrictions on wire-tapping as Pennsylvania, so the notion that the Philly audio could not be released because of legal issues is fallacious. I dont know if that discrepency needs to be added into this article, nevertheless, the LA release begs more skepticism than it refutes.

Another issue is the recent threat which Andrew Breitbart has addressed to AG Holder. Breitbart has claimed that if Holder does not launch a DOJ investigation into ACORN, he will release more embarassing video-tapes just before next year's election, with the explicit intention of biasing the vote. (http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/well_it_may_deserve_an_award_i.php?page=all http://mediamatters.org/blog/200911220004 , http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911190055)

Finally, Harshbarger has released his assesment from the internal investigation on ACORN (http://www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/report2.pdf). Enthusiasts on the right have criticised the work as "self-exonnerating" (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20091207scott_harshbarger_finds_no_illegal_pattern_on_acorn_videos/), despite the fact that the report is quite firm in faulting ACORN's complete lack of professional etiquette, training and accountability. Nevertheless, the report does call into question the integrity of the BigGov's video releases, and thus underscores some of the inconsistencies contained in them. Breitbart put together a fevered response to this report (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912070027)

All of this needs to be figured into the existing Wiki entry. I'll be happy to add what i can at the earliest convenient time. Thanks all, stay warm!Ceemow (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Hannah Giles

I think the article Hannah Giles should be merged into this one, as it's an obvious example of WP:BLP1E. We shouldn't have articles on people only notable for one event, unless it was exceptionally notable (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald, Rodney King). I don't think that's the case here; all the content in that article could easily be merged into this one. Robofish (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

11/11/09 Hi Robofish. I entirely agree that the article on Hannah Giles should be merged with this entry. There is nothing especially unique about Hannah Giles other than this video controversy, and she is noteworthy ONLY because of it. If it werent for the video controversy, Giles would not be in the limelight, and BigGovernment.com would not exist.

The exisitng Hannah Giles article, as an individual entry, suffers from a lack of purposeful elaboration. There is very little to be said about Giles other than that she is tied up in this controversy. Additionally, Giles's own self-imposed secretiveness makes it difficult to add anything more than what the existing article already states. One could add some more of her own comments about her work, say from BigGov.com, but that would essentially make the entry nothing more than an echo-chamber for Giles's ideology.

Attempts to add, to the article on Giles, any extra biographical data (i.e., data that is not associated with the ACORN controversy) has proven to be quite problematic. For instance, her relationship with the controversial Clash Church is considered to be too "damaging" to add (at least according the entry's principal editor.) And while I can see the logic of said editor's reasoning, it basically means that the article cannot be expanded from its present state, unless something really dramatic happens and Hannah is at the center of it.

I honestly think that the James O'Keefe article ought to be fused with this one as well. But O'Keefe has a history of conservative activist work. At least one of O'Keefe's projects recieved a $10,000 stipend from famous conservative billionaire Peter Thiel. O'Keefe was a major contributor and editor on the staff of the conservative "Centurian" college magazine. O'Keefe thus has a bit more "buzz" than Giles... he has other referents than just the ACORN controversy.

Giles, on the other hand, remains entriely dependant on this controversy for any notability. If the ACORN video scandal never occured, one would still have heard of Breitbart, and one might have heard of O'Keefe, but one would never have heard of Giles.Ceemow (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Carefully reading the cited policy WP:BLP1E provides the following insight:

If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.

For this paragraph in WP:BLP1E, Hannah Giles clearly satisfies the criteria of a "substantial role" in a "significant event." This is painfully obvious to anyone except the most dedicated exclusionists. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading the arguments of the room, and would submit that the prominence of Giles is becoming such that to exclude her would be detrimental. I have pasted a link below to a Sunday article of the LA Times, and how she is becoming part of the Conservative guerilla activist movement, and training others as well. She is getting press coverage of her own, based in part on her in the Acorn sting. I agree with Phoenix that she had a substantial role in the event as per WP:BLP1E, and is continuing to pursue her agenda with other groups and getting media coverage for it. I believe it would be detrimental to readers to not maintain a separate page for her apart from the Acorn scandal page itself.

La Times Article : http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-young-conservatives15-2009nov15,0,1837509.story

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

11/21/09 Hi all. I find myself starting to agree that Giles does indeed, deserve her own article. However, that article really does need to be balanced-out and updated.

For example, if Giles is mentoring explicitly conservative youth groups, then she has to be described as such. She has a political affiliation and one that is openly declared as such. There seems to be a reluctance among the editors of the Giles' page to endow Hannah with a political profile. There also seems to be a tendency to minimize crticism of Big Gov staff, especially Hannah. Look at how the Conason quote has (yet again) dwindled to almost nothing, despite the criticism that Giles's work has merited from other reliable sources as well (Maddow, Stark, Stewart etc..), even from some leading conservative voices who otherwise support it (e.g., Taranto).

In the same vein, there was a whole discussion on the O'Keefe entry that literally tip-toes around his overtly conservative affiliation, as if describing him as "conservative" is somehow a misnomer because of his statement on CBS about being an "independant progressive."

Also, BigGov recently released new tapes, and the new tapes show that Hannah either mispoke or lied when she claimed that no ACORN staff had refused to help her character. While the new tapes, and what they show, need to be integrated into the "ACORN Video Controversy" entry, the contradiction in Hannah's assertion that no one refused her help is relevant to the article about her, and should be added.

Also, Breitbart states that he will release more tapes just before the 2010 elections, and this contradicts his claim that, because of the Balitmore legal case, the audio portion of Philly cannot be released without ACORN's explicit permission (for the record, ACORN has publically asked for all the videos to be released a number of times.) That needs to be added as well (either to the Video Controversy article, or to the Breitbart article.)

BTW Phoenix, and I dont mean this to be snarky, but I honestly dont know what a "most dedicated exclusionist" is, and I think "painfully aware" is a bit too dramatic for a discussion on whether Giles deserves her own article or not. But i dont think it really matters.

My own concern is that the article should be more cohesive, purposefully elaborated AND BALANCED, not just an unquestioning, word-for-word echo-chamber for BigGov rhetoric. Breitbart is conservative, as are O'Keefe and Giles; they have an agenda, they pretend their work is spontaneous even though it is politically contrived, and while all of that does not need to be stated as such in this article, the attempt to make them seem less politically motivated than they truly are (even by their own definition) is disingenuous.

My reason for agreeing that the "Giles" article ought to be merged with the "Video Controversy" article (a view I no longer hold) is mainly owing to the fact that the Giles's article has a lot of "fluff" in it, and does not reflect the varied responses to her work that are out there. I mean that both in terms of criticism and in terms of credit. For example, Giles has been a favored speaker at Tea Parties across the country, even before the LA Times article posted by IllinaiGrad. So that should be included. It should not be disqualified because the info makes Giles look more politically aligned than her purported independence. Giles has been lauded as a role-model for conservative youth, and that is relevant to, even if it endows her with a political agenda.

On the other hand, Giles has been called a liar and a racist, and that is relevant too. People have pointed out that, by her own admission, she really didnt know what ACORN was even when she came up with the idea to target it. She has also refused to acknowledge the claims that contradict her version of events, and continues to peddle accusations that have already been proven false (e.g., her rather frenetic statements on Klaeke or Vera, which have been disproven by the police.) That's all relevant, and should be added if only to add some substance to the article.

The article on Giles ought to be kept as a separate entry IF it were just a little more assertive, and rounded out, about the facts surrounding this figure. Again, the article reads to me more like something out of "Ms Teen Spirit", than it does as a comprehensive reference to the character in question. Its lack of detail, and its redundant praise for Hannah, and it's attempt to keep her as "secret" as she makes herself out to be, all compromise the article's integrity.

Anyhow, the plot thickens (or sickens, depending on how you see this whole thing.)Ceemow (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs to be merged or expanded. This article is painfully short, and not worthy of being kept without the promise of expansion. So, merge. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 04:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

People need to stop exaggerating the significance of this controversy. We're talking about something that, even at its peak, was not even mentioned by the major networks. There is no reason why Giles should have her own article because it is a clear WP:ONEEVENT violation. Showtime2009 (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge Unless and until Giles accomplishes something beyond this fairly dopey "sting."Jimintheatl (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Support merge as she isn't notable beyond the one issue. PPHGF78 (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

ACORN videos are edited and misleading

Why has Chelydramat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed information three times on two different pages ([1][2]) It is very relevant when discussing the videos to mention 1) they are edited, 2) they have never been released in an unedited form, and 3) O'Keefe (currently an alleged felon) has been accused of misleadingly editing the videos. This information needs included, that is if the self-appointed guardian of this article will allow (Chelydramat has been repeatedly removing people's additions) such facts in the article:

Only a few news outlets have noted that O'Keefe did not wear the outlandish pimp outfit into every ACORN office; in some cases, he spliced footage of himself into the finished product to make it look that way. And of course, neither O'Keefe nor his boss, conservative media entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com, has ever released the full, unedited videos.[3]

There is no mention of this fact in either articles about this subject. PPHGF78 (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you insist on having this in two places-

Just because you want something to be true does not make it true. That opinion piece you cited is only reliable as far as stating that writer's opinion, nothing more. Errol Lewis merely made that blanket statement without citing any source besides his say-so. Think about it, if any reliable source substantiating those claims actually existed, it would have been already included and stood up to any scrutiny. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 01:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the inclusion of controversial material is to be discussed on the talk pages before being included in the article. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 01:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally, you should learn how to count before making accusations. I've made TWO reversions for each article. For James O'Keefe [4][5]. ACORN [6][7]. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Chelydramat, my counting ability is fairly good. Your edits from just the O'Keefe article:[8][9][10][11][12][13]. That's more than two, right? PPHGF78 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, though you're probably aware that 3RR doesn't apply to WP:BLP. Just saying. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 05:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issues:

O'Keefe hasn't/won't release unedited tapes.[14][15][16][17]

Misleading editing/out of context:[18][19][20][21]

If you're interested in an opinion piece that lays out how the videos are misleading and has references: [22] And more here [23].

Thus, discussion of his editing and refusal to release the raw tapes, warrants inclusion in any article that claims to be WP:NPOV. Please stop wholesale reverting people's changes.

As for using the phrase "heavily edited," since you brought it up on the O'Keefe page: according to Acorn referring to a tape, "It is so heavily edited that it may be constructed to conceal the reality of the interaction."[24] According to Washington Post: "... the heavily edited footage includes audio of the two conservatives but none of the ACORN Housing Corp. worker's responses..."[25] According to a Fox News affiliate, "played a heavily-edited video on Wednesday depicting their visit to ACORN's Philadelphia office".[26] According to New York Daily News, "rushed one-minute excerpts of O'Keefe and Giles' heavily edited videos onto national television without"[27]

If you want just one example of the deceitful/selective editing, the filmmakers released a transcript of their discussion with Kaelke that included a comment left out of the tape in which Kaelke said that ACORN would have nothing to do with their prostitution business.[28] PPHGF78 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So all you've got is a glorified ACORN press release (LA Times) and some twisting of the words about the Philly tape (due to pending lawsuit)? BTW the Twin Cities link isn't available. I swear this demand for O'Keefe's tapes is as ridiculous as the one for Obama's birth certificate. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 05:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you really this dense? Did you actually bother reading the links provided? Let's look at two tapes and two sources provided. O'Keefe removed the ALL the responses from ACORN workers in one video.[29] In another, where he actually had ACORN workers' responses, he edited out one worker saying "ACORN would have nothing to do with their prostitution business."[30] I can careless about O'Keefe making tapes available, he's a proven deceiver and soon-to-be convicted felon. My interest is that YOU stop removing sources simply because you don't like ACORN. O'Keefe edited the tapes and removed relevant information, according to a variety of WP:RS. It needs included in the article. (Let's also keep in mind the only one on trial for breaking the law is O'Keefe.) PPHGF78 (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My interest is that you don't get away with violating WP:BLP just because you don't like O'Keefe. You gloss over the fact that the Philly tape was not released in it's totality by O'Keefe because of the pending lawsuit [31]. And since you love to toss innuendo about if ACORN is so pure the why didn't they stand by those employees instead of firing them? ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 06:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not concerned about the BLP of the ACORN staff are you? Can you focus on the sources? The source say the tapes are edited and no unedited tapes have been released. O'Keefe hasn't released ANY tape so the justification for withholding all tapes isn't there. Secondly, BigGovernment.com isn't a WP:RS. The Washington Post is. Thirdly, no one said ACORN's staff is "pure." My point is that soon-to-be convicted felon O'Keefe is a deceiver. But since we are asking questions, if ACORN staff is so bad then why not release the unedited tapes of the other meetings to the media on day one, day two, day three, or six months later? (Maybe O'Keefe is deceiving again?)

I was a bit careless. Here's the actual transcript you're alluding to. It kind of says the opposite of what you're saying. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 07:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not alluding to anything. I'm quoting the Washington Post, which is a WP:RS. If you have an issue take it up with the sources. I'm not interested in your opinions of what was said. I'm interested in sources. PPHGF78 (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

02/01/10 Hi all. As Mr. Ricardo once famously said, "Somebody's got some 'splainen to do!" All refernces to Breitbart's own WashTimes article, "The Politicized Art Behind the Acorn Plan," has been edited out of this article, most likely by someone who doesnt want to besmirch Andrew's "good name". (here a link to the article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/breitbart-the-politicized-art-behind-the-acorn-pla/

Okay, here's the breaks: That article is relevant --it's Breitbart describing in his own words the "reason" for releasing the tapes in such a questionable manner. It is a "reliable source," since the article was produced by the very man who introduced both O'Keefe and BigGov.com to the public eye. The admissions made in the article are damaging, at least to Breitbart's claim that the MSM supposedly "ignored" him (he admits in the article to offering the exclusive to Fox.) So the quote about the video-release style is relevant to this article, and totally material to any discussion of the controversy in question. If you are saying that the media "ignores" you, and at the same time admit that you are keeping them out of the loop (as James did in his hostile response to CNN on the FIRST DAY OF HIS VIDEO RELEASE), you come across as having something to hide. That's a crticism that has been aimed at BigGov by several sources. And it is relevant to this entry. Ceemow (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have another source germane to this subject referring to ACORN's pattern of denial (I'm not disputing Ceemow's source, I'll assume good faith for the time being). ACORN have routinely used that defense about "heavily edited" and claimed O'Keefe and Giles were unsuccessful in L.A. and New York before those tapes were released.[32]. My concern is that O'Keefe has been given far more scrutiny than ACORN's actions, with ACORN's defense being given undue weight. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 18:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your source actually talks about the videos being edited. Itsays is "The video footage of the ACORN organizers -- which has been edited and goes to black in some areas...". Then it quotes a rep. saying "This film crew tried to pull this sham at other offices and failed. ACORN wants to see the full video before commenting further." Then cited Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Los Angeles, California and New York. If you have a source that says ACORN was wrong about that then provide it. With the link above, it is clear that some of O'Keefe's criticisms (like against the media when he gave Fox an exclusive) is unfair. Thus, we must becareful when echoing O'Keefe's claims uncritically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenGonning89 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check the date of the story. It was published September 11, 2009. That predates the release of the New York tape by two days.[33] I should have added that to illustrate my point. The point being that ACORN isn't being straight forward either. No amount of hair-splitting can dismiss that as original research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelydramat (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chelydramat... I mean no offense by this at all, but what you have provided doesnt not seem to make your point at all. It really is just a talking point by BigGov... the fact is no one will know much until O'Keefe provides all of the unedited tapes. He flatly refuses to do that, and his reasons are patently hairball. His behavior and reasoning are especially suspect considering the fact that Andrew Breitbart has promised a huge tidal wave of "embarassing" video-releases just before the next election. Breitbart has offered this as an explicit political punishment to AG Holder for not investigating ACORN the way Breitbart wants it to be investigated... Thats called "political blackmail", and Breitbart's threat should be added to this article.

see this: http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/well_it_may_deserve_an_award_i.php

If i may quote the Columbia Journalism Review: "Generally, when in possession of what one believes to be newsworthy information, the journalistic thing to do is get it out to the public—not attempt to blackmail the attorney general."

It's pretty clear that Breitbart & o'Keefe see the videos as a type of coercive political smearing (even blackmailing) tool... Breitbart, himself, has a record of using such an approach, and all the Big.com sites are based on that precedence. As such, the BigGov.com narrative is, again, not terribly credible since Breitbart (and by extension, O'Keefe) admits a very specific, and much larger agenda to accomplish with these tapes. He has an active interest in not telling the whole story, or at least in providing edited selections from that story for explicitly political purposes.Ceemow (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree Chelydramat's points don't match the evidence. I replied on the O'Keefe page on what is wrong his claims. Why can't you find a WP:RS with your claims? PPHGF78 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

02/02/10 Hello PPHGF78, and thank you very much for vetting all of this. The sources I have cited in the article, in this discussion section, and that I am providing below, do indeed meet the rubric for WP:RS. I am certain the Columbia Journalism Review (above) must cut the mustard here. (It would truly be ironic if it were too sub-par for Wiki, right?) Also, I am providing quotes by Breitbart & O'Keefe from their own statements on their own websites and articles. (And for the record, someone has been obscuring the links cited on this article.)

If you are wondering about Breitbarts release method, i think a succinct reference could be found in James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal writer who actually is an avid supporter of Breitbarts work.--"Yet some caveats are in order. Partisanship was not the only reason for media resistance to the Acorn story... Reporters also were—and still are—operating on incomplete information by Mr. Breitbart's design. He refuses to say how many videos he has yet to release, or what is on them, except that "in the end, Hannah and James and me will have been truth-tellers every step of the way."... He acknowledges that such withholding of information "goes outside the realm of journalism"—... but he defends it as necessary to protect Mr. O'Keefe and Ms. Giles from "those that would destroy them." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574451703003340362.html this article actually is quite flattering to Breitbart.)

Then there are Breitbarts own words on the subject: "ACORN was not the only target of those videos; so were Katie, Brian, Charlie and every other mainstream media pooh-bah."http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/21/breitbart-the-politicized-art-behind-the-acorn-pla/

Breitbart's threat to Holder-- (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911190055) and again (http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/well_it_may_deserve_an_award_i.php?page=all)

Regarding the actual day Katherine Conway Russel actually filed suit against O'Keefe (01/21/10... again, NOT last fall as assumed by O'Keefe supporters), see http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/23/acorn-employee-sues-undercover-filmmakers/

I hope that you might find this article by Alexandra Fenwick (another Columbia Journalism Review writer) useful as well. She offers some good criticism of James and Hannah on purely formal journalistic principles. Fenwick's critique is quite relevant to the subject of the reliability of the videos, and even moreso to that of their producers. http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/acorns_family_tree.php

From Carol Leonnig's Q&A Session on the WaPo, Sept 23'09-- "Next, I would offer this: There is such a lot of hyperbole being shouted from the rooftops as fact -- on BOTH extreme ends of the political spectrum, left and right -- that reporters are fairly dubious when someone makes a claim that is laden with factual exaggerations. For example, when I heard ACORN was "on tap to get $8.5 billion in federal funders under the Obama administration", I kept thinking: Wow, Lockheed is sure gonna be jealous.

Nobody, nobody, gets an $8.5 billion contract. And indeed this claim was wildly exaggerated. Sometimes, all those great talking points make the people repeating them sound untrustworthy or at least, unlikely to have a bona fide story" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/09/23/DI2009092302081.html) Leonnig clearly points out that the some of the data offered on the ACORN sting video's are unreliable, and I would suggest interested readers check out the whole discussion on the link provided. There are many important issues brought up in that discussion that are relevant to our article, here on Wiki.

Please also see the link in the earlier comment I have provided below (re: James' refusal to meet with CNN.) i think it makes his own perspective, and his potential reliability, quitre clear. Anyhow, thanks again for keeping it honest PPHGF78... and take good care.Ceemow (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

02/01/10 hello Everyone. Glengonning89, thank you, that is exactly my point. Here's another example, in O'Keefe's own words: http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/11/on-why-i-dont-return-phone-calls-from-an-intrepid-cnn-producer/#

O'Keefe posted this the day after his first video release on Fox. He is explicitly stating that he refuses to meet with CNN because they interviewed Lewis & Conason (which contradicts both his, & BigGov's claims that his story was "ignored" by the msm... remember, this is posted 9-11-09, the VERY DAY AFTER his video first release the evening before.) He also uses some very dramatic, angry and (i would say) paranoid hyperbole to frame his argument. Okay, a journalist or an activist with a bona-fide story does not refuse opportunities to share that story, even on so-called "enemy territory" (even Bertha Lewis went on Fox to stand her ground.) If he's concerned about being mis-represented on CNN, well, that sounds more Freudian than substantial. (for the record, I saw CNN's reports on the videos that very Saturday, and in all honesty, I think O'keefe's characterization of them is entirely outlandish... but that's just my opinion.)

In any case, O'Keefe's statement contains so many glaring contradictions (verifiable as such), so many irrational assumptions, and voices so much emotional volatility that it throws all the politically charged rhetoric he uses into some pretty sharp relief. It shows someone who is quite ideologically fierce... someone very passionate, emotional, dramatic and maybe not too balanced about the subjects he claims to cover (he might just lie for the "cause" he believes so strongly in... in fact, he's been caught doing that before, Re: Liz Farkas -look it up everyone!) In this sense, O'Keefe and his narrative are quite suspect, and cant be seen as having the final word on what transpired in his videos.Ceemow (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A response

Hi Xenophrenic! I saw you were in the process of making further edits to the new portion while I was in the process of inserting the new version from the Talk Page comments here. I overwrote what you changed; this doesn't mean your input and edits aren't valuable, just that we should probably continue to work with the version we were hammering out here rather than a different version. First, I saw that you wanted to include further commentary from Ms. Gasparac. Do you feel that it's not already adequately represented? Secondly, I suppose we should discuss the sourcing reliability of the youtube video. I'm neutral about it at the moment, but perhaps you and Phoenix and Winslow can you express your positions on that here, then we'll put that matter to rest. --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Watch the "video." It's just a still photo of Mr. Lagstein with the audio recording. It matches the quotes in the Orange County Register editorial and the San Francisco Chronicle news story. I'm concerned about Xenophrenic, but consensus has been established. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Saw the Talk Page Warning. I think we should assume good faith; obviously he thinks there is a reliability sourcing problem with Youtube and probably didn't see how far the conversation had progressed here. WP:Vandalism says that good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia aren't vandalism and that edits and reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism either. Instead, let's stay focused: should we be concerned about the sourcing reliability of this Youtube clip? On the one hand, it appears to match the quoted text, while on the other hand there is nothing authenticating it. Seeking good faith consensus entails allowing Xenophrenic a chance to provide his input, then the three of us should try our best to set any point of view bias aside and come to a reasonable conclusion or else take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--AzureCitizen (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Was that overlooked in your haste to revert an edit you find politically inconvenient? --P&W

That's a dodge that I suspect you've used in the past: "Run along now and correct all those other articles, because this one is written correctly." --P&W

Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. --P&W

Templating regulars; commenting on editors; personal attacks — P&W knows I have rather thick skin and he can get away with a certain amount of that. I just hope he also remembers that even I have my limits, and I keep very detailed records. Moving on...

Hi, AzureCitizen! I read all of this discussion before I made my most recent edits, but more importantly, I read the cited sources. The sources informed my edits more than your discussions here. I'll itemize some of the remaining objections:

1) The link to a YouTube video posted by the paragon of journalistic integrity, Zefallafez, is out. It is incomplete; it starts in the middle of a discussion, which means possible loss of context; it is edited (audio gap at 42 seconds in, for instance) ... come on, guys. Find a legitimate link to audio/video from a reputable source, or stick to transcribed quotes from established news sources. This may come as a shock to you both, but I've heard stories about unscrupulous individuals selectively editing video and audio to give a false impression of what actually transpired. Seriously, it's true! Let's not propagate unverified audio/video.

2) I removed "Some conservatives, including Breitbart" from the first sentence because Breitbart is not mentioned anywhere in the cited sources. If it is true, and it probably is, then finding a source should be no problem.

3) "believed that the Brown's office took ACORN's side" - believed? The SFGate news article doesn't really say that. It says conservatives are attempting to show bias in Brown's investigation by spreading that audio clip, which is very true. But saying they "believe" Brown's investigation is biased is like saying O'Keefe and Giles "believe" ACORN tries to set up brothels and international under-age prostitution rings. Of course they don't believe that; they're just doing all they can to make it appear that way. That's why I chose wording directly from the source: "Conservatives circulated audio clips of an ACORN organizer in an attempt to show bias in Brown's investigation of ACORN"; please consider wording closer to what is conveyed by the cited source.

4) As for the AG Office's response, you basically noted in passing that they simply denied the charge. There seems to be something lost in translation from their actual statement that "There is absolutely no truth to the assertion that this office has come to any conclusions in the ACORN matter, in a preliminary way or at all." Also, was the spokeswoman "asked for comment", as you have added? While it may be a reasonable assumption, I don't see that in the source. Was it, instead, a response to comments made by the California governor during an impromptu press conference? Again, please consider wording closer to what is conveyed by the cited source.

5) Grenell rhetoric. This final issue is the least clear cut, and I'd like both of your opinions on it in more detail. As for my opinion: scrap the whole paragraph describing Grenell's accusation that Brown launched the investigation solely for political gain. I know I left it in during my recent edits, but having re-read the source article and realizing the polemic only mentions the ACORN investigation in passing (and not really as a supporting example to his argument), it appears to be undue weight. It also appears as out-of-place rhetoric in light of the article's coverage of other Attorneys General, Inspectors General and District Attorneys all launching similar investigations. Find a home for it in the Brown Campaign article, because the cited source says nothing about the "ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy", except the dubious claim that Brown must be investigating it as a political move -- a claim that doesn't fit in light of all the other investigations. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Xeno, I didn't realize you'd been reading along so closely! Okay, I can see you have concerns about the Youtube cite sourcing reliability, sticking closely to cited sources for the statements, and the focus/weight of the Grenell editorial. I will withhold my comments and let Phoenix and Winslow a chance to reply to your items #1 through #5 first because I suspect his views and your views are further apart, hence it makes more sense to allow him first response. --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of collaborative editing that I knew Xeno was capable of giving us, rather than just reverting me at the risk of an edit war, and being belligerent on the Talk page. I notice that he quickly retreated on the Edmund G. Brown vs. Jerry Brown issue, and now that a nine-month-old quote from an ACORN official revealing Brown's bias in this investigation has finally reached the shores of Wikipedia, any objections to including his party affiliation have finally withered. I'm glad.

1) Since the key statements on the YouTube video have been verified and quoted by a reliable source, and then quoted here with a citation of the reliable source, I agree that the YouTube link has outlived its usefulness.

2) I'll work on finding a reliable source for Breitbart's observations. That shouldn't be hard at all. In the meantime, feel free to slap a "citation needed" tag on it.

3) Accurately reflecting the source is good.

4) We could quote the entire press release too, I suppose. But at some point, we run into WP:WEIGHT problems, wouldn't you agree? I think it's fine as it stands, without the sentence quoted from Brown's spokesperson.

5) Four paragraphs have been devoted to Brown's rhetoric. I think devoting one paragraph to Grenell's rhetoric takes us only 25% of the way toward eliminating the WP:WEIGHT problem inherent in this situation. The Grenell paragraph should stay and, in fact, the two-paragraph blockquote should return. "[A]nd not really as a supporting example to his argument"? I definitely disagree. It is a supporting example, although only one of several. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we've worked out issue #1. Issues #2 and #3 need reconciling because they are somewhat mutually exclusive. Either we lead that portion with "Some conservatives, including Breitbart [with fact tag], believed..." or "Conservatives circulated audio clips of an ACORN organizer in an attempt to show bias...". The one thing we clearly all agree on is that accurately reflecting the source is best. After looking at the source again, it's clear to me that the latter choice is accurate, while the former is just an interpretation (it's the one I originally wrote, and I admit now that it was a poor choice of words). So to resolve #2 and #3, I think we should lead with this text:

Attempting to show bias in Brown's investigation of ACORN, conservatives circulated audio clips of ACORN's lead San Diego organizer speaking at a Democratic Club meeting in El Cajon two weeks after the investigation began. The organizer was recorded saying, "The attorney general is a political animal as well," and "Every bit of communication we've had with [Brown's office] has suggested that fault will be found with the people that did the video and not with ACORN." ...

The next portion entails issue #4, the sentence describing the AG Office's response. Xeno thinks it should be expanded while P&W thinks it shouldn't. I have a middle ground solution which (again) returns to getting it close as possible to accurately reflecting the source: rather than keeping the statement and adding the quote, we'll simply replace the statement with the quote, like this:

... "In response, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office commented "There is absolutely no truth to the assertion that this office has come to any conclusions in the ACORN matter."

So to recap, I think we should replace the first paragraph (which covers issues #1, #2, #3, and #4), with the above sentences in italics. Before we turn to issue #5, does anyone have any objections to this solution for the first four items? --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest that the entire subsection should be reorganized in chronological order. Specifically, the spokeswoman's statement was clearly made before the April 1 release of Jerry Brown's report. Otherwise, I have no objections to the first four items. In light of the recorded statement by Mr. Lagstein, a legitimate issue has been raised regarding Mr. Brown's impartiality. For that reason, WP:WEIGHT calls for a lengthy quote from Mr. Grenell as representative of a substantial amount of criticism from the conservative side. I would also consider copying this (in an abbreviated version) to the Jerry Brown biography, and (in full size version) to the article about the gubernatorial campaign. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

When you say the section should be reorganized in chronological order, is it not in chronological order right now? What needs to change for it to be in chronological order? --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look at the current version of the subsection. I boldly put it in chronological order. First, Mr. Brown announced the investigation in October 2009. Then came Mr. Lagstein's comments two weeks later, and the San Francisco Chronicle article, and the denial about prejudging from the AG spokeswoman in November 2009. Then came Mr. Brown's report in April 2010, and then Mr. Grenell's commentary in The Huffington Post. Since we hadn't agreed to expand Mr. Grenell's quote to a two-paragraph blockquote, I refrained from doing that; but overall, it's looking better and better. Thanks for the help. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, you were talking about the chronological order of the entire investigation, not the chronological order of the portion we are working on; that's fine with me. You used the old version of the Lagstein sentences, so I'm going to fix those now based on what was discussed above. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Grenell's Editorial

Okay, now we turn to the Grenell issue. A restatement, from my perspective:

Xenophrenic believes the entire paragraph should be scrapped because he feels that it's a polemic, it only mentions the ACORN investigation in passing and is not the centerpiece of his argument, it adds undue weight for an editorial, and other AG's, Inspector Generals, and DAs all launched similar investigations in response to the ACORN controversy.

Phoenix and Winslow points out that four paragraphs have been devoted to Brown's investigation and one paragraph for Grenell's editorial is only 25%. Although he is a fan of "shorter is better", he has reconsidered and now feels the paragraph should now be enlarged and bring back a two-paragraph standoff block quote. Further, he feels an issue has been raised regarding Brown's impartiality and "For that reason, WP:WEIGHT calls for a lengthy quote from Mr. Grenell as representative of a substantial amount of criticism from the conservative side."

I'm going to go take a look at WP:WEIGHT and read up. In the interim, if someone thinks I have misunderstood their perspective above, please point it out now. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You have correctly represented my objections, but I'd like to add this one: The governor of California (republican?) brought the case to the AG's attention and specifically requested that an investigation be launched. This rather flies in the face of the assertion that Brown chose to investigate for personal political gain, and timed it "to benefit Democratic constituencies and issues". (page 1) and (this) As for weight, that paragraph weighs about the same as a handful of political mud, and should be treated accordingly. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have carefully read WP:WEIGHT, which appears to be the significant thrust of P&W's argument and a portion of Xenophrenic's argument. I am going to copy-and-paste a couple parts from it here and add bolding for emphasis (mine):

• Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

• Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

• Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Please carefully study what I have clipped and re-read the entire WP:WEIGHT section for comparison yourself before considering what I have to say next: For me, having considered the above, I don't think I can agree with the position that because Mr. Grenell questions Mr. Brown's impartiality in an editorial, WP:WEIGHT calls for lengthy quotes from Mr. Grenell as a "representative of a substantial amount of criticism from the conservative side." Firstly, this assumes several facts not sourced here (that there is a substantial amount of criticism, that it's prevailing conservative view, that Mr. Grenell is the de facto representative of that view, etc). Secondly, and more importantly, WP:WEIGHT doesn't actually support what is being proposed here. Mr. Brown is the highest law enforcement officer in his state; Mr. Grenell is commenting in his capacity as a private citizen. Brown's office (attorneys and criminal investigators) conducted a six month criminal investigation and released an official investigation report; Grenell wrote a short editorial to the effect he thinks all of attorney general's investigations are a sham. Thus, I think using WP:WEIGHT to justify expanding Grenell's editorial and bringing in block quotes just isn't reasonable here; instead, it actually supports an argument for reducing the quotations.

Further, a valid point has been made to the effect that this political editorial only mentions the ACORN investigation in passing. Worse, it has also been pointed out that it was the Attorney General's boss, the Governor of California (who is not Democrat) who asked for the investigation. Doesn't this cast a disingenuous light on the assertion that Mr. Brown initiated this investigation for his own political purposes? I suppose no matter who ordered the investigation take place, Mr. Grenell and others can still maintain his opinion that the ACORN investigation was a sham. However, it appears the Governor's involvement needs to mentioned here as well to put that in proper perspective.

So, reconsidering everything that has been discussed and looking at everyone's input, my opinion is that the paragraph for Mr. Grenell's editorial should look something like this:

Richard Grenell, a former spokesman for Republican UN ambassadors writing in an editorial for The Huffington Post, accused Brown, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, of playing politics and using this investigation and others for political gain. Grenell asserted that Brown was announcing investigations for media affect, timed to benefit traditional Democratic constituencies, although it was the Governor who requested the investigation. Grenell wrote: "[Brown is] chasing Democratic political issues... [he] has turned the Attorney General's Office into a political machine with subpoena power -- and Republicans and their allies are the target."

But that's just my opinion, so I'll stop there to give everyone a chance to consider and reply. --AzureCitizen (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are all reasonable, but flawed because they all seem to overlook one significant point. I have taken the liberty of underscoring (with underlining) that point in the policy excerpts you have provided above. In summary: The minority viewpoint of the political critic is not prevalent in reliable sources; is misleading as to the actual shape of this dispute; has no significance to the actual article topic, and therefore has no place in the article.

Your proposed wording does a great job of addressing verifiability and neutral wording, while completely overlooking the fact that the content doesn't qualify for a spot in the article in the first place. Has there been the required significant "representation in reliable sources on the subject" of bias in the AG office's investigation, or just opinion pieces and conservative echo-chamber noise? I must express strong disagreement here, AzureCitizen. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended discussion of Mr. Grenell's opinion

Hi all, The Grennell Editorial is out of place and totally irrelevant. It should be cut. It is a criticism of Brown, and only tangeitally related to the ACORN tapes. It's better posted on the Wiki article dealing with the AG himself. It presents conservative conjecture as a solid point relevant to the investigation of the tapes. For example-- "Brown has turned the Attorney General's Office into a political machine with subpoena power -- and Republicans and their allies are the target." How is this relevant to this article? Especially since this whole story is really about the attempts by conservative activists to "take down" (their own words) what they saw as a "liberal organizing group." (we've had plenty of coversations over the latter term... remember?) Keeping the Grennell quote only distracts from the truths revealed by Browns investigation, as well as that by the GAO and other investigations into the tapes. Need I remind you that these were legal investigations by the very legal organizations which our country empowers to carry out such work? If we include Grennells quote, then we might as well include every bit of contentious conjecture from every side of this issue (eg, at this point, why not bring up Hannah Giles relationship with the militantly bigoted Clash Church community, her fathers organization? Its about as relevant a point as Grennels embittered response.) The Grennel insert seems like a transparent attempt to obviate the meanings of the various investigations into the spread of this story. In light of the recent case with Shirley Sherrod (which features Breitbart himself caught as being both negligent and dishonest), we should be careful about how this story is framed. So again, i think Grennell section needs to go. BTW, the recent finding from the GAO also must be reinserted. Its only fair. thanks.Ceemow (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC) How is this relevant to this article? Well, that's easy. It exposes a political motive for Mr. Brown's rhetoric in his report. An attorney general usually doesn't write like that. That sounds like an ambitious politician with an axe to grind. Keeping the Grennell quote only distracts from the truths revealed by Browns investigation ... What you see as "truths" are seen by others as the components of a smear campaign. It is our duty at Wikipedia to fairly represent all significant points of view. And if you think public prosecutors are infallible, and could never be motivated more by political ambition than the facts, let me remind you of Mike Nifong. He was disbarred. For a Republican example, there's Jim Ryan and his witch hunt against Rolando Cruz. Remove Mr. Grennell's quote, and you'd better find something equally representative of conservative thinking to replace it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Hello Phoenix and Winslow, I'm sorry, but I absolutely disagree. This is an article about the ACORN video scandal, not about speculation on Browns larger political goals. If you are going to insert materials that only speculate as to Browns motives, then, by that standard, it would be even more appropriate for this article to include material which speculates about Okeefes and Giles's motives for taking down ACORN (especially when the Giles has admitted she knew nothing about the group to begin with.) . There are PLENTY of such articles, and we can spend eternity arguing their applicability here. (The links are on the previous talk pages, but I will be more than happy to submit them again if necessary.) For example, many sources have pointed out Hannah's militant Christian roots. This article is about Giles's project, so by your argument, we ought to include background information from Hannah's personal life (eg, Doug Giles’s Clash Church) that offer speculations as to her motives as a right-wing activist. Why not insert a reference to James’s experience at Rutgers, and the fact that he was asked to leave the dorm because of his use of racist insults? This is about O’Keefe’s project, and so that information is really FAR more relevant here than anything about Browns career (ESPECIALLY partisan speculation.) But by wiki standards, thats inappropriate for Giles and OKeefe, and even moreso for Brown. With all due respect, you are inserting speculative conjecture in order to posit the possibility of a left wing conspiracy, and that’s WAY OUT OF BOUNDS. People can tune into BigGovernment.com for that information, but it is not relevant or appropriate here. The Grennel material has to go. Ceemow (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Hello again, Phoenix and Winslow, your wrote above-- Remove Mr. Grennell's quote, and you'd better find something equally representative of conservative thinking to replace it Um, i totally disagree here. This isnt about conservative versus anyone elses thinking. This is about a media event, how it was reported, what its consequences were, and how it was investigated. As such, the article does not have to represent "conservative thinking", because that's political commentary (not appropriate to an encyclopedic entry of this sort, by Wiki's own standards.) The article only has to reflect the material events as they have happened. Its not an opinion piece. As such, i am sorry to say that the recorded events as they had happened do not adhere to an ideological complaint by conservatives that they are being "targetted" by Gerry Brown (who was appointed by republican Arnold Shwarzinager to investigate this case). This is especially true since the subject of this article is an infamous attempt by conservative activists to target an organization which they saw as liberal. Lets not try to confuse who was targeting what in this case. I dont mean this in a bad way, but I dont know how you can even entertain the submission about Grennell as appropriate. It conjectures about a subject only marginally related to this case, in an attempt to obviate the truths of several investigations. Thats just pushing propaganda, especially if you are trying to use this article to sell the idea of a "smear" campaign by Brown. Again, the article doesnt have to meet a conservative standard, just an honest standard that is faithful to the events as they truly have happened. If you want a section detailing conservative reactions, then it should be separate from the section on investigations into the tapes. I sincerely hope that the details of the Philly ACORN video release were not removed because it wasnt sufficiently representative of conservative opinion (even though the very conservative Van Susteren herself called the production unconvincing.) . Also, we need to reinsert the recent findings by the GAO. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/21/acorn-gao-investigation-finds-no-misuse-of-federal-dollars/ this is at least certainly more relevant to this article than Grennells commentary. We should have more input into Grennels words, because I think a consensus needs to weigh in... but until then, we need to remove the Grennell material because it is inappropriate. Ceemow (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) The material about Mr. Brown's motives isn't "speculative conjecture." Read Mr. Lagstein's remarks at the East County Democrat Club on October 15, 2009. It was just two weeks after the investigation was announced, and nearly six months before the final report was published. Mr. Lagstein was assuring his fellow Democrats that there wasn't anything to worry about, because Mr. Brown's people had assured him that Giles and O'Keefe, not the ACORN employees, would be found at fault: the outcome had been predetermined; "the fix was in." Would you care to explain Mr. Lagstein's remarks? He wasn't a paid Republican operative, after all, but a high-ranking official at the San Diego ACORN chapter. Really, I'd like to be able to agree with you, but this doesn't go away so easily. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Well, I think we need to keep in mind WP:TRUTH. There are lots of different views on what the Lagstein incident could mean, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not whether we think something is true. For example, consider my take on what may have happened with Mr. Lagstein: when criminal investigators do their work and speak with multiple parties, they have wide latitude to say whatever they want and can even lie (legally) to persuade people to talk. A common tactic is to approach a party and put on airs of "this wasn't your fault, it's the other guy, c'mon, help us piece the real facts together." They do this to both parties to lull them into a sense of ease thinking they are "on their side", then they coax out all the information they can. Later, they bring all the fruits of their investigative work together, sort out the things that conflict and weigh the discrepancies, and come to logical conclusions of fact. In Lagstein's case, he probably got this idea from speaking with personnel in Brown's office early on, then gleefully reassured other supporters of his impressions (or made them up of his own volition in an effort to quell fears and turmoil). When the remarks were then touted as "evidence" of a predetermined outcome, the AG's spokesperson was right to set the record straight and make it clear that no preliminary findings had been made. As a result, "The Fix Was In" doesn't resonate with me, but that's just my opinion, which is no more or less valid than anyone elses.--AzureCitizen (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Hello all, I hope you are all having a beautiful Friday Hi Phoenix and Winslow, Please dont take this the wrong way, but the story you are telling shifts focus away from the actual meaning in the article. This isnt a forum to assert such elusive conspiracies (a subject better left to political blogs.) This is an encyclopedic entry about a media event. Again, it would be more appropriate to include material citing the Okeefe’s purported racism, than to cite Grennells distrust and paranoia. O’Keefe’s history is far more material to the article. If we want to include commentary on motives in this piece, then information about Okeefes seedy past is far more relevant to this story, and should be included. If you want to include Grennells material, then a concession has to be made for entering material about Giles’s background in militant Evangelization, Okeefe’s dismissal from a Rutgers dorm because of racism, criticisms on Breitbarts (un)reliability, etc... These issues speak entirely to the possible motives of the actual subjects of this article for accomplishing the very topic of this article. The thing is P&W, we had this conversation a long, long time ago, precisely about Giles and Okeefe (eg, Okeefe’s history of racism, etc...), and it was determined (after much mutual haranguing) that such material violates the Wiki standards on BLPs. If that is the case with Okeefe, then it is even more true for Brown, who is only mentioned tangentially as one of the investigators into the tape, and not its producer. If we cannot put in contentious material about the people who are at the very heart of this story, then we cannot enter wild speculations about Brown. (If you want to, we should have an arbitration set up to determine that... I actually would whole-heartedly support that.) Consider this— People representing the “conservative perspective” had, during earlier discussions on this article, adamantly opposed the inclusion of Joe Conason’s input by saying "he's with ACORN". This is also how the same people responded to the update from the Brooklyn DA. At that time (maybe 6 or 7 months back), any criticism of the tapes was dismissed by contributors with a bias for Okeefe, by stating (falsely) that any such critiques came "straight from ACORN." If Conason cannot be cited because (supposedly) “he’s with ACORN”, then Grennel cannnot be cited because his hysterical statement (let alone his professional position) puts both his words and his allegiance solidly with Breitbart. A Few months back (AzureCitizen knows what I am talking about), there was even an attempt to mangle the words of Carol Leonning in order to remove her criticism of the false financial figures featured on the ACORN tapes. An editor with explicit support for Breitbart tried to contort the actual meaning of Leonings statement, and erase her conclusions about the financial figures cited, despite the complete straightforwardness of Leonnings words. (In the process he also went so far as to post my own location online, and accused me of being an ACORN worker... thankfully, Wiki staff took care of the matter tout-suite!) But to include such criticism from RSs like Leonning meant that we had to make sure the sources were reliable and agreeable to a consensus of editors (the Grennell material is not... at least myself and Xenophrenic are of the same stance on this one.) By accommodating the dismissive reactions to material which (because they did not reiterate Breitbart) were described as “ liberal smears against conservatives on behalf of ACORN,” so much solid material was left by the wayside, to the detriment of this article's integrity. (Again, If the discussion between Leonnig and Van Susteren about the Philly video was removed from this article, then its only appropriate that Grennels marginal input goes too. ) What I am saying, P&W, is that the Grennell quote attempts to continue a partisan line of conjecture in this article; one that claims that anyone who criticizes the tapes is doing so because they are “with ACORN”, and part of a massive conspiracy to slander conservatives (again, the irony of that argument against the background of what is being discussed is absolutely overwhelming.) That is totally out of bounds for a wikipedia entry, and damages the neutral integrity of the entry. Furthermore, it’s a hysterical posture. Look, with the recent Sherrod case, O'Keefe's appearance on Good Morning America over his Census work, the arrest in New Orleans etc..., its already clear that the people who put this video ensemble together are not reliable. Even as it stands, the article accommodates too many of the proven lies established by Breitbart. And Andrew Breitbart is a man whose organization Fox's own Shep Smith describes as totally unreliable (precisely because of his history of posting partially edited soundbytes.) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/342HP/shepard-smith-unloads-on_n_655013_54613732.html (again, if we want grennel in, then lets also include Sheps critique of breitbart... again, its more relevant to the subject than Grennell, and far less politically motivated.) Remember again, that Okeefe was called out on GMA for editing out important material from his Census tapes (btw, why hasnt that been added to OKeefe’s article?). (incidently, it is interesting that Breitbart went from describing George Stephanopoulos as a “profile in media courage” for hosting him, to a “sandbagger” and “Clinton era hack” all in the same day, just because George asked O’keefe about the material edited out of his tape, his racist background, and his arrest in NOLA ... Breitbarts memo switch is only bested by his clumsy handling of the recent Shirley Sherrod case.) Speaking of Shirley Sherrod, Breitbart is now in trouble for slandering a good woman and mangling her words for political purposes through a misleading and partial soundbyte. http://www.salon.com/news/shirley_sherrod/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/07/22/charles_sherrod_civil_rights_hero http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/fooled-again-by-breitbart_b_654594.html http://open.salon.com/blog/scott_rosenberg/2010/07/22/breitbart_fiddles_while_the_msm_refuses_to_burn_him (If Grennels statement on Brown is appropriate, then why wouldnt these reactions to Breitbart, the very man who propagated the story, be as well?) And Okeefe, rather than defend his work, plead guilty to a plea deal in NOLA... this despite promises that a court case was the exact forum which Okeefe wanted in order to do a little political soap-boxing. All this means that we have to be extra careful with narratives established by such interests. If you find such material facts as evidence of a liberal conspiracy, then there are plenty of fora that can host that rhetoric. But here on Wiki, its an editorial opinion, irrelevant to the article, and entirely outside of BLP standards (again, lets put it to arbitration.) The article is about ACORN, not about Brown. If you want to include skepticism about Brown, you cannot throw in such an explosive charge, precisely because of the same reasons we cannot enter any material about Okeefes purported racism. By your standard, we can also enter this criticism of Breitbart by Bob Cesca-- "For background purposes, it's important to note that Andrew Breitbart is an attention-whore who is desperate to emulate his mentor, Matt Drudge, and this isn't the first time he's released misleading videotape "evidence" of African Americans behaving badly (or so he claims) in order to drive traffic to his various websites while augmenting his status as a player in the modern conservative movement." That is equivalent to the Grennel quote— its an editorial, but it at least addresses the very person respopnsible for propagating this story. By including the Grennel statement, you are inviting a perpetual back and forth of incidental material that enumerates each political fault from every person cited in this article, as per their detractors. With respect to Okeefe alone, that will weigh the article down heavily and stretch it out for miles (how much moreso when material about Breitbart, Harshbarger, Giles, Lewis, Glenn beck, Brown, Hannity, Rep King, etc... is entered.) If we support that kind of back and forth, then we have to prepare for this article to become a message board of tit-for-tat. For all these reasons, we are either going to have to eliminate Grennel, or reconsider how to insert his input, because as it stands, the inclusion seems like an embittered defense of what has proven to be indefensible. I think this matter needs to go to arbitration. Lets submit it and see what a neutral party thinks.Ceemow (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Hello AzureCitizen, Hi again and happy HOT summer! I sincerely admire your balanced and courteous efforts to find a workable solution in good faith. At the same time, let me remind you about the degree of contention that surrounded the establishment of the Criticisms section months before. Perhaps you remember that we had to revamp any such criticism to its most delicate phrasing in order to insert it. Shouldnt the same standard apply to Grennell, who is not addressing our subject, but Jerry Brown? Also, if criticism of the investigations are included (and i do think that's better than inserting it into the investigations section), then we also should include criticism of the producers themselves(as distinct from the tapes themselves.) I don’t think its balanced to have one without the other. Ceemow (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Ceemow, what about the quote from Mr. Lagstein? Doesn't that make Mr. Grennell's remarks a great deal more than just "speculative conjecture"? He was saying, in effect, "Fuhgeddaboutit. The fix is in." His statement has been quoted in a reliable source. How do you explain that away? A legitimate question has been raised concerning Mr. Brown's impartiality. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Hi P&W, please read Azure above... again, the insertion of Grennel invites insertions from some of the strongest critics of BigGovernment.com (re: the statement by Cesca, etc...) If we have Grennel, then lets include Bob Cesca, Cenk Uryk, Joan Walsh, Shep Smith, Eric Boehlert, etc... These authors raise the legitimate question not just of Breitbart and OKeefe's impartiality, but also about their overall integrity and prejudices. (and again, its the actual work of Breitbart, oKeefe etc... that forms the subject of this entry.) Also, picking at that point means that we can also outline the impartiality of Hannity, Glenn Beck, Megyn Kelly and everyone else who propagated oKeefes videos. If such an assesment applies to the videos' investigators, it applies even more strongly to their producers/promoters. Ceemow (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Grenell (continued)

Okay, I see things have not been going very well in sorting this out and coming to agreement on Grenell's editorial that the AG's investigation was a sham. It appears our positions to date are something like this:

Xenophrenic - Exclude it

Ceemow - Exclude it

Phoenix and Winslow - Include it, expand it, and put in block quotes

AzureCitizen - Include a sentence or two plus a sampling sentence quote.

I am now going to modify my position as follows, back to something I originally suggested in my comment here: Instead of putting the contested Grenell editorial material in the "Response from Government" section, it could be included in the "Criticisms" section. Here's an excerpt of what I said to P&W on 20 July 2010:

Now that you've found more material (Grenell's opinion piece), you might be able to expand on this further, and therein it would be a logical to include that Brown is the Democratic gubernatorial in the process, perhaps even using direct quotes from one of the citations. That would accomplish the goal your seeking, would it not? But to do so, it is becoming apparent that expanding these items falls more into the category of political criticism than the category of "Government response". Perhaps we should add new subsections to the Criticism section instead, one called "Criticism of the ACORN undercover videos" and another called "Criticism of the California Attorney General's Investigation", and then in the latter you could expand the sentence on Lagstein's comments into a paragraph and bring in quoted material from Mr. Grenell along with other sources. What do you think of that idea?

Lagstein's comments have already been incorporated chronologically into the Brown material, and they are reliably sourced, so I think they should stay where they are at, but the Grenell paragraph could reasonably find a new home in the criticism section along with similar commentary and opinion material. What does everyone think of that solution? In a minute, I will boldy make that adjustment so that everyone can see what it looks like, then come and post your comments here. --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, for clarity and ease of sorting this out, I would ask that everyone (P&W, Xeno, Ceemow) briefly post a comment in this section here as to whether or not they support this new suggestion, or oppose it (but please be brief in explaining why you oppose it), so we can frame where we are going next before things get confusing. Sound good? -- AzureCitizen (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Extended discussion of Mr. Grenell's opinion

I'm simply going to repost my unanswered question from above. I really can't add more to the discussion until it is answered: Has there been the required significant "representation in reliable sources on the subject" of bias in the AG office's investigation, or just opinion pieces and conservative echo-chamber noise? This article is about the video tapes created to besmirch ACORN. Several investigations into the matter were done by several law agencies, so we should note the results of those investigations. But assigning conspiratorial motives to each of those investigating agencies is beyond the scope of this article. Please show me the plethora of reliable sources that justify your insertion of such a peripheral and fringe "criticism" into this article, regardless of how neutrally and accurately worded. WP:WEIGHT says it shouldn't even be here. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC) My stance is outlined above. I’m fully in agreement with Xenophrenic. I dont think Grennell is relevant at all. That being said, let me emphasize that if we include the rebuttal by Grennel (which details his assumptions about Brown’s biases), then we should also include a section of criticisms which details the biases of the videos' own producers and promoters (Breitbart, okeefe, etc...). Six months ago, when we were composing the "Criticisms section", someone emphasized that such material, though valid (eg, OKeefes expulsion from a Rutgers dorm for using racist slurs, the assesment by the CJR of Breitbart blackmailing AG Holder, etc...) violated BLPs because they were deemed extrapolative (I believe by TE, but i could be wrong). If that standard still applies, it should apply over-all..., if it applies to Giles, okeefe or Breitbart, then why not to Brown? If we are going to speculate on the political motives of Bown's investigations, then why not on the motives of those whose actual work is the subject of this entry? We have a section criticizing the videos (and that section is very delicately worded), but not their authors. There is a tremendous amount of valid material on OKeefe's personal/professional history as far as his lack of credibility goes. There is even more material on Breitbart since the Sherrod/Spooner case has unfolded. This material is at least as relevant to their motives for “taking down ACORN”, as the purported bias that Grennell says is relevant to the investigation for which Brown was appointed (and again, this is an article about a project by Okeefe.) So if we want to include “Criticisms of Browns Investigations” as a section, then we have to have a “Criticisms of the Videos Producers” section as well. And since Grennell is a noted Republican spokesperson (hence at least as politically invested as he claims Brown to be), then editorial material from the contributors at MediaMatters, Bradblog, etc... should be not be off limits. (however, we should be aware that the "tit-for-tat" possibilites could get very cumbersome from this arrangement, like they did in the former Hannah Giles article.) But I think the better, cleaner, and more sensible option is just to scrap Grennell altogether, for exactly the reasons outlined by Xenophrenic. Keeping Grennel only lowers the bar of verifiability. Ceemow (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Has there been the required significant "representation in reliable sources on the subject" of bias in the AG office's investigation, or just opinion pieces and conservative echo-chamber noise? That's how opinion pieces are published: they're represented in reliable sources. Are you saying that The Huffington Post isn't a reliable source? Read WP:RS. Even their own blogs are considered reliable sources for their own opinions, and there are a lot of them. Any material on OKeefe's personal/professional history may belong in his biography, but not here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC) P&W, When we composed the criticism section, we were obligated to use materials that criticized the tapes on formal, not personal, grounds. Conspiratorial opinion pieces dont qualify, especially if they are as tangential and extrapolative as Grennels. It doesnt matter who publises it, its the actual verifiable substance of the argument, and its solid relevance to the entry, that are important. Grennels comments really have to go. They lower the bar of verifiability, are quite potentially libelous, and inject an unsuitable degree of hyperbole into the article.Ceemow (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Azure wrote above- "There are lots of different views on what the Lagstein incident could mean, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not whether we think something is true... When the remarks were then touted as "evidence" of a predetermined outcome, the AG's spokesperson was right to set the record straight and make it clear that no preliminary findings had been made. As a result, "The Fix Was In" doesn't resonate with me, but that's just my opinion, which is no more or less valid than anyone elses" Xenophrenic also wrote- "In summary: The minority viewpoint of the political critic is not prevalent in reliable sources; is misleading as to the actual shape of this dispute; has no significance to the actual article topic, and therefore has no place in the article." These are two of several good reasons that the Grennel quote must go. The rest of the discussion only backs up the point. P&W, you yourself suggest the contribution is an opinion piece. And if, as you say, "Any material on OKeefe's personal/professional history may belong in his biography, but not here" (here being an article about Okeefe's own work), then that same standard goes double for the supposed motivations of AG Brown. It doesnt belong here. This article isnt about him. (You really cant have it both ways.)Ceemow (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Are you saying that The Huffington Post isn't a reliable source? --P&W No, I am not. I asked a question; this one: Has there been the required significant "representation in reliable sources on the subject" of bias in the AG office's investigation, or just opinion pieces and conservative echo-chamber noise? So where is the required significant reporting on this supposed bias? We have an opinion piece (and a little parroting of that same opinion by non-RS talking heads), but nothing that justifies it being in this article about the ACORN videos. Please see WP:WEIGHT: It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC) [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you for proving my point. None of those, with just one exception, are reliable sources. Echo...echo...echo. As for the one reliable source, it says nothing about Grenell, and even adds this statement from Lagstein about the audio clip, "The Republican Party is trying to create a new scandal out of nothing. I asserted 'my belief' that the investigation will find fault with the videographers and not with ACORN because no one at California ACORN broke the law and the videographers did," Lagstein said in a statement. So, again, where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that show this "bias" meme deserves a spot in this article? Was your unsuccessful search exhaustive, or will you be continuing the search? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you for proving my point. None of those, with just one exception, are reliable sources. All of them are reliable sources, for the limited purpose of sourcing their self-published authors' opinions. Read the last subsection in WP:SPS: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves[.]" Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Incorrect. Here is what WP:SPS really says: Self-published or questionable 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: 1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources. I'm sure you can find several blogs, opinion parrots and propaganda sites that echo the "omg AG bias!" meme of the day, but that isn't our purpose here. We're trying to justify having that content in the article in the first place, remember? To do that, we need to show that it has received significant reliable source (read: with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) coverage. WP:WEIGHT requires it. Let's find those sources, please. I've looked extensively, and I don't see them. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC) [outdent]Xeno, these aren't being presented as proof of claims about third parties, nor are they presented as proof of claims about events not related directly to the subject. They are being presented solely as expressions of opinion. And I'm not suggesting that they should be included in this article, not even as links. I am suggesting that Mr. Grenell's comments, in a thoroughly reliable source for all matters, should be included as their representative, following WP:WEIGHT policy about minority opinions. You have conceded that I "can find several blogs, opinion parrots and propaganda sites that echo the 'omg AG bias!' meme of the day." I will concede at this time, pending further review, that Mr. Brown's report and the many other criticisms exhaustively listed in the mainspace represent a majority opinion. But Mr. Grenell represents a substantial minority opinion. As has been demonstrated by Mr. Lagstein's remarks, this is not opinion based on "speculative conjecture," but on facts, and Mr. Grenell's opinion should be in the mainspace as its representative. Let's all remember WP:NPOV. Despite any personal distaste for conservatives, we all have a duty to make space in this article for their opinions. They are, at the very least, a significant minority. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Hi all, I hope your weekends are going fantastically! P&W. First-- No, there doesnt have to be a representative space for "conservative opinion" because this is not being presented as a "conservative/political issue"... it's the job of blogs and political websites to cast things in such a light. This is an encyclopedic entry about a media event. We need to keep our citations to formal matters in the story, as per Wiki guidelines. Furthermore, your wrote yourself above that "Any material on OKeefe's personal/professional history may belong in his biography, but not here" Okay, there you said it yourself. (Know that the same policy goes even moreso for Brown, since he is only a secondary character in this article.) At the same time, you want us to put in info that projects, and yes, even SPECULATES (see AzureCitizens comment above), as to the motives in Browns personal and professional life. You want us to insert questionable material that tries to make an unverified case about Browns personal psychology, and in a terribly hyperbolic manner. With all due respect, how can you imagine that you can have it both ways? Thats not how Wiki works. This article is not about Brown, he is a secondary character here. The primary Characters are O'Keefe, Breitbart, Giles and the ACORN staff. While wanting to put in tangential and questionable material to elaborate on the psychology of a secondary character, you state that background material on the primary characters is out of bounds. Thats quite a double standard. There is an abundance of material that deals with O'Keefes lack of credibility as per this video project. There is even more about Breitbarts lack of credibility, especially since the Sherrod case (from sources that are FAR more reliable and balanced than Grennell's hysterical opinion piece.) If you want to keep Grennels opinion in, then you are opening up the flood-gates to put in opinion editorials by Eric Boehlert about Breibarts unreliability, the Daily Kos articles on O'Keefe's racist dorm experiences, O"keefes criminal history, the response by Liz Farkas, the funding by Peter Thiel, etc... all as they relate to his drive to "take down" an organization that serves under-class Americans. If you want Grennell in, you are setting the precedence for the rest, because the rest are far more relevant to the subject of this article. Even conservatives Taranto and Frumm describe OKeefe as a charlatan, and Ven Susteren called his Philly project unconvincing. Fox News's Shep Smith refused to play anything by Breitbart anymore because he described BigGovernment.com as totally unreliable..., as, in fact, owning a HISTORY of unreliability. These are conservative journalists, btw. So Grennell doesnt represent all conservatives, just those who follow the lead of Andrew Breitbart. Grennell goes, theres no justification for him. I stand with Xenophrenic. Thats 2 votes for "no". If we have a stalemate, we can take it to arbitration. What do you think, AzureCitizen? Ceemow (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Are you ever going to have anything to say about Mr. Lagstein's remarks? Are you ever going to even acknowledge that they occurred? That is the factual basis for the conservatives' opinions. They are not speculation, but a reasonable conclusion based on evidence. Certainly not the only reasonable conclusion, of course, but not unreasonable either. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC) If we have a stalemate, we can take it to arbitration. There are many steps in dispute resolution, starting with Request for Comment. I have contacted LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and, since he's previously shown an interest in the subject matter, Wikidemon. If we can't resolve this to everyone's satisfaction with their input, we can proceed to RfC. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC) P&W, I could also ask you, "Did you read Shep Smiths editorial on Breitbart? Did you see op'keefe on GMA? Are you going to have anything to say about Breitbarts debacle with Sherrod, and how that compromises his credibility? Or about O'keefe's history of falsifying information, all of which are FAR more appropriate to this article?" You answered "no" before, despite the vast body of relevant material from such sources that ARE FAR MORE RELEVANT TO THIS ARTICLE, AND FAR LESS POLITICALLY INTERESTED. Regarding Langstein, let me refer you back to AzureCitizens comments again, "There are lots of different views on what the Lagstein incident could mean, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not whether we think something is true... When the remarks were then touted as "evidence" of a predetermined outcome, the AG's spokesperson was right to set the record straight and make it clear that no preliminary findings had been made. As a result, "The Fix Was In" doesn't resonate with me, " Also, how would you address your reluctance to allow for parrallel info on the motives of Breitbart and O'keefe (which again, are far more relevant to this article?) By negating the right for such information to appear here (which you clearly and explicitly stated above), you are also, by extension, saying that the Grennel material is not appropriate either. You made that point yourself with Okeefe. The same rule applies to Brown. Just as such info belongs in the O'keefe article, so does the Grennell info (if it belongs anywhere) belong only in the Brown article... no where else. You cannot make an exception for Grennel when you refuse the same for parrallel info on BigGov staff. That's a double standard, like it or not.Ceemow (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Message for AzureCitizen, Hi Azure, I hope you are having a great weekend. This is a hairy one, so i'd like to get your input on something. Please look at the wording of the Grennel addition. Then look through the history of this article and look at the wording of the Colombia Journalism Review piece, in which Breitbart was accused by the (highly esteemed and reliable) CJR staff of trying to blackmail AG Holder when he threatened a larger release of ACORN videos just before mid-term elections. We had to remove (at the request, I believe, of TE) that very CJR addition (despite its reliability, verifiability, and the fact that it was referencing Breitbarts own words, as he had explicitly stated them on a televiswd interview with Sean Hannity.) No satisfactory reason was really given, other than that (for some reason) Breitbarts own explicit political motives (and his political use of these videos) were not seen as applicable to the article. I beleive they were deemed "too speculative", and thus a violation of BPLs. How is it that we can insert Grennels hear-say speculation about the supposed motives of a secondary person in this story (sans any concern of BPLs), when we could not allow for even more solid and relevant material to be added about one of it's principle characters, on the issue of the very videos that are trhe subject of the article? This is a continuation of the bias that originally shaped this article. It only brings Wiki's credibility down by allowing for such a low standard. If the rule applies to a reasoned argument by the CJR, it applies to the embittered hysteria of a political operative like Grennel. Ceemow (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Allow me to intervene here. First, note I am new to this issue and the large volume of written material on it has indeed confused me, so forgive me if I get out of line. That said, the first argument I understood was "Has there been the required significant 'representation in reliable sources on the subject' of bias in the AG office's investigation, or just opinion pieces and conservative echo-chamber noise?" I see a big problem with that. Everyone knows there is significant media bias in the United States. That bias includes the exclusion of otherwise newsworthy information. The situation is so bad that Czars can resign before the MSM even says word one about it. In that instance, "opinion pieces and conservative echo-chamber noise" was the only source for truthful and accurate information. Instances like this happen again and again, even now as we speak. Charley Rangel anyone? Nuclear program of Iran? And who can forget how The New York Times covers up for numerous things, such as the Holocaust. I find it very convenient that the very political viewpoint that excludes certain stories from the MSM then argues that such stories are nonexistent because they do not appear in the MSM. So, based solely on the argument presented by Xenophrenic above, I am inclined to be inclusive. Wikipedia is to present accurate information, not act as the "echo-chamber" for the New York Times, etc. I say let's include it, just do so in a Wiki-compliant way, whatever they may be. My view may change as I continue to read on or get less confused as to what is going on here. Include it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Leg&EvenComp-, I’m sorry but you have now entered the truly unreliable realm of conspiracy theory, and it doesnt help your case at all. Do you honestly believe that in our day and age, there exists a “Media bias” about the Holocaust? About Iran? About its nuclear program? Are you kidding? (Evidently you dont watch too much PBS! Try the History channel.) I'd REALLY like to see what the other editors think about that, because that is NOT the caliber of legitimacy that should be represented in an encyclopedia. I’m sorry, but this really doesnt do much for your argument..., rather, it actually highlights the extreme and marginal nature of the approach. Furthermore, the subject you are addressing has nothing to with the issue of Grennel’s validity.Ceemow (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) One last thing Leg&EvenComp, would you be willing to add Andrew Breitbarts fiasco with Shirley Sherrod to your roster of media bias? Or how about the fact that he has never retracted any of the now proven false info about his ACORN targets (eg, that they are murderers and pedophiles?) Or how about his selective "drip" method of releasing the edited tapes... isnt that an actively biased and manipulative approach to the media? Doesnt that upset you as much? (Or even beyond this, how about Iran-Contra, Mai Lai or Pat Tillman? What politics do you think those cover-ups were in favor of?) Its VERY ironic that you would advance this “media bias” argument to defend Grennell's critique, not even a week after the Shirley Sherrod debacle. Ceemow (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks, LC. Thus endeth the stalemate. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC) P&W- The stalemate has hardly ended. There’s 2 votes for, and 2 against. I would like Azure to respond to the CJR issue before he re-confirms his position. But in all honesty, I’m getting exhausted by this issue and all the hyperbole with which it is so heavily saturated (“Media bias” about the Iran? In this day and age? That’s really just absurd!) I do, however, have to offer both a caveat and a question. First, you seem to think that just because conservatives sincerely believe there is a bias against them, that should form the basis for including Grennel. You claim that they are an interested demographic that needs representation in this article. But while Wikipedia is in fact a “democratic” forum, the subject of material history is not so clear cut. If it were, then people so daft as to deny the Holocaust, or the Moon landings, etc... would hold just as much academic water as more serious and conscientious researchers. Second, and more importantly, you must understand that by submitting Grennel, you are setting a precedence for this article. That precedence says that this article can include editorial opinion that is at least as relevant and reliable as you say Grennell is. So do you accept that precedence? Ceemow (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I have not "entered the truly unreliable realm of conspiracy theory". I never said word one about any conspiracy. Ceemow, you are projecting. As to your being unaware of the NYT's history with respect to the Holocaust, etc., that is your problem, not mine. For example, go look up Walter Duranty. You are correct I did not address the Grennel ref directly. The reason is that, without even reading the ref, the one argument I addressed that was used to oppose the ref is fallacious. It is not "extreme and marginal" to note that the media sometimes excludes certain stories. I gave the Van Jones resignation as an example. It is a perfect example. It was all over before anyone in the MSM admitted there was even a potential for a problem. Left to MSM as the only source for information, Wikipedia would have also presented absolutely no information at all on the issue. And that seems to be what may be happening here. The claim is being made that MSM is the only source for information. That is simply false on several levels. It is not "extreme and marginal" to so note. On the other hand, it is your claims about me and your projection that evidence your desperation to ensure Wikipedia maintains the same media blackout that the MSM maintains, generally speaking now, I do not know the specific facts of the current matter. I did not say it must be included in a way that violates any Wiki rule. Rather, I specifically said, "let's include it, just do so in a Wiki-compliant way, whatever they may be". Tell me, Ceemow, what is "extreme and marginal" about that? And it is not WP:AGF to ignore my input here. It's 3-2 in favor of the ref, not 2-2 as you say because you left me out. And Wikidemon may yet comment. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC) LAEC, I did not discount your vote. I didnt count AzureCitizen's vote because I wanted him to address a parallel issue with CJR before counting his vote. I think he knows what i am talking about, (dont you Azure?) Anyhow, i did make that clear.... Not that its my place, i just thought the matter merits a re-dress in light of his support for including Grennel. Also, to assume that the NYT's negligence is representative of all media activity shows a marginal approach that sees all "media" as one entity. That's what i meant by "extreme." (and yes, if you think there is a media "blackout" over Irans weapons program, then I honestly dont know what news you are watching... that is, again, extreme.) Most people know that, especially in our world, the media is quite balkanized, its hardly of one mind. And, as the examples with Tillman, El Mozote, Iran Contra etc... that I posted above prove, media bias is evident everywhere, and Andrew Breitbart is certainly a master of it (again, see above, re: Shirley Sherrod.)Ceemow (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Welcome to the swamp, LAEC. Wade in, the water is fine! As you stated, everyone knows there is media bias in the US. We could argue at length about the influence the "Mainstream media" like FOX news has on information dissemination, but such a discussion is really completely unrelated to the matter at hand. The specific issue we are trying to resolve is whether certain content meets Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion in this article. While there are several requirements that need to be met, the first particular hurdle that we are trying to get past involves undue weight. There has been a lot of discussion thus far, as well as several tangential threads, so I'll see if I can sum things up for you (and any other new arrivals to the discussion) below. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Xenophrenic, I know everyone will appreciate it. Ceemow, you continue to put words into my mouth. It does not help your argument to make mine say what you want people to think instead of what actually is. You might be doing the same thing with this Wikipedia page. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC) LAEC, You can say what you will, but our conversation is posted above for everyone to see. I dont believe I have misrepresented you at all. You brought up "media bias" about Irans Nuclear weapons program, not me. You seem to think the negligence of NYT is a representative media sample (remember, NYT's negligence does not obviate, say, Gwen Eiffels integrity.) Also, please dont discount the standards which i have always upheld with respect to this issue (even, at times, against my better judgement.) I am not interested in "narrative," i am interested in reliability. However, I am even less interested in grudges, and I do sincerely apologize if I have offended you somehow. Lets keep to the topic. See below.Ceemow (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Agree, thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)