Talk:ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Re-write of article

After logging on last night, I began radically reordering the article and sections while also utilizing as much useful material mentioned here and trimming the redundancy and poorly soured content already in the article. I'm happy with the new presentation thus far, and will post it later tonight. If you will bear with me, I think we will have a far better article to edit in the future. †TE†Talk 18:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've been putting in time and effort and you've been working with both the original article and the items we've been discussing here, we can certainly have a go at it. Obviously, extensive changes may provoke extensive content debate but if you've been keeping NPOV and balance uppermost in your edits and restructuring, I'm open to parsing through it and sincerely hope that I will be impressed. Do you have it configured as a sandbox page, or are you going to try and post the entire re-write here on the Talk page? You might want to seriously consider doing the former, that way we can collectively and efficiently work with it there rather than the mess we'll end up making of the Talk page.--AzureCitizen (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont think a massive restructuring of the article is warranted without posting it on this talk page first.

Also, there is no additon of the Leonnig critique, as you had stated, nor is there any reference to the 4 month investigation clearing Brooklyn ACORN. Were those additions really posted? They arent there now. Why were they deleted?

Again, I would request that TE post his draft here first, before restructuring the article. And I think we need more input from quite a few other editors before any massive restructuring. Ceemow (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

On the Leonnig material, I was saying that it was posted here on the talk page (not posted in the article itself). On the Brooklyn DA material, it was inserted into the main article yesterday in the state and local government subsection; look for it in the edit history, the 18:38 / 1 Mar 2010 post by The Sanity Inspector. With regard to your concerns that a massive restructuring of the article needs to be discussed here on the Talk page first, the answer is of course it will, and no one is suggesting otherwise. If what I said above about a "sandbox page" confused you, it means that we will all look at the proposed restructuring on a new page, separate from the main article and separate from this Talk page, so that things don't get to cluttered. Inside that sandbox, we can make as many suggestions and edits as need be without modifying the actual article as it stands right now, and without getting this Talk page so cluttered that it becomes totally unmanageable. Of course, there will be a link here on this Talk page to that sandbox page, so that we can all navigate there.--AzureCitizen (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Azure... thanks for pointing all of that out... I missed the entry by Sanity Inspector, but I see it now. Okay then, pending the posting of the draft, -take care.Ceemow (talk) 00:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Update--due to an unusual amount of activity in my uneventful existence, my re-write will take a bit longer. I will be posting it as the 2nd to latest diff in this articles history(self-revert). There's an expansion tag I'm keeping/using for the videos section. Summaries of the individual videos are very useful and can be used to add some criticism to the latter one's. This is a way to get around the difficulty of building a criticism section. Currently, I am interweaving criticisms in rebuilt sections. I do this because there are few criticisms against the Breitbart crew(other than for ACORN, which I am using in their Response Sec.). There are mostly criticisms on how the media handled this, on either side of the bias. If you can, please post more links critical of Giles, O'Keefe, Breitbart to use, or... whatever you see fit. †TE†Talk 01:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As the bulk of the discussion above clearly demonstrates (stretching back for months), there is more than ample criticism aimed at Breitbart and his crew. And that criticism comes from far more than just ACORN. E.g., http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/03/02/breitbart/index.html. Criticism of the tapes has been circulating since last Sept. These criticisms can be added to the proposed draft as is merited, and in the proper format.Ceemow (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a great piece from Salon.com's war room. It's too bad I'm seeing the same names. Ample does not mean amplified over many months. I'm already pushing WP:RS standards as well as WP:UNDUE. I find it hard to include your necessary amount of criticism without over representing the few who opined in a negative way. †TE†Talk 06:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, media criticizing media. From Salon above:

"Of course, that didn't stop Fox News from interviewing O'Keefe, dressed as a pimp, on its morning show when the tapes first appeared. Or the New York Times, for that matter, from declaring that O'Keefe was "dressed so outlandishly that he might have been playing in a risqué high school play." None of which turned out to be true."

This will most definitely be in the media bias section. †TE†Talk 07:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There is more than abundant criticism from reliable sources, and it can be entered as necessery. And of course the reliable source rubric must be adhered to... no one has suggested otherwise. To help see to that matter properly, more people should be brought in to this discussion. Again, it would be good to get Milowent, Mudskipper, BigOrange etc.. in on this. We also have a new contributor in EvanHarper (Hi Evan!)

Furthermore, the article should be fair and thorough (remember, the claim that "I don't think anybody is foolish enough to think the O'Keefe walked into the ACORN offices dressed in a Halloween costume," was not just innaccurate, it dismissed a verifiable, and widely sensational aspect of this story's own release... one too prominent to be forgotten so casually; on that note, the CJR material is entirely relevant.) Right now, there is strong potential to be too libelous... remember that the conclusion of the Brooklyn investigation was that "the tapes were edited to meet their agenda." Lets not let the same be said for this article.Ceemow (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

More Criticism of the ACORN video- A Colbert Lampoon--http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2010/03/05/colbert_hannity/index.htmlCeemow (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox pages for working with these proposed versions

Ok, not much has happened in the past 24-48 hours and although I will check in once or twice on Friday, I am going to be away almost all of Sat-Sun-Mon and will likely be unable to work on the material until I get back. In the mean time, I've gone and set up a sandbox page for ThinkEnemies proposed page re-write here, and also set up a sandbox page for Ceemow and anyone else who wants to continue to work with the criticism section work here. This is better than trying to work with versions that are inserted self-reverted, or trying to look at the text here on the Talk page. If ThinkEnemies page can comprehensively re-work the entire article such that it's formatted better, is more logical, and incorporates the relevant criticism concerns, then we all might collectively go down that route, while if that effort doesn't succeed then the tweaks to the criticism section can be finalized instead and we can settle there. Recommend that for everyone who is interested, go to those links first and "watch" those pages so that you can get back to them easily.  :) --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum - as previously discussed, I removed the conversation parts that none of us want to return to, and left in all the relevant material for further discussion. Everything is part of the "history" so it's still there but at least its no longer at the forefront. Looking forward to what we might accomplish now that that is in the past! Compare the diff summary if you want to see what I removed, and good will to all. --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, an entire week has gone by and nothing has happened with the proposals. ThinkEnemies, did you decide to quit the page re-write project? Ceemow, did you look at the criticism section that was proposed? --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Azure... I'm just waiting for ThinkEnemies to do his thing. If he fairly represents the criticisms of the videos in his write up, and gives them suitable elaboration, then I have no reason to spend my time adding anything. If he doesnt, then I'll add what is lacking. I assumed that's what we were doing here. Should I just add the criticisms to the proposal section anyway?Ceemow (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking that things are kind of dragged out. I was hopeful when he first made his proposal but there has been zero activity and he hasn't been active. Sometimes people's interest levels ebb and flow, or they lose interest entirely. When I realized it had been more than a week with no progress, I started wondering if we should just focus on finishing the criticism section instead. If he comes back, we can certainly reinvigorate the idea of looking a potential complete re-write of the article. Have you looked at the sandbox criticism page yourself? --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Azure. Good job on the sand-box section for "criticism." Its very comprehensive. As it stands, i think it's quite suitable. Thanks for doing all of that... I'm making a few deadlines, so I cant be on here to help as much as I'd like to.

I have quite a few more resources and critiques to offer, but I wouldnt want the criticism section to get too weighty or disproportionately large. Nevertheless, if ever there might be a need to cite additional criticisms, I think Rinku Sen's article for "ColorLines" might offer some good commentary.

The issue of racism has been material to this case, at least from some perspectives. Now, i wouldnt run with the contentious image of James at the conference on Conservatism and Race. But Sen's arguments are based not on that one incident, as much as on a consideration of the social complexes teased at in the posted videos themselves. Sen does make some good really points. In any case, her article is a source that we can tap for the criticism section, if necessary (like I said, i think what you have offered in the sand box is quite substantial as it stands.)

See Sen's article at---

http://www.colorlines.com/article.php?ID=698

Here's one quote I found interesting -

"Race wasn’t the sole motivating factor behind the ACORN attacks, but the situation has some important racial dynamics. The vast majority of ACORN’s membership was black and Latino, and their work was centered in black and Latino neighborhoods. So although the organization engaged rarely in an explicit racial analysis, conservatives were able to play easily on racial stereotypes that paint people of color as oversexed frauds and cheaters. The one-bad-apple excuse, so effective in relieving police departments of responsibility for violent, racist cops, never seems to apply to institutions with large numbers of people of color. And images of O'Keefe dressed as a pimp and plotting crimes with black people quickly overwhelmed the facts —that at least one ACORN office called the cops on him, that the video contained demonstrably false assertions about ACORN's federal funding or that it was heavily edited, to name a few."

I do recommend reading Sen's whole article. It's a perspective rarely given on national discussions about ACORN.Ceemow (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

After an entire month, the criticism section revision has finally been posted. --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how it should be done, but there's something important missing from the criticism section: Breitbart's explanation of what he was doing. He has made it clear from the start that the incomplete videos and timed release is part of an overall strategy, to catch ACORN in denials, and force the media to cover the issue repeatedly. (If that's what he wanted, I would say that he has been remarkably successful.) Even now, we seem to be in the middle of the story; the full unedited videos have never been released. It seems to me that his explanation ought to be part of the story.MikeR613 (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Material moved over from the James O'Keefe article

A large amount of material was inserted about the specific videos (specific material regarding what happened at specific cities) on the James O'Keefe article that did not exist here on the main article (ACORN 2009 Undercover Videos Controversy). I think it should be vetted by someone with a skeptical eye to make sure the material is truly accurate and not taken out of context, but it really belongs here and not on the O'Keefe biographical article because at that location it's supposed to just be a summary of the main article here. Please feel free to discuss and edit appropriately. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi All, i agree 100% with AzureCitizen's move and proposal. Material dealing with the content of the tapes belongs more properly to this entry than it does to O'keefe's bio.

However, we should be careful not to assume that just because information or quotations from the videos were posted without proper context, or in a misleading way 6 months ago (when they were first launched), that they should likewise be posted without proper context, or in a misleading way today.

This issue is of strong significance to the synopsis of videos content as represented in the "Hidden Camera Recordings And Video Releases" section (I hope its okay, but to save myself some time, I am going to post the same response I gave to this same material in O'Keefe's bio---)

Many of the selected quotes in these synopses present the very same problem that the edited videos do. They provide a series of statements positioned out of context in order to give a misleading appearance. Interestingly enough, that misleading appearance exactly mirrors the (already proven false) narrative established by O’Keefe.

Here’s an outstanding example from the Synposis of O'Keefe's Brooklyn Video---

The entry reads, “The couple were also advised to "get a tin . . . and bury it down in there, and you put the money right in, and you put grass over it, and you don't tell a single soul but yourself where it is.“

The statement is postured to give the appearance that Volda (the woman who is being quoted) is offering advice on hiding money from the government. In any case, it is presented as an encouragement of illegal activity. It gives that misleading appearance because it is removed from the full conversation that it came from.

Most troubling is the fact that a key portion is missing from this cited quote, from just before Volda says "...get a tin and bury it down in there..." This omitted part of the quote is at least half of Volda's sentence, and changes its meaning entirely.

Please see the full quote in the transcript passage below. I find the omission of this information really quite significant.

It completely misrepresents what the Volda is saying, just as O’Keefe’s edited videos do. Here is the full conversation from transcript of the meeting which is being referenced, ps 22-23. –

(here’s the link http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11298085/New-York-ACORN-Transcript )

please read the whole conversation.

Volda (loan counselor): Not only that but if you gonna do that type of work you got to start thinking quickly or else you are going to be abused

Hannah (Eden): which I have been

Volda (loan counselor): you have to start thinking faster than even the person who put you over there. Quick, quick, quick, you know that

Hannah (Eden): I mean I do think fast but this whole thing

Volda (loan counselor): when you buy, let me tell you something when you buy the house with aback yard. You get a tin if Jo is going to come beat you and want money you get a tin and bury it down in there and you put the money right in and you put grass over it and you don't tell a single soul but yourself where it is

Hannah (Eden): so a tin I put the money in a tin

Volda (loan counselor): in a tin and put it in there

Milagros (counselor); and put the grass

Volda (loan counselor): and put the grass over it

Hannah (Eden): I saw a movie one time where he put all the money underneath the dog house

Volda (loan counselor): you don't put it under no dog house

Hannah (Eden): but I don't have a dog

Volda (loan counselor): good so you put it where you can get it and he cant get it from you if he wants to come and rip up the place and all the like

Hannah (Eden): okay.

Let me emphasize that Volda is not advising Hannah to hide the money from the government, but from a very abusive pimp named Sonny. Sonny is the "Jo" referenced by Volda. He's the one who would "come beat you and want money," or "come rip up the place and all the like." She's not talking about hiding money from the government. On pg 17 of the transcript, Giles and O'keefe talk about this Sonny, whose abuse Hannah claims she is trying to escape.

Again, from Page 20 of the transcript,

James: Sonny is the pimp

Hannah (Eden): what if like he came after me again and wanted to take my money again and I had no where to put it so I need to throw it in the bank

Also on page 20, Giles claims she has no one else to trust with her cash. She needs a "safe place" for it. Throughout it all, Volda encourages her to keep her money in a bank.

If you read the transcript, you see quite clearly that Sonny is the guy who Volda is counseling them to hide the money from. She’s not counseling them to hide Giles's money from the goverment. In fact, she is trying to figure out ways for Hannah to declare her earnings, and repeatedly advises her to keep her income above-the-table in a bank (this is evident from reading the transcript, and sharply counters the impression given by the rest of the selected, out-of-context quotes from Brooklyn that are featured in our subsection.) In this particular instance, Volda is advising them how to hide the money from none other than Sonny the abusive pimp.

But the placement of the edited quote in our entry, and the lack of context, as well as chopping off half of the actual statement, gives a very wrong impression.

Again, please see page 17 of the transcript, in which both O’Keefe and Giles outline the fear and danger that Giles claims to be experiencing because of “Sonny”.

This context is clearly important. But in our synopsis in the "Hidden Camera Recordings And Video Releases" section, little or no such context is given, and like Attorney General Brown had stated about the posted tapes, this section is edited to reinforce O’keefe’s narrative, even though it conflicts with the transcript cited above.

Like O'keefe's edited video, our selection of quotes features the worst sound-bytes from ACORN employees, while editing out the most salient statements by Giles and O'Keefe. Not only does that reify a false narrative, it also neglects a full, representative synopsis of the actual encounters.

Thus, many of the selected quotes in our re-hashing of the ACORN videos function in the same way as the edited tapes, that is to misrepresent by omission. As the excerpt from the transcript of Volda shows, the quotes in this selection have obviously not been vetted, and as it stands, many of them present distorted data.

In light of the 5 separate investigations into this matter (which have all come to the same conclusion), we should be careful to be as reliable on this topic as we can be.

And on that note, there REALLY needs to be some serious re-thinking of the post on the Brooklyn ACORN video (not just in terms of the "money-tin" issue, but also in terms of the issue of Giles' banking concerns, or the "honesty isnt going to get you a house" quote,etc... all of which are also presented sans proper context & caveats, and thus mislead.) As it stands, this particular sub-sub-section is telling a verifiable lie-by-omission.

Thanks. Ceemow (talk) 07:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

We Need to Re-Think the Content of the "Hidden Camera Recordings & Releases" Section.

April 23, 2010

Hello all. I am glad to see that someone has been good enough to remove the misleading quote by Volda Albert in the section described above.

However, I do not think that just removing this conversation with Ms Albert is really the proper solution to the problem.

Rather, we ought to elaborate it with her full statement and with the proper context.

Volda’s partial and edited statement about the “tin can” had been widely circulated when the video-scandal first broke (as the Anonymous New User pointed out when discussing O'Keefe's bio.) It became almost the very picture of the alleged criminality at ACORN which O’keefe was trying to develop. It is a significant quote because it seemed to show some apparently criminal advice, and was touted as such.

Thus, the quote is representative of just how distorted O’keefe’ s Sept ‘09 releases really are when compared to the data in the transcripts, and as per the investigations (especially, when the quote is presented in full, not in half.) This is very significant. (i encourage other editors to read the transcripts... They're long, tedious and boring, but they do yield a very different picture.)

The issue about the half-quote also summarizes the issue of “exculpatory material” which Carol Leonnig had described as edited out of the tapes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2009/09/23/DI2009092302081.htm)

Additionally, this quote continues to be presented in its partial, and most damaging appearance, without any proper context, on O’keefe’s “Veritas” youtube page. (This may be one reason why some users continue to assume that the half-quote represents Volda's full statement.)

The full quote, provided with proper context, is also important because it highlights a missing (though very important) portion of the narrative which Giles had submitted to her targets. That narrative (of being pursued by "Sonny", hannah's abusive pimp) speaks to the urgency and immediacy of the danger that Giles claimed to be in. That narrative is virtually absent in the posted tapes.

While o’keefe lightly references “the pimp” in his posted videos, the description is no where near as elaborate or urgent as it is in the full conversations represented by either the transcripts , or the unedited videos. That urgency is an element of explicit significance which saturates the ACORN encounters, and shapes the posted conversations. Again, it is repeatedly referenced throughout the transcripts, as well as in the investigations.

My point is this. If we are going to have a synopsis of each of the released videos of O’keefe's ACORN visits, we have to think about how these should be explained, and what material needs to be presented.

Right now, our sub-section tends to showcase the very problems which AG Brown had cited for the California tapes... that is, they highlight the most damaging sound-bytes from ACORN employees, while saying almost NOTHING about Giles’ end of the conversation. That is quite an outstanding omission. It discounts at least half of the dialogue.

While the San Bernardino and San Diego sub-sections seem to get closer to accommodating the proper information, they still seem to be too clumsily thrown together, with relevant context added seemingly as an after-thought, and rather carelessly. Again, these segments feature hardly any of the conversation from Giles or O'keefe. Again, this omission is significant.

With all this in mind, we really have to think about what should be prioritized in these synopses, and how dominant each section should be on the page.

Remember, the reliable source material for these sections would principally be the transcripts, the investigations, and the (California) unedited videos.

By themselves, the transcripts are some 30-plus-odd-pages each. While rendered in screenplay format, they nevertheless fill out a wide body of text. It really doesnt seem authentic to represent ALL of that text with a few of the most damaging quotes taken out of context.

So we should think about what hierarchy of data needs to be emphasized in these sub-sections.

For instance, the issue of “Sonny” (the abusive pimp) forms NO small part of each of these conversations. In fact, "he" is quite a key figure in the exchanges.

In our Brooklyn example, "Sonny" provided the springboard for the “tin-can in the back-yard” comment, which became one of the most famously cited and damaging sound-bytes from the video ensemble.

Nevertheless, “Sonny”, and Hannah’s explicit fear of him, has virtually no place in our synopsis for Brooklyn, or any other city. (the small "controlling pimp" reference in the San Diego section belies how important, and how violent a "character" Sonny is in the conversations.)

From pg 17, (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11298085/New-York-ACORN-Transcript ).

James: well the reason why we are rushing is because she was working for this pimp and he was very abusive

Volda (loan counselor): oh okay

James: and that is why we want to set up an independent business because this guy is coming after her

Hannah (Eden): Scary

James: and that is why we were in a rush you know why I am excited and I know nothing about her business I am just trying to be here to be professional because ya know she walks in and but now we have this pimp discriminating against us

Hannah (Eden): well he is not discriminating he is aggressive

James: no not discriminating he is aggressive

Hannah (Eden): HE has been really aggressive toward me ever since I met him because I wanted to leave because it is scary being subjected to a huge man who has control over your life.

Neither do our synopses account for the conversations which James and Hannah have with each other. Such segments of the transcripts, and similar portions in the unedited California tapes, contain some very interesting and relevant material as well. Consider the panic O'Keefe and Giles express on being pohotgraphed by Juan Carlos Vera (San Diego tapes.)

(PLease see "ACORN Investigation - San Diego" 2010-04-01 "San Diego 2"- (From 14:42 to 15:39. Also, from 0.52 to 1.07.)

http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/multimedia/index.php

Also, we have to be careful about who we categorize as an “ACORN Employee.” In our Brooklyn segment, we need to remember that the people in question are from ACORN Housing, a separate entity from ACORN proper. It might not seem like a big difference, but it is one we should be aware of because the organizations in question are indeed separate, and serve separate functions. It is a basic, and formal difference, that must be rendered as such. So (for example) we need to describe Volda Albert as the ACORN Housing loan-counselor, not as an ACORN employee. It might be persnickity, but it is only accurate.

My main point is that if we want these synopses to be representative of the encounters, and not just bullet-points of the most damaging clips one can find, we need to think about the encounters as whole events. And we need to specify RELIABLE data that supplements the transcripts, -in this case, the investigations. For instance, Harshberger stated about Volda Albert, et al,

“The ACORN Housing employee has represented to her former colleagues that she felt sorry for Ms. Giles.

Employees in the Brooklyn office considered the incident a hoax because Ms. Giles was dressed like a stereotypical prostitute and, while claiming to fear her abusive pimp, proceeded to speak openly to strangers about her circumstance

http://www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/report2.pdf pg 44.

We also need to develop a flexible template for the kind of summary that would be most suitable to the subject.

For example, should these synopses provide a comparison of the edited versions of the tapes, versus their transcripts, investigations and (in the case of CA) the unedited videos? Should they be compared to claims made by Giles, o'Keefe and Breitbart in their interviews over the past 6 months? Or should they just be simple, comprehensive summaries? Or a little of both?

Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. In either case (or in the case of any other option offered), I think we want to be succinct, comprehensive, representative of RS material, and in conformation with wiki guidelines (including prohibitions on "Original Research.")

One more thing... when inserting quotes from these incidents, I think it might be a good idea to not just reference the transcripts, but to also include the page numbers. This makes vetting easier for all of us. The same should be said for video-references... we should include a time-stamp number to indicate when a cited portion might be referenced.

thanks.Ceemow (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

COPYVIO

Yes, I'll clarify here, as requested.

The issue is WP:COPYVIO. The MMfA link in question consists solely of the title, "Discussing 'heavily edited' ACORN tape, WaPo's Leonnig asks if tape was 'doctored,' doesn't think O'Keefe's 'got the goods to say that ACORN lied,'" and the text, "From the October 21 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:." The article has no author named. In addition to the long title and the 8 introductory words by the unnamed author appears a video at mediamatters.org, not a link to a video at foxnews.com. The video is of a copyrighted newscast of On the Record.

According to Fox News Network, L.L.C. Terms of Use Agreement:

• "The FOX News Services are offered for your personal use only and may not be used for commercial purposes unless you receive prior written authorization from FOX News."
• "FOX News respects the intellectual property of others, and requires that our users do the same. You may not upload, embed, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any material that infringes any copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other proprietary rights of any person or entity."
• " FOX News, The Fox Nation, the FOX News logo, and the FOX News Channel logo are trademarks of Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Fox Business Network, the Fox Business Network logo, Real American Stories, the Real American Stories logo, ‘FAIR ‘FAIR AND BALANCED’, ‘WE REPORT.YOU DECIDE.’, ‘THE MOST POWERFUL NAME IN NEWS’ and the ‘Fair & Balanced’ logo are trademarks of Fox News Network, L.L.C., and all other trademarks, service marks and trade names used in the Site are the property of their respective owners, and all of the above and below trademarks may not be copied, downloaded or otherwise exploited without the prior written permission of FOX News or the owner of such trademark, service mark or trade name, except as explicitly permitted in this Agreement."

The concern of WP:COPYVIO is:

• [M]aterial copied from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation. Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues.
• The situation for images and other media is slightly different, as a wider variety of licenses is accepted. But, in short, media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content for details of this.

I do not see where Fox News has granted any such licenses. MMfA has not revealed that it has obtained any permissions of any sort. Wikipedia views copyright violations as harmful for a number of reasons. Therefore, the MMfA link must be removed for violating WP:COPYVIO. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to clarify and discuss the matter - I know that takes more than a minute to go and do your research, pull information, compose your thoughts, etc. Your point that Media Matters may not have properly obtained permission from Fox News to display a clip from the Fox program On The Record is well taken - but I was looking at it from the aspect of Wikipedia's concerns, not Media Matters - in citing the Media Matters URL as a reference to Carol Leonnig's statements, is Wikipedia "[copying material] from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder"? I would think that would be the case if copyrighted photos, images, or videos were copied and inserted into a Wikipedia article without the copyright holder's permission, but that's not present here. Wikipedia isn't copying or hosting any copyrighted material and the cite is a reference, not a reproduction of copyrighted material other than a few brief quotes from Carol Leonnig (and brief quotations are permissible). Also, it's now clear that attribution is to Fox News. So how would Wikipedia be violating copyright laws in this instance?--AzureCitizen (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. There has to be a policy against citing to a source that is itself essentially a copyright violation. Let me look at WP:RS. I cannot believe that a source that is substantially merely appropriated copyrighted material can be considered a reliable source. Let me go check, and please think of other related policy. Copyright infringement is a serious matter and I doubt Wikipedia would support it in any way, including by linking to a source that is essentially copyright infringement. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I found further info here. It says, quoting now:

1. The bigger concern is that the "convenience cite" is an apparent copyright violation, and I can't believe I didn't think about it sooner. It is helpful to readers to be able to read the original article, and I'm sure the link is in good faith, but Wikipedia doesn't link to cites that post copyrighted material without authorization. Raymond, I don't question your good faith, but it looks like best practice would be to take out the "convenience cite."
2. Assuming I'm right, the policy of not linking to potentially infringing copies of copyrighted works might kill most of the "convenience cite" issues. Does anyone want to take a crack at writing a "convenience cite" paragraph for WP:RS, or want me to write one up for discussion?

Thanks, TheronJ 21:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about that? The shortcut is WP:LINKVIO. To be specific, quoting again:

• However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

Be that as it may, I liked your previous answer, and I look forward to your response on this one. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good find, and that goes right to the heart of the matter! For my part, I certainly do not possess exhaustive knowledge of all things copyright regarding Wikipedia policies either. I figured that this situation would be at the outer periphery of the kinds of things that typical copyright infringement contemplates, as copyright is intended to protect the holder against the unauthorized reproduction of the holder's work of which the chief concern is commercial harm. For example, if an unauthorized website hosted a pirated copy of a movie (let's say, Avatar, for instance), and the Wikipedia article on Avatar contained a quote from a character in the film, followed by a reference citation to the illegitimate website, Wikipedia would be complicit in directing web traffic to that site and the resulting commercial harm to James Cameron and the makers of Avatar. But in this case, we're talking about a few comments by a Washington Post Reporter, who briefly appeared on Fox News, which is actually broadcast for free over the airwaves. Although Fox clearly owns the copyright to the original material, it's not as though Media Matters is profiting commercially from the Van Susteren video clip, or that economic or other injury is being done to Fox News - if anything, it just further promotes their On The Record brand when shown in such fashion, and the Media Matters webpage in question still attributes to the Fox News program. Still, it is clear now that unless Media Matters did secure copyright permission, linking to that page from this Wikipedia article flirts with contributory infringement. So I guess the solution here then is to attribute directly to the Fox News program in question (sans the actual video clip) and remove the Media Matters URL cite? It means future readers won't be able to rapidly follow up with the convenience of a weblink and watch the clip themselves, but at least the article will be in compliance.--AzureCitizen (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. The MMfA link must be removed. Convenience of the readers does not trump legal compliance.

Further, in the case of a guy who got shot out of a cannon, a court found that an 8 second display of his act on a news broadcast constituted infringement. So "a few comments by a Washington Post Reporter, who briefly appeared on Fox News" could be irrelevant. It all depends, of course. The argument that it brings Fox News business is well intended but also invalid, I just can't put my finger on any of the cases saying so.

Well, this has been an interesting conversation, hasn't it? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly - it's all in the finer points and details, isn't it?  :) I will go ahead and remove the MM URL cite and instead have the attribution entirely to Leonnig on Van Susteren's program - take a look in a minute and let me know what you think. --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. I too just learned about WP:LINKVIO and would have given this section that title had I known then, instead of COPYVIO. Thanks for working this with me without the slightest hint of the agenda I get from other editors beflowering Wikipedia with MMfA links and article mentions. It's really quite huge. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, your courtesy and civility in getting to the bottom of the matter is appreciated as well. If you want to retroactively change the section title here to WP:LINKVIO, please feel free. I followed the search link you provided and saw the voluminous number of links; fortunately the majority seem to be talk pages rather than article spaces. I also took a closer look at the Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, where it turns out the plaintiffs materials (Intellectual Reserve is part of the Mormon Church) were being posted on the defendant's website while the defendant was primarily engaged in the practice of criticizing the religion of the plaintiffs. I suppose that didn't sit very well with them!

On a final note, I took a closer look at the Media Matters website and a portion called MMtv. It looks like massive amounts of copyrighted material is posted there, especially from Fox News. Like the plaintiffs and defendants in IR v. ULM, Media Matters is very critical of Fox News. Is it all a big copyright violation that's been going on for years with no cease and desist notice forthcoming from Fox? Or is there something else going on here, some legal subtlety that we just don't understand? Makes me curious.--AzureCitizen (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, after sleeping on it last night, curiosity got the better of me so I actually picked up the phone and called Media Matters today (their number is on their website under "contact us") to outright ask them. Turns out the answer is simple: excerpts of copyrighted material is not a copyright violation under 17 USC 107 under the fair use exemptions when used for the purposes of criticism and commentary, with a key factor in determining fair use being whether or not the use is commercial in nature or is being done for educational purposes instead. Hence, the Fox News materials on the Media Matters website is not a copyright violation and Fox News can not force them to take it down. Seems rediculously simple now, doesn't it? --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree. MMfA, even if "nonprofit", is clearly in the business of raising funds. Nonprofits are allowed to do that, after all. Further, MMfA's use of various broadcasts may still violate Section 107 since MMfA's use of such excerpts is substantial, not only in what is displayed on each individual post, but also as to the number of such instances such use has occurred. There are likely other reasons. Indeed, MMfA is formed for the very purpose of skewering its political enemies, as is its right to do. However, its use of its opponent's material in the substantial manner it uses such material cannot possibly be considered fair use. Is it fair to take what people say out of context then promote it as the truth? It is "educational" use or is it political use? This would have to be determined by a court of law, not by us.

More importantly, you and I are not Wikipedia's lawyers deciding MMfA's view of its substantial use of copyrighted broadcasts is acceptable to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has its own policies that avoid this very thing. MMfA's views about the legality of what it is doing has no bearing whatsoever on Wikipedia. The Wiki policy does not say to avoid this unless the perpetrator has independently decided its use of copyrighted material is acceptable. You and I are in no position to decide to sidestep Wikipedia's clear policy as a result of MMfA's view that it is not violating copyright. I will not support that and I continue to maintain that the material violates Wikipedia policy.

Wouldn't that be convenient to sidestep Wiki policy designed to protect Wikipedia and its editors by allowing the appropriators of copyrighted material to decide for themselves that their own use of the copyrighted material is fair use. If that were to happen, then the Wiki policy would be absolutely meaningless.

Okay, your turn. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't expect a response so quickly. Yes, we are certainly not Wikipedia's lawyers, that is someone else's job.  :) I am still mulling over your points, however. Let me ask you this hypothetical: Suppose a Wikipedia article has a reference cite that links to a another website which displays an excerpt from a video which was copyrighted and published by a third party elsewhere. The website displaying the video claims that they have permission from the copyright holder to have the video material on their website. In that instance, would the reference cite on the Wikipedia article be a LINKVIO problem? --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it a LINKVIO problem?

The answer is, it depends. So far as its use on Wikipedia, however, it has to comply with Wiki policy. If I am not mistaken, Wikipedia has an entire thingamabob called Wikimedia where claims such as you have made are confirmed or are not, then the results are published for all to see. So then you have the right to use that thing that was confirmed on Wikipedia, once it has passed Wikimedia muster.

Of course you are talking about a link. Well, is that link part of the proof of the assertion made or is it just incidental? Is that link ... oh, there are so many other ifs.

So in our example, the "claim" may or may not be valid. We cannot use it until it is proven valid. Wikimedia has the machinery in place to make exactly that determination which it comes to media files, as opposed to links. We do not. So if all that supports the "claim" is from a source other than Wikimedia, then its use on Wikimedia is prohibited.

I admit I kept mixing up the idea of media itself and of merely a link. Sorry. It's too confusing for me to straighten out.

I think I'm going to start charging you for my services. ;) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just got back to the page, sorry I'm not as quick as you are in posting. Charging for services - what do you do in your civilian occupation?  :) Okay, this LINKVIO issue gets rather complicated now that we're down in the weeds of sorting out whether or not a copyright exemption claim is valid or invalid based on a third party's says-so and how that situates us in navigating the LINKVIO policy. You mentioned previously that we aren't Wikipedia lawyers, which gives me an idea... there is probably a forum for asking them this very sort of thing. I'm going to look into that right now, and see if there is a place where we can get that very sort of clarification... --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, success... I've posted a question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, under the section title "LINKVIO policy and citations to external websites". We can give them a little time to ponder it, then check for responses. Sound good? Let me know if you have any concerns with the way the question was worded, I wanted to be thorough while trying to avoid framing the question in such a way that would influence the answer one way or the other. Here is a link to the question: [2] --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done. Impressive, actually. And I commented there. This really is turning out to be a model of Wiki conduct, etc., even as the conversation seesaws back and forth. What a pleasure. I say this because such conduct is so rare, from what I've seen. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, civil and polite discussion with respect for differing views is not only more productive than the all-too-common bickering you see on contentious article talk-pages, but actually enjoyable.  :) Often, it has a lot to do with just getting off on the right foot when a disagreement shapes up. I try my best, but I've had plenty of unpleasant conversations too.

Saw your comments on the Media Copyright questions board - all good. My only regret now is that it appears that board is more for copyright questions involving copyrighted works and media hosted on Wikipedia itself, rather than the very specialized LINKVIO question we've posted... so an answer may not be forthcoming any time soon, if at all! Oh well, it was worth a try, and maybe something interesting will turn up there some day...

I did think of something to ask you here after re-reading our thread above. Would you agree that the standard in copyright law for finding civil liability in a contributory infringement case is that the defendant infringer knew, or had reason to know that the use of copyrighted materials by a third party website (whether under the color of a claim of explicit permission from the original copyright holder, or a fair use claim under 17 USC 107) was invalid? --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not know, but I suspect infringement is infringement no matter the state of mind of the infringer. Or at least the state of mind would go to the severity of the legal remedy for the offense, but not excuse it totally. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I found this here under copyright contributory confringement:

"One who knowingly induces, causes or materially contributes to copyright infringement, by another but who has not committed or participated in the infringing acts him or herself, may be held liable as a contributory infringer if he or she had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringement. See, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005); Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)."

Thus, it appears that you wouldn't need to have actual knowledge that a third party's claim (be it permission from the copyright holder, or a fair use exemption, in using another party's copyrighted works) is valid. Instead, the relevant factor is whether you had knowledge that it was invalid, or whether you had reason to know it was invalid. Does that seem like an accurate intepretation to you? --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not know, but even if you were correct, Wikipedia and its editors may have "reason to know" of the infringement. As you yourself said above, "On a final note, I took a closer look at the Media Matters website and a portion called MMtv. It looks like massive amounts of copyrighted material is posted there, especially from Fox News."

Be that as it may, Wikipedia seeks to avoid contributory infringement, and leaving it up to editors like us to decide the very fine line of what's what does not sound like a good move for Wikipedia. I guess we not only have to avoid impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety. As you yourself noted, MMfA has "massive amounts of copyrighted material ..., especially from Fox News." I don't want to try to find the very thin reed that says such massive copying is legal or that if we make believe we are not aware of it, then Wikipedia will be held harmless.

As I leave this comment I note there is a warning from Wikipedia right under the edit box and above the edit summary. It says, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." There's a reason Wikipedia puts that first, front and center. Think about it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree that avoiding copyright violations are important to Wikipedia. Every day, hordes of media items work their way through the copyright vetting process. Posting warnings like that ("Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted") functions on two levels: 1) getting people to turn back at the moment of uploading copyright violations, and 2) establishing procedures which would be evidence in a copyright liability case that Wikipedia has taken every reasonable step possible to head off such violations. Taking your suggestion to "think about it", however, I note that those same warnings always use the word "content" and are directed at making sure we don't host copyrighted material here on Wikipedia itself (be it copyrighted text, pictures, images, video, audio, etc). Citations to other websites, on the other hand, are not misappropriated copyrighted content and could never be. They do not carry nearly the weight or concern that the hordes of media items wreak on Wikipedia every day and the systems that are set up to vet them. Instead, they carry the lesser risk of contributory infringement, which the LINKVIO policy alerts us to by telling us that if we know that an external web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Perhaps the LINKVIO policy should be amended to read "if we know, or should have reason to know", LOL. That would be closer to the legal standard for civil liabilty in contributory infringement cases, and provide better protection for Wikipedia because it's a more restrictive standard. But I don't think this is such a thin red line that we as editors are incapable of discussing it or coming anywhere near it, just as I wouldn't suggest we make believe we are entirely not aware of something either. Instead, I think rational and thoughtful analysis is appropriate, subject to review by peers, to make a reasonable inquiry into whether or not it appears a copyright violation is taking place and whether or not it stands up to scrutiny with regard to the standard of reason to know. Further, taking the position that we must instead have proof that something is not a copyright violation really is not supported by what we know of LINKVIO, is it?

I've also been doing something thinking on the particular issue of Media Matters hosting large (let's even just say massive) quantities of excerpted clips from Fox News, and it occurs to me now that this is probably irrelevant. If a particular excerpted video clip, just a few minutes in length, used for commentary and criticism in a non-commercial manner, is truly exempted under fair use, it is not a copyright violation, while if the fair use rationale is false, it is a copyright violation. Each individual potentially illegitmate (or legitimate) piece of copyrighted material is a separate case, unique from every other, whether we're talking about once instance, a thousand instances, a million instances, or even a billion. If you were the copyright holder and you wanted to suit them, you still need to address each individual instance and win or lose on each individual instance. Look closely at 17 USC 107 and you'll note that where the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted works is contemplated, they are talking about the amount and substantiality of a given portion used in relation to an individual copyrighted work as a whole, not a massive collection of copyrighted works as a whole. Thus, the number of pieces in the MMfA collection isn't relevant, but the status of individual particular items is. Please give that some thought and let me know what you think...

I have more to add to the issue, but I will pause there and give you a chance to respond before we proceed further. As it is getting late, I will probably just check back in the morning. Good night and take care! --AzureCitizen (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

MMfA was explicitly created for the purpose of gathering together a base for attacking the legitimacy of what it perceived to be media reports having a political point of view that MMfA and its founders opposed. To that end it has gathered a massive amount of material that it uses for the very purpose of discrediting the media sources it derides. As it turns out, it seems Fox News is its biggest target (going by what you said as I do not know otherwise). There is no way that using Fox News broadcasts to disparage Fox News in the manner in which MMfA does it can be considered "fair use".

There's an overreaching issue. Setting aside the LINKVIO, we are left with an organization rebroadcasting the work of others, taking things out of context, and otherwise misrepresenting what is actually happening. Such behavior violates WP:RS. I have a blog where I criticize the American Library Association for having policies and practices that may violate local community standards. I frequency comment on what it says. But I link to it directly instead of doing anything similar to LINKVIO. Further, I do not go around inserting my blog posts into hundreds of articles on Wikipedia to document a minor thing leading people to see that minor thing, then everything else I say to expose what the ALA is doing. If people used my views of what the ALA did as a ref instead of what the ALA actually said, that would be a RS violation. The same goes for MMfA. And I disclose who is writing my blog, whereas MMfA often uses initials to hide the identity of the author. What's reliable about that? People may not use MMfA as a reliable source as it is not reliable for things other than about itself or things in which it is directly involved, such as Mark Levin calling MMfA a "criminal front group". Either use the link about which MMfA is complaining, or use any RSs the MMfA article may link, but you may not use the MMfA ref itself. So we are discussing whether it's LINKVIO to link to a non-RS.

I totally understand you are concerned that properly removing one MMfA link for LINKVIO reasons may result in the removal of hundreds of MMfA links on hundreds of Wikipedia pages for exactly the same reason. So I encourage you to find the right noticeboard to raise this issue. But, as other editors have noted, WP:RS rules are waiting in the wings if MMfA infringement somehow survives LINKVIO analysis. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not something is a reliable source is a separate issue, one which may in many instances exclude MMfA for use on Wikipedia articles. I agree that they are not a neutral secondary source for many contentious edits and many of their items inject their POV, and LINKVIO aside those reliable source issues are still relevant in each and every article they appear. However, the instance we've been looking at here is not a reliable sourcing issue but a contributory infringement issue and is something that needs to be sorted out. MMfA may well have been created for the purpose of gathering together a base for attacking the legitimacy of what it perceived to be media reports having a political point of view that MMfA and its founders opposed, but I believe the way you used the term "fair use" above may be confusing the common every day meaning of the word (fair as in playing nice) with the way the word is intended in terms of what is legally permissible with copyright (fair use encompassing criticism, no matter how vile someone else might feel that criticism is, etc). To be fair ourselves, we must put aside all notions of what we think political fairness is and look on the issue in the cold terms of the law. The more I study 17 USC 107, the more it is becoming apparent to me that MMfA's fair use claim isn't weak, but actually strong. I know you probably disagree at present, but I believe if we continue to pick apart the finer points and examine it item by item, we can get to the truth of the matter and reach a rational consensus.

What did you think of what I pointed out regarding the quantity of material, be it one item, or a million? Would you agree that in terms of copyright infringement, each item is a separate case? --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I have no access to legal databases such as LEXIS/NEXIS or WESTLAW, neither do I have an internal sense on that question. You called the MMfA people. Why not called the Fox News people and see what they say, revealing, of course, why you are calling. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they would take my call seriously - a receptionist isn't going to know how to handle that question, and if they refer me to someone else, they're going to be thinking "we can't comment on potential or possible future litigation issues." On reflection, you're just kidding in suggesting that I call Fox, aren't you?  :) --AzureCitizen (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we are working here knowing what MMfA said, but we do not know what Fox News would said. It's a little unfair. I was impressed you called MMfA, so naturally I wondered if you would call Fox. I am sure they would take you seriously, based on what I see here about your approach to issues. I am also sure I am happy I would not be making that call myself! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, what do you propose that we ask them? Help me format the precise wording question, because I don't think I'll be very successful if I say something like this: "Large amounts of your copyrighted material appears on the MMfA website, where they assert a fair use exemption for criticism. Do you agree that their fair use exemption is valid?" --AzureCitizen (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, my name is ______ and I would like to ask a question about the use of Fox News's copyrighted works on the Media Matters for America web site. Who can help me with this issue? Thank you.

(Play 30 second Jeopardy music here while you get transferred or whatever.)

Hello, my name is ______ and I would like to ask a question about the use of Fox News's copyrighted works on the Media Matters for America web site. There is an active discussion on this topic on Wikipedia, specifically in the Talk pages of ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, and I am one of the participants. On Wikipedia, I'm called AzureCitizen. We are aware MMfA has a large quantity of Fox News clips on its own web site, and it has a large volume of extremely critical commentary on pages that display one of its many Fox News clips, usually without attribution or notice of Fox News copyright. I have called MMfA and was informed MMfA's use of such works is protected from copyright infringement by section 107 of the Copyright Act, commonly called the "Fair Use" section. I am now contacting you so that I may also record on that Wikipedia talk page your response to the following question. Given my previous description or anything else you may wish to add, do you concur with MMfA that MMfA's use or your copyrighted works used as they are by MMfA constitutes "fair use"? Thank you very much, I really appreciate this.

Ok, that's my suggestion. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(LOL on the Jeopardy Muzak playing while I wait to be transferred...) Okay, I will give this a shot, but I am going to leave out the parts about recording their position on a Wikipedia page because saying so will likely cause the person I'm talking with to either not want to go on the record or pass me off to other people and create far too much work for me in playing phone tag trying to get an answer. Sound good? --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but honesty is always the best policy. And if you get passed off to other people, you may actually get a better answer from the people who know, instead of some off-the-cuff response. Well, anyway, that's my thought. Do what you think is best. This is really interesting. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, honesty is the best policy.  :) Omissions in this case wouldn't be dishonesty, however, and my concern is that I will invest an inordinate amount of time pursuing this with negligible results if people think they are going on the record posted globally on Wikipedia, etc. I think I can make a go of it though, so stand by. And yes, this is interesting.  :)

On an unrelated note, I checked earlier this morning to see if you were around when I didn't find a reply at first to last night's posting (using contribs), and noticed that you're in a nearly identical situation with editor TJRC on the same issue on another article, a LINKVIO concern over an MMfA clip. At this point, you've edited thrice to remove it and he has edited it twice to reinsert it, which means if he reinserts it again, you'll both be at 3RR. I am going to drop him a note asking him to NOT reinsert the MMfA link there at this time given the lengthy and important LINKVIO discussion we have underway on the very same issue here. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That situation is slightly different as that use of the MMfA link more blatantly violates WP:RS, and I said so initially in a history comment. "He has said that '[t]he CO2 scare is a red herring'" was sourced to MMfA. Bad. That should be sourced to the media outlet on which that statement appeared. There is absolutely no reason to cite to MMfA for that. I mean come on now--now MMfA is a RS on an astronaut? We need MMfA to prove an astronaut said something? And when you go to the non-RS MMfA source to confirm he said that, you get to see all the MMfA spin that goes with it. That is not a RS by any means whatsoever. It is yet another example of people promoting MMfA on some pretext of supporting a statement that should be supported by the RS involved.

I do not oppose MMfA. I simple seek to apply Wiki policy. Whether you love or hate MMfA, you have to agree MMfA should be used as a RS only where its use comports with Wikipedia policy. And I have seen editors make those very observations, how they support MMfA, but they cannot support violating Wiki policy to put MMfA links where they do not belong.

Also, my first edit was to add the Fact tag. The next 2 were to revert. I would not have reverted a third time so as not to cross the 3RR line. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: I thought since Fox News was a division of News Corp, the question needed to be tendered there. They referred me back to Fox's main switchboard, at 212-301-3000 in New York (Media Matters was in Washington, DC). From there, I was referred to the legal department. From there, I was ultimately referred by secretarial personnel to an individual who could take my question, but I was transferred into his voicemail (the line didn't "ring", so I assume he was probably on the phone). I then left a friendly but fairly elaborate question, incorporating the elements above but leaving out the Wikipedia "on the record" aspects, along with my point of contact information. So now we wait for a call back... --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

3RR: Oh, I thought your first edit was to add the fact tag, but also deleted the MMfA link, such that you made 3 edits in a row deleting the MMfA link? Did I get that wrong? --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am so glad u r doing that and not me. As to the 3RR, there will likely be no further problem there, so let's drop that as we already spend enough time on the LINKVIO issue. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Focusing on the LINKVIO issue

Agreed, the LINKVIO issue is what's relevant here, and I didn't see any 3RR violation. On that point, we should probably try to consolidate some of what we've worked out, or haven't worked out, by restating certain key points here and figuring out where we stand. I'll number them, and you can indicate by number what you agree with. Then we can take what remains, and continue to parse them in pursuit of resolving the differences. These will be in no particular order, so bear with me as I let these thoughts spill out:

1. WP:LINKVIO prohibits using a citation which links to copyrighted material on a third party website that is being used illegaly in violation of copyright.

2. Wherever possible, editors should link directly to the source material, rather than to a third party, to bypass the problem. (In this case, On The Record has transcripts available on their site here, just click on the calendar on the right hand side, but unfortunately, they don't go back to October 2009, so transcripts and/or video content directly from the copyright holder is not available).

3. When not possible to get the material directly, editors may link citations to copyrighted material on a third party website, but must take care to make sure they don't link to material they know is being used in violation of copyright.

4. In addition to #3 above, editors must take care to not link citations to material they have reason to know is being used in violation of copyright.

5. If a particular citation passes muster under #1, #2, #3, and #4 above, that does not resolve the issue of whether or not the item is reliably sourced, an issue which must be addressed separately and be able to pass muster as well.

6. If a citation passes muster under #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 above, the citation should still be styled such that attribution is still to the original copyrighted material and copyright holder, with only the http URL link itself pointing at the third party website hosting the needed material.

7. If at a later date, it becomes possible to point the URL directly at material hosted by the primary copyright holder, the link should be updated accordingly.

Okay, that's what I've been thinking at present.  :) Please let me know which ones you agree with, then we can focus on the ones that remain. PS - no call back yet, still waiting. --AzureCitizen (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 1, 2, not 3. Given that I do not agree with 3, I agree with 4 and 5. I do not agree with 6. Given that I do not agree with 6, I agree with 7. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's start with #3, which took me by surprise. Surely it's important that editors not knowingly link to copyrighted material on a third party website? Or did you have a different interpretation? Please clarify.  :) --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with this: "When not possible to get the material directly, editors may link citations to copyrighted material on a third party website, but must take care to make sure they don't violate LINKVIO or RS." Currently, LINKVIO does not specify/require "material they know is being used in violation of copyright." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

LINKVIO uses this sentence: "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Therefore, does it not follow that you may link a citation to such a copyrighted work as long as you aren't linking to a work that you know is being used in violation of copyright? (Note that this is still tempered by #4, which also requires that you pass a reason to know test as well.) --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I now agree with 3. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Roger, much appreciated. Okay, you initially said that you "Agree with 1, 2, not 3. Given that I do not agree with 3, I agree with 4 and 5. Given that I do not agree with 6, I agree with 7." To regroup our thoughts here, by my understanding that means you agree with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, but you do not agree with 7. Do I have that right? --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with 6. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ack, I screwed that up, it's #6 (not #7) that is the lone hold out. Okay, what are your concerns with #6? --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"[T]he citation should still be styled such that attribution is still to the original copyrighted material and copyright holder, with only the http URL link itself pointing at the third party website hosting the needed material" seems to sidestep LINKVIO, but put a pretty dress on it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The full text is "If a citation passes muster under #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 above, the citation should still be styled such that attribution is still to the original copyrighted material and copyright holder, with only the http URL link itself pointing at the third party website hosting the needed material." In requiring that it first pass muster under #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5, it has to undergo LINVKIO scrunity... afterwards, the purpose of styling it to give atttribution to the original source and copyright holder is to make it clear what the true source is. Nonetheless, if you don't like #6, we can just throw it out. Your thoughts? --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I now agree with 6. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's good, we actually agree on all seven of those points! That doesn't necessarily we agree on their application in every nuanced way, but it's a good starting point. Ok, what I'd like to do now is turn our attention to comparing our LINKVIO problem (the use of a Fox News video, on an MMfA website URL, to authenticate the accuracy of the spoken comments of the Washington Times reporter Carol Leonnig) against the framework we've come up with, and see where we run into problems or conflicts in our modes of thinking. We can work through them one step at a time, starting with #2 (as #1 is actually a simpler version of #3 and #4 and will be addressed when we vet #3 and #4). So with regard to #2, would you agree that we do not know of any other way to provide a reference citation for the reader's verification, given that Fox does not have an accesible archive of all clips on the web nor are transcripts available at this time? --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

1 to 7

Let's discuss 1 to 7 in this subsection just to be more convenient, so I am republishing what you wrote here (without attribution -- ha ha):

1. WP:LINKVIO prohibits using a citation which links to copyrighted material on a third party website that is being used illegaly in violation of copyright.

2. Wherever possible, editors should link directly to the source material, rather than to a third party, to bypass the problem. (In this case, On The Record has transcripts available on their site here, just click on the calendar on the right hand side, but unfortunately, they don't go back to October 2009, so transcripts and/or video content directly from the copyright holder is not available).

3. When not possible to get the material directly, editors may link citations to copyrighted material on a third party website, but must take care to make sure they don't link to material they know is being used in violation of copyright.

4. In addition to #3 above, editors must take care to not link citations to material they have reason to know is being used in violation of copyright.

5. If a particular citation passes muster under #1, #2, #3, and #4 above, that does not resolve the issue of whether or not the item is reliably sourced, an issue which must be addressed separately and be able to pass muster as well.

6. If a citation passes muster under #1, #2, #3, #4, and #5 above, the citation should still be styled such that attribution is still to the original copyrighted material and copyright holder, with only the http URL link itself pointing at the third party website hosting the needed material.

7. If at a later date, it becomes possible to point the URL directly at material hosted by the primary copyright holder, the link should be updated accordingly.

--LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A subsection break was a great idea - thanks. The main section was just getting longer and longer! Okay, moving past #1 to tackle #2:

Would you agree that we do not know of any other way to provide a reference citation for the Washington Times Reporters statements for the reader's verification, given that Fox does not have an accesible archive of all clips on the web nor are transcripts available at this time?--AzureCitizen (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We cannot violate the rules just because we know of no other way to link to the copyrighted material. The MMfA ref cannot be used for that. However, the MMfA may contain information or references we can use to reliably source the issue at hand. True, the RS may not contain a video, but too bad, we have rules to follow. So the MMfA ref is not useless, it's just that it is not a reliable source. And remember, in addition to the copyrighted information, you get to see the MMfA outtakes/quotes it views as relevant and the MMfA spin on those outtakes. MMfA is simply not a RS for anything except about itself or similar limited circumstances. It does not even name the names of the authors who write these things. Whether you like MMfA or not, it doesn't get much more unreliable of a source when the source is not even named, other than MMfA! And lest anyone think MMfA is somehow being cheated by not getting itself pushed into hundreds of articles, remember that the MMfA point of view is still getting promoted even if MMfA itself is not directly involved. For example, the story about the astronaut had a MMfA ref. Remove the ref and the view of the MMfA that the astronaut is looney (as in moon?) is still there, it just has to be reliably sourced. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

These steps need to be looked at one at a time, lest we issue-jump to follow on questions, violating copyright, reliable sourcing issues, whether or not MMfA has a right to push itself into hundreds of articles, etc. The focus for #2 is to ascertain whether or not we can find a direct citation resource (to the copyright holder itself, in this case Fox News) that provides the reference material (a video, a transcript, anything) so that reader can verify the quotations. Would you agree that the answer to that question is no? --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't tried, so I really do not know. I am not trying to be argumentative, as you know. I simply have not tried to search around. And I do not look forward to it as I have other things to do. But for the sake of argument, let's say the answer to that question is no.

But hey, that brings up another issue. If you have to search around and you cannot find something, what might that indicate? Of course, WP:NOTE and/or WP:VERIFY! Let someone say something on a talk show and MMfA sometimes has it up on its site within minutes. Minutes! Is it suddenly wikiworthy because of that? Of course not. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and WP:SYN is an issue, as another editor reminded everyone here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's after 8 PM central time Friday here... no phone call back and doubtful will get one over the weekend, but maybe they will return the call on Monday or Tuesday. With regard to WP:NOTE, WP:VERIFY, and WP:SYN, these are all valid concerns that must be kept in mind.

On to #3, which will be easy compared to #4... clearly, we don't have knowledge that the Van Susteren video excerpt in question hosted on MMfA is a copyright violation, do we? Let me know if you disagree. --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we do not know. I strongly suspect it, and you are awaiting a call from Fox News, but we pass 3. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, here is a web page hosting a news video. It is a RS and it does not suffer from LINKVIO. This is a RS. MMfA hosting the same news video would not be a RS. See http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/07/sen-shelby-on-financial-reform-repeal-it.html SYN might still be an issue, however, depending on how it is used. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello LAEC, sorry for the 14 hour delay in replying! Life events here are overtaking my ability to keep up the conversation pace as the next three days will be spent in a travel status with diminished opportunity for Wiki time and I am leaving in the next few hours. I wanted to leave you a message to let you know what was up, as I've been in conversations before where the other party just sort of disappears and you're left wondering what happened. Also, I'll be checking voicemail remotely to see if any calls come in from NYC.

Now that we've cleared #3, we come to #4 which will be far more difficult to resolve given our positions. One thing I thought would be good to post now in order to give you time to think about it over the coming days was that we need to work out what we believe to be the standard of care (from a litigation perspective) for the words "reason to know" and what that means in context for finding contributory infringement liability. At present, I believe it to be the requirement to make a good faith reasonable inquiry in addition to the duty of avoiding willful blindess, but we need your input on the matter as well before we can proceed. Language and its meaning in the legal context is very important here; to illustrate, imagine two opponents who oversimplify the matter and find themselves stuck in flawed counter-arguments to the effect "We have reason to know that this is a copyright violation because Fox claims the copyright" and "We have reason to know this is not a copyright violation because MMfA claims its fair use," etc. Wouldn't you agree? :) --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is the weekend, so I won't me on Wiki much either. And my work load is too heavy next week to get online much either. So, have a good weekend. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand, Wiki time has to be balanced with work time, LOL. Have a great weekend yourself! --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Get a load of this, especially the last sentence: U.S. Authorities Shut Down WordPress Host With 73,000 Blogs "Not so long ago the conclusion that this type of action could be taken on copyright grounds would have been dismissed out of hand, but the current atmosphere seems to be changing." --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

AzureCitizen, see this for another LINKVIO issue: Talk:Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#MMfA link violates RS and LINKVIO Like you, I asked them to come here. Warning, the first guy who reverted me does not interact as we do. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Got a return voicemail! But it was probably mere courtesy; all that was communicated was that it is corporate policy not to speculate on legal matters, possible/potential litigation and disputes, etc. Hope you're not too disappointed. I suspect you'd have to work inside the organization to get someone to tell you what they really think.

Saw your notes above. The situation brewing with the pirated material and websites makes sense to me - those sites openly host links to copies of blatantly pirated copyrighted materials (movies that are in theaters or haven't even come out on DVD yet, etc) and the operators know full well what they're doing. --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. But now we can reasonably speculate it involves "legal matters, possible/potential litigation and disputes, etc". If not, I would have expected them to say "no prob". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 13:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can infer that, because its corporate policy to respond in such fashion no matter what is asked concerning possible or potential future litigation. Otherwise, a "no problem" response would reveal a difference in answers which in turn would be answering the question, and voila, the legal rep would find himself in trouble. --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We need RfC

Obviously we need RfC to resolve the many disputes on this article. There are two editors who are obstructing consensus, and one of them has even become emboldened enough to remove Jerry Brown's party affiliation, claiming it isn't supported by reliable sources. Are there any objections? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the right course to me. Drrll (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Somebody unilaterally deleted [the Grenell text with block quotes] from the mainspace, after consensus had been reached to keep it in. That's vandalism. Any further attempt to defy consensus will be treated as vandalism."

Please refrain from declaring that other editors with whom you disagree are "obstructing consensus." Likewise, it is indefensible for an editor to claim that any further attempt to defy their version of consensus constitutes vandalism. Please see WP:CONSENSUS and WP:VANDALISM.

With regard to an RfC, we would need to get things organized here first so that other editors can come and look at things without seeing a confusing disorganized mess. I think two steps would be necessary for that process: First, we would need a version of the proposed changes for inclusion to agree on. There is the version that Xenophrenic posted here, which I think several editors were focused on but I see that Wikidemon has expressed a position that it should actually be reduced to "1/2 to 1 sentence, cited to multiple reliable sources, to the effect that a number of people questioned Brown's neutrality given his campaign for state governor" following the portion about Brown's quote about the cutting room floor. Conversely, Phoenix and Winslow wanted a version with extensive block quotes from an editorial. So we need to give the editors who are engaged in the process here enough time to settle what exactly the proposed changes are. Secondly, we would need to take the jumbled comments for inclusion and comments for exclusion and sort them out into two distinct lists without all the intermingled cross-talk. If there is something that you want to say in rebuttal to something you see in the one of the lists, build it into the opposing list (trying to be as concise as possible) so that editors who come here under RfC can just compare the two distinct lists. Otherwise, we'll just confuse them too. But we can't finish the work on the inclusion/exclusion lists 100% until we have the proposed text nailed down (as we know what happens when someone claims consensus for one version on the Talk Page, but then they insert their own version no one agreed to on the Article page, etc). So we probably need to focus our efforts there first.

So, if we're serious about getting this ready for RfC, let's start out by getting it nailed down exactly what the proposed text for inclusion really is. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that all too many RfC's invite new participants to try to sort through a mass of commentary without even a clear idea of what the specific dispute is. It would also be useful to have one summary statement of each side's position, either in paragraph form or as bulleted lists of points. I put some effort into setting up an RfC along these lines at Talk:Barney Frank/Archive 1#Request for comment, which I humbly offer as an example. JamesMLane t c 06:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What we have here is the following:

1. A thorough factual description of what the videos show.

2. Extensive criticism directed at the videos and, by extension, the authors of the videos. The authors of the videos are clearly and repeatedly tagged as "conservative activists," starting with the 12th and 13th words of this article.

3. Extensive quotations from Jerry Brown's report—which is essentially even more criticism directed at the videos and, by extension, the authors of the videos. It is not fact, but a series of allegations. No court has ruled on the truth of these allegations. Therefore WP can't treat it as fact. Due to Mr. Brown's position as the chief law enforcement officer of the state, his criticism carries more weight that that of a couple of staff writers for The Washington Post, for example, or a writer for the Columbia Journalism Review or MSNBC. But as Wikidemon has pointed out, this is really just one more opinion.

4. Any criticism of the progressive participants in this story, and even Mr. Brown's party affiliation, has been militantly deleted.

5. Even a statement by an ACORN official regarding Mr. Brown's investigation, who can be reasonably construed to be bragging to his Democratic Party friends that the fix was in, has been militantly deleted.

Much has been made on this page of Mr. Breitbart's editing of the Shirley Sherrod video. Fair enough. What about JournoList, whose participants from the most prestigious and respected news media in America—reliable sources all—conspired to blunt criticism of Barack Obama, suggested silencing Fox News, and calculated how to smear prominent conservatives with racism charges? Looking at a list of Journolist participants, we find representation from The Washington Post, the Columbia Journalism Review and MSNBC—the very same media outlets that we quote in the criticism section.

My point is that if we dig deeply enough, every participant in this story probably has a political axe to grind. But only conservative axe blades have been exposed in this article. The progressive axe blades are carefully concealed, and there are two editors who are determined to keep it that way. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific itemized responses to each of the above assertions

Hi all, and good morning. I hope the work week is treating you all well. P&W, you have to understand, this is not a stand off between “conservatives” and whoever else, it’s an article describing a media event... I don’t know why that’s so hard for you to come to terms with. This isnt “left and right”, its about how a certain media event was developed, circulated, investigated and reviewed. The “criticism” which we have (which is very delicately worded) is directed at the videos, on FORMAL GROUNDS. Do you know what that means? It means the content of the video and its method of release are the subjects of critique. The criticism we have does not go beyond those very formal issues. If you choose to see that as fanning out into personal attacks against Giles and Okeefe, as well as antithetical to “the conservative perspective”, then you are making it clear that your arguments here are entirely on political PR grounds, not on the matter of encyclopedic veracity. The argument that Browns investigation is an “opinion”, and unreliable as per Wiki guidelines, is really quite desperate and holds absolutely no water. I wont elaborate on that because it should be obvious. On the other hand, (and this is most important) you are asking us to include information from a website, and distributed by a man who is now synonymous with misleading soundbytes and deceptive editing. Like it or not, Andrew Breitbart’s recent smear attempt at Sherrod highlights his own deviousness. I don’t know if you were watching News Hour, Face the Nation, To The Contrary, or any of those political commentary shows this past Sunday, but Breitbart has been roundly dismissed (again, even by Fox’s Shep Smith) as a source who cannot be trusted without extreme vetting. People know that about him now. It's more than just word on the street. If PBS is holding that standard, then so should Wiki.. You can say whatever you want about purported “media bias” against Breitbart, but his own clearly dishonorable activities (lying within a lie, and then trying to blame everyone else), are now explicit material facts that he’s going to have to do his best to counter. This forum is not the place for that. Not that John Stewart is a source to cite in this kind of article, but he made a point last night that speaks to this issue. Steward pointed out that Breitbart had made it explicitly clear 5 months ago what his exact purpose was. His goal (in Andrews own words) was to “take down the institutional left.” As Stewart rightly pointed out, Andrew openly stated THAT was his goal, not integrity, accuracy, honesty or any sense of fairness. Stewart even likened Breitbart to a Trojan with no horse and all army. (See last nights production on ComedyCentral.com.) His joke was that the NAACP, the White House etc... should never have taken Breitbart at his word. And that is something no fair minded person can rightly do at this point. Breitbart’s not a reliable source, and if his own website is faulting the NAACP for not checking the full context of the misleading soundbyte that HE himself posted (Sherrod) and that HE himself said should be acted on (“this woman should not work in the government”), then its tantamount to his own website saying “don’t trust us, we have an agenda, and should NOT be taken at our word.” It really seems that your whole posture has been one that seeks to obviate the truth for the sake of saving BigGovernment.com’s face. You have made it clear that your own goal is to insert a “conservative perspective”, not a reliable or verifiable one. The Langstein soundbyte comes from a website that, as Shep Smith said, cannot be trusted. (I checked the San Fran Chron and OC Reg articles,... neither source is applicable. One is way too sparse as it speaks to this issue, and the other comes from a person [Brian Calle] who openly states that he wants ACORN to be found guilty no matter what.) The Grennel insert mentions ACORN only once, and entirely in passing. The article does not address the fact that Brown was appointed to his position by a Republican governor at Breitbarts request, and seeks to preclude that truth by claiming that Brown “timed” his investigations. Furthermore, the Grennel article is a roundhouse of grievances about Palin, big oil, unions and Wall Street. The ACORN videos are only a singular passing reference with absolutely NO purposeful elaboration by Grennel. So that editorial bears no real relationship to this article other than the word “ACORN.” Look, P&W, one problem that Wiki has been criticized for is that, being a user created reference, its material may be unreliable because it is not properly vetted. We can only counter that impression by inserting material that is properly researched and reliable, not stuff that saves political face. You are asking us to lower the bar and insert information that is off-topic, hyperbolic, and also information that comes from a source that has proven absolutely unreliable and viciously focused on an explicitly partisan agenda (re: "I want to take down the insitutional left.") By inserting Grennel, you are asking us to host that agenda here. By Xeno and I making those points, we arent being “militant” (as you say), we are being honest. Finally, P&W, conservative “axes” are not exposed in this article, despite the fact that the subject is the blade of just such an axe. If we were “exposing” such axes, we would point out, for example, Breitbarts statements as to his own agenda, or O’keefe’s record of editing for effect (re- Liz Farkas.). The only thing exposed is the verifiable truths about this video ensemble. I’m sorry if it doesnt tow the party line, but thats not what Wiki is for.Ceemow (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there continued support for Grenell?

With regard to getting issues cleared up for RfC prep: Since the Grenell editorial has often been a flashpoint throughout this thread, I think we need a quick perspective check on whether or not there is continued support for it. Xenophrenic and Ceemow have made it clear they think it should be excluded. Wikidemon questioned the pertinence and importance of Grennel's and said he would stay away from editorial opinions about Brown. After reading comments back and forth and giving it consideration for some time now, I too doubt whether Grenell should be included. Hence the question: Can we get a quick roll call here of who thinks Grenell's editorial should still be included? --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've read the entire page. Don't you people get tired of saying the same thing over and over? Breitbart slants his coverage and Fox News does as well. But all the others slant their coverage the other way, and JournoList proves it. Equal space, or something close to it, should be given to criticisms from both sides. MyNameIsDenise (talk) 16:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

From 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) 18:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well Xeno, as we have seen, there are numerous sources criticizing Mr. Brown and the ACORN employees. At the very least, they should be treated as a substantial minority per WP:WEIGHT, not a tiny minority. I could link all those sources for you again, if you'd like, but Wikidemon and I have already done it twice. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of you have provided sources establishing the "investigation is biased" as a significant minority opinion. I've read the 6 sources provided by Wikidemon, and they do not support your assertion (please see above). So, yes, please provide reliable sources indicating the conservative talking point meme is in any way significant. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Mr. O'Keefe and Ms. Giles are prominently tagged as "conservative activists," then Mr. Brown (their chief critic, judging from the amount of mainspace allocated to his criticism) should be prominently tagged as "a Democrat and gubernatorial candidate." Mr. Lagstein's the-fix-is-in remarks, as reported in a news article in a reliable source, should be included with some mention of the conservatives citing them as proof of Mr. Brown's bias. Obviously Mr. Grenell, as the only conservative response to roughly 1,000 words of criticism directed at the conservative videographers, should also be included. We should also get some criticism of the ACORN employees in here somewhere, wouldn't you agree? As it stands, it's just reactions from one side with no mention of the other side. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"their chief critic"? Could you please cite a reliable source indicating that Brown is the chief critic of Giles and O'Keefe? From what I've read, Brown is an Attorney General that summarized his office's findings about those individuals and ACORN, and had valid criticisms for all concerned. As for inserting "Democrat" and "gubernatorial candidate" labels into this article, they are as relevant to this article as "former Jesuit" and "boyfriend of Linda Ronstadt" labels. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And here is the current version of the disputed content (with references), as it appeared in the mainspace:

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 prior to the conclusion of the investigation. 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." 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." The ACORN organizer also responded, "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."

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 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 Republican Governor Schwarzenegger 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."

I think this is a good starting point for the RfC. And I really don't see why you don't concede the point, Xeno. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to specify which point, and I'll be happy to help you understand it. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The point of including the two paragraphs indented above in small type, Xeno. And I've already read all of your arguments and all of the SPA's arguments, so please don't repeat them again. If you have something new to add, then by all means, do so. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Consider the problem that you're the only person who has expressed support for the continued inclusion of Grenell's editorial. Shouldn't we hear from other editors who think Grenell should be included too before we prematurely announce an RfC for a version that no one else supports? We've seen how that turns out. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't justified including the above content in this article. It violates WP:WEIGHT, for one thing. The first paragraph describes a conservative meme about Brown that was unsuccessfully pushed by local Republicans, and subsequently turned out to be baseless. The second paragraph is all about Brown, and completely unrelated to this article. Neither paragraph, even in condensed form, has been shown to be significant enough to warrant a place in this article about the ACORN undercover videos. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

He isn't the only editor who has expressed support. See also LAEC, Wikidemon and me. (MyNameIsDenise (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

How did the charge against Jerry Brown "turn out to be baseless"? A self-serving rationalization by Lagstein? And in my opinion, P&W's version violates WP:WEIGHT by not going far enough; but it may be a good compromise to get this resolved. There is an entire world of conservative voices out there, regarding actions by ACORN employees, that have been silenced as far as this article is concerned. MyNameIsDenise (talk) 20:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Responses to each of the above assertions

The charge that the investigation was launched as a political ploy is baseless, because it has been shown to have been launched at the request of the Republican CA Governor. The charge that the investigation was biased has been shown to be baseless, because despite 9 requests (at the time of this post) for just one reliable source establishing it as a fact, not a single source has been produced. All we have is the minority view by conservative Republicans asserting that it must be biased because Brown is involved, and audio snippets of an ACORN organizer that the usual suspects are creatively trying to interpret as proof that the investigation is biased. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Look, I've been out of touch here for a while because I have been fending off efforts to ban me indefinitely for reasons you all know is not true. Anyone, I'm back upon request, and I'm here to save the day. Ha ha! Only kidding! Now I have read this particular subsection. While I am still not versed on exactly what's what here, I make the following observation. If it is true as P&W says that, "As it stands, it's just reactions from one side with no mention of the other side," then I think we can all agree that is not good. How to address the problem? I do not know. Will Grenell help and still be compliant will all applicable policy given proper leeway under the circumstances? If so, I say use it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Hi all, Denise, consider what you just said-- “There is an entire world of conservative voices out there, regarding actions by ACORN employees, that have been silenced as far as this article is concerned." Ok, right there you have made it clear that you are addressing this not as a matter of material fact, but of political conjecture, and even political activism ("conservative voices silenced by this article"? really?) That does not belong on Wikipedia. P&W, say what you will about my contributions or my history, I have always maintained the most honorable standards with my submissions and input. Everyone here knows my history, and that I have only provided the most thoroughly vetted material with respect to that. I stand by my record 100%. And I wouldnt come on here so often if there wasnt such an obvious attempt to turn this article a polemical echo-chamber for a very inaccurate, unverified, and questionable partisan narrative (eg, Denise’s demand that the article become a platform for “conservative voices.” Why, for heavans sake, is this a matter requiring politically partisan "voices" at all? That argument still doesnt hold water.) But none of that changes these facts– Grennel only mentions the ACORN videos in his article once, and that only in passing, with no purposeful elaboration. The majority of his article is a roundhouse swan-song for Palin, big oil, Wallstreet etc... It does not relate to the subject of this article save for one very non-specific reference. Its generalized and hyperbolic. If it belongs anywhere, its on Brown and Grennels bios. Grennel’s article is specific in its accusation that Brown has “timed” this investigation for political effect. As Xeno pointed out, this is demonstrably false owing to the fact that Arnold appointed the investigation at Andrews request. The distance between the truth and the claims made by Grennel highlight the hyperbolic aspect of his stance, and preclude it as an RS. If any material from BigGovernment.com or Andrew Breitbart is suggested for submission, it has to be THOUROGHLY VETTED against multiple, solid and well-established (yes, even “mainstream”) RSs. Like it or not, but right now, BigGovernment.com and Andrew Breitbart are stuck in an (un)credibility limbo, and that by Breitbarts own hand (again, the recent Sherrod incident.) BigGov has become the very picture of online UNreliability. With every news outlet now asking "why did we listen to him?", its going to take Andy a LOT of hard work to change that. It wasnt “liberal bias in the media” that got every news outlet to jump on Breitbarts bandwagon about Shirley Sherrod. It wasnt “liberal media bias” that made them think they could trust him. And it isnt “liberal media bias” that is causing them all to step back and openly acknowledge that they were foolish to follow the lead of a person who has a history of posting angry and misleading soundbytes. Its integrity thats making them reflect on what is now coined as a "teachable moment". And integrity is something which Breitbart has clearly demonstrated that he considers quite secondary to his explicite political agenda. Thats not an opinion, its a demonstrable fact. Again, John Stewart rightly pointed out that Breitbart openly stated that he wants to destroy “the institutional left”, so any commentary from his site, and any “evidence” he submits must be understood as passing throught that filter. His material cannot be taken at face value since his agenda eclipses even his responsibility to vet his material, to strive for accuracy, or to offer the proper context. (its ironic that you want to provide "context" about Brown in order to save the face of a man who has repeatedly thumbed his nose at that very concept.) The “teachable moment” that has been voiced across the board of every RS is that BigGovernment.com, as a hard-driven political activist blog, can NOT be trusted for accuracy. For now, until he can demonstrate some integrity and fairness, Breitbart can NOT be considered within the pale of Reliable Sources. The template of this article cannot be a comparison of “conservative voices” with whatever else is imagined out there. It’s a record of material fact, not a sounding board about what conservatives etc.. think about ACORN, Brown or anything else. James Okeefe denies being a “conservative”. As disingenuous as the claim is, it’s the face he wears (again, a total compromise of his integrity.) In fact, Breitbart insisted that this wasnt a “conservative” issue at all a few months back. So why the certain and desperate need for “conservative voices?” Again, thats best saved for blogs. The fact remains that there is no justification for Grennel in this article..., no matter how you stretch it, and despite the requirements of politcal activistism.Ceemow (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC) "That does not belong on Wikipedia." Perhaps, but we are talking on the Talk page. People may speak freely as they build consensus to produce Wiki-compliant material. Stuff that does not belong on Wikipedia shouldn't get on Wikipedia (unless it is an MMfA ref I'm being almost banned for applying WP:RS to). But it won't get there. We can talk about it here. Anyone can say what they like here. Never do we say anything that is perfectly phrased complete with all surrounding background so as to avoid any confusion/misconception, what have you. So cut her some slack and let's all talk freely. It's something I value greatly after the wikihounding I have been experiencing lately just for applying WP:RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) Hi LAEC, Please dont misunderstand me, I wasnt refering to this talk page when i said that. I was refering to the article. I thought that was obvious. I never said she couldnt speak freely here on the talk forum (and i honestly dont know how you got that from what i wrote.) Yes anyone can post what they on this page, thats why its a discussion page. But the article in question, itself, is not a platform for passionate political activism. Thats what i meant when I said "that doesnt belong on Wiki." I'm sorry you are being hounded, but that's not my doing, and I hope you arent displacing that on me or my words.Ceemow (talk) 04:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Cool. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)