Talk:ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Hoax" Section

IP 67.176.113.217 added the following subsection on 3-27-2010:

In an interview with the Washington Independent Giles admitted to using b-roll video tricks and revealed that O’Keefe never entered an ACORN office wearing a pimp outfit as the videos suggest. Further investigations of the allegedly unaltered original transcripts released by Breitbart’s website show that the ACORN videos had been highly edited to show ACORN employees in a negative way. In reality O’keefe often posed to ACORN employees as a University law student attempting to help his girlfriend, Giles, who posed as a prostitute under the control of an abusive pimp. The statements of ACORN employees attempting to help the student and his abused girlfriend were then edited and clips showing O’Keefe and Giles posing as a pimp and hooker in front of ACORN offices where spliced into the videos to make it appear as if the ACORN employee was attempting to help the pimp and hooker pair. Since O’Keefe’s arrest for attempting to tamper with Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu’s phone and the release of the transcripts Breitbart has tried to distance himself from the O’Keefe stating that he did not know that the videos were edited while the New York Times and its public editor Clark Hoyt have admitted to being taken by the videos.

I have reverted the section because it has serious POV and synthesis/original research issues and should be discussed here first. --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have twice removed the above content, citing POV and synth/OR problems, without indicating the specific issues with the text. I can see a couple of problems, but your input on the specific issues that concern you would be appreciated. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Xeno! If you'd like me to be more specific, I will lay out my concerns. Firstoff, the paragraph is laiden throughout with Non-NPOV opinionated language, for example "Giles admitted...", "revealed," "as the Videos suggest," "Further investigations of the allegedly unaltered," "highly edited," "In reality O'Keefe often posed..." etc. That could be clened up, but the whole paragraph itself is actually just synthesis and OR in it's entirety, making an editorial-like argument. For example, the five cites listed mid-paragraph turn out to just be links to the videos themselves, rather than an independent source or sources making the assertions the paragraph asserts. Take a look at the criticism section that myself, CeeMow, and ThinkEnemies worked on - note how the criticisms were things other people said (with references) and was phrased in NPOV style. This new paragraph lacks both these qualities, and worse yet it was introduced as "Hoax Revealed," which is not supported anywhere in the mainstream media. How might you suggest going about fixing all that? Have a stab at it you'd like to work a re-write; we can use the sandbox page here if you want to collaborate.--AzureCitizen (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Much of the wording you have indicated is self-evidently POV, but as you noted, can be cleaned up. The five cites to videos don't exemplify SYNTH/OR as much as they are simply poor sourcing, as I believe the actual 3 points in the proposed content (i.e.: the videos were highly edited; O'Keefe presented himself not as a pimp, but as a Law Student/Future-Politician trying to help his girlfriend; Giles posed as an abused prostitute seeking help) are actually supported by third-party, reliable sources. The IP's choice of primary sources are problematic, but I do not see the content as original research or synthesis - it just needs proper attribution.

Do I wish to re-write the now-deleted section? Not really. I do, however, feel that the article should not mislead by hiding verifiable basic facts in a "criticism" section. Were the videos misleadingly edited, or is that mere "speculation", as indicated by the current lede section? Did O'Keefe dress like a pimp and claim to be a pimp to ACORN employees, as indicated by the current lede section, or did that never happen, as later admitted by Giles, Breitbart, O'Keefe, et al.? As the lede section stands right now, there is no controversy - so the article is misnamed. It is also not factual, according to available reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I updated the section on Clark Hoyt's views from the New York Times. Previously it said that Clark Hoyt admitted to being taken by the videos. This section seemed to be based on the POV of Robert Parry from the Baltimore Chronicle and does not reflect the views of Clark Hoyt of the New York Times. The reference The Acorn Sting Revisited is by Clark Hoyt and while he admits that it does appear O'Keefe didn't enter Acorn offices in pimp costume, he said "the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context". It's not appropriate to use Parry's mis-characterization of what Clark Hoyt said. New user, I think the reference to the Robert Parry article should be deleted since it was used only for a non-neutral POV on what Clark Hoyt said. The reference to the New York Times article by Clark Hoyt himself should suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.16.10 (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the IP's characterization of Hoyt's views was simplistic, but your re-wording of that section falls equally short. The first IP edit only implies the NYT admits it was deceived by the videos (partially true), while the second IP implies the only deception was that O'Keefe wasn't really dressed as pimp when filming ACORN reps, and the rest of the video is damning. Both IPs are stressing incomplete, opposing points of view. The source actually says:

"The videos were heavily edited. The sequence of some conversations was changed. Some workers seemed concerned for Giles, one advising her to get legal help. In two cities, Acorn workers called the police. But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context. Harshbarger’s report to Acorn found no “pattern of illegal conduct” by its employees. But, he told me: “They said what they said. There’s no way to make this look good.” He also said the news media should have been far more skeptical, demanding the raw video from which the edited versions were produced. “It’s outrageous that this could have had this effect without being questioned more,” he said. The report by Harshbarger and Crafts was not covered by The Times. It should have been, but the Acorn/O’Keefe story became something of an orphan at the paper."

Robert Parry hasn't mischaracterized what Hoyt said. Hoyt has admitted he was wrong; he has admitted NYT was wrong in its reporting, even while Hoyt says he feels (his opinion, mind you) there was still some unprofessional conduct by the ACORN employees. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The hoax section edits were rolled back with the revert. 174.49.16.10 and 67.176.113.217, please feel free to join in here on the Talk Page if you'd like to re-work the paragraph with Xenophrenic into something a little more encyclopedic.--AzureCitizen (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll pass on re-working a paragraph buried at the very end of the article. I do see some serious re-work needed on the article as a whole, however. I'll refrain from making major edits without discussion here first, as I do see several editors have made good faith attempts at writing a good article — I just feel the mark was missed in a couple of areas. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned with Xenophrenic reworking this article when he states that Robert Parry didn't mischaracterize what Clark Hoyt said. A great example of this is that Parry wrote:

"That’s right," Hoyt wrote, regarding FAIR’s characterization of the child-prostitute point. However, Hoyt, who earlier had chastised the Times for not jumping on the ACORN scandal faster, insisted that the ACORN employees still deserved criticism for not objecting to other apparent illegalities in O’Keefe’s fictitious schemes. Hoyt said the ACORN workers should have protested any plans regarding a brothel, noting that one ACORN worker blithely warned, “Don’t get caught, ‘cause it is against the law.” In other words, Hoyt isn’t ready to admit that he joined the Times in a rush to judgment and thus helped destroy ACORN, which has seen its funding dry up, has shuttered many of its offices, and is expected to file for bankruptcy soon." Source

What Hoyt actually said was:

"FAIR said that in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.” That’s right, but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: "Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law." Source

Hoyt only acknowledged the Times was wrong on the costume while Parry makes it appear that Hoyt admits getting duped on the whole thing. I urge Xenophrenic to take a NPOV as opposed to the type of writting of Mr. Parry. Half truths does not make a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.16.10 (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I urge IP 174.x.x.x to read more carefully. To assist in that, I took the liberty of expanding Parry's actual quote (above) to show that Parry did indeed note Hoyt only acknowledged being wrong about the costume part, and criticizes Hoyt for not yet admitting he was wrong about the brothel part, too. Parry did not mischaracterize Hoyt. Would you like to correct your statement, 174.x.x.x? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read them carefully which is why I objected to the entry of the phrase "That's right" as if that was Hoyt's entire comment on the FAIR position. Parry does in fact mischaracterize what Clark Hoyt said by leaving out the rest of his sentence. Hoyt's point is that FAIR left out the part about it being clear the intention was to operate a brothel. Instead in the next paragraph (which you included above) Parry simply notes that Hoyt said Acorn "still deserved criticism for not objecting to other apparent illegalities in O’Keefe’s fictitious schemes" which completely changes Hoyt's point. Then Parry goes on to blame the New York Times for Acorn's problems. I have to ask, why would Wikipedia even consider an editorial (non-NPOV by definition) of what Clark Hoyt said instead of simply referencing Hoyt's own words? Referencing a critic of Hoyt is unlikely to produce any added factual content. In this case with with Parry clipping Hoyt's "That's right, but..." sentence to "That's right" clearly Parry gives the impression Clark Hoyt agreed with the FAIR assessment which is not the case if one reads Hoyt's own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.16.10 (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect again. Parry doesn't quote the "That's right" phrase as if it was Hoyt's entire comment on the FAIR position. Quite the opposite, Parry specifically states it is only "regarding FAIR’s characterization of the child-prostitute point." It is still there, 5 paragraphs up, for your review - and no amount of mischaracterizing it will change what it actually says. Parry also didn't "leave out the rest of Hoyt's sentence", in fact, he goes on to directly address Hoyt's opinion expressed in that sentence, about it "being clear the intent was to operate a brothel." There was no "clipping" by Parry. Parry first addressed Hoyt's agreement with FAIR's child-prostitute point, then went on to address Hoyt's opinion of the "intent to operate a brothel" point. As for your question as to why Wikipedia should use the op-eds from Hoyt and Parry about the ACORN videos, the answer is because their opinions are germane to the topic. As I mentioned above, your edit, and the edit of the other IP, both fell short of accuracy. Did you have new wording to suggest? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You still seem to be misinterpreting this. You said "Parry first addressed Hoyt's agreement with FAIR's child-prostitute point", yet Hoyt did not agree on this point. Hoyt actually wrote "If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes." Parry falsely claims that Hoyt agrees with FAIR which he did not. Parry also said ""That’s right," Hoyt wrote, regarding FAIR’s characterization of the child-prostitute point." But that wasn't what Hoyt was saying. The entire paragraph shows that Hoyt was agreeing with FAIR only that they were trying to get prostitutes away from an abusive pimp, but FAIR didn't point out that they were trying to setup another brothel for these underage girls. You quoted this paragraph above. And I wasn't asking why op-eds from Hoyt and Parry would be used... clearly Hoyt's op-ed was germane to the discussion. But Parry's op-ed was about Hoyt's op-ed and he did nothing but mischaracterize what Clark Hoyt actually said. What is the value of an op-ed on an op-ed? The only result would be confusion as shown by Parry's very creative interpretation of Hoyt's op-ed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.16.10 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You've moved the goal-posts again, but at least now it appears we are moving closer to understanding and agreement. Addressing each of your points in order:

You said "Parry first addressed Hoyt's agreement with FAIR's child-prostitute point", yet Hoyt did not agree on this point. Yes, Hoyt did agree with FAIR's opinion that "in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.”" Hoyt actually wrote "If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes." Yes, Hoyt did also write that - but that doesn't mean he didn't agree with FAIR's assessment of the Brooklyn videos. He quite clearly did. Parry falsely claims that Hoyt agrees with FAIR which he did not. Read it again. He clearly did agree with that assessment by FAIR. Parry also said ""That’s right," Hoyt wrote, regarding FAIR’s characterization of the child-prostitute point." But that wasn't what Hoyt was saying. Actually, yes, that IS what Hoyt was saying, but a clarification is needed: FAIR specifically addressed the Brooklyn video, and Hoyt agreed with the assessment. The entire paragraph shows that Hoyt was agreeing with FAIR only that they were trying to get prostitutes away from an abusive pimp, (you mean, they were attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp), but FAIR didn't point out that they were trying to setup another brothel for these underage girls. Hoyt also agrees with FAIR that O'Keefe was never dressed as a pimp while speaking with ACORN people. But yes, none of this is disputed, and none of this was mischaracterized by Parry. You quoted this paragraph above. And I wasn't asking why op-eds from Hoyt and Parry would be used... clearly Hoyt's op-ed was germane to the discussion. Both op-eds are germane to the discussion. You'll note the largest single section of the article is about coverage by the media in "Media controversy", exactly what Parry's op-ed addresses. But Parry's op-ed was about Hoyt's op-ed and he did nothing but mischaracterize what Clark Hoyt actually said. Incorrect. He criticized the Times for shoddy journalism and rushing to judgement. What is the value of an op-ed on an op-ed? The only result would be confusion as shown by Parry's very creative interpretation of Hoyt's op-ed. See above. It appears most of the confusion stems from two differing understandings of FAIR's assessment of the Brooklyn video (where the pair gave the impression they wanted to buy a house not as a brothel, but to protect the underaged prostitutes). Parry is (incorrectly) taking that assessment and applying it to all the videos, while Hoyt (correctly) notes that isn't the case in all videos. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No goalpost moving and I'm a bit shocked we are going this long on this point. To respond point by point as you did:"

"Yes, Hoyt did agree with FAIR's opinion that "in Brooklyn, O’Keefe and Giles seemed to be telling Acorn staffers that “they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.”" That's true as far as it goes, but (and in agreeing Hoyt did add "but") Hoyt said "but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel". Hoyt only partially agreed with FAIR and points out that FAIR left out the part about them setting up a new brothel for the child prostitutes

"Yes, Hoyt did also write that - but that doesn't mean he didn't agree with FAIR's assessment of the Brooklyn videos. He quite clearly did." Well... NO. Have you not read the article? I don't mean to be insulting but Hoyt only agreed with FAIR that ACORN was told "they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp." Hoyt followed that up by saying they were clear that they were setting up a new brothel.

Read it again. He clearly did agree with that assessment by FAIR. Are you only reading the Parry version? Hoyt is clear that he only partially agreed with FAIR. Hoyt said "But the most damning words match the transcripts and the audio, and do not seem out of context" while FAIR claims it is all a HOAX.

Actually, yes, that IS what Hoyt was saying, but a clarification is needed: FAIR specifically addressed the Brooklyn video, and Hoyt agreed with the assessment.'Once again read what Clark Hoyt actually wrote. When Hoyt said "but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel" this is not agreement with FAIR who only mentioned the part about the abusive pimp.

(you mean, they were attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp)No, that is FAIR's position but not agreed to by Hoyt and not reflected in the transcript which FAIR and Hoyt reviewed. That's why Hoyt wrote "but FAIR left out the part about their clear intention to operate a brothel, which the Acorn workers seemed to take in stride, with one warning: “Don’t get caught, ’cause it is against the law." This is why I'm puzzled at your insistence that Hoyt agreed with FAIR's position when clearly he didn't. It's as if you formed your opinion on what Hoyt said not by reading Hoyt but by reading Parry's version of what Hoyt said.

Hoyt also agrees with FAIR that O'Keefe was never dressed as a pimp while speaking with ACORN people. But yes, none of this is disputed, and none of this was mischaracterized by Parry.Parry makes it appear that Hoyt agreed with FAIR and hopefully you can now see that is false.

Both op-eds are germane to the discussion. You'll note the largest single section of the article is about coverage by the media in "Media controversy", exactly what Parry's op-ed addresses. Hopefully you now see that Parry mischaracterized Hoyt on agreeing with FAIR and other points. For example from Parry "Hoyt also acknowledged that perhaps the most damning part of the ACORN sting story was wrong: ACORN staffers did not go along with a plan to use under-aged Salvadoran girls as prostitutes." From Hoyt "Acorn’s supporters appear to hope that the whole story will fall apart over the issue of what O’Keefe wore: if that was wrong, everything else must be wrong. The record does not support them. If O’Keefe did not dress as a pimp, he clearly presented himself as one: a fellow trying to set up a woman — sometimes along with under-age girls — in a house where they would work as prostitutes." Can you possibly still claim that Parry didn't mischaracterize Clark Hoyt???

Incorrect. He criticized the Times for shoddy journalism and rushing to judgement.And also misrepresented what Clark Hoyt said on several points while criticizing the Times. That is why I question any value of referencing Parry. Possibly as part of the media controversy about how journalists misrepresent other journalists to make their point?

See above. It appears most of the confusion stems from two differing understandings of FAIR's assessment of the Brooklyn video (where the pair gave the impression they wanted to buy a house not as a brothel, but to protect the underaged prostitutes). I just read the Brooklyn transcript (same thing that FAIR, Parry and Hoyt would have read) and it is clear that their intention is to buy a house as a brothel. They are even given advise on depositing no more than $500 in cash a week in a bank and to list their profession as "free lance". It's made clear that other girls will be coming to work at the house and toward the end they do say they will taking the abusive pimp's child prostitutes to protect them and give them a place to live in their brothel.

Parry is (incorrectly) taking that assessment and applying it to all the videos, while Hoyt (correctly) notes that isn't the case in all videos. Parry didn't mention Brooklyn, that was a half truth by FAIR. According to FAIR "In part of the exchange, O'Keefe and his accomplice seem to be telling ACORN staffers that they are attempting to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp" which is true, but that was at the very end of the conversation after they have been discussing buying a house for a just turned 18 prostitute to work in with other girls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.16.10 (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From the transcript we have= "James: Eh...Well here is our situation I wanna run for campaign I wanna go to school, go to law school I wanna run for congress one day but she is in a unique business. Unfortunately we have been to a lot of other... Shira: We are not like that James: HM? Shira: we are not prejudiced James: You're not prejudiced? Shira: toward any kind of work that anybody does James: Oh thank god because you dont understand that we have been to so many like you Shira: We are not like that, we dont sit down here. We are not here to judge what somebody do James: you’re not..? Shira: No" and then "Tonja: what about do you have any office expenses do you have to buy paper, ink, pencils pens all that kind of stuff James: condoms Tonja: okay James: we have to buy condoms Tonja: what kind of a business is this Kenya: I provide a service to male clients Tonja: okay so what about do you got to put out for clothes... see it depends on what the business is, what you can write off. That’s why I need to know Kenya: okay so I can write off my.. Tonja: it depends you can write off your clothing in certain businesses. Shira: I am gonna go talk to her and when you are finished then talk to me James: okay I wanna continue talking to you Shira: okay yea because she's a bus-she actually does accounting and everything so she will give you her card. So when you finish talking to her then I will talk to you about the housing program. James: alright Tonja: in the business that you do you have to have a certain clothing...so we can write that off. You have to have a certain grooming so that can be written off." and then "James: our problem is that we just want to make sure that—Kenya has a unique line of work. We have been discriminated against—no one has provided us, because it is against the law Shira: she is not like that James: No law enforcement is very prejudicial toward us Shira: Well she is gonna make this like a legal business" and then "James: sex is kind of like dancing right Tonja: yeah some---- so I am thinking if you were working in what’s the name of that place downtown"

If the groups supporting Acorn believe that the allegedly unaltered original transcripts are real, which they apparently do-- then the situation in the tapes is clear. I do agree with them on the most important point: human lovemaking and human dance are essentially the same process, which the same emotional/spiritual energy (but this is getting all existential on you so I'll quit with it, LOL). Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What situation in the transcripts is clear? That she is a dancer at a place downtown, and can write off business clothing? That discrimination is against the law? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Could you be more specific, please? As for who believes the transcripts are complete, if the producers have deceptively edited the videos, why would they not do the same to the supposed transcripts? I haven't heard anyone claim they believe the transcripts are complete and unaltered. I also don't know anyone that claims to have seen any unaltered video yet. If the transcripts are accurate, and public, then certainly there shouldn't be a problem with producing the unaltered videos, right? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I'm not aware of any other business that exists that involves distributing condoms to male clients for sex that is illegal, besides prostitution. You appear to be claiming that someone can legally create a business in which males view female dancing and summarily have sex with them for money. For Baltimore, I'm pretty sure this is not possible (not in the legal sense). If the transcripts are accurate, then they clearly indicate prostitution. That's fact. Not opinion. Fact. Please read the actual transcripts and not just rely on third hand opinions on it from Media Matters and the like.

I'm not sure where I'd get "actual transcripts", so I only referred to what you posted above. I didn't realize you obtained it third-hand from Media Matters. Based on what you provided, you are performing a lot of original research and synthesis. I see nothing in what you provided about "distributing condoms to male clients for sex", only James saying "buy condoms". I also never claimed anything about dancing; James did - and it sounds like the ACORN rep he was speaking with assumed he was referring to some sort of exotic dancing downtown. I know how O'Keefe and Giles wanted it to appear, but it sure would be nice to have unedited video to see how the conversation actually went. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard anyone claim they believe the transcripts are complete and unaltered.

The people who posted them made the claim. The burden of proof is on the other side. If one makes a conspriacy-based claim that something is faked (e.g. moon landings transcripts, JFK assassination commission transcripts, being faked), then the proof is on him or her to prove that allegation. It's absolutely true to say that if the transcripts are false, then the brothel allegation is into question. But that's beside the point. The point is if the transcripts are true, then the allegation is true. Grandma Got Divorced (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no. The transcripts provided by Breitbart do not match the Video provided. Heavy editing with the intent to deceive, says reliable sources. The video was edited to imply O'Keefe and Giles wanted help setting up a brothel, but when transcripts (complete - incomplete - altered, only O'Keefe knows) were reviewed, it became evident that ACORN staffers thought the couple wanted “to buy a house to protect child prostitutes from an abusive pimp.” There is no "conspiracy claim" that something was faked, only the fact that things were faked - based on multiple independent investigations. The unanswered question is: was there even more deception and faking that we won't know about until the un-edited videos are revealed? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

March 30 2010, Hi all and happy spring!!

Grandma Got, welcome to the conversation. For myself, I have to agree with Xenophrenic, above. The most important issue in the criticism of these transcripts and videos is that they have proven to be unreliable, even when compared against one another (eg, Xenophrenic's example provides a very good illustration.) This unreliablity is especially significant in light of the exaggerated hyperbole cited by Carol Leonning and promoted on the videos. And that's why statements such as Leonnings are material to our section on the criticisms leveled against O'Keefe's work.

Also, it doesnt make any sense to say that "if the transcripts are false, then the videos are true," or vice-versa. I think you might want to reconsider that argument.

The issue of principle significance to O'Keefe's critics is that OKeefe refuses to allow for an open vetting of his raw footage, and even gets rather angry at the suggestion. That's quite telling, considering the severity of the charges he claims to have evidence for. Thats why the Stark quote is important. It's representative of that particular aspect of the criticism leveled against O'Keefe.

As the editors for the Columbia Journalism Review have pointed out, if Breitbart and O'Keefe really had evidence of the severe and inhumane crimes which they charge, their evidence would be in the hands of a good criminal attorney, not postured as props in some weird hide-and-seek style of sensationalism.

Whether one agrees with the cited criticsms or not, these are the criticisms which have been leveled against the videos. They are valid criticisms, and deserve a place in any encyclopedic review of this story. Ceemow (talk) 05:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

March 31 2010 Hi again all. Here's a very strong criticism of O'Keefe's video ensemble by the notorious "Yes Men" film-makers. We have ample material in the "Criticisms" section, but this criticism is directed at the classist nature of O'Keefe's work, whcih is a point made by several people about the videos.

See this link--- http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0330/yes-men-breitbart-okeefe-sad-pathetic-acorn/

Some snippets---

"For O'Keefe and Breitbart to be targeting ACORN is incredibly sad and pathetic," Bonanno told Raw Story. "Most of its members are lower-income home owners, so these are model Americans -- pull themselves up by their bootstraps type of people -- people who are often very poor."....

....But it's not his and O'Keefe's tactics that The Yes Men take issue with; it's who they're taking aim at, and the now-extinct community group didn't deserve the treatment, Bonanno alleged.

"It's why you're lying and who's gaining and who's losing as a result," he said. "There are liars and there are assholes. What James O'Keefe is doing is making a lot of lower-income people lose, unfortunately. And it's supported by a bunch of very nasty, mean-spirited people."....

Bonanno found it "amazing" how Congress insists on taking aim at groups like ACORN over "a few bad apples" when large defense contractors, for instance, have committed far worse transgressions on a broader and more damaging level and walked away unscathed.

Again, we dont need to overdo the criticism section, but I think Bonanno makes a solid point (the last cited criticism is one advanced by many reporters, including Maddow, Stewart, etc....) Bonanno's points are reminscent of Stark's own statements about classism in this issue (see this link-- http://www.starkreports.com/2010/03/01/interview-with-andrew-breitbart-at-cpac/ When the page loads, scroll down to the section Labeled "A few thoughts on the above video." i honestly think people commenting on this matter ought to take a good look at Stark's point here.)

However, if the "Yes Men" entry seems too far from the NPOV rubric, I can understand not using it.Ceemow (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack

This article violates BLP and NPOV is many, many ways. It is not a biography of Giles, but rather a coatrack for folks to list everything negative that can be found about Ms. Giles. The article either needs to be merged into the ACORN contrversy article of fully deleted.--InaMaka (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We should attribute the Jerry Brown quote to Jerry Brown

Jerry Brown is being quoted directly in the lead of this article as "the California Attorney General." He is one of the extremely few people directly quoted in the text of this article, but without his proper name included in the text. This makes the articles handling of direct quotations inconsistent. We should directly attribute the words of Jerry Brown to Jerry Brown. this gives the reader a better understanding of who the quote is from as the article is read, while only adding two words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian.Stephen.Smith (talk • contribs) 21:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Lying by O'Keefe and Breitbart

There are some good sources available in this BradBlog story, establishing how O'Keefe and Breitbart deliberately misled the public. They propagated the disinformation that O'Keefe was wearing his outlandish "pimp" costume when he entered ACORN offices. This was false, yet is still widely believed. This point should be included in this article. JamesMLane t c 01:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The fuss about this point is silly. I don't think that there's any evidence that they misled the public about this. I saw all the videos as they came out, and it never occurred to me that he actually wore the outfit in the offices. It was obviously a piece tacked on to the beginning and end of the videos. All that happened is that a couple of commentators misunderstood, and O'Keefe didn't pick up on it.MikeR613 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it's as simple as a miunderstanding by commentators that O'Keefe "didn't pick up on"? Why didn't O'Keefe correct this? For example, watch this Fox News clip (posted on You Tube) where O'Keefe is being interviewed. At approximately 30 seconds into the video, the reporter says that James O'Keefe went up and down the Eastern seaboard visiting ACORN offices dressed as a pimp, yet O'Keefe does nothing to correct this key misrepresentation. O'Keefe is even wearing the pimp costume during the interview. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL68WFEw2Gk

--AzureCitizen (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed modification of the criticism section

(proposed draft, which will appear under the header "Criticism of Videos")

The videos produced by Giles and O'Keefe have been criticized for not providing adequate context, as well as presenting incomplete and/or inaccurate information. Describing the video ensemble as a "politically motivated piece", Alexandra Fenwick of the Columbia Journalism Review commented that there were elements of the ACORN reporting that were commendable, but in parallel with political use of other un-vetted video footage on the internet, Giles and O'Keefe's work might be more appropriately called political activism rather than true journalism. The videos were also criticised MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell, who suggested it was "entrapment" with hidden cameras.

Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig observed that "...the videos, in some cases, left out what I would call some exculpatory material that might make you see ACORN in a more favorable light. For example, in one, a San Bernadino employee at ACORN explains that there is no way ACORN would support what the couple were proposing, and she asks if they are putting her on, candid-camera style." Leonnig also commented on the credibility of the young filmmakers with regard to a September 12 television interview between commentator Greg Gutfeld and Hannah Giles in which Giles said it annoyed her that ACORN was on track to receive $8.5 billion in funding when the amount was closer to $1.6 million. Leonnig wrote, "There is such a lot of hyperbole being shouted from the rooftops as fact -- on BOTH extreme ends of the political spectrum, left and right -- that reporters are fairly dubious when someone makes a claim that is laden with factual exaggerations. For example, when I heard ACORN was 'on tap to get $8.5 billion in federal funds under the Obama administration', I kept thinking: Wow, Lockheed is sure gonna be jealous. Nobody, nobody, gets an $8.5 billion contract. And indeed this claim was wildly exaggerated. Sometimes, all those great talking points make the people repeating them sound untrustworthy or at least, unlikely to have a bona fide story."

Political journalist Mike Stark questioned the accuracy of O'Keefe's portrayal of his ACORN visits dressed as a pimp, stating "...O'Keefe never wore the pimp outfit into an ACORN office. Instead, he posed as a candidate for Congress that wanted to help a young woman caught in the trappings of prostitution." Stark went on to ask, "If they really wanted the truth out there, why do they need to edit these tapes in the first place? Why aren't the unedited videos already in the public domain?"

I don't think Carol Leonnig's criticisms warrant an entire paragraph. I would also avoid the amount ACORN could receive. It's definitely less than $8.5 billion, but more than $1.6 million. I like Mike Stark's quote's, quite valid questions and clarifications. Norah's comments are good, as well as Alexandra Fenwick's. We should make sure that criticisms for "not providing adequate context, as well as presenting incomplete and/or inaccurate information" is not regarding only one video. I remember conversations with editors attempting to use stories related to one specific video to describe all of the videos. I also like proposed the header. †TE†Talk 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The statement about the funding figure ought to stay, since it illustrates the point which Leonnig is trying to make- i.e., that the producers of the video articulate enough factual exaggerations to merit some degree review.Ceemow (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for the constructive comments! Okay, I think we can reasonably whittle down Leonnig's quoted remarks (they are lengthy) to the essence of her words, and modify the opening so that it's not asserting all the videos are incomplete/inaccurate but instead stating that "some" of their "work" is criticized as inaccurate. On the figure (8.5B vs 1.6M) I will simplify that as well without dropping the point. Sound good? Ceemow, do you want to do some further research on that which accurately describes what it really is? Okay, rather than editing the text above, I will paste the new (second) proposed edited version below. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Version 2:

Some of Giles and O'Keefe's work has been criticized for not providing adequate context, or for presenting inaccurate information. Describing the video ensemble as a "politically motivated piece", Alexandra Fenwick of the Columbia Journalism Review commented that there were elements of the ACORN reporting that were commendable, but in parallel with political use of other un-vetted video footage on the internet, Giles and O'Keefe's work might be more appropriately called political activism rather than true journalism. The videos were also criticised by MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell, who suggested it was entrapment with hidden cameras.

Washington Post reporter Carol Leonnig observed that "the videos, in some cases, left out what I would call some exculpatory material... For example, in one, a San Bernadino employee at ACORN explains that there is no way ACORN would support what the couple were proposing, and she asks if they are putting her on, candid-camera style." Leonnig commented on the credibility of the young filmmakers with regard to an interview between Greg Gutfeld and Hannah Giles in which Giles said ACORN was on track to receive a staggering $8.5 billion in funding from the Obama Administration. Leonnig wrote "reporters are fairly dubious when someone makes a claim that is laden with factual exaggerations" and that this claim was "wildly exaggerated. Sometimes, all those great talking points make the people repeating them sound untrustworthy..."

Political journalist Mike Stark questioned the accuracy of O'Keefe's portrayal of his ACORN visits dressed as a pimp, stating "...O'Keefe never wore the pimp outfit into an ACORN office. Instead, he posed as a candidate for Congress that wanted to help a young woman caught in the trappings of prostitution." Stark went on to ask, "If they really wanted the truth out there, why do they need to edit these tapes in the first place? Why aren't the unedited videos already in the public domain?"

Azure... that's great. I think it represents some major points in the overall criticism of the videos, without burdening the issue. However, there is another point that ought to be addressed; one regarding Breitbart's selective timing of future video releases. Please see this link: http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/well_it_may_deserve_an_award_i.php

Other than that, i think your offering is quite complete, succinct and makes the point without being redundant.Ceemow (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will see if I can add a single sentence at the end in regard to the Breitbart video release issue, then we should wait for ThinkEnemies to have a chance to post on that and/or propose a modification. Then hopefullly we'll have achieved a consensus that everyone finds reasonable and can be lived with! See below. --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

To save space I will strikethrough. First, not proven in full transcript released by O'Keefe. Second, the 8.5 billion has been mentioned in Congress and however unlikely, was still possible. Third, her other quote refers to how the media handle the videos. Media commenting on other media, not of the controversial videos. I wish I could put it together for third and maybe final proposal but I have to run. Be back later. †TE†Talk 22:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For point second, we are talking about Leonnig's opinion on the $8.5 billon dollar figure, encapsulated within a criticisms section at the end of the main article; this was clearer when we included the exact (lengthy) quotes, but it's still fairly apparent. Surely we don't want to go back to the fully quoted statement(s) to make sure that comes across? Giles's exact words were "...people should go to jail and it really annoys me that they’re about to get $8.5 billion dollars of stimulus funds," so Congress and "possibilities" are not what Leonnig is commenting on; she is commenting on Gile's mistaken claim directly. For point third, she isn't really commenting on other media, nor the videos, nor how the media handles the videos, but specifically the credibility of Giles. For point one, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to ("not proven in full transcript released by O'Keefe"), please elaborate on that one so that I can understand what we're discussing there. Are you talking about transcripts from the videos?--AzureCitizen (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think she was referring to Giles and some Red Eye appearance. She was speaking very generally in regards to a question about MSM and ACORN. The $8.5 billion has been a talking point of congressional republicans since last spring. Politifact even graded it's truthiness in early May. It just doesn't seem to fit. †TE†Talk 05:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I think what you're trying to say is, Leonnig says that the San Bernadino employee asks if they are putting her on candid-camera style, while the full transcript released by O'Keefe doesn't say this. Where can we get a copy of that full transcript to take a look?--AzureCitizen (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the transcript that O'Keefe released. I don't think I missed it. No guarantees. The part with Theresa saying her bosses ain't down with that(my paraphrasing) is there. I think we should be sure to include all available transcripts in the article. †TE†Talk 04:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Modification to final paragraph:

Political journalist Mike Stark questioned the accuracy of O'Keefe's portrayal of his ACORN visits dressed as a pimp, stating "...O'Keefe never wore the pimp outfit into an ACORN office. Instead, he posed as a candidate for Congress that wanted to help a young woman caught in the trappings of prostitution." Stark went on to ask, "If they really wanted the truth out there, why do they need to edit these tapes in the first place? Why aren't the unedited videos already in the public domain?" Concerning the release of all video materials, Greg Marx of the Columbia Journalism Review questioned Andrew Breitbart's highly publicized message to the U.S. Attorney General to investigate ACORN or Breibart would "revisit these tapes come election time," referring to it as an "attempt to blackmail the attorney general."

Hi Azure. I think your contribution is wonderfully succinct and comprehensive. I'm good with it. Thanks for your work, and for helping us navigate these waters.Ceemow (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reading Stark's HuffPo excerpts, I think we should limit his criticism to: "If they really wanted the truth out there, why do they need to edit these tapes in the first place? Why aren't the unedited videos already in the public domain?"

His interpretations of the videos greatly differ from those of MSM type reliable sources. I don't think anybody is foolish enough to think the O'Keefe walked into the ACORN offices dressed in a Halloween costume. Certainly, no reputable reporters thought O'Keffe was saving a "young woman caught in the trappings of prostitution" and "helping women out of sexual slavery" by setting up a brothel for underage prostitutes. I also don't understand what the Attorney General and Breitbart have to do with video criticisms, or blackmail, which is also nonsensical. †TE†Talk 22:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

For Stark, we could dial down the pimp dress portion. Instead of:

Political journalist Mike Stark questioned the accuracy of O'Keefe's portrayal of his ACORN visits dressed as a pimp, stating "...O'Keefe never wore the pimp outfit into an ACORN office. Instead, he posed as a candidate for Congress that wanted to help a young woman caught in the trappings of prostitution."

Let's alter it to:

Political journalist Mike Stark questioned the accuracy of O'Keefe's portrayal of his ACORN visits dressed as a pimp, noting that O'Keefe never wore the pimp outfit inside ACORN offices and on one occasion actually posed as a candidate for Congress.

On the Breitbart piece, your comments made me re-think it, but then I took a look at the article again and noted that there is much larger section than the section we are working on, devoted solely to the media controversy which includes Breitbart's extensive assertions that the mainstream media conspired against O'Keefe, Giles, and himself. Breitbart is discussed assuming that there would be an immediate left-leaning media-bias against the filmakers, that he felt he needed to engage in a strategy to counter such presumed bias, that he believed others would try to "destroy these two idealistic 20-something truth seekers," that he must protect them, that O'Keefe and Giles "...have been impugned in the media," that the "mainstream media is ignoring the story," and that he accused CNN of favoring ACORN in its coverage, among other things. A single sentence in the criticisms section about Breitbart's decision to withhold releasing the full videos unless the Attorney General did want he wanted (launch a full scale investigation of ACORN) isn't out of line or completely disconnected from what is being discussed (criticism of the videos, which Breitbart promoted extensively), and "blackmail" was the term Marx (the CJR author providing the critique) chose to describe it. Perhaps instead of saying "referring to it as an attempt to blackmail the attorney general," is it more appropriate if we said "which Marx characterized as an 'attempt to blackmail the attorney general'"? That way, we make it obvious it's just Marx's opinion. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I missed the part about blackmail in the cited source. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a Breitbart quote regarding the investigations and the release of any tapes he may be holding on to(up higher in the article, where it can mix in). Reading this article, I can see alot of work that needs to be done. I took a crack at it, a start. Without going into too much detail, we need to trim down or separate that massive Media controversy section. Probably a little bit of both. †TE†Talk 04:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Good job on altering Starks questioning of O'Keefe's portrayal of his ACORN visits, BTW. †TE†Talk 05:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Azure. The Stark critique is fully corroborated by the transcripts for the videos, and as such his claims feed back into Leonnig's statement about the exclusion of exculpatory material in the posted footage. I dont think your synopsis needs to be dialed back at all. I vote for keeping it as is. If the actual transcript section that Stark is citing needs to be referenced in order for the case to be made, then so be it. Since the transcripts are part of the primary material for this matter, that might not be unwarranted. Also, lets keep Stark's question about the full videos not being released.

As for the claim made above that- "I don't think anybody is foolish enough to think the O'Keefe walked into the ACORN offices dressed in a Halloween costume." That's just flat out wrong, and verifiable as such. In fact, this was exactly how O'keefe's story was represented on Fox when it first aired, and that is a matter of public record. The footage of those broadcasts are on youtube.

For confirmation, See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL68WFEw2Gk

Listen to what is said at 24 seconds into the above video- “James O’Keefe... He’s dressed in the EXACT SAME outfit that he wore to the ACORN offices up and down the Eastern Seaboard.” To say that O’keefe didn’t openly set that impression, and that his story wasn't reported as such, dismisses the verifiable facts as they stand.... Its an attempt to rewrite the history we have actually lived through.

The CJR critique is fully valid. I dont know why anyone would dismiss it so casually. I think your phrase works:"...which Marx characterized as an 'attempt to blackmail the attorney general'" The statement works fine and is accurate. But we cannot dismiss this aspect of the story. Making an open threat to attempt to bias the elections is significant. And the CJR is a fine and reputable source. Marx's perspective is as significant as Breitbart's threat. No one asked Breitbart to make the statement that he did, he did it of his own accord, and it’s a pretty die-hard front. Both parts of that issue are relevant here, and material to the story.

Its actually rather odd that criticsms such as Marx's and Leonnig's have been published for at least 4 months in reputable publications, but no reference to their valid criticisms have yet been entered into this Wiki entry. Again, the article suffers from their exclusion.Ceemow (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorting this out

Once again it's late, and I need to turn in soon. Am going to try put my thoughts in order here as quick as possible:

1. ThinkEnemies, I checked out the full Bernadino transcript, and agree that "asks if they are putting her on candid-camera style" is not there, while "no way ACORN would support what the couple were proposing" can be supported. We'll adapt it accordingly. Ceemow, please have a look yourself if you're curious, it's a 69 page searchable PDF.

2. Yep, all three of us agree that the full transcripts should be linked and made available in the article. Perhaps insert them as another column in the chart in the "Hidden camera recordings and video release" section?

3. I've re-read the Leonnig transcript for context on the $8.5B issue, carefully, and came to the same conclusion, she's actually referring to the republican/conservative talking points and the media, rather than specifically commenting on Giles. Probably a result from having looked at the two respective cites and getting cross-wired thoughts. Ceemow, take a close look and read it again too in that light.

4. Yep, agreed, the Media Controversy section is oversized and needs to be trimmed somehow while maintaining NPOV balance.

5. Ceemow, I can appreciate that Stark characterized O'Keefe's "candidate for Congress" character as "just wanting to help a young woman caught up in the trappings of prostitution," but I don't think the transcripts showed O'Keefe's fake persona trying to get the girl out of prostitution, instead he spoke of wanting to use her earnings to help support his congressional campaign. Am I wrong? Please look carefully at those transcripts and point out the page numbers if so.

6. The part where Stark asks "If they really wanted the truth out there, why do they need to edit these tapes in the first place? Why aren't the unedited videos already in the public domain?" is solid and will be included, I noted that all three of us agree on that.

7. The portion on Breitbart, release of all videos, and the Attorney General is relevant, we just need to hammer out sensible consensus for inclusion of the facts and the criticism. Perhaps it could be mentioned in both places, first higher up in the text as a factual matter, then briefly referenced again in the criticisms.

I'm up way too late to still be looking at this, with all the work I have lined up in the morning. I will come back at this later tomorrow... Nite.--AzureCitizen (talk) 05:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi AzureCitizen. I really want to thank you for your work. But I want to address a problem you are having on point 3, regarding the 8.5 Billion figure. It's unambiguous what Leonnig is refering to. You shouldnt try to read into it, or work it over into a reference that it is not making. The meditations on possible interpretations of Leonnigs statement side-step the truth completely. That the videos reference this figure is a solid fact. Its on the video. I can get you the exact mark on the video if you need.

Please read this from the Washington Post- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091704805_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009091704852

(from the article, page 2)"Giles and O'Keefe have been criticized for accuracy problems. Their videos include the oft-repeated conservative claim that ACORN is expected to get up to $8.5 billion in government funds. But that's a bold exaggeration, as it includes $3 billion in stimulus funds set aside for revitalization efforts nationwide, and $5.5 billion in federal community development grants. The number assumes ACORN would apply for and win every project and grant in the country, while ACORN says it is not applying for any of the stimulus funds. 'I've not owned that $8.5 billion number and tied it to ACORN, because I'm the publisher of this story,' Breitbart said. 'I ask the journalists to check their facts.'

The article above is by Carol Leonnig. She explicitly references the videos for the 8.5 figure. And even Breitbart himself acknowledges that his videos host this info, but defers to his "journalists" for the citation.

Look, is this really that hard to figure out? I mean, its on the video, you can read the article, the producer acknowledges its presence, why put up such a fight? Watch the video. This reference has been out there from the very beginning of this issue. That this reference and criticism have not been added to this article is a VERY poor reflection on the balance and coverage represented in this whole entry. Leonnig's statement is clear and I dont think it needs to be hammered into something that its not. I am curious as to why there is such an immediate propensity to do so, especially when this particular WaPo article has had such currency since this controversy surfaced (even BigGov refers back to it... bitterly, of course.)

I would like to reiterate another point above, regarding 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." That's just flat out wrong, and verifiable as such. In fact, this was exactly how O'keefe's story was represented on Fox when it first aired, and that is a matter of public record. The footage of those broadcasts are on youtube.

For confirmation, See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL68WFEw2Gk

Listen to what is said at 24 seconds into the above video- “James O’Keefe... He’s dressed in the EXACT SAME outfit that he wore to the ACORN offices up and down the Eastern Seaboard.” To say that O’keefe didn’t openly set that impression, and that his story wasn't reported as such, dismisses the verifiable facts as they stand.... Its an attempt to rewrite the history we have actually lived through.

I know that's repeating myself, but I want to be emphatic about that point, in light of the glib and unsourced dismissal of the matter as above.

I think Stark's point about O'keefe stands strong, and the transcripts do verify him. I also dont think the Media Controversy entry needs too much modification. That controversy has been a selling point for the story from the get go. It can be shortened, but should not be removed. In any case, i request that we discuss those edits before starting. The CJR article also merits mention: both in terms of Breitbarts activities and Marx's response.

But you are right, it's late, and we can hammer all that out in the fullness of time. Still, I wouldnt try to distort Leonigs point about the 8.5 Billion figure. She is crystal clear, and the figure is mentioned in the videos. Again, its an important point, and a long-standing criticism of the video ensemble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceemow (talk • contribs) 07:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Turning to the new Leonnig/Fears material, I propose we strike the entire previous Leonnig paragraph and replace it with this:

Washington Post staff writers Darryl Fears and Carol Leonnig wrote "Giles and O'Keefe have been criticized for accuracy problems. Their videos include the oft-repeated conservative claim that ACORN is expected to get up to $8.5 billion in government funds. But that's a bold exaggeration, as it includes $3 billion in stimulus funds set aside for revitalization efforts nationwide, and $5.5 billion in federal community development grants." The number assumed ACORN would apply for and win every project and grant in the country, and ACORN did not apply for any of the stimulus funds. Leonnig also observed that "the videos, in some cases, left out what I would call some exculpatory material... for example, in one, a San Bernadino employee at ACORN explains that there is no way ACORN would support what the couple were proposing..."

ThinkEnemies and Ceemow (and anyone else who is interested), please re-read the citations here and here first, then comment on this version. I need to return to other work but will be back again later to look at the FOX interview (pimp costume issue) again. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your present post is better. At first glance i do like it, but I'll come back later and take a thorough looksee. Thanks for the hard work. I know its a busy Monday, so thanks for taking the time to do all that. Ceemow (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

...Okay, worked up something for the pimp costume issue, refer to the sources here and here (video) first then make your suggestions please. --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

During a September 14 television appearance on FOX, O'Keefe was interviewed wearing a fut coat, sunglasses, and holding a cane. The host announced "...[O'Keefe] is dressed exactly in the same outfit that he wore to these ACORN offices up and down the eastern seaboard," followed by asking him "is that what you think a pimp looks like?" O'Keefe answered yes.

UPDATE: New Material Relevant to The Overall Article, & to The New "Criticisms" Section

03/02/10 Hi All. Here is an important update on the ACORN video scandal that definitely needs to be added to this article. Please see this link- http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/03/01/2010-03-01_bklyn_acorn_cleared_over_giving_illegal_advice_on_how_to_hide_money_from_prostit.html

(From the article) Brooklyn prosecutors on Monday cleared ACORN of criminal wrongdoing after a four-month probe that began when undercover conservative activists filmed workers giving what appeared to be illegal advice on how to hide money.

While the video by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide ill-gotten gains, the unedited version was not as clear, according to a law enforcement source.

"They edited the tape to meet their agenda," said the source.

This update is significant to the general body of this article, and to the criticism section. In relation to the former, it presents the status of Brooklyn ACORN vis-a-vis the tapes in question. In relation to the latter, it echoes the general criticism leveled by reliable skeptics. I'm not saying it presents an "end-of-the-story" scenario, just that it is relevent.

Also, although we are deliberating the "pimp costume" issue, i think we should solidify the Leonnig citation. Her words are comprehensive, well-phrased, unambiguous, reliable and representative of a significant point in the published criticism. Thanks. (Cheeers all, Spring is slowly Springing!!!)Ceemow (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

On the news that the Brooklyn DA has announced that their investigation did not find any wrong doing on the part of the three ACORN employees, I see that someone already posted that yesterday in the relevant body section (State and local government), including a direct link to the DA's press release clearing ACORN. So that has already been inserted. However, another portion could reasonably be justified for adding to the criticsm section on it, as long as it's tempered accordingly and sticks closely to published material. I would propose something like this, using the American Bar Association's journal as the cite and keeping it almost word-for-word. --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes cleared ACORN employees of criminal wrongdoing on March 1, 2010 after a five-month investigation, an law enforcement source said that while the video by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles seemed to show three ACORN workers advising a prostitute how to hide illicit money, an unedited version wasn't as clear cut. "They edited the tape to meet their agenda," the Daily News quoted the source as saying. ACORN lawyer Arthur Schwartz commented that ACORN was "gratified that the DA has concluded something we knew all along," and that O'Keefe and Giles had "used subterfuge to convince congress and the media to vilify an organization that didn't deserve it."

Hello EvanHarper! I see you edited the Brooklyn DA material directly into the article lead and included the statement "They edited the tape to meet their agenda." I have reverted that good faith edit for now, because 1) the objective material (with citation) was already put into the appropriate location and subsection under state and government local response, and 2) we are already discussing (see my proposal immediately above) how to put that material into the criticism section where it belongs (including the statement from the unnamed source "They edited the tape to meet their agenda" directly in the lead places too much undue weight). Please join us here in the discussion if you would like to participate!--AzureCitizen (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not see this discussion. In my opinion, the information belongs in the lead section. It's an evaluation from a credible official source with more information than is generally available; why would breathless New York Times reports and ACORN's own in-house investigation belong in the lead, but not the Brooklyn DA's office? Yes, there are sections for official responses and for criticisms, but that doesn't mean that official responses and criticisms should only go in those sections. Also I do not know what you mean by, "the objective material." The material I added was objective. EvanHarper (talk) 01:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi EvanHarper. I feel the material definitely belongs in the article, but due to weight issues the lead should only summarize the key factual points, which over many months of edits by many different editors are currently 1) the event occured (synopsis who, what, where, why, when), 2) the fact that Congress temporarily cut off funding, and 3) an extensive internal investigation of ACORN found no illegal activity. If you look down further in the article, you will find responses by ACORN, the federal government including the Census Bureau, the House and Senate, the IRS, the Treasury Department, the President of the United States, plus state and local government including the NY Attorney General, the Brooklyn DA at issue, and the California Attorney General, plus the Wall Street Journal and Bank of America under the sponsors section. The issue of the Brooklyn DA investigating ACORN was never in the lead previously, hence it it does not follow that it should suddenly jump to the lead now - it's one of many events in the responses section, and the update was inserted by another editor yesterday in that location. Further, when I say the "objective material," I mean the factual portion - that the DA issue a press release announcing that no criminality on the part of ACORN had been found in the investigation. The opinion from an unnamed source who told a Daily News reporter that "They edited the tape to meet their agenda" should definitely be added in a criticsm section, but adding that to the lead is not balanced NPOV because of the undue weight effect of positioning it there. If you read over the material in this section and the sections immediately below, you will see that Ceemow, ThinkEnemies, and myself are involved in extensive conversations over these very issues right now. If you would like to participate, please join us! We would be happy to have you weigh in on the additional criticism texts that we have proposed, just start reading from the top of the "Proposed Modiciation of the criticism" section on down.--AzureCitizen (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

HI EvanHarper, and welcome aboard the ACORN Video Controversy Discussion page... it's a hulluva tobagan ride! I should say that AzureCitizen is right, we are presently engaged in an attempt to properly work this article out through our discussions on this page. THe problem is that, being such a contentious issue, -one regarded by many people (on both sides of the aisle) with strong emotions- we have to talk out some of these additions in order to ensure that the aticle is a clear statement of material facts, and not a bill for the political narratives endemic to the matter at hand (those narratives are relevant to the story, but need to be labeled as such.)

For the record, I agree 100% with your position on the relevance of the update from Brooklyn ACORN. I also believe its a rather poor reflection on the article that it's almost comepletely lacking a discussion of the various and valid criticisms that have circulated about these videos (... criticisms which form at least half of the story on this matter proper.) As you can or may see, that's sort of where i come from in this discussion. While I am rightly concerned about the article being an echo chamber for BigGov.com, others are rightly concerned about the article serving the same purpose for ACORN. Both concerns are entirely valid, and should buttress the proper caveats which factor into our discussion. Thus, we have to build a concensus on what is materially relevant to this subject, and in the interests of fair-play, we are hammering those out on this page. Anyhow, welcome aboard!Ceemow (talk) 18:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Establishing Consensus

Hi! As a newcomer to this discussion, I hope that I can cast some oil on the troubled waters. Brown is the "big gun" used to discredit the videos. So it seems fair that any fact and commentary, revealing any possible bias on Brown's part, is to be included. Wikidemon makes the most sense here, and P&W and L&C are also very compelling. Azure seems to be on their side as well.

Ceemow and Xeno, I'm sorry! But you haven't convinced me. The vote is now 5-2, and I hope this ends the edit war so nobody gets blocked. MyNameIsDenise (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Denise, welcome to the fray! With all due respect (and dont take this the wrong way), but you havent convinced me either. I agree entirely that relevent contextual information is important. I made that argument a long time ago. But a long time ago, a precedent was set (by supporters of OKeefe, in fact, not by me) which obviated similar editorial material about the central figures of O"keefe, Breitbart and Giles (material that was, in fact, stronger than Grennels.) So if the standard of demonstrating political bias in Brown is appropriate, then that precedence applies even more to Okeefe etc... because this video ensemble is their project. Their own political biases ought to be represented even moreso than those of a secondary character like Brown (especially in light of the Shirley Sherrod case... in which Breitbarts negligence, lack of credibility, overt political agenda and dishonest behavior were showcased in embarassingly full force and intricate detail.) But people who did not want that very same kind of information about the BigGov staff to be posted raised quite a fuss. So if you are okay with parallel material about Breitbart etc.. being included, please say so. Also, Please understand that the issue isnt numbers, as Xenophrenic rightly pointed out above, its verifiability. At your easiest convenience, could you answer the questions posted in the section above? thanks, and again, welcome... its a helluva tobogan ride!! Ceemow (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My answers to the questions above would all be the same as Wikidemon's. Excellent work on the research by P&W covers the verifiability. You admitted above that some of his sources are reliable, so those can be used. Sorry, Ceemow! MyNameIsDenise (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Denise! You are quite a newcomer, aren't you? I see you've appeared out of nowhere, read the entire thread, and seek to assist us by briefly providing your opinion that Brown is biased and that any commentary revealing that bias "is to be included." You've nicely complimented Wikidemon as making the most sense, expressed that P&W and L&C are compelling, and that I seem to be on their "side", plus you've graciously let Ceemow and Xeno know that you're sorry that they haven't convinced you, but the "vote is now 5-2" and you sign off with the hope this ends the "edit war." A look at your contributions page shows you joined Wikipedia on July 23rd, 2008 to make five edits that day to bird related aticles (House Sparrow, Ostrich, Double-crested Cormorant, etc). Then you came back on December 17th, 2008 when you made three edits in relation to the controversy over President Obama's attendance to a Church sermon given by Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. in Chicago. Then you showed up today to help out here and cast a "vote", and when Ceemow asks you some questions for participation, you just let him know your answers are the same as Wikidemons and that the "Excellent" research work by P&W covers Ceemow's verifiability concerns. Interesting! I also appreciated that you created a tidy new section for us to read this in, entitled "Establishing Consensus". Finding honest, good faith, sincere "Consensus" is so important in constructive editing of Wikipedia and establishing trust between users as they work out their differences. --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Release the hounds. Run a Checkuser. I've edited here as an IP editor for a long time: ornithology-related articles occupy about 99 percent of my work. But I saw how IP editors are treated on the political articles. They're treated as socks. So I created this account two years ago, to edit those articles with a clear edit trial, to prove I'm not someone's sock. MyNameIsDenise (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the IP Address you normally and routinely edit Ornithology related articles from? --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a review of WP:BITE is appropriate here ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Our new editor and I are having a polite conversation, P&W. MyNameIsDenise has made it clear they are not a sock, and that they have edited here as an IP editor for a long time in Ornithology related articles (99 percent of the time). They know and understand they can easily put this to rest and demonstrate good faith is warranted by just providing their IP address to that we can all see they are a longstanding editor of Ornithology related articles. They've also voluntarily consented to a run of Checkuser to show this, which will confirm and show the same thing, right? I'm sure you agree that would be a good thing, so that everyone can know we're working towards honest good faith consensus here. --AzureCitizen (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What's left to discuss? Ceemow and Xeno have presented their case, over and over again. So many times that I'm having trouble loading this page. Nobody's mind has been changed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we certainly are at a standstill now, aren't we? The usual reason to continue discussion, is to seek some sort of resolution or consensus in good faith. Clearly that has not been achieved yet. Let's review:

Ceemow and Xenophrenic have been very clearly in their strong opposition to including the material. You then invited LAEC and Wikidemon to drop in and participate. LAEC replied to you on his talk page, "I'm looking. I can say that so far there is so much that I am confused. But I'll keep trying."[1] He then expressed preliminary support for inclusion here, but his participation was very brief and he stated here on the article Talk Page above "My view may change as I continue to read on or get less confused as to what is going on here." He then followed up with a posting on Wikidemon's talk page this statement regarding his comments: "I did comment, however, but specifically said the amount of material was overwhelming and I could be wrong."[2] It is therefore clear that LAEC (whom I respect) was not expressing strong unqualified support for inclusion, nor did he put in nearly the time that yourself, myself, Xenophrenic, and Ceemow have put in on this issue. Similarly, Wikidemon (whom I also respect) participated at your invitation and helped us by adding bullet comments to the Inclusion/Exclusion summaries. Since he primarily added some text to the Inclusion summaries, I would assume he leans in that direction, but he never explicitly stated that his mind was made up, and like LAEC, his participation was very brief. Wikipedia's policies state that 1) consensus in debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon the policy-related points made by editors, 2) editors should not be recruited to sway consensus, and 3) that in vote-like discussions, new participants must be given significantly less weight.

Thus, we have two editors who strongly oppose the material you wish to insert (Ceemow and Xenophrenic). We have two good faith editors who you recruited who participated briefly, did not conclusively express strong support, and are to be given significantly less weight because this has been a "vote-like" discussion (LAEC and Wikidemon). We have you, P&W, who strongly advocates inserting a version of the text with sizable verbatim block quotes out of Mr. Grenell's editorial, something which no one has expressed support for. And now we have this new and interesting surprise editor who showed up today after some page reverts happened back and forth over claims of consensus, and they briefly announce they are "voting" to make it "5-2," hoping to "end the edit war so nobody gets blocked" in a nice new "Establishing Consensus" section. Wow, I'd say there are some real problems going on here in getting this situation resolved! Perhaps you might have some good ideas about how best next to proceed, so please let us know. --AzureCitizen (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of circular reasoning going on, and a lot of statements being made that aren't being backed up by evidence. Quite a bit of strawman and red herring business going on, too. As for the two proposed content additions:

→ "The launching of the CA-AG investigation of ACORN is politically timed and motivated!"
→ "The CA-AG investigation is biased toward ACORN!"
...I'm still waiting for justification that either assertion ever rose above the level of routine partisan mudslinging, and thus might be justified in this article. I've seen nothing factual supporting insertion of content of this nature. I have seen some arguments made that support possible inclusion of the proposed content into the Jerry Brown or California gubernatorial election, 2010 articles, but certainly not in this article. It's been several months since the completion and publicizing of the AG Office investigation results, so certainly by now there would be RS reporting to verify the truth of the "bias" and "political timing and motivation" allegations, right? So where are they? I've asked repeatedly for links, and everyone dances around the request.

I've heard the Attorney General Office investigation final report laughingly mischaracterized as "Brown's Opinion". I've heard some people opine that Brown is not a "neutral investigative figure", but fail to back that claim up with reliable sources saying it. Some people apparently don't realize the AG Office (a batallion of investigators, attorneys, etc., in concert with several other agencies), and not Brown, performed the investigation. The "bias toward ACORN" claim and the already debunked "launched the investigation for political reasons" claim are tiny minority opinions. I've heard someone say they aren't minority opinions, but I'm still waiting for links. Most conservatives weren't even towing that line. I've seen the Lagstein quote snippets (as well as nearly identical statements from him before and after); they don't in any way indicate bias in the investigation. The AG Office called the claim bullshit; the guy partially quoted called the claim bullshit; and not a single RS has investigated and reported the claim to be anything more than opinion (i.e.; bullshit). I'm not trying to, nor do I need to, "convince" anyone; I'm merely asking to be convinced. The barrage of personal opinions isn't going to do it. I need the reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you might have some good ideas about how best next to proceed, so please let us know. I think consensus has been established. The two editors who are not part of the consensus deny that there's a consensus, and wish to keep discussing it until they're convinced. Two respected editors who have joined the consensus, by supporting inclusion of the material, are being artificially diminished—only because they admit that they haven't read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica that's being churned out on this page. My idea about how best next to proceed is to restore the deleted material, in light of the established consensus, and then proceed to RfC since we must extinguish lingering doubts about it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(partly redacted - Wikidemon (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)) --> Or if you prefer, we could try to WP:AGF on a Talk page. I know, a revolutionary concept, but you may like it. MyNameIsDenise (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get silly and entertain conversations with socks, P&W. Anyone who has edited for years solely on bird articles from an anonymous IP would just provide the IP address rather than talk about posting social security numbers and bank information publicly on the internet in an attempt to deflect the obvious. When the volunteered-for Checkuser procedure is run, it will reveal no long history of Ornithology article edits and we all know what will happen next. But all in good time as there is no rush; there is no way that the sock can "undo" the IP/Checkuser information in the record, or create a new false history leading up to yesterday, etc.

On the matter of consensus, everyone can see that you told LAEC and Wikidemon ([3], [4]) that "consensus has not been (and, evidently, cannot be) reached, so we should just delete the material." Then two hours later, you post back here, claiming consensus again and suggesting we proceed to insert the contested material. I'm sorry, but clearly, consensus has not been reached. Perhaps you should ask LAEC and Wikidemon to drop by here again and post what they think the state of "consensus" is here if you think I'm wrong. It will also be interesting to see what they think about the sockpuppet showing up and quickly claiming "5-2" to "establish consensus."--AzureCitizen (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is difficult to judge given the extensive amount of verbiage. I can't even tell what the status quo is, but the normal thing to do is to leave things as is until it's clear what people want to do. My position is that I would include Brown's quote about the cutting room floor, along with 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. I don't think Grennel's comments are the most pertinent or important, though - I would stay away from editorial opinions about Brown. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Disputed content alleging bias & political motivations in an Attorney General investigation

A desire has been expressed by some editors to add content to this article alleging two things: (1) bias toward ACORN by one of the investigating Attorneys General, and (2) that same California Attorney General launched his investigation purely as a political stunt. Other editors have argued that this proposed content does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for inclusion in this article. The disputed content in its most recent form, along with source citations:

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."

Arguments against inclusion

• All the cited sources indicate these are merely opinions and assertions about Brown; not facts
• WP:WEIGHT says tiny minority views such as these are not to be included
• A Google search of Dan Lagstein + ACORN returns a whopping 9 hits, and most are not RS
• The recorded clips are from a Breitbart site; 'nuff said
• Grenell's opinion that Brown launched the probe for political reasons is disproven elsewhere in the article: The Gov(R) requested it
• Undue weight of two paragraphs and a headered section focusing on just one of many investigating agencies
• The assertions and opinions remained just that, with no subsequent confirmation in reliable sources.
• Brown is a secondary character in this episode. This article is not about him, and if this information belongs anywhere (assuming it actually holds water) then it belongs in his own Wiki entry (as stated by P&W regarding parallel information about OKeefe.) Ceemow (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• When we were composing the criticism section, this relevant citation from the Colombia Journalism Review (see here)[[5]] was deemed inappropriate (i think by ThinkEnemies) because it offered an editorial on the subject of Breitbart’s political motives (AzureCitizen should remember). The precedent thus set was that criticism would be on formal grounds only. If that standard still applies, it applies even more so to Grennel’s statements about Brown (a secondary character in this story), than to Marx’s assessment of Breitbart (a primary character.)Ceemow (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• All the cited sources indicate these are merely opinions and assertions about Brown; not facts Yes, conservative opinions. I don't much care for them either. But have you seen the polls? According to Gallup, about 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservatives, 30% as liberals and 30% as moderates. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows that a plurality believes America would have been better off if John McCain had been elected president. And there is a very real danger that the Democrats could lose control of Congress this November. Conservatives are, at the very least, a substantial minority in this country. Their opinions deserve to be represented. How much space we are to give them is another question.

• Hi Wikidemon, I hope your day is going well. I have to disagree with you completely here. Just because the republicans are a vital demographic does not mean that their perspective HAS to be represented in this entry. This is not a political debate, its an encyclopedic record of material facts around ONE complex issue.

Here's an analogy-- Mormoms are also a vital demographic in this country, and Mormons have a strong, inherited belief (for which they claim much material evidence) that ancient Native Americans descended from Biblical tribes. Just because the Mormons are a vital demographic does NOT mean that their beliefs (or "evidence") about precolonial America ought to represented in an encyclopedic assesment of the precolombian landscape. It would really compromise the integrity of any such treatise that accomodated that perspective. In the same way, baseless and convoluted assertions do not merit a place here, just because republicans really really want things to be so.

Also, the issue of democrats "loosing control" has nothing to do with this story. Most people dont think, or even care about ACORN when they vote.Ceemow (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I"m confused by the discussion sequence here. Is that in response to a post elsewhere? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wikidemon,

Sorry if that's a bit too abstract. Here's what I mean. The argument you advance seems to be that a "conservative perspective" needs to represented in this article, because conservatives are a vital demographic, and have a stake in it.

Mormons are also a vital demographic, and have a stake in American History... but a "Mormon perspective" on Native Americans cannot be inserted into an encyclopedic article about Native Americans just because Mormons strongly believe a legend about these ethnicities originating in the Middle East (and claim to have strong evidence to that effect.) Doing so would only lower the calibre of reliability in that article (with all due respect to Mormons.)

In the same way, just because conservatives are a vital demographic does not mean that fanciful assertions about theirs being "persecuted" ought to be represented in an article of this type. This is especially true with respect to an Browns investigation, that was appointed by a republican governor at a (very suspect and unreliable) conservative blogger's demand.

We are talking in this article about a video release and the facts surrounding it. We havent talked about how the right has used that story to extend its own agenda, so why should we include a "conservative perspective" on the assumption that the issue is being used to Browns advantage? Especially since that doesnt seem to be the case... the SF Chron describes this as a liability for Brown more than a trump card, and NOBODY who I now out West (or anywhere) has this story high on their list of voting priorities. Ceemow (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That's not what I meant to say, anyway. The very existence of the controversy is mostly a conservative perspective I think, I doubt that liberals are losing sleep at night worrying that get-out-the-vote organizations are moonlighting as tax dodging illegal immigrant child prostitution rings. Rather, I was specifically addressing the question of Brown's investigation, which appears to be embedded in the context of California politics and cannot be properly understood without reference to that context. Most (50-60% in my reckoning) of the news stories mentioning Brown's investigation have a non-trivial reference to his political position and ambitions. Even if you don't question the partiality or accuracy of his conclusion, this has become part of the controversy itself. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• A Google search of Dan Lagstein + ACORN returns a whopping 9 hits, and most are not RS Perhaps the problem is that Mr. Lagstein's actual first name is "Dave." One RS got it wrong and called him "Dan," and your other hits are mirrors of that mistake. You might want to try your search again, using "Dave" or "David."

• Wikidemon, Hi again!

I did, in fact, do a google search for David Langstein + ACORN... the majority of sources that address him (with respect to the issue you cite) are right-wing blogs which echo the meme established by Breitbart. By contrast, the relevent hits coming from Reliable Sources do not seem to discuss the issue of "the fix is in" at all, but rather Langsteins narrative on the ACORN tapes, and his defense of Juan Carlos Vera. Xenophrenic's argument still holds strong in that respect.Ceemow (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• The recorded clips are from a Breitbart site; 'nuff said Really? Why? There are plenty of other reliable sources, notably the San Francisco Chronicle and the Orange County Register, that are quoting Mr. Lagstein. Are they lying too?

• I have looked through the SanFran Chronicler articles. They are from 2009, deal more with an unrelated situation involving Gerber, and appear to say that working on the ACORN case is actually a political liability for Brown. That is quite counter to the theme established by Grennel, who sees it as one of Browns political trump cards. The SFChron material does not back up Grennels point.

• I found 2 editorials on the OC Register which you cite, one from Nov 09, and another from April 2010. In both articles, Brian Calle makes it very very clear that he wants ACORN to be found guilty. As such, the OC Reg material is absolutely unreliable and terribly biased. How much more the political hyperbole of Grennel, a paid republican spokesperson.

(in both cases above, you did not specify an article, so I searched the sites on my own, and found only, for instance, opinion editorial from Calle, who makes it clear that his opinion is quite explicitly biased in this matter.)

• Please review this week's case with Shirley Sherrod, and Breitbarts attempt to sell a lie within a lie. At this point it isnt just opinion that he is unreliable, and that his information needs to be taken with caution, its absolutely verifiable.

Eg, from Shepard Smith, Fox News Stuio B, 7/21/10, when specifically discussing Andrew Breitbart and BigGovernment.com, Smith explains that he didnt air Breitbarts story "because of the history of the videos on that site (ie, BigGovernment.com, my clarification), we did not and do not trust the source (Breitbart, my clarification.)" See here> [[6]]Ceemow (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Grenell's opinion that Brown launched the probe for political reasons is disproven ... No, Mr. Grenell didn't claim that Mr. Brown launched the investigation for political purposes. His opinion was that Mr. Brown reached those particular conclusions for political purposes.

• lets not mince words here... Grennel states explicitly that he thinks Brown was “chasing” what he calls “democratic issues”. He neglects to submit that this investigation was appointed to Bown by a Republican (see Xenophrenic’s citation above.) Grennels phrasing is unambiguous as far as that goes, and he assumes a manipulated and orchestrated timing to Browns investigations. Eg,-

How else do you explain Jerry Brown's recent fascination with investigations and allegations announced with lots of media in tow and advantageously timed to benefit traditional Democratic constituencies and issues? There is no doubt that the Brown campaign committee and political advisors are strategically planning the roll-out of official attorney general "investigations" to maximize public attention and perception.

(This is truly ironic, when you consider that this argument is being submitted as exculpatory to the likes of Andrew Breitbart or james O'keefe, re- their "drip" method of releasing the ACORN tapes... the hypcrisy is quite outstanding. )

Again, Grennel's very generalized statement offers some highly specualtive hyperbole which obviates the truth of Browns appointment to this case. Furthermore, Grennels article only mentions the ACORN issue once, and is more “fascinated” with the issue of Palin, Wall Street, etc... (all of which have NOTHING to do with this topic, and which are fully elaborated as the topics of Grennel polemic.) Grennel is saying that this whole process results from Browns “fascination with investigations”, not from an appointment by the Governor. Again, this was something to which he was appointed by a republican Gov, at the behest of republican activist Andrew Breitbart.Ceemow (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Undue weight of two paragraphs and a headered section focusing on just one of many investigating agencies So far I count only two investigative agencies: the California AG and the Brooklyn DA. But if you support inclusion of the fact that the Brooklyn DA was endorsed by ACORN as a possible indicator of his bias, I suppose I could find reliable sources for that as well. If there were other investigative agencies producing reports that were as laden as Mr. Brown's with inflammatory language, then perhaps we should look into who was endorsing them as well.
• The assertions and opinions remained just that, with no subsequent confirmation in reliable sources. See San Francisco Chronicle and Orange County Register.
• *Brown is a secondary character in this episode. This article is not about him ... But four lengthy paragraphs have been devoted to his excoriation of Ms. Giles and Mr. O'Keefe. So he's a major player. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for inclusion

• Brown's position is an opinion like any other, his status as California Attorney General does by itself elevate his opinion, it merely makes it relevant in the world of politics. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• The notion that Brown (a former Governor and current candidate for Governor of California) is playing politics in his role as Attorney General of the state is not a tiny minority notion, is the baseline and expectation. He is not a neutral investigative figure. One cannot report his actions in a neutral, encyclopedic way, without putting it in the context of politics. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Grenell's opinon may or may not be important by itself, but there is a vast body presumably (and this would need to be found and sourced) a body of commentary and analysis that Brown's position has something to do with politics. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• On the face of it, information that indicts the whistle-blowers of crimes for having blown the whistle (and the reportage, legal claims, etc., on the subject), is off topic and basically a political and legal defense. We should be careful not to be a mouthpiece of people's desperate legal tactics. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not a fan of criticism sections or other off topic things, but if we're going to have a section on what Brown has to say on the subject, we ought to put that in the context of who Brown is and what his biases might be. Frankly, Brown exonerating the ACORN workers and criticizing the agitators (or conversely, his criticizing ACORN), has very little to do with the issue. It is a career politician in one of the many states where ACORN operates, positioning himself for his gubenatorial run, and doing his job. We shouldn't blindly quote his statements without putting them in context. Either we have the room here to establish the proper context, and we should do that, or it's oo much for this article and we should leave both his statements and the context out. - Wikidemon (talk)

I'd like to remind you all that this isn't a number's game or a competition. It's certainly not a voting matter. Please work collaboratively; present your arguments and your reasoning, and let's work toward a resolution. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think we already have a resolution. Mr. Grenell is in. The only things in doubt are where to put his opinion, and how much space to allocate to it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Somebody unilaterally deleted Mr. Grenell's opinion 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. The only issues remaining are where to put Mr. Grenell's opinion, and how much space to allocate to it. I have restored it to its original position and length. If any of you feel some other length or position would be appropriate, let's discuss it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Good Morning P&W, Wikidemon, etc...,

No, a consensus has not been reached, and removing the insert is not vandalism, its part of the editing process. Please dont take this the wrong way, because i'm not trying to be snarky, but havent you experienced that on wiki before?

That process is common to all Wiki articles. You should understand that this is how these articles are debated and put together. Don’t get so alarmed.... its not appropriate to be so adamant about an issue that really still hasnt qualified as reliable at all. And in all honesty, with all due respect, the arguments which you and Wikidemon have provided are still really quite debatable. The matter is hardly settled (but if you want Grennel in until we do come to a real consensus, I'm grudgingly okay... i say "grudgingly" because, really, it looks very sloppy and hyperbolic.)

Look, I know from my own experience how contentious this hashing out process can be, but we all need to try to not get so jumpy about this (i'm saying this to myself as much as to you.) Remember this is an encyclopedic entry, not a political echo chamber for either/any side.

That being said, Here are some caveats to your arguments below.Ceemow (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Response To Arguments for Inclusion

Specific itemized responses to each of the above assertions

(some of the information has been reproduced from above... I know its lengthy, but we are dealing with a very contentious issue... so please take the time to read it before responding.) Browns assessment was not an "opinion", it was the result of a very long investigation, to which he was appointed by a Republican governor. It was not an editorial, it was an investigation that took 6 months. lets not mince words here... Grennel states explicitly that he thinks Brown was “chasing” what he calls “democratic issues”. He neglects to submit that this investigation was appointed to him (see Xenophrenic’s citation above.) Grennels phrasing is unambiguous as far as that goes, and he assumes a manipulated and orchestrated timing to Browns investigations. Eg,- How else do you explain Jerry Brown's recent fascination with investigations and allegations announced with lots of media in tow and advantageously timed to benefit traditional Democratic constituencies and issues? There is no doubt that the Brown campaign committee and political advisors are strategically planning the roll-out of official attorney general "investigations" to maximize public attention and perception. Again, this very generalized statement offers some highly specualtive hyperbole which obviates the truth of Browns appointment to this case. Furthermore, Grennels article only mentions the ACORN issue once, and is more “fascinated” with the issue of Palin, Wall Street, etc... (all of which have NOTHING to do with this topic, and which are fully elaborated as the topics of Grennel polemic.) Grennel is saying that this whole process results from Browns “fascination with investigations”, not from an appointment by the Governor. Again, this was something to which he was appointed by a republican Gov, at the behest of republican activist Andrew Breitbart. I have looked through the SanFran Chronicler articles as per Wikidemons suggestion. They are from 2009, deal more with an unrelated situation involving Gerber, and appear to say that working on the ACORN case is actually a political liability for Brown. That is quite counter to the theme established by Grennel, who sees it as one of Browns political trump cards. The SFChron material does not back up Grennels point. I found 2 editorials on the OC Register which Wikidemon suggested, one from Nov 09, and another from April 2010. In both articles, Brian Calle makes it very very clear that he wants ACORN to be found guilty. As such, the OC Reg material is absolutely unreliable and terribly biased. How much more the political hyperbole of Grennel, a paid republican spokesperson. (in both cases suggested by Wikidemon, he did not specify an article, so I searched the sites on my own, and found only, for instance, opinion editorial from Calle, who makes it clear that his opinion is quite explicitly biased against ACORN in this matter, and that he wants them hung out to dry.) Wikidemon writes “Grenell's opinon may or may not be important by itself, but there is a vast body of commentary and analysis that Brown's position has something to do with politics.” But that vast body of commentary and analysis is not part of this topic. If there is a vast body of commentary on Brown, then it belongs in his bio, not this one. P&W made that case clear for O’Keefe (a primary character), so it goes even more so for Brown. using the above matter of “the topic” as a spring-board, let’s look at the actual entry you have from Grennel. It’s a roundhouse of speculative right wing grievances that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic of this article. What does Sarah Palin, union membership, big oil or Wall Street high-rollers have to do with this topic? Really, that inclusion is just out of place and hyperbolic. Again, very very sloppy. Brown is, indeed, a secondary character here. That’s not debatable. His investigation gets the space it does because it specifically addresses the veracity of the tapes (which are our central topic). The primary characters here are ACORN staff, Andrew breitbart, O’keefe and Giles. Brown, Hannity, Beck, Harshbarger and everyone else who explored the tapes are all secondary here... they are not at the heart of the topic in question. Look at it this way, if we want to insert an opinion editorial on Browns investigation, how about an opinion editorial on Glenn Becks (or even Breitbarts) reliability? Beck did, after all, have the distinction of airing and fanning this story when it first broke... he was, in fact, chosen by Breitbart himself (by his own admission) against all other news commentators, to distribute the story. (The result of youor precedence would be a long-winded roster of the worst parts from everyones resume.) on that note, I’d like you to look again at the Colombia Journalism Review article which faults Breitbart for having a dishonest political agenda in the timed release of his tapes... See here> [[7]] That citation was removed by a Breitbart supporter because he said that it gave "undue" weight to speculation on Breitbarts political motives. AzureCitizen approved the edit (and i'd like to ask him if he could address that again.) So if that standard still applies, it applies to Grennels statement about Brown. Brown is no where near as central to this case as Breitbart, and the CJR article actually has footage of Breitbart voicing a political agenda with his tapes. If the standard of not including such material still applies, it should apply across the article, not just to Breitbart (Please lets get AzureCitizen in on this one, since he apporved the removal before.) The whole argument that anyone who calls this video production dishonest is "part of ACORN" has to go. It as tired as accusing someone of being part of the Illuminati. At this point, why not blame John McCain of being "part of ACORN" See here>[[8]], and here[[9]] So the argument that all nay-sayers are "with ACORN" is just unreasonable at this point, and is especially so in light of recent events. On that note, Please take the time to review the Shirley Sherrod case, and Breitbarts attempt to sell a lie within a lie. (it offers a VERY important lesson, and a significant cautionary tale, about exactly what we are doing here.) At this point it isnt just opinion that Breitbart is unreliable, and that his information needs to be taken most cautiously, its an absolutely verified fact. Eg, Shepard Smith, Fox News Stuio B, 7/21/10, when specifically discussing Andrew Breitbart and BigGovernment.com, Smith explains that he didnt air Breitbarts Sherrod story "because of the history of the videos on that site (ie, BigGovernment.com, my clarification), we did not and do not trust the source (Breitbart, my clarification)." See here> [[10]] Mind you, those videos which Shep is citing include the very ACORN tapes we are discussing. Wikidemon writes "...if we're going to have a section on what Brown has to say on the subject, we ought to put that in the context of who Brown is and what his biases MIGHT be." (emphasis mine) Okay, that really seems to be the point which both P&W and LAEC are making. But please understand, that standard goes double for Breitbart, OKeefe and Giles, who are at the very center of this story. By your precedence, similar material about a context that reveals the biases of, say, Breitbart or Okeefe, is entirely approprite to this entry, and should be included. Please own the precedence if you are going to support it. Now, with the above in mind, I'd like to get an unambiguous answer from all of you- If Wikidemons stated standard applies, are you all then saying that you are okay with this entry including editorial opinion which (like the Grennel submission) comments on political motive, and that is at least as reliable and relevant as you claim Grennel to be? Do you all support that precedent? I'll wait on everyones answer. Thanks.Ceemow (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC) One more thing, we need to add that O"keefe etc... are being sued by Juan Carlos Vera. See here http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-maass/acorn-worker-sues-james-o_b_641076.htmlCeemow (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• To me the whole debate here looks a bit like a cop handing out tickets to the ones sitting in the back -(bed) of a pick-up truck while ignoring the drunk driver(s).TMCk (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• • If Brown's statement is worth including, it is worth including in its actual context. Brown's comments are the words of a single person expressing his position. The context and text of the statements themselves are clearly matters of judgment, not facts. Look at this statement: "The evidence illustrates that things are not always as partisan zealots portray them through highly selective editing of reality. Sometimes a fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor." Is he proclaiming an investigative fact that the filmmakers and their supporters are "partisan zealots", that they have engaged in "highly selective editing of reality", that there is a "fuller truth... on the cutting room floor"? Those are not evidence, nor are they legal conclusions. They are evocative colorful public statements. They may be stated in the context of an official, professional or even a legal opinion, but they are simply one man's commentary. If you want to argue that they have some special status because he is acting in an official role as Attorney General, or that he was asked for his opinion by a Republican governor (a tangential point) then we should clarify his actual role in things. Most reliable, neutral third party articles I could find on the subject do go into that context. This one[11] mentions that Brown found himself between his liberal base and supporters of the filmmakers, and includes quotations that Brown was not playing things straight. This one[12] describes Brown as being in a "political pickle" and mentions an editorial that says he was not an independent investigator. And so on. We can source the skepticism of Brown's neutrality to reliable sources, we don't need a partisan editorial for that. We don't need to get into the background of everybody who voices an opinion, because usually that is clear from context. The background of Breitbart, OKeefe and Giles, are pretty obvious, but to the extent they are part of the story their involvement is mentioned. Where it isn't clear from context then we do usually include a link or a short description, for example "conservative blogger xxxx says yyyy", "[newspaper xxxx] columnist said yyyy", or "zzzz university professor xxxx, who wrote several books critical of the theory that aaaa, said yyy". - Wikidemon (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Brown's comments are the words of a single person expressing his position. The context and text of the statements themselves are clearly matters of judgment, not facts.

I disagree with your personal opinion. Brown was summarizing the results of the AG Office's investigation during a public press statement, and he did so in the capacity of head of that office. His use of the descriptions "political zealots", "highly selective editing of reality", "fuller truth is found on the cutting room floor" not only accurately convey the findings of the investigation, but appear rather restrained and conservative after one reads the actual full report. Please be aware that the investigation delved into other exploits of the political filmmakers, such as posing as racist abortion proponents, breaking federal laws, espousing that conservative activists should create "chaos for glory!" -- to say they are zealous is mild, and even "overzealous" falls short.

We can source the skepticism of Brown's neutrality to reliable sources, we don't need a partisan editorial for that.

No; we can source opinions about Brown's neutrality to all kinds of sources, but that doesn't serve our purpose here. Please provide sources that indicate Brown's office has not conducted its investigation in a neutral manner. The two links you have provided above do not convey that the AG's investigation was not neutral; they only repeat the political opinions of a few local conservative republicans (Quinn, Issa, Agen, Poizner...). The manufactured talking-point minority view that the AG's investigation was politically timed, motivated and conducted (or even summarized in public statements) in a biased manner, does not meet WP:WEIGHT requirements for inclusion. I've also not seen a single source indicating that the minority view is factual. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)