Talk:ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"Selectively edited" videos; 2nd lead paragraph concerns

Ok, I'm back. I will follow Xenophrenic's prior recommendation and we can start over at the last stable version. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead and did that. It was probably a reasonable idea by Xenophrenic, so I'm glad we agree on it. What should we work on next? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Good plan. One small problem, however: you didn't revert the article to the last stable version, you reverted it to a previous stable version. The result was the loss of numerous (over 50) non-controversial edits including repaired links, corrected spelling and grammar, reference formatting, etc. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, so I fixed it; including returning edits you made like removing the lawsuit stuff from the Giles mini-bio, your citation-needed tagging of the "no forms were filed" text, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a good place to start would be the forward thinking idea to standardize the various investigations that were conducted by the authorities with regard to the videos and their official findings. I see Xenophrenic did some considerable work on this, the results looked good, and there was no discussion on the talk page in opposition to it, so I will start out by re-inserting this key material and fix the lede accordingly. Credit goes to Xenophrenic for the wording... AzureCitizen (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll note that I still don't see any disagreement expressed with the changes to the lede section noted (twice) above. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

BRD- I'll start from the top. The first problem is that all of the seconday source references cited do not simply say that the videos were "selectively edited" - actaully the fox news source didn't use the word "selectively" - but instead attributed the words "selectively edited" to Jerry Brown, so we must as well. Moreover, here is how the Fox source phrased it: "Brown, a Democrat running for governor, said the tapes were highly edited." That is how I think it should be said, or something close, when we bring up Jerry Brown's characterization.

On the other hand, I will put back in the changes to the end of the first paragraph (or something very close). I believe we had agreed on that previously. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am now removing the wikilink connecting the words "selectively edited" and the wikipage Fallacy of quoting out of context. Imposing one's own definition on the term "selectively edited" in this manner cannot be justified. "Selectively edited" is not nearly such a specific term, nor does the page for Fallacy of quoting out of context say anything about "selectively edited" or "editing" of any sort. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed selectively edited, partly because it is not properly attributed, but I don't really think it should be there anyway.

Hello SpecialKCL. Along with Wikidemon and Xenophrenic, I continue to consider "selectively edited" as being more appropriate in keeping with the various investigations that all concluded that O'Keefe's material was heavily edited. As the CA AG determined in their official report, "The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O’Keefe and Giles." Similarly, the Brooklyn DA found the videos to heavily edited with sources reporting that "many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister." The Wikipedia article on quoting out of context may not contain the words "selectively edited," but it is clear that all of the relevant government investigations found that O'Keefe had presented the ACORN employees actions and statements out of context by the way he edited his videos. With regard to sourcing for those statements, it is unnecessary to quote Jerry Brown directly since there are secondary sources that quote the official investigation results determining that the videos were heavily edited. Per WP:BRD, I am therefore going to respectfully revert the edit, as you're aware that three editors have opposed your position that O'Keefe's videos were not selectively edited. However, since only some of the sources say "selectively edited" and most say "heavily edited," I would be willing to at least concede that only "heavily edited" is fully supported by all of the investigation reports, and so on revert I will change it to "heavily edited" if you prefer that. If you don't like it, you can change it back to "selectively edited," or you can continue to argue and make the case here on the Talk Page that O'Keefe's videos were not selectively edited based on the official reports and the secondary sources, but please do not remove it again unless consensus swings the other way. If anyone else would like to comment on this, please join in. Oh, I almost forgot, I saw you added a "citation needed" tag to the point about "eliciting damaging responses"... if you check the reference citation at the bottom of p. 23, it says that O'Keefe said he was doing this to damage ACORN. If you think we should remove "eliciting damaging responses" to replace it with something more direct like an exact quote (i.e., "O’Keefe stated he was out to make a point to damage ACORN..."), we can certainly explore that. Do you think O'Keefe wasn't trying to elicit damaging responses? AzureCitizen (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Every secondary source, whether it is Fox News, NYT, WSJ, or CNN, they all have to say "according to Jerry Brown" or some variation thereof before calling the videos "heavily edited." Why would it be any different on Wikipedia... Besides, isn't wikipedia supposed to be based on secondary sources? How many time have I been lectured on that since I got on here? lol. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Azure, just consider what you're saying here: "with regard to sourcing for those statements, it is unnecessary to quote Jerry Brown directly since there are secondary sources that quote the official investigation results determining that the videos were heavily edited." So if the NYT writes "according to Karl Rove, Barack Obama has three testacles," you're going to tell me "it is unnecessary to quote Karl Rove directly since there are secondary sources that quote Karl Rove," and so we will therefore just write unequivocally that "Barack Obama has three testacles?" I mean I realize that I'm going to be outnumbered here - I haven't seen many wikipedia users that aren't raging obama fans or former fans (I generally find you to be very fair though, don't take that the wrong way) - but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

Your analogy is not applicable. The independent internal investigation by Harshbarger determined that the videos were heavily edited. The Brooklyn DA's office determined the videos were heavily edited. The CA-AG office determined that the videos were heavily edited. Several news sources accessed the videos, then the transcripts, then the unedited video footage that was made available, and determined the videos were heavily edited. We're not talking about turd-blossom here; several law enforcement agencies and news sources have concluded the same thing. Are you claiming they are all pushing a false, liberal meme? Xenophrenic (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is just silly... The "independent internal investigation?" You mean the Democratic politician (Harshbarger) hired by ACORN, who didn't even have access to the full ACORN videos but nevertheless concluded they were somehow doctored and misleading? District attorney's offices are not "law enforcement agencies." They are elected, party-affiliated politicians. It is just silly to assert that Democratic politicians who endeavor to investigate their own political party or an organization that is essential to the election of Democratic politicians should be treated as some sort of unimpugnable objective source. That's why special investigators exist. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This may come as a shock to you, but everyone has a political affiliation. Facts are facts, regardless of whom brings them to light. (May I note that I find it interesting that defenders of the Breitbart videos will alternate their defense between "the unedited videos were always out there!" and "he didn't have access to the unedited videos!" at will?) Xenophrenic (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"everyone" is not a political operative, which apparently does come as a shock to you. The overwhelming majority of people are not working for a political party, even in government. Facts are facts, but opinions are opinions. I have never said that all the unedited videos were always out there.SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the wikilink, I don't think that's remotely appropriate. "Selectively edited" can mean a million different things, and that is precisely the reason every Democrat and ACORN ally keeps using. Technically you could say that literally every single piece of footage put on the news - any news - is "selectively edited" if you meant it in the sense that they have to edit things down into short clips and have to use editorial discretion to "select" the important parts of the video they have to tell the story. Or it could mean that somebody flagrantly doctored it, switching audio and video, dubbed over it, and all of that the way that ACORN and professional left wingers have been accusing him of doing. It's just so laughably false to anyone who actually watches the videos, whether it's the full videos or full audio or even the edited ones. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The wikilink is appropriate. However, as an alternative to wikilinking, you can simply spell out in the lede that the videos were not just heavily edited (as any news editor might do), but were done so to mislead, distort and change context. There are plenty of investigation reports that can be cited as sources for that. And yes, I've looked at the videos myself, and the fact is self-evident; nothing "laughingly false" about it. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well then name the great big distortions or omissions that weren't shown or mentioned as the story was initially unfolding. The point here is that it's not remotely appropriate to suggest that all of these ACORN employees did nothing wrong and were completely victims of "misleadingly edited" tapes. It is true that we later found out that the tapes didn't necessarily mean what we might have thought they meant. As an example of this, I think Juan Carlos Vera is probably "innocent" (not in a criminal sense because none of these guys committed criminal offenses - even the To Catch a Predator busts don't result in convictions - but in the sense that I think he should be pretty much acquitted in terms of the offensiveness of his actions). We later found out that Vera had reported the pimp and prostitute to his cousin the policeman, which I believe, even though they didn't file an official police report. But that's not something O'Keefe could have known, nor does it mean he intentionally "distorted" the videos. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No one suggested that ACORN employees did nothing wrong. In fact, investigations have concluded that some acted inappropriately and unprofessionally. Some were suspended and even fired. What is being suggested is that without the misleading editing that was done, we would not have had the spontaneous uproar and outrage that caused, within just hours and days mind you - before any investigation, the defunding acts by Congress; the Census cutting ties; the IRS cutting ties, New York City freezing all funding, etc. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm stil waiting for the great big distortions or omissions that weren't shown or mentioned as the story was initially unfolding that would have kept the public outrage or the congressional defunding from occuring.SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the second paragraphs, that creates a raging weight issue that I don't think is justifiable. If we want, we could summarize it by combining them into one sentence or so saying something like "investigations by X, Y, and Z later characterized the videos as 'selectively edited,'" or whatever phrase we decide to go with. Your thoughts? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you that some summarizing can be done; not because of a weight issue, but because it is rather dry and reads more like a series of bullet points that have been squeezed together. As I noted above, "heavily edited" -- "no criminal guilt" -- "unprofessional and inappropriate behavior" seem to be the common denominator conclusions running through multiple reports. I just noticed I didn't summarize the CRS report in the lede yet, either. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I can either try to convince you guys of the absurdity of the left's mantra of "heavily edited," which I would prefer to do if people will be convinced, or I can just hammer Wikipedia's regulations, but I don't think the status quo is justifiable. As a strict by-the-book matter, I find this unacceptable for a plethora of reasons - especially given the readiness of many to throw the book at me regarding the use of primary sources vs. secondary sources over even the most minute issues - and I imagine it would probably end up in dispute resolution of some sort. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, just a note I wanted to mention: even though I don't necessarily disagree with all of it, in terms of Wikipedia policy, the section on "Media controversy" is an absolute joke and a nightmare. I'm almost wondering if it should be wiped clean as it basically appears to be an op-ed constructed entirely from interpretations of primary sources. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a mess, and it is far too big a section just to repeat the tired old conservative mantra that the media is liberally biased and didn't cover the story, followed by the media proving "oh yes we did, from day one". Wiping it clean is a bit extreme, but methodically trimming it down to nothing may happen anyway. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, I returned a couple source citations that were removed with these summaries: (rmv unnecessary source in favor of better ones.) and (→September 2009: removing maddow citation - unnecessary as there are 2 reaining). We should probably leave the sources intact in sections that are under discussion and revision. Once the content wording is stabilized and agreed upon, then we can trim away any sources that are redundant. Xenophrenic (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not just that the sources are redundant, but I can't see any reason why Rachel Maddow should ever be sourced. You wouldn't even recognize a clip from Beck's show on the talk page, let alone allow it to be used as a source in the main article. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The source you deleted wasn't a cite to Maddow. It was a cite to a Mediaite article about Maddow's coverage. I'm not defending the quality of the source (in fact, I didn't even look at it until just now); I was just saying we shouldn't be yanking source material out of the article while we are still discussing the content. (Unless the source just plain violates WP:RS policy to begin with, of course. Where does Mediaite stand?) Xenophrenic (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Mediate is not a news source, let alone a non-partisan one. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Phony Controversy

I decided to create a new section for this because I thought Xenophrenic touched on the heart of the matter here over whether the videos were "misleadingly edited" or not and how they should be characterized in wikipedia:

"What is being suggested is that without the misleading editing that was done, we would not have had the spontaneous uproar and outrage that caused, within just hours and days mind you - before any investigation, the defunding acts by Congress; the Census cutting ties; the IRS cutting ties, New York City freezing all funding, etc."

The wikipage, as it stands now with its use of "misleadingly edited" and whatnot, is intended to give the impression that Xenophrenic just outlined. Can anyone show me the great big distortions or omissions that weren't shown or mentioned as the story was initially unfolding that would have kept the public outrage or the congressional defunding from occuring? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

SpecialKCL66, this statement of yours reveals a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about. You write above (I add the numbers):

• (1) "whether the videos were "misleadingly edited" or not and (2) how they should be characterized in wikipedia:"

(1) It really makes no difference "whether" they were or not. Wikipedia doesn't care and editors are not allowed to add material based on "whether"....which leads us to our next point:

(2) We characterize it, not as "whether" it was or not, but as the sources characterize it. When in doubt, then use exact quotes.

Filmfluff (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point, and the secondary sources characterize it as "according to Jerry Brown" or some variation of that. So you agree with me that we should characterize it that way as well? SpecialKCL66 (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

According to the office of the California Attorney General. That would be in the reference. Filmfluff (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm saying we should be characterizing it that way in the main article, the same way that secondary sources do. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It's really rather simple. They were misleadingly edited and the California Attorney General's office stated that "The video releases were heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O'Keefe and Giles." Other sources may use even stronger wording. Filmfluff (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources state that the investigations reported the videos were heavily edited to distort what happened; the investigations involved dozens of investigators working over a period of months. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources that report this, and the results of the official investigations are more relevant than a single individual like Jerry Brown. What is your key point here? Do you want the article to use quotes like "Jerry Brown said" because you want to imply to the reader that "heavily edited" was just Jerry Brown's characterization, rather than the characterizations provided by the official investigation reports? If not, perhaps you could clarify so that we might examine the suggestion in the best light possible. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Phony Controversy 2

I decided to create a new section for this because I thought Xenophrenic touched on the heart of the matter here over whether the videos were "misleadingly edited" or not and how they should be characterized in wikipedia:

"What is being suggested is that without the misleading editing that was done, we would not have had the spontaneous uproar and outrage that caused, within just hours and days mind you - before any investigation, the defunding acts by Congress; the Census cutting ties; the IRS cutting ties, New York City freezing all funding, etc."

The wikipage, as it stands now with its use of "misleadingly edited" and whatnot, is intended to give the impression that Xenophrenic just outlined.

Can anyone show me the great big distortions or omissions that weren't shown or mentioned as the story was initially unfolding that would have kept the public outrage or the congressional defunding from occuring?

(if anyone has an answer to this question, please respond here. otherwise, please comment in the previous section) SpecialKCL66 (talk) 07:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

My take on why the article should identify the videos as heavily edited is because the various investigations determined the videos were heavily edited, for which there is ample sourcing. If O'Keefe had not manipulated the videos to distort what had happened, the investigation results may or may not have found criminal liability on the part of ACORN employees, but they also wouldn't have concluded that the tapes had been heavily edited. Respectfully, exactly what would have happened with spontaneous uproar and mass outrage is more speculative and delves into our diverse individual opinions, debates of which turn into more of a forum-like discussion rather than making collective progress on the article. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to second that motion, again. I've been following the James O'Keefe page, and I assume we've all seen the videos. Where exactly are they distorted? That seems pretty important to how we're going to treat these issues on both of these pages. (I don't know whether I was supposed to make my comments here or in the other section or what. I see there are two already so it's kind of confusing.)DoctorFuManchu (talk) 08:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't studied this in detail but just off the top of my head, I remember the issue about how O'Keefe. was dressed. Didn't he film himself in his pimp outfit, perhaps even him in his pimp outfit appearing to enter an ACORN office, and then immediately cut to clips of ACORN employees shot from his point of view (and not showing him)? This gave the impression that he had spoken with ACORN employees while dressed as a pimp. He strengthened that impression in at least one subsequent television interview -- he was dressed as a pimp, the person interviewing him said he had gone into ACORN offices dressed that way, and he sat there silently and allowed that falsehood to be propagated. In fact, in all of his visits he was dressed in a respectable, conservative manner. JamesMLane t c 11:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that argument before. I don't see why that matters much. I did see some interviews where he failed to correct people like that. Maybe it was because he was being polite, or didn't find it important enough? DoctorFuManchu (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It mattered enough to O'Keefe that he went to the trouble of putting on his costume, filming himself in the costume, and taking care not to film himself in the clothes he actually wore to the ACORN offices. It mattered enough to O'Keefe to dress up again for the TV interview. He could've satisfied the "just being polite" standard by dressing normally and thus not further strengthening the dishonest impression his editing had left. It mattered enough to the interviewer to comment on it. It mattered enough to quite a few media outlets for them to report, as fact, the lie that O'Keefe was insinuating. JamesMLane t c 14:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point I guess. He should have been clearer about that. DoctorFuManchu (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

JamesMLane, he DID film himself in the clothes he actually wore to the ACORN offices. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 06:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point, which is another evidence of his malicious intent. Filmfluff (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

i doubt anyoe disputes that he had malicious intent. I don't know if that's evidence of it thogh DoctorFuManchu (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's just evidence of careful planning, and that it wasn't an oversight or carelessness. It required forethought and careful deliberation, but you're right, only a fool would dispute that. Filmfluff (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

SpecialK asked for explicit examples of where Okeefe misled viewers in his videos.

Where does one begin?

To start with, we have the case of Juan Carlos Vera.

Vera continues to be misrepresented on Okeefes youtube page, the BigGov site, etc, as an eager child trafficker with able connections (btw, thats a VERY serious charge to throw at an innocent person. Furthermore, when false charges of abuse are made like that, it means that real victims get put on hold while the matter in question is investigated by the authorities. It also lowers the bar on credibility for real victims... thats not something to be proud of.)

This is one clear example of what makes Okeefe, the Video Content, and BigGov.com so UNcredible.

We already know that JC Vera contacted police after Okeefes visit. We know that he contacted them with the explicit intent of having them intervene on behalf of Giles's fictional charges. Thats on the record, its verifiable, and that is how real RS’s report it. O"keefe knows this truth, but (both then and now) he refuses to address the fact.

BigGov, Okeefe, etc... have never offered any correction or retraction, or even a clarification on this matter, or why they decided to represent Vera so badly.

Thats wrong. That makes them un-credible. (If they have finally offered a correction, then that needs to be entered into the article.)

Omitting that fact (even a year later) is a blatant case of negligent irresponsibility as well as of bald-faced lying. There is no point mincing words there. (I mean seriously, even Fox news redressed and corrected the Vera issue only days after the story aired.)

As far as I know, Okeefe has never once corrected his (now debunked) characterization of Vera. And this, despite his almost childish demands that every newspaper correct even the most insignificant minutiae on his own work... Apparently, Okeefe refuses to abide by the same courtesy which he demands (another reflection on his lack of accountability, and by extension, his lack of credibility.)

We also have the case made by Carol Leonning concerning the grossly misleading figures which Okeefe featured in his videos for ACORN funding. (Even Andrew Breitbart wont touch that one, saying that he doesnt “own” that false figure, and that he is not responsible for the on-site claims made by his contributors... by all standards, thats an open admission of negligence from a self-proclaimed editor.) Someone who can put out that kind of a lie, and never discuss it, is someone who forfeits credibility, let alone responsibility.

We also have the fact that Giles went on Fox and misrepresented her experience with Brooklyn ACORN (the famous “tin can” episode, in which Giles played verbal slight of hand. She stated that ACORN was advising her to use a can to hide money from the government, rather than because of the abuse that “Sonny” would level at her when he demanded her cash.) Again, if she is a real journalist (or even just an honest person), she has the obligation to come forward and clarify her remarks..., so does OKeefe. But they dont. They did not then, and they havent yet. Certainly, its clear that their fan-base would never require that from them.

We also have the bizarre song-and-dance surrounding the actual access to Okeefes raw footage... a months-long resistence bracketed with conniving tricks, false claims of criminal behavior, an attempt to blackmail AG Holder and an utterly unconvincing Philly tape release (even Van Susteren could see through that one). And all this finally trumped by Okeefe himself, when he made the same plea in NOLA as that for which he castigated ACORN so harshly (eg, “just please play the whole tape!” ...the irony is really quite self-evident.)

The list goes on and on.

I know that there is an almost religious stock placed on O”keefe’s work by his supporters, but facts are facts. And the facts in this matter are not cloudy, or obscure, or negotiable despite the best efforts. As far as that goes, its a very clear and simple situation.

This matter is not an archeological dig, nor is it a “world famous” story. (I do annual work overseas, and I can assure you, NO ONE in other countries cares about James Okeefe, Andrew Breitbart, the ACORN video Scandal or what not. Like most Americans, people have far better things to do, and far bigger concerns than the work of a wealthy little boy who cant bring himself to be accountable even once.)

But especially in light of the recent CNN caper (and NOLA, and the revealing remarks by Liz Farkas, and the revealing footage shown by George Stephenapolous on GMA which was edited out of OKeefe's Census videos, etc..) , it can be said with full certainty that OKeefe remains a questionable source at best. I mean, no one asked him to attempt to film the seclusion, seduction and humiliation of an honest citizen like Abbie Bourdreau (oh wait, Ben Wetmore did.)

Still, I dont know why its so hard to come to terms with these simple basic facts.

Anyhow, I just had to share that. Have a great weekend everyone.Ceemow (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Labeling of AG's and DA's as "Democrats"

I see that the AG's and DA's are now prominently identified as "Democratic." Perhaps this is just a coincidence, i.e., not an attempt to label them for the purpose of implying bias in their law enforcement capacities, although I noticed the Governor who requested the CA investigation was not identified as a "Republican," which was probably just an oversight. However, on non-BLP Wikipedia articles, you see Congressman, Senators, and Governors frequently being identified as as "Republican" or "Democratic," while you never see district attorneys or attorney generals being labelled in such fashion. Can anyone point out any non-BLP article examples that indicate otherwise?

It would seem to me, that if other non-BLP articles do not label district attorneys and attorney generals as Democrats or Republicans when they are acting in their official capacities, which in turn implies that political bias was involved in the outcomes of criminal investigations, then there would need to be sourcing indicating relevancy and that it is not a fringe view. Was there any reporting in reliable secondary sourcing that there was any credible evidence that district attorney Hynes, former attorney general Harshberger, or attorney general Brown manipulated the outcomes of the investigations for political purposes? What does everyone else think? AzureCitizen (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that O'Keefe and company manipulated the tapes to give a misleading impression, and that someone here is manipulating the wording to lessen the impact of that fact and to give the impression that they actually didn't do it, but that such findings by multiple sources were just political machinations. The facts of the matter lay "on the cutting room floor", so to speak, and O'Keefe got busted. To give any other impression is editorializing, rather than letting the sources speak. Does O'Keefe deny editing the tapes? Are there any RS that prove he didn't do it? Filmfluff (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the above expressed conserns, another editor asks me on my talk page:

By the way, is it necessary to include the adjective "Democratic" re politicians such as Scott Harshberger, Jerry Brown, and Charles Hynes? I don't think there is any reference to Schwarzenegger as "Republican". It sounds partisan. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with his/her assessment. I took a look at the cited references in the article (most of them were deadlinks, by the way) and they did not specifically note the political party registration of the individuals, so I have removed those adjectives for now. However, during my search for replacement sources, I did notice several partisan commentary sites that make it a point to mention political party of some of those involved, with a wink and a nudge, as if to imply relevance or influence -- but they leave it at mere speculation. I would hope our Wikipedia articles don't sink to participating in that game. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be more concise and toned down

Now that this is no longer the hot news, it really needs to be made more like an encyclopedia article and less like a news item with every detail in quotes and cited. More summarizing is needed, which I attempted in the Lead. Get to the main points fast. And in the article, does each video need to be described in detail, since they have all been discredited as having been heavily and selectively edited to show the workers at their worst? The last paragraph of the Lead could be deleted or summarized; the dates of each report do not have to be in there. Wouldn't it be enough to say something like: "From December 2009 to June 2010, independent reports by AGs of 3/4 jurisdictions and the GAO were released. In summary, they found the videos were heavily edited to misrepresent the situations, and ACORN workers had not participated in or encouraged criminal acts in the actual encounters." Parkwells (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggest External links for reports

It would seem that the CA AG Report, the CRS Report, etc. should be included as External Links. References/citations to them should come from third-parties published in Reliable Sources, rather than directly from these reports. There is plenty of newspaper and other media coverage to choose from or include.Parkwells (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Heavily editied verses transcripts

It's pretty clear [as a matter of objective fact] that X,Y,Z people [such as Jerry Brown, Rachel Maddow, etc.] have said that the videos were heavily edited to portray ACORN in the worst possible light. That's not at issue. It is, however, equally true [as a matter of objective fact as well] that the two social activists posted the unedited transcripts online as well as the edited videos. All of this is verifiable by sources.

But people keep removing or otherwise jumbling up the latter fact (about the transcripts), and they really should either stop doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.150.42 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I just removed two edits of yours at the article since all I could find was an opposite statement (in the source). Can you provide the page number in the source that in your mind backs up your edits? Thanks.TMCk (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The source beats others' reports any day: http://biggovernment.com/author/jokeefe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.148.22.221 (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. It's not a reliable source per wiki standards, and even if it were, we tend to look askance at primary source sorts of material anyway. Biggovernment.com is no more reliable a source for this than MOveon.org would be for the left equivalent. You're essentially saying "the one we should trust is the guy behind it all who has a defined POV and definite stake...". Thank you, no.76.238.186.96 (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Partisan and No Coverage of "Unethical Behavior"

This page is highly toned and agendically motivated. There is also a lack of coverage of behavior that is considered unethical. The article only states that employees of ACORN did nothing illegal, and made no mention of what was considered by many, including Robert Gibbs the Press Secretary of the time, to be highly unethical behavior including advising a "pimp" on how to effectively use underage girls as prostitutes. The article implies that Congress mistakenly defunded the organization due to the later findings that the employees did nothing illegal. There is no evidence that Congress would have voted differently with this information at hand, and ACORN would have still been defunded. This is a very poor article edited by many biased sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill.williamsfour (talk • contribs) 04:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The wording you have deleted makes no such implication. Perhaps you mistakenly deleted the wrong text? I am restoring the properly sourced content that you have deleted. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Lede

Shorten Lede now that these episodes are in the past. It should be summaries of content of the article. Parkwells (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. That looks like an entire article at a glance. --24.52.143.225 (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

POV

proposer does not wish to change article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For example, the article attempts to defend ACORN thusly: "[O'Keefe] said he planned to use the prostitution proceeds to run for Congress, and never claimed he was a pimp." If someone says he's going to use prostitution proceeds to do anything, it's easy to deduce that he's a pimp, without his explicitly saying so. LOL And the article repeatedly points out things like "there was no evidence that the group, or any of its related organizations, mishandled any of the $40 million in federal money which they had received" -- as if the undercover videos had made accusations of mishandling money or participating in crimes. (The videos did not.) The point of the undercover videos was simply to make the public aware that some ACORN members had said some awful things. And that point was confirmed and reinforced when the California Attorney General, even after seeing the raw videos, complained about those members' "terrible judgment and highly inappropriate behavior". When 60 Minutes does investigative journalism, it wins dozens of Emmy Awards. When ACORN is the target of investigative journalism, Wikipedia's editors impugn and excoriate the journalist -- even while their article claims that the mainstream media has not impugned or excoriated him. 174.24.67.169 (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC) The article doesn't "attempt" to do anything, it just conveys what is in the cited sources. LOL I wasn't aware ACORN was ever the "target of investigative journalism"; do you have a link to that? And who was the journalist? LOL As for O'Keefe and Giles, they are not journalists, and I recall this: The Attorney General Office criticized O'Keefe for not acting as a journalist trying to objectively report a story from the facts, noting instead that O'Keefe stated he "was out to make a point and to damage ACORN". Even O'Keefe disagrees with you. LOL Xenophrenic (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for sharing your POV that O'Keefe is not a journalist. It's a little amusing that while the California Attorney General publicly said O'Keefe did not act as a journalist, that same Attorney General reprimanded ACORN members' "terrible judgment and highly inappropriate behavior" as a direct result of O'Keefe's work. Since when do Attorneys General level that kind of criticism based on "non-investigations" by "non-journalists?" LOL The web site of "James O'Keefe's Project Veritas" says, "Through Project Veritas, James O’Keefe brings investigative journalism outside the traditional newsroom and into your hands." Where exactly does O'Keefe disagree with the statement that he's an investigative journalist?" LOL 174.24.67.169 (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I don't have a POV about O'Keefe or Giles ... never met the kids, and don't really know much about them. You do know that PV is O'Keefe's website, correct? He could say on it that he is the Queen of England, but that doesn't make it true. As for your question, it is in italics above, as well as in the article.. Oh, and see WP:TPO under Section headings. So did you have any article improvements to suggest? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC) Oh, and I almost forgot: LOL. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I wrote that the name of the site is "James O'Keefe's Project Veritas." Doesn't that pretty much establish that I am aware it's O'Keefe's website? Sheesh, try to keep up. Whether he is a journalist or not is definitely a matter of POV. From what he put on his site, it's clear that O'Keefe's POV is that he is a journalist. Your POV is that he is not. The California Attorney General's POV, as I pointed out earlier, is one of mixed messages. As for the phrase in italics, are you referring to "O'Keefe stated he 'was out to make a point and to damage ACORN'"? This bit of hearsay, even if it were not hearsay, does not disqualify his as a journalist. I submit that almost all journalists are out to make a point. And many of them are out to damage institutions they perceive as corrupt: are you familiar with how journalist Bob Woodward damaged the Nixon Administration? Please stop changing the section heading. I looked at WP:TPO. It says "It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate." This section is devoted to the article's pro-ACORN POV; therefore your repeated changing of the heading is neither better nor appropriate. Changing the heading to say "This article doesn't have a POV" makes it appear that the subsequent sentence written by me -- For example, the article attempts to defend ACORN thusly... -- is a complete non sequitur. That's a below-the-belt debate tactic. I don't want this article to change one bit, because if anyone has doubts about Wikipedia's liberal bias, I can just point them to this article and their doubts will be erased. 174.24.67.169 (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Hey, I just noticed something. Somebody put this article into three categories about journalism: "B-Class Journalism articles | Low-importance Journalism articles | WikiProject Journalism articles". How is it possible that an article about a "non-investigation" by O'Keefe, the "non-journalist," could be placed into those categories?? LOL 174.24.67.169 (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC) There's a tactic I haven't seen before... if your side is losing a debate badly, simply hide the debate! Wikidemon, please do not change the section heading. Changing the heading to say "POV" makes it appear that the subsequent sentence written by me -- For example, the article attempts to defend ACORN thusly... -- is a complete non sequitur. That's a below-the-belt debate tactic. 174.24.80.204 (talk) 05:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Shamelessly Biased

I have never felt compelled to comment on a Wikipedia page before, but this page is clearly not written from a neutral point of view at all; it was obviously written by someone associated with or sympathetic to ACORN, just in the tone and the overall slant and characterizations of the different players; e.g. "the right-wing media". Even just clicking on some of the sources linked to the story reveals far more critical facts about ACORN and its employees than what this page would have us believe, which is that this innocent, upstanding organization was single-handedly destroyed by these two conservative zealots and their cheerleaders on Fox News, when the truth is more complicated. It's just too black-and-white and one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyhutch (talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

No mention of convictions?

At least 17 ACORN employees were convicted of voter fraud and related charges yet there is no mention of this in the article. I call the bias nature into question. The convictions came from investigations that were launched because of the video. Removing them is bias.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1:8000:BB8:A1F6:13D9:EEBF:37CB (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That does not appear to be correct. What source are you citing? Xenophrenic (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

POV header

I added a POV header to the top of the page. I recently learned of this scandal and looked it up, and I was surprised to find an entire article trying to explain why it wasn't such a big deal. I do not have an opinion of this, as I just heard about it, but Wikipedia should be a place about delivering the information that is not just factual but relevant. I feel that the controversy itself was barely explained at all. I think it would be a much more successful article if there were perhaps a "response" section or some such place to put all the comments that support ACORN. The first section in the article should be about the controversy itself as that is what the article is actually titled! --Bobjohnson111980 (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the POV tag, but thanks for taking it to the talk page as the tag requests. This article is about a controversial issue that was the subject of a lot of partisan politics in America. We can't really have people attaching tags every time they have an issue. The point here is not that there was a legitimate concern over the organization and a response dealing with the accusations, but that there was an attack video itself was more or less faked. The article is not about the organization and its merits, but the controversy that arose. Properly covering it means reporting, factually, that this was a setup, and then going into the details of what happened as a result. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Link to Lila Rose/2011 undercover videos

The justification for removing the link to Planned Parenthood 2011 undercover videos controversy from this edit [1] was "restore after AFD is completed". Is Lila Rose under AFD or was it confused for this AFD [2] for the Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy? 173.228.118.114 (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for the editor(s) who removed it, but I'd like to know the explanation behind its addition in the first place. Can someone explain the relationship? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Colleague of James O’Keefe doing the same thing a couple years later, controversy by creating undercover video targeted at non-profit organization. I don't feel strongly either way, but it does seem somewhat relevant. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

AG's Report quotations in the lead.

The lead extensively quoted the California AG's Report; given that this is already summarized, and given that it's giving WP:UNDUE weight to two quotes from it that don't have any particular prominence in the report itself (when the sentence before provides a quick summary), I don't believe that belongs in the article at all. But it definitely does not belong in the lead; per WP:LEAD, leads are supposed to summarize the entire article. Those quotes aren't even mentioned in the article; a one-sentence summary of the report, regardless, is more appropriate for the lead's coverage of it. If the quotes must be in the article, they can have a section further down, but they definitely do not belong in the lead, especially when it's already tagged as being too long. The lead is not the place for extensive quotations. --Aquillion (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)