Talk:ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy

COPYVIO

Yes, I'll clarify here, as requested.

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

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

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

The concern of WP:COPYVIO is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is it a LINKVIO problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I found this here under copyright contributory confringement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focusing on the LINKVIO issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 to 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AzureCitizen, see this for another LINKVIO issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#MMfA_link_violates_RS_and_LINKVIO Like you, I asked them to come here. Warning, the first guy who reverted me does not interact as we do. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Recent edit reverts

I'd like to discuss recent reverts by User:Xenophrenic to avoid starting an edit war. If he can see that my edits are supported by a consensus of other editors, I think he'll stop reverting. First, the article consistently refers to California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown. Nobody except a California political junkie knows who that is, but everybody can readily identify Jerry Brown. I propose that he should be identified as Jerry Brown consistently in the article mainspace.

• You'll note that I left your edit (changing the DA's name from his full name to just Jerry Brown). Xenophrenic (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, you didn't. In the "Criticism of videos" section: "Following his own six-month investigation into the videos from three of ACORN's California offices (see "Response By State And Local Government" section, above), State Attorney General Edmund G. Brown [emphasis added] cited O'Keefe for working with the specific intent of damaging ACORN, and not acting as a truly objective journalist reporting a story." Was that overlooked in your haste to revert an edit you find politically inconvenient? Phoenix and Winslow (talk)

• Incorrect; I did. Searching through my last edit, I don't see any Edmunds in the text -- but if you really think you see another instance, please feel free to change it to the more recognized form of the name. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Second, the parent article ACORN consistently identifies critics of the organization as Republicans. This clearly raises a possibility that their criticisms may be motivated by partisan bias. Identifying Jerry Brown as a Democrat is therefore appropriate, since his findings could also be influenced by partisan bias. Identifying the Brooklyn district attorney (Charles Hynes) involved in the case as not only a Democrat, but a candidate endorsed by ACORN, would also be appropriate for the same reason.

• I disagree. If there are reliable sources indicating that various District Attorneys are acting not by the rule of law, as required, but instead acting by political motivation, then we might have justification for inserting otherwise irrelevant weasel words descriptors. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Such a source isn't necessary. Their political affiliations are significant and have a bearing on the story. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's necessary. Please provide a link to a reliable source explaining this significance & bearing, so that I may read up on it. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Third, in the "Criticism of videos" section, quoting an ACORN employee and an ACORN attorney is inappropriate. Agents and spokespersons for ACORN can be expected to criticize the videos, just as surely as they can be expected to breathe. Their criticisms are not notable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The criticisms do not need to be notable. Notability is a requirement for article subjects, not for the various facts and content in an article. Of course critics are going to be critical - that is what they do. Inclusion and exclusion of criticisms is a matter of balance, weight and NPOV. I see you have boldly deleted certain criticisms because, as you say, they were expected? I have reverted your deletions based on that non-reason. If there is another reason you feel those criticisms or statements by involved parties are not appropriate for this article, we can certainly discuss it. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• They don't belong in this section, at the very least. It's interesting to me that you seek to exclude the party affiliations, but seek to include reactions from ACORN spokesmen whose allegiance to the organization is more obvious. How do you justify including the latter, but excluding the former? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't; the two are unrelated. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else interested in this discussion? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Brown's party affiliation is significant and has a bearing on the story. A left-wing source, the Huffington Post, chose to describe him as follows: "Brown, a Democrat running for governor, said the tapes were highly edited."[3] Here's another, from the San Diego Union Tribune's online edition, signonsandiego.com: "The report from Brown, who is running for governor as a Democrat, was released on the day that ACORN dissolved as a national organization."[4] Then there's the San Diego News Network: "... Brown, the presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee."[5] Then, of course, there's the parent article here at WP that consistently identifies the party affiliation of ACORN critics, and this article identifying O'Keefe, Giles and Breitbart as conservatives. Pretending that their conservative affiliations can be dragged to the podium at WP, while leaving Brown's party affiliation out in the hallway, is the essence of what WP:NPOV is all about, Xenophrenic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand my objection. I am not claiming that Brown is not a Democrat (although with all the party-swapping happening lately, who can be sure?). My objection stems from your inaccurate assertion that "Brown's party affiliation is significant and has bearing on the story." It does not; unless you can show me a reliable source that conveys that it does. There are plenty of sources that mention he is an ex-governor, or is presently running for governor, or is a Democrat, or is old as the hills, etc., by way of describing the person (the same thing we accomplish in Wikipedia articles by linking the name), but I still haven't seen a reliable source supporting your personal opinion. Also, you keep referring to other Wikipedia articles and asserting that if it is okay to insert unsourced "significance and bearing" in those articles, then it must be okay to do so in this article. No, it isn't okay, and perhaps those other articles should be reviewed and corrected as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a dodge that I suspect you've used in the past: "Run along now and correct all those other articles, because this one is written correctly." If The Huffington Post, and the local mainstream media in San Diego agree that Brown's party affiliation is significant and relevant to the story, and the consensus of other WP editors at this article and the parent ACORN article is that the Republican/conservative affiliations of ACORN's critics are significant and relevant to the story, then Brown's party affiliation is significant and relevant to this article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else going to weigh in on this issue? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to the specific "Republican"-labeled critics (be they a congressman, a senator, a district attorney, a state attorney general, or any other elected official) that are labelled as Republicans in the parent ACORN article? I did a quick glance-over, but had trouble finding them. --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks AC, here they are: "Throughout the election season, supporters of Republican candidates portrayed ACORN's submission of invalid voter registration applications as widespread vote fraud. In October 2008, the campaign for Republican presidential candidate John McCain released a Web-based advertisement claiming ACORN was responsible for "massive voter fraud," a point that Sen. McCain repeated in the final presidential debate."[6] [emphasis added] "In 2009, in light of various scandals a number of Democrats who once advertised their connections to ACORN began to distance themselves, as Republicans began to use ACORN to portray Democrats as corrupt."[7] [emphasis added] If we're going to identify the Republicans in this family of stories (or "conservatives" in the case of O'Keefe, Giles and Breitbart), we should also identify the Democrats. Wouldn't you agree? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and posting the parent-article portion that gives you cause for double-standard concern. After giving it some thought, it occurs to me that context is key here in examining Wikipedia article political party labeling. There was a well documented and reported House/Senate member political split over ACORN and voter fraud in which the Republican party campaigned extensively on the issue, so it seems to me that in the above text excerpts it was a salient feature of what was being discussed. To see how readily apparent that is, just try redacting the political affiliations (Republican and Democrat) from the rest of that text and it no longer makes any sense. Did you notice that while "Republican" is mentioned three times in the text (as you bolded it), "Democrat" is also mentioned twice?

Conversely, in the CA AG's case, the story isn't that he is Democrat, but rather a sitting State's Attorney General who released the results of his offices criminal investigation into ACORN. Have there been any mainstream reliable sources that have questioned the integrity of the investigation in light of Brown's status as Democrat? If so, they are worth examining and considering and perhaps including here, as long as they have something more to contribute than speculative insinuation.

If there are any other instances of individual Republicans being labeled when there shouldn't be labeling, please do bring them up. Do you feel that it is wrong for John McCain to have been presented as the "Republican candidate" in the text above? --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Have there been any mainstream reliable sources that have questioned the integrity of the investigation in light of Brown's status as Democrat?

No, but that isn't what I'm suggesting. There are at least two mainstream reliable sources which have simply identified Brown as a Democrat, which is what I'm suggesting.

Do you feel that it is wrong for John McCain to have been presented as the "Republican candidate" in the text above?

No, I believe that is correct; but for the same reason, I also believe that it would be correct to present Jerry Brown as a "Democrat" -- or perhaps, as one of the mainstream media sources did, as a "Democratic gubernatorial candidate." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand now - clearly you're not suggesting that Brown's status as a Democrat is being called into question regarding the ACORN criminal investigation, you're just pointing out that he is a Democrat and since there are sources that refer to him as a Democrat, you feel it would be correct to identify him as a "Democrat" in the article here. This brings me back the point about context; wouldn't you agree that in the cited examples you provided above, the Republican/Democrat label was an important and salient feature of the "story" being reported? --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's an editorial from the Orange County Register, quoting an ACORN official (David Lagstein, then head of ACORN's San Diego office) giving a speech to a Democratic Party group: "according to David Lagstein, Acorn's chief organizer in San Diego, the state's top law agency is in ACORN's corner. In a recorded speech he gave to the East [San Diego] County Democrat Club last month, Mr. Lagstein said that every bit of the communication he had with Mr. Brown's office suggests that the fault will be found with the activists who made the videos, not the people with ACORN."[8]

"In ACORN's corner" is a bit of slang from the world of boxing. It means that Mr. Lagstein believed that Mr. Brown would be taking ACORN's side during the investigation, rather than acting in a neutral investigative capacity, and that "the fix was in." Here's the recording of Mr. Lagstein's remarks: [9] Mr. Brown announced his investigation on October 1. On October 9, the San Diego ACORN office dumped an enormous amount of documents into their dumpster, including documents containing the personal information of clients. This may have been an attempt to "scrub" the records. Mr. Lagstein made the comments described above by the OC Register at the East County Democrat Club on October 15.

I'm a bit surprised that this hasn't surfaced previously. Other editors seem to be very, very thorough in acquiring all of the remarks by Mr. Brown. Somehow, this was overlooked. In light of Mr. Lagstein's recorded remarks, wouldn't you agree that Mr. Brown's party affiliation acquires much greater significance? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I thought we weren't suggesting that Brown's status as a Democrat was an issue in the investigation? If we are, we think we need to clarify that real quick before we proceed further. Would you mind specifying once more for clarity? Thanks! --AzureCitizen (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that since ACORN has supported Democratic party candidates and causes, Mr. Lagstein's reliably reported (and recorded) remarks indicate that he believed Mr. Brown would be in their corner, a mainstream media reliable source (the Orange County Register) has consequently raised a question about Mr. Brown's impartiality, and Mr. Brown's subsequent exoneration of ACORN employees and excoriation of O'Keefe and Giles, Mr. Brown's status as a Democrat is an issue in the investigation. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just got back to the board. Okay, I understand now that you aren't trying to identify Brown as a Democrat with regard to the inherent fact of his party affiliation, but you feel it should be identified specifically because you feel it raises questions of his impartiality with regard to Mr. Lagstein's statements. What do you propose for wordings of that effect, while being careful to avoid WP:SYNTH? --AzureCitizen (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose simply adding the phrase "a Democrat" after Mr. Brown's name, and including the quote from the OC Register editorial (and a citation to that source, plus a link to the YouTube recording of Mr. Lagstein's remarks), at an appropriate spot in the "Response by government and state authorities" section. The article lede also mentions "leading to speculation" at Salon.com, a progressive online magazine; to preserve NPOV, the speculation about Mr. Brown's impartiality at conservative online magazines should also be mentioned in the lede and body of the article. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, at last I've had a chance to carefully read up on the links and take a look at the materials! Based on what I saw, I would think that with proper attribution, a quote from the OC Register editorial should be permissible concerning Mr. Lagstein's comment about his communication with folks at the AG's office, probably following the AG investigation report material in the "Reponse" section. Do you want to work up a proposed wording for that?

With regard to the "a Democrat" label, the OC Register editorial did not address that or portray the situation as such (ACORN = democrat leaning, Brown = Democrat, ergo Brown biased in favor of ACORN, etc). Instead, the editorialist used words to this effect: "We hope this is not the case. Mr. Brown has proven that he can be a maverick and that he can, on occasion, espouse liberty-advancing principles. Here's an opportunity for Mr. Brown to demonstrate his independence as the top lawmaker in the state despite ACORN's assertions that he is in their corner." So the editorial seems to be basing it's position on independence as the top lawmaker in his state rather partisanship and party labels, hence I'm still not entirely convinced it's appropriate to tack the label on in that fashion.

Also, with regard to inserting OC Register material into the lede, I think that may be a bit much given that it's still an just an editorial, not mainstream stuff. Is there any chance Fox News covered this, and thus you could find a more credible link therein rather than a lone newspaper editorial? Still, I understand your concern about the tail portion of the last sentence of the lede (starting with "leading to speculation...") and it's citation to the Washington DC correspondent for Salon.Com. It would be fine with me if you want to just snip that portion off, and move it all the way down to the bottom section ("Criticisms") instead. Let me know what you think... --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

More references to Brown's party affiliation

Here's a link to an article at the San Francisco Chronicle's online site, sfgate.com, identifying Mr. Brown as a Democrat in the article lede and directly quoting the most damning remark by Mr. Lagstein:

Attorney General Jerry Brown, a likely Democratic candidate for governor next year, faces political blowback no matter how he rules on the undercover videotaping by conservative filmmakers at offices of the community group ACORN in Southern California ... Attempting to show Brown's bias in his investigation of ACORN, conservatives circulated audio clips of Dan Lagstein, ACORN's lead San Diego organizer, speaking at a Democratic Club meeting in El Cajon last month. "The attorney general is a political animal as well," Lagstein said. "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."[10]

Still not entirely convinced? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Convinced that the material should be in the article - yes!  :) Convinced that we should tack on "a Democrat" as a label - not yet. The San Francisco Chronicle article speaks to politics and political pressures, but it doesn't make an ACORN-Democrat Brown-Democrat partisanship allegation either. Nonetheless, good work on finding more material, I can appreciate that this article is not an editorial like the one in the OC Register, plus it included a response (for balance) from Brown's office with regard to the statements issued by CA AG spokeswoman Christine Gasparac. --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you something: why do you believe that the "Democrat" label should not be tacked on? Since you suggested Fox News, here's a link to a story on their national network [11] and another to a story on their local San Diego affiliate. [12] Both of them identify Mr. Brown as a Democrat, and a gubernatorial candidate. So I've found five different news sources from across the political spectrum -- from Huffington Post to Fox News -- that found it necessary to identify Mr. Brown as a Democrat. Why do you disagree with all of them, particularly when some of them explicitly mention the possible political consequences to Mr. Brown in the upcoming election? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

For another mainstream news story whose professional journalist author found it necessary to identify Mr. Brown as a Democrat, here's a story from the local CBS affiliate in Los Angeles. [13] One other factor not mentioned yet is that both Mr. Brown and his party affiliation are well-known to anyone in California. He was the governor from 1975 to 1983 and was progressive before it was cool, earning the nickname "Moonbeam." For most California news media, and even some national media, it's unnecessary to identify him as a Democrat. But Wikipedia has an audience that includes both worldwide readers, and American sixth-graders in Connecticut who never heard of Jerry Brown before. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the "a Democrat" label should not be tacked on in such fashion because the only purpose of it is to directly imply partisanship with undue weight right at the start. In each of the examples you provided above, they do not follow the format you've suggested; none of them say anything like "Jerry Brown, a Democrat..." All of them start out speaking about the Attorney General. Later in the text, they mention he is a "Democrat running for Governor," or "the presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee." I am not objecting to including information that Brown is a Democrat anywhere within this article, just the way this has been proposed so far. I have an idea for how to facilitate that which I'll elaborate on below...

Here's another, even more "on the nose" article from Richard Grenell at the progressive Huffington Post. It's so spot-on that I'd like to quote it at some length, if you don't mind:

It must be campaign season. 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. But what is most troubling about Jerry Brown's use of the Attorney General's office to campaign for his return to the governor's mansion is that his cavalier press conferences, media interviews and announced investigations are only chasing Democratic political issues while ignoring real public safety concerns. Brown has turned the Attorney General's Office into a political machine with subpoena power -- and Republicans and their allies are the target.

In the month of April alone, Brown has launched investigations to embarrass Sarah Palin, aggressively promote union membership, clear ACORN of criminal activities, play catch-up on the Wall Street scandal by trumping up charges against Wall Street giant Moody's, go after an oil company politically active in defeating California's new green house gas emissions law, and grab headlines on issues ranging from home foreclosures to former child star Corey Haim's death. In just one month, Brown has shown that his race for governor starts by using his legal office to help traditional Democratic allies beat back their opponents. The tactics Jerry Brown is using and the public position he is abusing leaves the public with no other choice but to ask Brown to give up his position as the top law enforcement official in California if he is to run an honest campaign for governor.[14]

What's your reaction? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My first reaction was "Wow, this is interesting!" I was surprised I hadn't heard of the stuff sooner and it sure cast the Attorney General in a bad political light. Then I re-read it with a more skeptical eye and noticed that this is an opinion piece and the characterizations are entirely of the author's own making; he was appointed by President Bush and served as the primary communications advisor for four Republican ambassadors. That doesn't invalidate his opinion, but its an opinion piece and up to reader to decide whether it is true. For me personally, it does not sway me to believe that Brown cleared ACORN because he is a Democrat, nor do I buy into the theory that the ACORN investigation was just whitewash with a preordained outcome, but others may have a different reaction.

Back to what I was discussing above, I don't think we should up-front label Brown "a Democrat," but there is another way to resolve this. So far, we've been looking at whether or not to tack on that label, and also about adding a sentence or two after the AG investigation in the "Government response" section (sourced, not original research, addressing Mr. Lagstein's statements). Now that you've found more material (Grenell's opinion piece), you might be able to expand on this further, and therein it would be a logical to include that Brown is the Democratic gubernatorial in the process, perhaps even using direct quotes from one of the citations. That would accomplish the goal your seeking, would it not? But to do so, it is becoming apparent that expanding these items falls more into the category of political criticism than the category of "Government response". Perhaps we should add new subsections to the Criticism section instead, one called "Criticism of the ACORN undercover videos" and another called "Criticism of the California Attorney General's Investigation", and then in the latter you could expand the sentence on Lagstein's comments into a paragraph and bring in quoted material from Mr. Grenell along with other sources. What do you think of that idea? --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary to sway your opinion regarding Mr. Brown's alleged politicization of his investigation. It is only necessary for you to acknowledge that the question has been raised by a reliable source. In this case, the Huffington Post is quite progressive. Mr. Grenell is a notable person in his own right. I WP:BOLDly broke out Mr. Brown's investigation, and the reactions to it, into their own subsection. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Your response is a bit confusing; you asked for my "reaction" to the Grenell article, I gave it, then you respond be implying that I expect my opinion had to be swayed on whether or not the Grenell material was a source that could be used in the article. Instead, I specifically suggested you bring in quoted material from Mr. Grenell along with other sources and expand on it along with creating new section specifically for criticizing the Attorney General's investigation. --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've also added a section on the consequences of this controversy for ACORN. Please review and comment. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, using one article (SF Gate) and one editorial (Mr. Grenell's piece) criticizing Jerry Brown, too much emphasis and viewpoint pushing using block quoting. The inserted section is almost as long as the entire Attorney General investigation results section, which is still a part of "Government response". There is material in there about Sarah Palin, union membership, Wall Street, oil companies, home foreclosures, and even the death of Corey Haim. The impression is one of undue weight and too much of an attack on Jerry Brown's politics personally, with little speaking to probative content on whether or not the ACORN investigation outcome was pre-ordained. This is how I would revise it, using two paragraphs with no block quoting:

Some conservatives, including Breitbart, believed that the Brown's office took ACORN's side prior to the investigation's outcome due to comments made by Dan Lagstein, ACORN's lead San Diego organizer.<CITATION TO SF GATE> Speaking at a Democratic Club meeting in El Cajon, Lagstein 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."<CITATION TO AUDIO CLIP><CITATION TO SF GATE> Asked for comment, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said that the ACORN probe has not been prejudged.<CITATION TO SF GATE>

Richard Grenell, a former spokesman for Republican UN ambassadors writing in an editorial for The Huffington Post, accused Brown, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate, of using this investigation for political gain. "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? [He is] chasing Democratic political issues while ignoring real public safety concerns. Brown has turned the Attorney General's Office into a political machine with subpoena power -- and Republicans and their allies are the target." <CITATION TO HP>

Let me know what you think. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks good, and generally I'm a big fan of "shorter." (It's an encyclopedia, not the Library of Congress.) In the second graf, instead of "using this investigation for political gain," try "using this investigation and others for political gain." That more accurately describes what Mr. Grenell said. Also, I've just noticed that sources differ on whether Mr. Lagstein's first name is Dan or Dave. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good to me. With regard to "Dan" or "Dave", maybe you could just use "Mr. D. Lagstein", and the initial "D" can be switched to his first name if it ever becomes clear which is correct? --AzureCitizen (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can leave out his name entirely. He's really a minor player in all of this. Just identify him as "ACORN's lead San Diego organizer." Thanks for your help with this, AC, and I hope Xenophrenic has been satisfied. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3) Accurately reflecting the source is good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grenell's Editorial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi all, The Grennell Editorial is out of place and totally irrelevant. It should be cut. It is a criticism of Brown, and only tangeitally related to the ACORN tapes. It's better posted on the Wiki article dealing with the AG himself.

It presents conservative conjecture as a solid point relevant to the investigation of the tapes. For example-- "Brown has turned the Attorney General's Office into a political machine with subpoena power -- and Republicans and their allies are the target."

How is this relevant to this article? Especially since this whole story is really about the attempts by conservative activists to "take down" (their own words) what they saw as a "liberal organizing group." (we've had plenty of coversations over the latter term... remember?)

Keeping the Grennell quote only distracts from the truths revealed by Browns investigation, as well as that by the GAO and other investigations into the tapes. Need I remind you that these were legal investigations by the very legal organizations which our country empowers to carry out such work?

If we include Grennells quote, then we might as well include every bit of contentious conjecture from every side of this issue (eg, at this point, why not bring up Hannah Giles relationship with the militantly bigoted Clash Church community, her fathers organization? Its about as relevant a point as Grennels embittered response.)

The Grennel insert seems like a transparent attempt to obviate the meanings of the various investigations into the spread of this story. In light of the recent case with Shirley Sherrod (which features Breitbart himself caught as being both negligent and dishonest), we should be careful about how this story is framed. So again, i think Grennell section needs to go.

BTW, the recent finding from the GAO also must be reinserted. Its only fair. thanks.Ceemow (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How is this relevant to this article?

Well, that's easy. It exposes a political motive for Mr. Brown's rhetoric in his report. An attorney general usually doesn't write like that. That sounds like an ambitious politician with an axe to grind.

Keeping the Grennell quote only distracts from the truths revealed by Browns investigation ...

What you see as "truths" are seen by others as the components of a smear campaign. It is our duty at Wikipedia to fairly represent all significant points of view. And if you think public prosecutors are infallible, and could never be motivated more by political ambition than the facts, let me remind you of Mike Nifong. He was disbarred. For a Republican example, there's Jim Ryan and his witch hunt against Rolando Cruz. Remove Mr. Grennell's quote, and you'd better find something equally representative of conservative thinking to replace it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Phoenix and Winslow,

I'm sorry, but I absolutely disagree.

This is an article about the ACORN video scandal, not about speculation on Browns larger political goals.

If you are going to insert materials that only speculate as to Browns motives, then, by that standard, it would be even more appropriate for this article to include material which speculates about Okeefes and Giles's motives for taking down ACORN (especially when the Giles has admitted she knew nothing about the group to begin with.) .

There are PLENTY of such articles, and we can spend eternity arguing their applicability here. (The links are on the previous talk pages, but I will be more than happy to submit them again if necessary.)

For example, many sources have pointed out Hannah's militant Christian roots. This article is about Giles's project, so by your argument, we ought to include background information from Hannah's personal life (eg, Doug Giles’s Clash Church) that offer speculations as to her motives as a right-wing activist.

Why not insert a reference to James’s experience at Rutgers, and the fact that he was asked to leave the dorm because of his use of racist insults? This is about O’Keefe’s project, and so that information is really FAR more relevant here than anything about Browns career (ESPECIALLY partisan speculation.)

But by wiki standards, thats inappropriate for Giles and OKeefe, and even moreso for Brown.

With all due respect, you are inserting speculative conjecture in order to posit the possibility of a left wing conspiracy, and that’s WAY OUT OF BOUNDS. People can tune into BigGovernment.com for that information, but it is not relevant or appropriate here.

The Grennel material has to go. Ceemow (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello again,

Phoenix and Winslow, your wrote above--

Remove Mr. Grennell's quote, and you'd better find something equally representative of conservative thinking to replace it

Um, i totally disagree here.

This isnt about conservative versus anyone elses thinking. This is about a media event, how it was reported, what its consequences were, and how it was investigated. As such, the article does not have to represent "conservative thinking", because that's political commentary (not appropriate to an encyclopedic entry of this sort, by Wiki's own standards.)

The article only has to reflect the material events as they have happened. Its not an opinion piece.

As such, i am sorry to say that the recorded events as they had happened do not adhere to an ideological complaint by conservatives that they are being "targetted" by Gerry Brown (who was appointed by republican Arnold Shwarzinager to investigate this case).

This is especially true since the subject of this article is an infamous attempt by conservative activists to target an organization which they saw as liberal. Lets not try to confuse who was targeting what in this case.

I dont mean this in a bad way, but I dont know how you can even entertain the submission about Grennell as appropriate. It conjectures about a subject only marginally related to this case, in an attempt to obviate the truths of several investigations. Thats just pushing propaganda, especially if you are trying to use this article to sell the idea of a "smear" campaign by Brown.

Again, the article doesnt have to meet a conservative standard, just an honest standard that is faithful to the events as they truly have happened. If you want a section detailing conservative reactions, then it should be separate from the section on investigations into the tapes.

I sincerely hope that the details of the Philly ACORN video release were not removed because it wasnt sufficiently representative of conservative opinion (even though the very conservative Van Susteren herself called the production unconvincing.) .

Also, we need to reinsert the recent findings by the GAO. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/21/acorn-gao-investigation-finds-no-misuse-of-federal-dollars/ this is at least certainly more relevant to this article than Grennells commentary.

We should have more input into Grennels words, because I think a consensus needs to weigh in... but until then, we need to remove the Grennell material because it is inappropriate. Ceemow (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The material about Mr. Brown's motives isn't "speculative conjecture." Read Mr. Lagstein's remarks at the East County Democrat Club on October 15, 2009. It was just two weeks after the investigation was announced, and nearly six months before the final report was published. Mr. Lagstein was assuring his fellow Democrats that there wasn't anything to worry about, because Mr. Brown's people had assured him that Giles and O'Keefe, not the ACORN employees, would be found at fault: the outcome had been predetermined; "the fix was in." Would you care to explain Mr. Lagstein's remarks? He wasn't a paid Republican operative, after all, but a high-ranking official at the San Diego ACORN chapter. Really, I'd like to be able to agree with you, but this doesn't go away so easily. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we need to keep in mind WP:TRUTH. There are lots of different views on what the Lagstein incident could mean, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not whether we think something is true. For example, consider my take on what may have happened with Mr. Lagstein: when criminal investigators do their work and speak with multiple parties, they have wide latitude to say whatever they want and can even lie (legally) to persuade people to talk. A common tactic is to approach a party and put on airs of "this wasn't your fault, it's the other guy, c'mon, help us piece the real facts together." They do this to both parties to lull them into a sense of ease thinking they are "on their side", then they coax out all the information they can. Later, they bring all the fruits of their investigative work together, sort out the things that conflict and weigh the discrepancies, and come to logical conclusions of fact. In Lagstein's case, he probably got this idea from speaking with personnel in Brown's office early on, then gleefully reassured other supporters of his impressions (or made them up of his own volition in an effort to quell fears and turmoil). When the remarks were then touted as "evidence" of a predetermined outcome, the AG's spokesperson was right to set the record straight and make it clear that no preliminary findings had been made. As a result, "The Fix Was In" doesn't resonate with me, but that's just my opinion, which is no more or less valid than anyone elses.--AzureCitizen (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello all, I hope you are all having a beautiful Friday

Hi Phoenix and Winslow,

Please dont take this the wrong way, but the story you are telling shifts focus away from the actual meaning in the article. This isnt a forum to assert such elusive conspiracies (a subject better left to political blogs.) This is an encyclopedic entry about a media event.

Again, it would be more appropriate to include material citing the Okeefe’s purported racism, than to cite Grennells distrust and paranoia.

O’Keefe’s history is far more material to the article. If we want to include commentary on motives in this piece, then information about Okeefes seedy past is far more relevant to this story, and should be included.

If you want to include Grennells material, then a concession has to be made for entering material about Giles’s background in militant Evangelization, Okeefe’s dismissal from a Rutgers dorm because of racism, criticisms on Breitbarts (un)reliability, etc...

These issues speak entirely to the possible motives of the actual subjects of this article for accomplishing the very topic of this article.

The thing is P&W, we had this conversation a long, long time ago, precisely about Giles and Okeefe (eg, Okeefe’s history of racism, etc...), and it was determined (after much mutual haranguing) that such material violates the Wiki standards on BLPs.

If that is the case with Okeefe, then it is even more true for Brown, who is only mentioned tangentially as one of the investigators into the tape, and not its producer.

If we cannot put in contentious material about the people who are at the very heart of this story, then we cannot enter wild speculations about Brown. (If you want to, we should have an arbitration set up to determine that... I actually would whole-heartedly support that.)

Consider this— People representing the “conservative perspective” had, during earlier discussions on this article, adamantly opposed the inclusion of Joe Conason’s input by saying "he's with ACORN".

This is also how the same people responded to the update from the Brooklyn DA.

At that time (maybe 6 or 7 months back), any criticism of the tapes was dismissed by contributors with a bias for Okeefe, by stating (falsely) that any such critiques came "straight from ACORN."

If Conason cannot be cited because (supposedly) “he’s with ACORN”, then Grennel cannnot be cited because his hysterical statement (let alone his professional position) puts both his words and his allegiance solidly with Breitbart.

A Few months back (AzureCitizen knows what I am talking about), there was even an attempt to mangle the words of Carol Leonning in order to remove her criticism of the false financial figures featured on the ACORN tapes.

An editor with explicit support for Breitbart tried to contort the actual meaning of Leonings statement, and erase her conclusions about the financial figures cited, despite the complete straightforwardness of Leonnings words. (In the process he also went so far as to post my own location online, and accused me of being an ACORN worker... thankfully, Wiki staff took care of the matter tout-suite!)

But to include such criticism from RSs like Leonning meant that we had to make sure the sources were reliable and agreeable to a consensus of editors (the Grennell material is not... at least myself and Xenophrenic are of the same stance on this one.)

By accommodating the dismissive reactions to material which (because they did not reiterate Breitbart) were described as “ liberal smears against conservatives on behalf of ACORN,” so much solid material was left by the wayside, to the detriment of this article's integrity.

(Again, If the discussion between Leonnig and Van Susteren about the Philly video was removed from this article, then its only appropriate that Grennels marginal input goes too. )

What I am saying, P&W, is that the Grennell quote attempts to continue a partisan line of conjecture in this article; one that claims that anyone who criticizes the tapes is doing so because they are “with ACORN”, and part of a massive conspiracy to slander conservatives (again, the irony of that argument against the background of what is being discussed is absolutely overwhelming.)

That is totally out of bounds for a wikipedia entry, and damages the neutral integrity of the entry. Furthermore, it’s a hysterical posture.

Look, with the recent Sherrod case, O'Keefe's appearance on Good Morning America over his Census work, the arrest in New Orleans etc..., its already clear that the people who put this video ensemble together are not reliable.

Even as it stands, the article accommodates too many of the proven lies established by Breitbart.

And Andrew Breitbart is a man whose organization Fox's own Shep Smith describes as totally unreliable (precisely because of his history of posting partially edited soundbytes.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/342HP/shepard-smith-unloads-on_n_655013_54613732.html

(again, if we want grennel in, then lets also include Sheps critique of breitbart... again, its more relevant to the subject than Grennell, and far less politically motivated.)

Remember again, that Okeefe was called out on GMA for editing out important material from his Census tapes (btw, why hasnt that been added to OKeefe’s article?).

(incidently, it is interesting that Breitbart went from describing George Stephanopoulos as a “profile in media courage” for hosting him, to a “sandbagger” and “Clinton era hack” all in the same day, just because George asked O’keefe about the material edited out of his tape, his racist background, and his arrest in NOLA ... Breitbarts memo switch is only bested by his clumsy handling of the recent Shirley Sherrod case.)

Speaking of Shirley Sherrod, Breitbart is now in trouble for slandering a good woman and mangling her words for political purposes through a misleading and partial soundbyte.

http://www.salon.com/news/shirley_sherrod/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/07/22/charles_sherrod_civil_rights_hero

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/fooled-again-by-breitbart_b_654594.html

http://open.salon.com/blog/scott_rosenberg/2010/07/22/breitbart_fiddles_while_the_msm_refuses_to_burn_him

(If Grennels statement on Brown is appropriate, then why wouldnt these reactions to Breitbart, the very man who propagated the story, be as well?)

And Okeefe, rather than defend his work, plead guilty to a plea deal in NOLA... this despite promises that a court case was the exact forum which Okeefe wanted in order to do a little political soap-boxing.

All this means that we have to be extra careful with narratives established by such interests. If you find such material facts as evidence of a liberal conspiracy, then there are plenty of fora that can host that rhetoric.

But here on Wiki, its an editorial opinion, irrelevant to the article, and entirely outside of BLP standards (again, lets put it to arbitration.)

The article is about ACORN, not about Brown. If you want to include skepticism about Brown, you cannot throw in such an explosive charge, precisely because of the same reasons we cannot enter any material about Okeefes purported racism.

By your standard, we can also enter this criticism of Breitbart by Bob Cesca--

"For background purposes, it's important to note that Andrew Breitbart is an attention-whore who is desperate to emulate his mentor, Matt Drudge, and this isn't the first time he's released misleading videotape "evidence" of African Americans behaving badly (or so he claims) in order to drive traffic to his various websites while augmenting his status as a player in the modern conservative movement."

That is equivalent to the Grennel quote— its an editorial, but it at least addresses the very person respopnsible for propagating this story.

By including the Grennel statement, you are inviting a perpetual back and forth of incidental material that enumerates each political fault from every person cited in this article, as per their detractors. With respect to Okeefe alone, that will weigh the article down heavily and stretch it out for miles (how much moreso when material about Breitbart, Harshbarger, Giles, Lewis, Glenn beck, Brown, Hannity, Rep King, etc... is entered.)

If we support that kind of back and forth, then we have to prepare for this article to become a message board of tit-for-tat.

For all these reasons, we are either going to have to eliminate Grennel, or reconsider how to insert his input, because as it stands, the inclusion seems like an embittered defense of what has proven to be indefensible.

I think this matter needs to go to arbitration.

Lets submit it and see what a neutral party thinks.Ceemow (talk) 15:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello AzureCitizen,

Hi again and happy HOT summer!

I sincerely admire your balanced and courteous efforts to find a workable solution in good faith. At the same time, let me remind you about the degree of contention that surrounded the establishment of the Criticisms section months before.

Perhaps you remember that we had to revamp any such criticism to its most delicate phrasing in order to insert it. Shouldnt the same standard apply to Grennell, who is not addressing our subject, but Jerry Brown?

Also, if criticism of the investigations are included (and i do think that's better than inserting it into the investigations section), then we also should include criticism of the producers themselves(as distinct from the tapes themselves.)

I don’t think its balanced to have one without the other.

Ceemow (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ceemow, what about the quote from Mr. Lagstein? Doesn't that make Mr. Grennell's remarks a great deal more than just "speculative conjecture"? He was saying, in effect, "Fuhgeddaboutit. The fix is in." His statement has been quoted in a reliable source. How do you explain that away? A legitimate question has been raised concerning Mr. Brown's impartiality. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi P&W,

please read Azure above... again, the insertion of Grennel invites insertions from some of the strongest critics of BigGovernment.com (re: the statement by Cesca, etc...)

If we have Grennel, then lets include Bob Cesca, Cenk Uryk, Joan Walsh, Shep Smith, Eric Boehlert, etc... These authors raise the legitimate question not just of Breitbart and OKeefe's impartiality, but also about their overall integrity and prejudices. (and again, its the actual work of Breitbart, oKeefe etc... that forms the subject of this entry.)

Also, picking at that point means that we can also outline the impartiality of Hannity, Glenn Beck, Megyn Kelly and everyone else who propagated oKeefes videos. If such an assesment applies to the videos' investigators, it applies even more strongly to their producers/promoters.

Ceemow (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Grenell (continued)

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

Xenophrenic - Exclude it

Ceemow - Exclude it

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm simply going to repost my unanswered question from above. I really can't add more to the discussion until it is answered: Has there been the required significant "representation in reliable sources on the subject" of bias in the AG office's investigation, or just opinion pieces and conservative echo-chamber noise? This article is about the video tapes created to besmirch ACORN. Several investigations into the matter were done by several law agencies, so we should note the results of those investigations. But assigning conspiratorial motives to each of those investigating agencies is beyond the scope of this article. Please show me the plethora of reliable sources that justify your insertion of such a peripheral and fringe "criticism" into this article, regardless of how neutrally and accurately worded. WP:WEIGHT says it shouldn't even be here. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• My stance is outlined above. I’m fully in agreement with Xenophrenic. I dont think Grennell is relevant at all. That being said, let me emphasize that if we include the rebuttal by Grennel (which details his assumptions about Brown’s biases), then we should also include a section of criticisms which details the biases of the videos' own producers and promoters (Breitbart, okeefe, etc...). Six months ago, when we were composing the "Criticisms section", someone emphasized that such material, though valid (eg, OKeefes expulsion from a Rutgers dorm for using racist slurs, the assesment by the CJR of Breitbart blackmailing AG Holder, etc...) violated BLPs because they were deemed extrapolative (I believe by TE, but i could be wrong). If that standard still applies, it should apply over-all..., if it applies to Giles, okeefe or Breitbart, then why not to Brown? If we are going to speculate on the political motives of Bown's investigations, then why not on the motives of those whose actual work is the subject of this entry? We have a section criticizing the videos (and that section is very delicately worded), but not their authors. There is a tremendous amount of valid material on OKeefe's personal/professional history as far as his lack of credibility goes. There is even more material on Breitbart since the Sherrod/Spooner case has unfolded. This material is at least as relevant to their motives for “taking down ACORN”, as the purported bias that Grennell says is relevant to the investigation for which Brown was appointed (and again, this is an article about a project by Okeefe.) So if we want to include “Criticisms of Browns Investigations” as a section, then we have to have a “Criticisms of the Videos Producers” section as well. And since Grennell is a noted Republican spokesperson (hence at least as politically invested as he claims Brown to be), then editorial material from the contributors at MediaMatters, Bradblog, etc... should be not be off limits. (however, we should be aware that the "tit-for-tat" possibilites could get very cumbersome from this arrangement, like they did in the former Hannah Giles article.) But I think the better, cleaner, and more sensible option is just to scrap Grennell altogether, for exactly the reasons outlined by Xenophrenic. Keeping Grennel only lowers the bar of verifiability. Ceemow (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Has there been the required significant "representation in reliable sources on the subject" of bias in the AG office's investigation, or just opinion pieces and conservative echo-chamber noise? That's how opinion pieces are published: they're represented in reliable sources. Are you saying that The Huffington Post isn't a reliable source? Read WP:RS. Even their own blogs are considered reliable sources for their own opinions, and there are a lot of them. Any material on OKeefe's personal/professional history may belong in his biography, but not here. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• P&W, When we composed the criticism section, we were obligated to use materials that criticized the tapes on formal, not personal, grounds. Conspiratorial opinion pieces dont qualify, especially if they are as tangential and extrapolative as Grennels. It doesnt matter who publises it, its the actual verifiable substance of the argument, and its solid relevance to the entry, that are important. Grennels comments really have to go. They lower the bar of verifiability, are quite potentially libelous, and inject an unsuitable degree of hyperbole into the article.Ceemow (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Azure wrote above- "There are lots of different views on what the Lagstein incident could mean, but the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not whether we think something is true... When the remarks were then touted as "evidence" of a predetermined outcome, the AG's spokesperson was right to set the record straight and make it clear that no preliminary findings had been made. As a result, "The Fix Was In" doesn't resonate with me, but that's just my opinion, which is no more or less valid than anyone elses"
• Xenophrenic also wrote- "In summary: The minority viewpoint of the political critic is not prevalent in reliable sources; is misleading as to the actual shape of this dispute; has no significance to the actual article topic, and therefore has no place in the article."
• These are two of several good reasons that the Grennel quote must go. The rest of the discussion only backs up the point. P&W, you yourself suggest the contribution is an opinion piece. And if, as you say, "Any material on OKeefe's personal/professional history may belong in his biography, but not here" (here being an article about Okeefe's own work), then that same standard goes double for the supposed motivations of AG Brown. It doesnt belong here. This article isnt about him. (You really cant have it both ways.)Ceemow (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that The Huffington Post isn't a reliable source? --P&W

No, I am not. I asked a question; this one: Has there been the required significant "representation in reliable sources on the subject" of bias in the AG office's investigation, or just opinion pieces and conservative echo-chamber noise?

So where is the required significant reporting on this supposed bias? We have an opinion piece (and a little parroting of that same opinion by non-RS talking heads), but nothing that justifies it being in this article about the ACORN videos. Please see WP:WEIGHT: It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. None of those, with just one exception, are reliable sources. Echo...echo...echo. As for the one reliable source, it says nothing about Grenell, and even adds this statement from Lagstein about the audio clip, "The Republican Party is trying to create a new scandal out of nothing. I asserted 'my belief' that the investigation will find fault with the videographers and not with ACORN because no one at California ACORN broke the law and the videographers did," Lagstein said in a statement.

So, again, where is the significant coverage in reliable sources that show this "bias" meme deserves a spot in this article? Was your unsuccessful search exhaustive, or will you be continuing the search? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. None of those, with just one exception, are reliable sources. All of them are reliable sources, for the limited purpose of sourcing their self-published authors' opinions. Read the last subsection in WP:SPS: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves[.]" Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Here is what WP:SPS really says: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1.the material is not unduly self-serving;

2.it does not involve claims about third parties;

3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

• I'm sure you can find several blogs, opinion parrots and propaganda sites that echo the "omg AG bias!" meme of the day, but that isn't our purpose here. We're trying to justify having that content in the article in the first place, remember? To do that, we need to show that it has received significant reliable source (read: with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) coverage. WP:WEIGHT requires it. Let's find those sources, please. I've looked extensively, and I don't see them. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]Xeno, these aren't being presented as proof of claims about third parties, nor are they presented as proof of claims about events not related directly to the subject. They are being presented solely as expressions of opinion. And I'm not suggesting that they should be included in this article, not even as links. I am suggesting that Mr. Grenell's comments, in a thoroughly reliable source for all matters, should be included as their representative, following WP:WEIGHT policy about minority opinions. I will concede at this time, pending further review, that Mr. Brown's report and the many other criticisms exhaustively listed in the mainspace represent a majority opinion. But Mr. Grenell represents a substantial minority opinion. As has been demonstrated by Mr. Lagstein's remarks, this is not opinion based on "speculative conjecture," but on facts, and Mr. Grenell's opinion should be in the mainspace as its representative. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)