Talk:ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy/Archive 4

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." 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." Then there's the San Diego News Network: "... Brown, the presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee." 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." [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." [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."

"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: 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.'"

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 and another to a story on their local San Diego affiliate.  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. 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."


 * 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. 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."  Asked for comment, a spokeswoman for the attorney general's office said that the ACORN probe has not been prejudged.


 * 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." 


 * 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 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) — Ceemow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:55, 27 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) — Ceemow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:55, 27 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) — Ceemow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:55, 27 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) — Ceemow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:55, 27 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 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:55, 27 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) — Ceemow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Civility and RfC
I have just a few minutes on my lunch break at work. But I want to stress WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA as we go forward toward RfC. It may take a day or two for me to get ready for RfC. Let's try to get along. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * P&W, I noticed that you told Ceemow it has been resolved that we will have a first RfC to decide whether or not Ceemow must wear SPA tags, then we will have a second RfC to decide the disputed ACORN content.  Perhaps you could explain the situation for everyones edification, since I think everyone else is thinking we're focused on getting ready in a day or two for RfC and trying to get along? --AzureCitizen (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I tried adding the following remark earlier; evidently I'm having connectivity problems. WP:TPNO states, "Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context."


 * In my first remark on this page I said, "Any possible bias on Brown's part." This obviously left open the possibility that Brown wasn't biased. However, Azure claimed I said "that Brown is biased," injecting certainty where there was none.


 * Also, the possibility has been raised that Brown was showing political bias in his investigation report in April. Xeno claimed, however, that others are saying Brown started the investigation in September for political gain. He has constructed this strawman and he's been beating it to death ever since.


 * WP:TPNO is a behavioral guideline. Please obey it. You only disrupt the process and bring discredit upon yourself when you don't. MyNameIsDenise (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * P&W reminds us to follow WP:NPA and to try to get along, and then without missing a beat, Denise strolls in and starts commenting on editors. Inaccurately, too.  Sad.  Xeno didn't "construct a strawman" that others are saying Brown started the investigation for political gain. What Xeno did was to cite Grenell's own words stating that Brown started the investigation for political gain own words, and then showed why Grenell was wrong -- and yes, Xeno will continue to do so every time someone comes up with the genius idea to insert anything from Grenell into this article.  Since you are new to Wikipedia with just a few edits, perhaps your comments are just the result of inexperience. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * She's new? Hi, MyNameIsDenise, my name is LegitimateAndEvenCompelling.  We love new people.  Here is some information that might be useful: WP:NEWBIES.  Please continue writing here.  L8r.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please try to be honest about this, Xeno. Yesterday, you started a lengthy remark to Wikidemon with, "The baseline position is ..." That entire paragraph doesn't even mention Grenell once, but you assign motives starting at "Some Wikipedia editors absolutely believe ..." In response to your "not missing a beat" remark, I missed two hours and 15 minutes of beats.
 * Yes, I did begin a reply in response to another editor's "baseline position" assertion; yes, I did not mention Grenell once in that post; yes, I did note that "some Wikipedia editors absolutely believe the investigation was tainted with politics and faulty". Honest. (Note: all of that is still available for reading on this page. See above.) Xenophrenic (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As a point of order, I did claim that nobody was trying to impugn Brown or his investigation, but I realized I was wrong about that and I thought I had stricken that part of my comment. My comment started "Nobody..." and I think Xenophrenic is right in saying that's not true, there are proposals afoot that would do just that.  I agree with Xenophrenic that content sourced to editorials, political opponents, etc., that the investigation is tainted, goes too far.  I think it's okay to note that there was some commentary and perhaps a minor political kerfuffle, but we don't need to get into the substance of the political posturing about Brown.  Anyway, carry on...  - Wikidemon (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not respond well to passive-aggressive behavior or dishonesty. MyNameIsDenise (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not respond well to okra or dog whistles. Equally applicable here. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Gumbo-hater :( - Wikidemon (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not respond well to passive-aggressive behavior or dishonesty Well, Denise, what do you think about Andrew Breitbart's behavior then?  Even many conservatives are faulting both his devious aggression and his dishonesty.Ceemow (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great! Just remember, this online community is somewhat different from a real life community.  Please take some time to learn some of the ropes before applying real world expectations to this digital world.  Our online conversation is limited to little comments, with no opportunity for the usual conversational back and forth.  As a result, little things can suddenly appear very big.  Just relax and if you have any problems with someone's behavior, please tell me and I'll guide you accordingly.  --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ([[

P&W, Civility is a very important ethic on these boards... do you think your own behavior has met that standard? Just try to be careful to practice what you preach.. Ceemow (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm doing the best that I can. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No P&W, you are not doing your best, you are being unfairly aggresive to other editors and you are not checking your work against other RSs. The record above is a clear demonstration of that. All i am saying is try a little harder.Ceemow (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Settle down, boys. It's a Wikipedia article. MyNameIsDenise (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"California Attorney General and gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown"
This is supported by the Orange County Register, with the following excerpts:

"California Attorney General – and gubernatorial candidate – Jerry Brown on Thursday released the results of an investigation into ACORN...

...Brown's investigation does little more than briskly criticize some of the "highly inappropriate" activities of ACORN and, in shrewd political fashion, shifts focus and responsibility from his purview." Drrll (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how the breezy, opinionated tone one news article justifies this departure from typical WP style, nor do I understand why it's necessary to point it out twice. Gamaliel (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most news articles on the subject point out the fact, I believe. Unadorned and by itself, whether in Wikipedia or its sources, "...and candidate..." or "...and Democrat..." is a presumption of bias by implication and the stuff of political rhetoric, not encyclopedias.  But a good many of these sources go into some depth on the subject.  A far as I can tell, Brown's candidacy is seen by most sources as quite pertinent to his investigation.- Wikidemon (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Most news articles don't have hyper-text linking available like Wikipedia articles, and therefore they may insert additional descriptive information by way of describing a subject -- but they do so without implying his candidacy has anything to do with the investigation. As far as I can tell, the only sources that push the meme that his candidacy has anything to do with his investigation are partisan opinion sources, or news sources that quote those opinions.  (I'm still waiting for just one link to a source that verifies as fact that Brown's candidacy has anything to do with the investigation.) Xenophrenic (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I pointed out two above, and it's easy enough to google others... Informally, I think 50-60% of the neutral, non-editorial sources that mention Brown's investigation do so in the context of the upcoming election.  - Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it appears to have been overlooked, I'll repeat it (yet again): Sure, we can find plenty of reliable opinion sources that claim the investigation was a political stunt (or that the earth is flat, or that Elvis is still alive, or that Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya), but until we have reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy conveying it as fact, please quit trying to advance the opinions and fringe theories in Wikipedia articles.
 * Now let's take a closer look at the six links you have provided to see what they really convey. Do they confirm as fact that Brown's candidacy has something to do with the investigation, or do they only quote a conservative Republican's assertion that there is a connection?
 * - Only says conservatives are "attempting" to show bias in the investigation; quotes Republican Quinn
 * - Quotes opinions from conservative Republicans Quinn and Agen; does not state as fact any influence of candidacy on the investigation.
 * - Wrong investigation; says nothing about candidacy influencing this investigation
 * - Does not say anything about candidacy influencing investigation; only notes that either Dems or Reps will be pissed once the investigation concludes
 * - This opinion piece does not say candidacy influences the investigation; suggests just the opposite
 * - Kidding, right? This article does not state that Brown's candidacy has any influence on the investigation, and only quotes an asserted opinion from conservative Republican Krvaric.


 * Yes, it is easy to Google for matching search words, but it is also easy to actually read the articles that pop up on the hit list.
 * As noted previously: (I'm still waiting for just one link to a source that verifies as fact that Brown's candidacy has anything to do with the investigation.) You've provided plenty of links that say either liberals or conservatives are going to be upset once the investigation results come in, but still not a single link that states as fact that the investigation was biased in any way.  Some of your links have quotes from Republicans trying to push the conservative meme (usually the same people ... it really wasn't that popular of a manufactured talking point, even among conservatives), but not one article linked above takes it from the realm of partisan opinion into the realm of fact.  Also, I just realized: Brown wasn't even a candidate until March 2, 2010 -- he's called a "prospective" candidate when those opinions were published.


 * Six links provided, and not one conveys as fact that Brown's candidacy (which didn't yet exist) was influencing the AG Office's investigation of ACORN. Six links that show some conservatives did indeed try to unsuccessfully float the "bias" meme, but it never gained traction.  The AG investigation ordered by California's "outraged" Republican governor has now concluded and the results made public, and it turns out there was no bias after all. Several months later, some editors are still trying to resurrect that meme in this article; perhaps they didn't get the memo.  I'm still waiting for just one source. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I won't quit. Sorry.  And I have read each article, more than once.  Your analysis is fundamentally at odds with WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, and the over-the-top arguments are taking us off topic.  All six sources (five reliable, one an illustrative opinion piece - and there are plenty of others) are directly on point for establishing that there is a political context for Brown's investigation, and that context is in fact part of the video controversy.  When the majority reliable sources report an issue as pertinent to the subject, so do we.  Your attempt to refute the sources sets up a straw man argument in each case that the sources are supposed to stand for a factual proposition that the investigation was faulty.  Who has proposed that?  Nobody is I am not trying to establish as a fact that Brown's investigation is a sham.  I only suggest that we report the obvious truth, presented by most of the sources, that the investigation took place in the context of local politics in which Brown was involved.  I wouldn't add any of the specific criticisms, but simply mention after Brown's conclusion that various parties commented on the investigation in light of Brown's political constraints and his as-yet-unannounced candidacy to run for governor.  I also wouldn't mind adding Brown's colorful analogy of reality ending up on the "cutting room floor".  The reader, if interested, can follow the citations to learn more.  To argue that we can't go with the sources that describe a political operative like Brown as conducting his duties based on politics, and comparing that to a flat earth theory, seems naive.  The baseline position is that politicians engage in politics, which is viewed through a political lens.  Investigating whistleblowers for gathering their evidence illegally is, on its face and irrespective of intent, a political act. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is worth exploring and it strikes a much better balance between the opposing positions and anything anyone else has proposed to date. Do you want to take a stab at composing a version of the text you're envisioning?  Obviously there are still complicated content permissibility issues to be settled but I welcome the new approach and would like everyone to see what it would look like. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but not right now - I have some other things to do. Interestingly, while we're talking, a different group of editors seems to be slow speed edit warring over this in article space.  It's a rather minor point to be getting so much attention.  - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. Maybe we can look at it later.  On the slow speed edit war, it's on an item that's included in the previously proposed texts, it is a minor thing but hopefully they'll see that (but this page has gotten huge and messy).  Quick note, the "editor" you redacted... has appeared at bottom claiming that you support including the Grenell editorial again. --AzureCitizen (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The baseline position is that the CA Attorney General's Office launched their investigation at the request of a Republican governor, at the height of the firestorm surrounding ACORN, right when everyone (liberal and conservative) were distancing themselves from the organization as fast as they could. It's not "Brown's" investigation, despite the convenience of calling it that because he heads it up. While every living soul has biases and a position on the political spectrum, those acting in judicial or law enforcement capacity are expected to set those aside. The expectation is that the AG Office conducted the investigation as it should have, and to inject into this article the speculation of bias, while it is considered "politics as usual", is not appropriate and goes against WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT.
 * "...a factual proposition that the investigation was faulty. Who has proposed that? Nobody is trying to establish as a fact that Brown's investigation is a sham." Not true, Wikidemon - and is in itself a strawman argument. Some Wikipedia editors absolutely believe the investigation was tainted with politics and faulty, but since they have found it impossible to substantiate, they instead resort to injecting as much innuendo, partisan opinion and speculation as possible in an attempt to establish doubt.  There is zero reliable sourcing to show any inappropriateness (political or otherwise) in the investigation, but there is plenty of available sourcing to show conservatives were pushing the "bias" talking points as best they could. If it were a fact that politics had anything to do with this investigation, then it belongs in this article; if it is just a conservative talking point about Brown, then it does not belong in this article.  Every single source link provided by you supports the latter.
 * "We're only reporting the obvious truth, presented by most of the sources, that the investigation took place in the context of local politics in which Brown was involved." Again we disagree, Wikidemon. It is not an obvious truth, it is your opinion, and not a single one of your sources support that assertion. Your sources show that conservatives were doing their damnedest to frame the investigation in a political context, but not a single source shows that the investigation actually took place in the context of politics.
 * With our disagreements acknowledged, exactly what content is it you'd like to see added to this article, and what form would it take? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We go with the sources, and each of the sources put Brown's investigation in a political context. It is a primary subject of most of these articles.  What part of these isn't political?  Brown was in a "political pickle", caught "between... a favorite among his liberal voting base and conservatives", his hand forced by the ACORN investigation to avoid "a potentially damaging public relations dilemma", "trapped in a political cage from which there will be no easy escape", and his investigation was "called into question".  Those aren't conservative opponents speaking, those are the words of the reliable sources.  A key piece of the ACORN scandal as it affected the California investigation is Jerry Brown's political situation.  If you want to go beyond the sources to argue government 101, then yes, attorneys in various positions are supposed to put their personal biases and self-interest aside, whereas politicians are supposed to engage in politics.  The conflict that comes when the attorney general is an elected  position, and where the one who holds it is jockeying for higher office, is a very broad subject.  Of course political opponents push these claims, and supporters deny them, that's how politics work and it's the basic definition of a political controversy.  That is all neither here nor there.  We're not here to evaluate the truth of those claims or opine on which side is right.  The reliable sources won't do that either, that's not their job.  We're summarizing what the reliable sources do say about the nature of the undercover video controversy, and Brown's investigation (including the political setting and the claims on both sides) is a small to medium sized piece of that controversy.  It's certainly not my opinion that politics is involved in the position of California Attorney General, that's pretty basic stuff and it's in all the sources.  I think I've outlined the basic content proposal: add the colorful "cutting room floor" quote from Brown summarizing that his investigation found that the filmmakers had twisted reality in their video, followed by 1/2 to 1 sentence to the effect that various parties commented on the investigation in light of Brown's political constraints and his as-yet-unannounced candidacy to run for governor.  We don't need to summarize or endorse the comments from those parties, just link to a reliable source article that mentions them. - 23:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

''We go with the sources, and each of the sources put Brown's investigation in a political context. It is a primary subject of most of these articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)''
 * I do not believe that is accurate. Mind you, I'm basing my observations off the six links you provided above, and I am still open to the review of supportive sources if some should ever be found. Each of the sources put Brown, and not the AG office's investigation, in a political context. If you are trying to say that the results of the investigation into ACORN might have a political impact on Brown, I won't argue with you - but I will direct you to a more appropriate Wikiarticle.  One about Brown's politics; not about investigations conducted by the Attorney General's office.  Brown's politics is a primary subject in most of those articles; the AG's investigation into ACORN is not.  Sources stating that the ACORN investigation may have an impact on Brown's politics are not the same as sources that state Brown's politics may have an impact on the ACORN investigation.  Partisan conservative opponents (and some Wikipedia editors) are trying to use the two opposite contexts interchangeably; please note the distinction.

''What part of these isn't political? Brown was in a "political pickle",'' caught "between... a favorite among his liberal voting base and conservatives", his hand forced by the ACORN investigation to avoid "a potentially damaging public relations dilemma", ''"trapped in a political cage from which there will be no easy escape", and his investigation was "called into question".
 * ...because he "faces political blowback no matter how" the investigation turns out. That is the investigation impacting Brown's politics, not Brown's politics impacting the investigation. Find a home for it in a more appropriate article.
 * ...and that puts him in a "no win situation". That is the investigation impacting Brown's politics, not the other way around.  Find a home for it in a more appropriate article.
 * Please read again. The quote is about Gerber, someone totally uninvolved with the ACORN investigation: "Avoiding the investigation into Mr. Gerber would have presented a potentially damaging public relations dilemma."  The article does, however, describe the possible impact his investigations may have on his later politics, but says nothing about his politics impacting his investigation. Again, good stuff for an article on Brown's politics; not this article.
 * "...and Brown is going to find himself in trouble no matter what he does." "...the controversy might well haunt Brown during his campaign for governor, the two cases are actually very different from a legal standpoint." "...Into this minefield steps Brown, who will infuriate his liberal base if he declines to prosecute O'Keefe and Giles, and will open himself to charges of hypocrisy if he does. Yet the problem isn't of his making" -- all saying his investigations might impact his politics, but nothing that says Brown's politics will impact his investigations as Attorney General.
 * Um, you'll excuse me if I fill in your partial quote, right? "Republican Party Chairman Tony Krvaric called Brown’s ACORN investigation into question and said Brown “is clearly not doing his job as attorney general.”" Sorry, WD, that is not a reliable source calling Brown's investigation into question. That is a newspaper article quoting a partisan source spouting the local talking-point of the day.  So what content addition to our article were you going to add based on this source, may I ask?

Those aren't conservative opponents speaking, those are the words of the reliable sources.
 * You'll get no argument from me (with the obvious exception of the last example - you definitely quoted a conservative opponent there). Those are indeed words from reliable sources, and they will make a fine addition to an article about Brown's political campaign for governor and the hurdles he has had to overcome.

A key piece of the ACORN scandal as it affected the California investigation is Jerry Brown's political situation. If you want to go beyond the sources to argue government 101, then yes, attorneys in various positions are supposed to put their personal biases and self-interest aside, whereas politicians are supposed to engage in politics. ''The conflict that comes when the attorney general is an elected position, and where the one who holds it is jockeying for higher office, is a very broad subject.
 * Absolutely not. As shown above, Brown's political situation had no effect on the California investigation.  Quite the opposite, in fact, your sources say the California investigation might affect Brown's political situation -- most claiming that if Brown didn't prosecute O'Keefe and Giles, Brown would piss off his liberal constituents.  Brown didn't prosecute and granted them immunity in trade for some unedited videos -- there goes his chance at governor.  This is all nifty stuff, but totally inappropriate for this article.  Great for a Brown article, however.
 * No, thank you. I am just fine with using your sources to illustrate why inserting partisan content about Brown in an article about the ACORN Video Controversy is inappropriate and against Wikipedia policy.
 * No, it is a make-believe subject, and fodder for fringe partisan memes - nothing more. Please read up on the California Attorney General. According to the state Constitution and the California Government Code, the Attorney General, as the state’s chief law officer, ensures that the laws of the state are uniformly and adequately enforced.  You keep pushing your personal opinion that since Brown is a politician, he must be playing politics even while acting in his role as Attorney General.  If you can elevate that opinion to fact with just one reliable source, this discussion could be advanced considerably.

''Of course political opponents push these claims, and supporters deny them, that's how politics work and it's the basic definition of a political controversy. That is all neither here nor there. We're not here to evaluate the truth of those claims or opine on which side is right. The reliable sources won't do that either, that's not their job. We're summarizing what the reliable sources do say about the nature of the undercover video controversy, and Brown's investigation'' (including the political setting and the claims on both sides) is a small to medium sized piece of that controversy. It's certainly not my opinion that politics is involved in the position of California Attorney General, that's pretty basic stuff and it's in all the sources. ''I think I've outlined the basic content proposal: add the colorful "cutting room floor" quote from Brown summarizing that his investigation found that the filmmakers had twisted reality in their video, followed by 1/2 to 1 sentence to the effect that various parties commented on the investigation in light of Brown's political constraints and his as-yet-unannounced candidacy to run for governor. We don't need to summarize or endorse the comments from those parties, just link to a reliable source article that mentions them. - 23:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement up to this point.
 * No, it is not, as the sources linked above show. The "investigation is biased because of Brown" meme is minority fringe at best, and completely unsubstantiated by reliable sources.  The "investigation was launched for political reasons" meme doesn't even rise to the level of fringe, and is equally unsubstantiated.  As Wikipedia editors, we do not perpetuate minority views in our articles.  The only "small to medium sized" political setting content you have established with your sources is that Attorney Generals acting in their capacity as chief law officer run the risk of pissing off large political blocks of people with their actions.  Interesting, but inappropriate for this article.
 * All the sources? I'll settle for just one.  I'd like to edit the California Attorney General article to reflect that "pretty basic" notion of yours, so please make it an adequate source.
 * The "cutting room floor" explanation is already quoted in the article. Done.  Followed by one sentence that various partisan political folks commented "on the investigation in light of Brown's political constraints"? Pardon?  What political constraints are on Brown, again, as regard his conducting an investigation in the capacity of California Attorney General? How about you spell out the exact wording of this proposed one sentence, and please include the source you intend to cite.  Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We're already in a (collapsed - thanks!) section so I'm not sure how many more rotations of wheel spinning we want to do here, but...
 * Yes, the sources put Brown in a political context vis-a-vis the investigation. And they put the investigation in a political context vis-a-vis Brown.  This article is about the political controversy over the undercover videotapes, it is not about Brown or ACORN or who is right.  You seem to be re-conceiving this article as an analysis of whether the undercover videos proved ACORN did something wrong or not.  That's not it, the videos show nothing.  They are an event something that happened, and we're covering the event and its context and ramifications.  The investigation is an aspect of the controversy.  The politics of the investigation are every much a part of the controversy as the politics of the videotapes.  You can't reasonably declare politics off limits in an article about politics.
 * This article is about the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy. No "re-conceiving" needed to understand that. No one has declared politics off-limits in this article. The declaration was that introducing the politics of one individual heading one department conducting one of the investigations is not relevant to the topic of this article. I don't declare that; Wikipedia policy does. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a child article of ACORN, not a child article about Brown. The main subject here is the ACORN videotape controversy.  This information would not reasonably fit in an article about Brown.  You mischaracterize the sources by saying the political issues are about the impact on Brown's career.  They are about the relationship (a two-way street) between Brown's political situation and the investigation.
 * According to the reliable sources cited thus far, discussion of political issues is about how it affects Brown. According to minority opinion sources, Brown's political issues are affecting the investigation. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "hand forced" citation is about the ACORN investigation, not Gerber. Textually, it says that Brown's ACORN investigation put him in a hard place dealing with Gerber.  More politics.
 * Not exactly. The text is about the Gerber investigation, as is virtually the whole article, not the ACORN investigation. Textually, the only mention of the ACORN investigation is to note it as yet another reason Brown should have Gerber independently investigated, after the "public excoriation" by GOP officials.  Yes, there is politics all over that article, but just as in the other sources you cite, not one word in the article indicates politics had any effect on the ACORN investigation. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The "called into question" quote is from the reliable source, not a quotation of the partisan detractor. The source says that the Republican operative called the investigation into question, not that the operative said it was in question.  By analogy, if an operative makes a crazy accusation, such as the claim that Obama was not born in America, a reliable source will not say that so-and-so called Obama's citizenship into question, because it is not reasonably in question from the fringe theory.  Do the flat earth people call the moon landings into question?  No, they just propound their conspiracy theories.  It's the reliable source, not the accuser, that makes the judgment that the claims call the matter into question.
 * Correction: Your source says, Yesterday, Krvaric called Brown’s ACORN investigation into question and said Brown “is clearly not doing his job as attorney general.” "Called into question" are the words used by the source to convey that the Republican Party Chairman Krvaric was calling the investigation into question, not that a reliable source was calling the investigation into question.  The reliable part is not that the investigation is questionable; the reliable part is that the partisan detractor is making the claim -- and we already know a handful of conservatives were pushing that meme.  It isn't suitable content for this article, per WP:WEIGHT. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me with a straight face that the notion of elected attorney generals playing politics is a "make believe subject", or that one needs a source for the proposition that the California Attorney General is a political position? Are you seriously claiming that Brown was not a political figure during his tenure in the office?  Excuse me, have you taken a look at the current race for that office?  That strikes me as either naive, rhetorical, or just argumentative.  That's not a reality on any planet I know of.  If we had more time and if this were more important I could direct you to dozens of books and scholarly publications on the general subject.  But I just can't take that claim seriously.
 * Yes, I am telling you that with a straight face. No, I am not telling you that Brown is not a political figure; I'm telling you that in the capacity of Attorney General overseeing the ACORN investigation, politics didn't play a part in any way that would affect the investigation. (Still not a single source to the contrary, remember?) The race to be elected to that position is a whole different critter from actually holding that position and functioning in that capacity.
 * Now about that one sentence addition that you would propose; how would it be worded, and what source would you append to it? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ... politics didn't play a part in any way that would affect the investigation. (Still not a single source to the contrary, remember?) Pardon me Xeno, but we really do have evidence that indicates politics played a part in a way that affected the investigation. We have Mr. Lagstein's remarks to the East County Democrat Club on October 15, 2009 in El Cajon, California. This is a single source to the contrary. He has tried to rationalize those remarks once confronted with them, and an AG spokeswoman has also claimed that he was wrong, but the fact remains that the remarks were made. They're reported in a reliable source: a hard news article in a left-leaning, large-circulation daily newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle.


 * The timing of those remarks is significant. They occurred just a few weeks after the investigation was announced, and nearly six months before the final report was issued on April 1. That timing lends greater weight to claims by conservatives that the outcome was prejudged. Also, Mr. Brown's gubernatorial candidacy is significant. The report coincided with the primary season, and will prove useful in rallying traditional Democratic Party voting groups around Mr. Brown. A very convenient coincidence for Mr. Brown, to say the least.


 * And so we have this conservative commentary. It is abundant. Mr. Grenell's is just one of many. I feel that he's a good representative of a substantial minority opinion, regarding Mr. Brown's investigation into these undercover videos. If you'd like to find one that you may see as a better representative, I encourage you to do so. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read your source again. We do not have evidence that indicates politics played a part in any way that affected the investigation. The right-leaning, large-circulation daily newspaper reported that conservatives were attempting to show bias in the investigation by circulating that snippet of a quote from Lagstein. The news article did not even suggest it was evidence of bias, and in fact it that both Lagstein and the AG's offices said the conservative spin-doctors were full of shit. In addition, now that the investigation is done, it is obvious that the fabricated bias charge never materialized; unless you want to make a case that the AG office was biased against ACORN for never charging O'keefe and Giles for breaking state criminal law.


 * As for "conservative commentary about Brown", you are welcome to find and use whatever sources you find necessary, and you are welcome to add them to articles about Brown and his politics. Such material is completely irrelevant to this article; any insertion of such content would be an obvious attempt to advance the false premise that Brown's politics had an effect on the AG Office's investigation of ACORN. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That he was a gubernatorial candidate at the time is not a matter of opinion, but fact. I put it in there twice per WP:LEDE.  What WP style does "attorney general and gubernatorial candidate" deviate from? Drrll (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No one is arguing that "candidate for governor" isn't one of many facts about Brown. Facts about Brown are already easily accessible in this article by clicking on the Jerry Brown Wikilink. The only Brown-specific facts necessary in this article are ones that are relevant to the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy topic; that Brown is a candidate for governor is not relevant to this article. I suspect that the proposed insertion of content describing Brown in this article as a "candidate" or "Democrat" is not an attempt to give relevant information, but is instead an attempt to advance the partisan minority opinion that the AG's investigation was politically motivated. Note the use of the "opinion piece" source from the Orange County Register (noted for it's conservative editorial page that supports Republican positions -- see the Wikiarticle). Sure, we can find plenty of reliable opinion sources that claim the investigation was a political stunt (or that the earth is flat, or that Elvis is still alive, or that Obama is a secret Muslim born in Kenya), but until we have reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy conveying it as fact, please quit trying to advance the opinions and fringe theories in Wikipedia articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again Xeno, let me remind you that Wikipedia is a source for readers in Australia, Ireland and India, as well as sixth-graders in Connecticut, who have never even heard of Mr. Brown, let alone his political position. But for most Americans and especially Californians, his "Moonbeam" progressive affiliation is well known. California news media usually feel no need to identify him as a Democrat, because all their readers know it. As an educational tool for those who aren't familiar with him, his party affiliation is necessary in this article. I remind you that when I arrived at this article, he was never even identified as Jerry Brown, but as Edmund G. Brown. There are political junkies in the United States who couldn't identify that name. And you argued in favor of keeping it that way. You were wrong, and you admitted it. You're wrong about this too. Mr. Brown's party affiliation and status as a gubernatorial candidate reveal a possible bias, and Mr. Lagstein's remarks to the East County Democratic Club on October 15 can be reasonably construed to mean that the fix was in. And it isn't just the conservative-leaning opinion page of the Orange County Register, but also the news article in the progressive-leaning San Francisco Chronicle, that finds Mr. Lagstein's remarks noteworthy enough to verify and quote. There has never been any objection to including 500, or even 1,000 words of criticism directed at the videos and, by extension, their authors. But five words to identify Mr. Brown as "a Democrat and gubernatorial candidate" are to be deleted the moment they appear? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of words isn't the issue, it's their relevance to the topic of the article. We could salt the article with lots of accurate Brown factoids, but they would be out of place here.  We do, after all, have an article on Brown that we link to here. Gamaliel (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Xeno, if you were aware of news articles like this that Wikidemon has cited multiple times, then you are clearly being obstructionist. Drrll (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the link, as I have cited it as well. That article does not support inclusion of the content cited to it. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Xenophrenic's comment sums up my thinking about this much more eloquently than I could manage. Gamaliel (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is the video controversy. The controversy / commentary over Brown's political stake in the affair is part of the ACORN video controversy.  If not, what controversy is it a part of?  As a weight matter, most articles that mention the California investigation mention Brown's political situation.  It would be undue and misleading to simply repeat what Brown said without giving due measure to what the sources said about it.  That particular source gives approximately equal weight to the following facts: (1) Brown decided not to prosecute either ACORN or the filmmakers; (2) Brown granted the filmmakers immunity; (3) Brown's report concluded that the evidence did not show the filmed conversations broke any laws, but did say that ACORN's destruction of evidence violated civil laws; (4) there was voter registration fraud but no evidence of vote fraud in California; (5) the investigation did not evaluate whether the filmmakers violated privacy laws, but the report criticized them for editing the videos to distort reality; (6) the investigation put Brown in a difficult political position (this one gets several paragraphs); (7) various background facts.  This satisfies the verifiability, weight, and reliable sourcing for us to say that Brown was in a difficult political position, but it would be more modest and neutral to simply say that various sources commented on Brown's political position vis-a-vis the investigation.  - Wikidemon (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is the video controversy. Political controversy, real or fabricated, surrounding one of the several Attorneys General investigating the video controversy is not relevant to this Wiki-article.  As a weight matter, all articles (so far) that mention the California investigation mention how it might affect Brown's future political standing (say, if he were to run for governor), and do not mention any effect on the actual investigation.  Content on Brown's politics is fine for Brown-articles, and has no relevance to the ACORN videos controversy. The sources indicate that (1) the Attorney General's office found that ACORN employees in California did not violate state criminal laws; (2) the Attorney General's office granted the filmmakers immunity from prosecution in exchange for providing some unedited video evidence; (3) the investigation concluded that a San Diego ACORN office most likely violated state civil laws designed to protect personal information, when it disposed of documents with confidential information about its employees, members, and individuals in the community it served; (4) four instances of possible voter registration fraud in San Diego in connection with the 2008 election were discovered. These cases have been examined by the Secretary of State’s Office and the district attorney’s office investigated and has filed no criminal charges. No voter fraud was found; (5) the Attorney General's office did not investigate whether the filmmakers violated privacy laws, but the investigation determined they edited the videos to distort reality; (6) several paragraphs expressing Republican opinions on how the completed investigation put Brown in a "no-win" position regarding his run for governor in November, and other unrelated comments; (7) various background facts.  While the source quotes conservatives opining on Brown's misfortune of inevitably upsetting one political demographic or another with the results of the investigation, the only "political position" the source mentions is when it looks ahead at Brown's run for governor -- and that has nothing to do with the ACORN video controversy.  The only justification for inserting content about an investigating AG's politics into this article would be to imply that the AG's politics had some sort of bearing on the investigation.  That is against Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)