Talk:Arno Political Consultants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject California This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Grassroots that works with corporations?

This reads like an ad to me. Previously the article had been marked for speedy deletion but an anonymous IP deleted that tag. I believe this article has a narrow POV in addition to reading like an ad and is not very noteworthy. Ronbo76 00:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable despite problems

A quick Google search at http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Arno+Political+Consultants%22 reveals a number of allegations of improper behavior by this company. I think the news coverage makes it notable. --Eastmain 19:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the "Damaging" paragraph. Two of the links provided don't mention Arno at all. One of the links is an editorial. The fourth link mentions Arno but contains nothing about the allegations in the paragraph. Please use valid sources when creating controversial and damaging content in an article, or don't include it at all. Bastiq▼e demandez 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This has been discussed prior to your deletions. This article had been nominated for deletion (AfD).prod'ed. You are now reading the accepted compromise after AfD. I am going to reverse your last deletion on that basis. Ronbo76 19:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are the diffs. Eastmain did a nice job of balancing the NPOV which way off prior to his edits. He even consulted me about removing the prod and asked my concurance.
Not good enough. I actually read the sources, none of them contained information to support the negative allegations. Please read the link provided and find a source for the information. I clicked on each and every one of those links. none of them support the allegations, except for one, which was an editorial opinion and cannot be used for source. Bastiq▼e demandez 21:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not inflame the conversation with POV comments such as not good enough. The citation has been corrected. Ronbo76 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I see no inflammation. An editorial opinion is jsut that, an opinion. An opinion is not a reliable source. If the citation was fixed afterwards, good. The article not NPOV? Then a fixing attemp should be the first course, not burning it. -- Drini 23:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
From what I see, Bastique was perfectly right in removing the links and information. Just because you have a tangentially related link attached to a paragraph does not mean that the link actually support what is in the paragraph. Sadly, in this case, the links did not support what was in the article. Bastique is right to correct this and point out the error. Mak (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Drini and Makemi. Any sort of defamatory stuff needs to be very rigorously sourced and the connection needs to be obvious. Consider using a quote from the source and using the cite tagging mechanism (using a ref in <ref></ref> paired tags and <references/> at the bottom of the article) ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What's "not good enough" is your editorial incompetence and failure to act in a consensus manner. Before removing links that previously had been agreed on by consensus, at least learn how to use the search function in your browser. -- -- Jibal (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Request for Comment

I would like other editors' opinions on today's edits. If necessary, a Request for Comment should be initiated. Ronbo76 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I volunteer for the foundation via m:OTRS. In this course I see a lot of inaccuracy in articles, often containing unsourced and often negative and potentially libelous statements. Given the great number of inaccuracies contained, I have time to remove, the inaccuracies. As you can see from my edit summaries, I was very clear with what I was removing and why I was removing it. If this is your "pet" article, then it is up to you to fix the problem, not to blind revert me. Thank you. Bastiq▼e demandez 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
This is not a question of WP:OWN. Your exact words in the paragraph above - none of them support the allegations (your emphasis, not mine). How is I a lowly editor was able to find a citation in the original article I reverted to that is from a reliable source and yet you missed it? And, I did explain my actions for reverting prior on the talkpage (not blindly as you suggest). For you to blindly revert my reversion after stating: none of them contained information to support the negative allegations (my emphasis on your words above) flies in the face of good faith edits. For a senior editor to read the article, and see that it had citeable facts that would have fixed the paragraph and to make a firm denial is not good editting. Ronbo76 00:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on the references

  • This refers to the article as it was at 20:01, 3 January 2007.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arno_Political_Consultants&oldid=98241574 All four references mention Arno, of course, or I would not have added them.

  • A reputable newspaper is as careful about the facts in an editorial as it is with a front-page news story. While an editorial is an expression of opinion, the Bay Windows should not be automatically excluded as a source. I chose the editorial as a source because it showed up in response to a Google search for newspaper articles about the company.
  • The St. Petersburg Times article is relevant. The canvassers worked indirectly for Arno: "Jacoby could not be reached for comment. His company worked for a company called JSM Inc., which in turn worked for Arno Political Consultants, a Sacramento, Calif., firm that qualified 300 ballot initiatives in 20 states."
  • The Florida Baptist Witness article reported: "Also cited in the lawsuit are June 29-30 reports in the Pensacola News Journal that ARNO employees had been charged with forgery in other, past elections for allegedly collecting valid signatures on one petition and transferring them to another."
  • I consider that all these references are valid and relevant. It is not necessary that the subject of a Wikipedia article be the primary subject of a reference for the reference to be legitimate.
  • At the same time, I accept that Bastique (talk · contribs) was acting in good faith and that his actions were not intended as a violation of the 3RR rule. Since the article had been vandalized before, I jumped to an incorrect conclusion about Bastique's edits. --Eastmain 00:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I have to apologize. The issue with Florida Baptist citation was with the capitalization of the organizations name, which is why I could not find it on the page. I'm not certain what happened with the St. Petersburg Times. I'm comfortable with the rewrite the way it is, and if the foundation receives any further correspondence, I'll refer it to someone else. Bastiq▼e demandez 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like it to go back to the way it was before the initial edit, minus the editorial. However, I will concede to Eastmain as he did a really good job with the article. Ronbo76 02:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW, this whole issue shows my evolution here. If you read the article the way it was originally written (select the history to restore a version prior to Eastmain's contribution), the article read as if APC wrote it with grassroots being a keyword. That raised my hackles as they were doing some work with major league companies listed (still listed in the article) and who probably do not conduct grassroot campaigns because they have the big bucks to do elsewise. In essence, as I now understand Wikipedia, the POV was definitely off and I can now quote policy like the Wikipedia:Trifecta.
These days, I discuss on a talkpage an article seeking consensus or further info about improvement. I may tag with unsourced or a POV tag or even notability if there are serious questions in my mind. But, I try always to discuss articles first on a talkpage if I am not familar with the subject if I have never been to the page before. As a Recent Changes Patrol editor, I read a lot of stuff on the fly. I understand quite a bit due to some fancy degrees and nifty training. Those I don't understand, I question on the talkpage just as I do now. I try not to act out of blindness. Ronbo76 02:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Eastmain's comments about all the references. He was very diligent in researching this article. Ronbo76 01:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This is why "I think" should sometimes be used. It indicates acceptance of fallibility, and can help prevent hurt feelings if one is indeed mistaken. 151.202.74.135 18:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration of article

Please comments above. The article will be restored to its status prior to the recent edit activity. Ronbo76 01:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)