Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Disgrace

This article is a DISGRACE. It's more evidence maggots at Wikipedia are in the tank for Obama. See the section below.

This article is a DISGRACE. The people stopping the neutrality are guilty of what amounts to TREASON.

Criticism Section

There should be a criticism section that cites articles which criticize ACORN for being full time employees, paid with our tax money, who push a blatantly leftist agenda and go so far as to (however pathetically) attempt the downfall of capitalism.

Whatever your feelings about ACORN, both sides of the story should be told, unless we'd like to see the worst of the leftists push Wikipedia down further towards complete illegitimacy. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.158.55 (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Untitled comment

It was with hesitance that I cited an editorial since it was oppponion. I was not aware of their history of attacking ACORN. I was hoping that something such as judicial decision, which to me appears to be clear cut, would be able to be used as neutral.

Actually, those aren't ACORN members, who are dues-paying community residents much like members of a church or union, those were part-time employees hired specifically to register people to vote who subsequently defrauded both ACORN and the electoral systems in those states. Citing the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is also not a neutral citiation, since the WSJ has repeatedly attacked ACORN's work and reputation. Citing from their news stories would be a neutral source, but editorials are, by definition opinion.

You may wish to know there have also been ACORN members already convicted in Wisconson and Colorado.. Also before you say it is partisan and is being done by the conservitives check out the articles on what the Justice system is doing.

Almost all the citations of voter registration fraud come from a report put out by the American Center for Voting Rights. While it has an innocuous name, it is headed by a Republican lawyer and fundraiser. It has a vested interest in destroying ACORN's reputation. This is not necessarily to say that the information is therefore ipso facto wrong, but it is to say that everything in the report is an accusation, none of which have been borne out by investigations. In fact, newspaper stories and documents from law enforcement agencies note that none of the accusations made against ACORN as an organization have been substantiated. Many accusations against employees who were caught forging VR cards were borne out and those individuals charged and convicted. In short, I do not think the AC4VR citations are legitimate and they distort the record of ACORN's activities. Note that I am not arguing against criticism of the organization, just against inclusion of sources that distort the actual events they purport to report upon.

I still don't find this article NPOV, and think it should be flagged and edited for NPOV. It reads like it was written by ACORN. I think it is an article that needs to be kept, but the part before criticism needs to be less of a hagiography. I'm going to tag it for NPOV. 65.96.190.185 01:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Charles, Jan 2, 2006

This article needs some major NPOV edits. As it currently stands, it reads like a PR brochure.

Some things to add: When seeking a referendum to raise California's minimum wage, ACORN hired paid petitioners to gather signatures. To reduce costs, ACORN filed suit to gain an exemption from California's minimum-wage and overtime laws.

Occurrences such as these should definitely be in there--made NPOV, of course, but still should be in there.

Kurt Weber 23:41, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

While I would agree that the bulk of this article would be better placed under a title "The History of ACORN," your nomination for deletion is absurd and offensive. I have not yet split the page into "ACORN" and "The History of ACORN" because I have not yet had the time for such a major undertaking.

I have been steadily improving the NPOV.

Almost all referendums use paid petitioners.

--LegCircus 15:27, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of vfd

After reading vfd guidelines I found none applicable to this page. As no justification for the vfd was given; I seek removal of the vfd.

--LegCircus 15:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

copyright issue

I created this text which is also posted at www.acorn.org and have hereby licensed it under the GFDL for use on Wikipedia. --LegCircus 16:03, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Sure can believe that. I wouldn't call it text as much as promotional (propaganda) material. And that's not allowed here.

Copied from Votes for deletion

I've removed this discussion from vfd due to lack of consensus. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 22:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC) This is quite clearly nothing more than a piece of PR propaganda for the organization. I mean, for fuck's sake..."The 80s proved to be a time when the political elite in America was less concerned with the needs of low-and moderate-income people than ever." WTF?

Anyway, I'm not sure it necessarily needs to be deleted--it may still be salvageable--but it was suggested in #wikipedia that listing it here is the only way to get any decent amount of attention brought to it.

Kurt Weber 04:29, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep: If its claim of having over 160,000 families registered, it's surely deserving of an article. I say send it to cleanup to get increased attention. -Frazzydee 04:33, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely notable. Send to Cleanup for POV-ectomy. Kevyn 05:24, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup. Not promotional as such. One-sided, biassed, but legitimate, well-written description of a notable organization. POV as such is cause for editing and balance, not for deletion. If the nominator is knowledgable, he could begin the process by adding a section entitled "Criticisms" or something of the sort, explaining why the organization is really... whatever he thinks it is. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:43, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC) P. S. In response to the sentence "This is quite clearly nothing more than a piece of PR propaganda for the organization" my response would be "this is quite clearly something more than a piece of PR propaganda, although it clearly does contain some PR propaganda." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:45, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Send to clean up. ACORN is pretty significant and active, but a clean up is needed. Geogre 13:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Don't nominate for VfD because you don't like an organization's politics. Geogre 16:07, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't. Read above for why I nominated it here.Kurt Weber 17:47, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A perfectly legitimate topic. — Gwalla | Talk 01:20, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I removed the vfd, as it did not meet vfd guidelines. If this is incorrect etiquette, please let me know. --LegCircus 15:49, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • It is. Once an item is listed, it should stay. Usually, no one will object if the nominator removes the VfD tag in a landslide vote. No one else should, and, honestly, the nominator shouldn't, either. Let the 5 days go by. The tag will do no harm, and we won't forget to assess the votes properly. Meanwhile, Clean Up really should work on it. Geogre 18:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs some NPOVing to be more encyclopedic but is a perfectly valid topic for an article. This listing is absurd and quite clearly politically motivated, which is a waste of everyone's time. If an article needs some work this is not the way to draw attention to it. — Trilobite (Talk) 01:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • For the umpteenth time: No, it's not politically motivated. If you'd actually read what I wrote above, you'll find out why I submitted it.
    • I have read what you wrote above, and I have also read your user page, on which you admit to holding extreme right-wing views. If you wanted this article NPOVing you could have done it yourself, or brought it to people's attention in the usual way, but instead you tried to have it expunged from Wikipedia. No doubt this was your way of opening up a new front in the battle for, as you put it, "the entire destruction of socialism and collectivism." — Trilobite (Talk) 08:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • 1) No, I do not hold "extreme right-wing views", and I have no clue what gave you that idea. My ideology is very much NOT right-wing. 2) Your assertion notwithstanding, several people suggested to me that the only way to get attention brought to it to help clean it up was to list it on VfD, and following their suggestion, I did. I do not necessarily want it deleted (and if you actually did read what I wrote you will see I said as much). Grow up.Kurt Weber 18:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment I regret not knowing the etiquette, but I must say I disagree with it. There have been no delete votes (even the user who called the vote won't vote for deletion). There was no proper justification for the tag in the first place, and if we agree that VfD should not be used to draw attentiont to the page, then why do we reward those who would use it thus? Once again let me apologize for being new. I welcome comments at User talk:LegCircus — LegCircus 02:52, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

You may have a point here. If someone put a VfD tag on a big article like George W. Bush (for example) it would be removed immediately, and there wouldn't be a five day debate on the matter. I don't think you need to worry about anyone being rewarded for misuse of VfD though. A string of "keep" votes shows the community's disapproval. The VfD banner will disappear from the article in a few days and then the important work of NPOVing can begin. It can begin now actually, as there is no rule about not editing pages while they're being voted on. — Trilobite (Talk) 03:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not that you need another vote, but Keep. Needs a POV-ectomy, but it's definitely a notable organization. Antandrus 03:42, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Hold (slow-down?) This page contains potential copyright violations which need to be resolved first. I asked the submitter to clarify. Rmhermen 13:29, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment I am the submitter and primary contributer to the page. There is no copyright problem. If I need to clarify further I will. Otherwise I will prepare for the next assault on my innocent little article. --LegCircus 15:34, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep, now that copyright is resolved. Anyone know the preferred method for indicating this in the article? Rmhermen 16:16, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • It's best on the talk page rather than in the article. My suggestion: "This article incorporates material from http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=722. As the copyright holder I agree to license it under the GFDL. ~~~~" (signed by LegCircus of course). — Trilobite (Talk) 16:37, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, these people have managed to annoy me, so they must be notable.

• Keep. Why should the article be censored? Why not help to edit it to present a more NPOV if you find that it is so biased? --DV 08:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Keep - this should've been put on Cleanup, not VfD. ··gracefool |☺ 09:43, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is of course OBVIOUS. Right now an informative article is CRUCIAL.

NPOV-ectomy

I started reviewing this article and found that it needs a complete edit for NPOV. A lot of things presented as fact are claims by the organization, the overall tone is very much one of advocacy for the organization, and even the categories listing is a hodgepodge. Why on earth is this article in ALL of those categories, one or two would be nice.

I'm more than willing to have a crack at it but it's going to be a major undertaking and for me to detail each and every edit here in discussion before hand would be an endless task. So perhaps if I tackled the first couple of sections and then got response we could start there.

-- Wgfinley 00:33, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I had my first crack at revising the introduction which included properly distinguishing facts from claims made by the organization, and altering the "objectives" of ACORN to reflect their platform. I found no reference to immigration in their platform so that was completely removed.

I then moved on to the first section which is the founding of the organization ("ACORN takes root" was just way too flowery for me) and eliminated about 3 graphs of 60s history that really weren't relevent at all. Instead, I cut right to the chase regarding the group's founder and what his first actions were surrounding the founding of the organization.

I think you will find these revisions bring the tone much more into NPOV. BTW, the original piece was pretty much word for word form the group's website.

Comments welcome.

--Wgfinley 01:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The ACORN website is not the end-all source of information on ACORN.

The People's Platform was last updated I think in 1992 or something.

If you need evidence of ACORN organizing around immigrant rights, or any other issue, provide your email and I'll send the text from a couple newspaper articles.

As I've previously stated, the history went up on the website only shortly before it went up on wikipedia. I am responsible for the original content of both. I made modest efforts to NPOV the article, but I think it makes more sense for others to do so, for obvious reasons. I will continue to make corrections as needed.

LegCircus 16:37, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph under the "Allegations of voter registration misconduct" section seems non-NPOV to me:

ACORN uses a comprehensive quality control program developed by Project Vote. Separate quality control staff visually review all collected registration applications and then call applicants to verify submitted information. ACORN maintains a zero-tolerance policy against fraud and, by implementing these procedures, is able to identify and terminate any employee submitting fraudulent registrations. This system was vindicated in the wake of the fraud allegations against ACORN as every single lawsuit against the organization was dismissed with prejudice and every single investigation cleared the organization of wrongdoing.

Does anyone else agree? Jinxmchue 14:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

ACORN Methods

The part I took on community organization is a theme throughout ACORN's publications that I have collected. I sense this is from their strong background in organized labor. The portion on community organization is directly from their website:

ACORN organizes the unorganized.

Although no stranger to coalition politics, ACORN's first priority is building organization in low-income communities. Because ACORN believes that social change comes from the bottom up, organizers are on the streets every day, knocking on doors and recruiting new members. Major campaigns, whether around housing, or jobs, or voter registration, are designed to reach the unorganized majority of low and moderate-income people - the key constituency that must be mobilized for a progressive movement for social change in this country to succeed.

I still haven't found any reference to immigrant rights in any of their information or any news stories so oif you have something on that please provide a source and I won't object to it being listed but I don't see it listed as one of their goals.

--Wgfinley 21:52, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sources:

• http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1861&dept_id=152368&newsid=12785442&P
• Houston Chronicle July 18, 2004
• http://laprensa-sandiego.org/archieve/july02-04/protest.htm

LegCircus 22:40, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Controversies

• "Additionally, ACORN filed a lawsuit in California seeking to exempt itself from the state's minimum wage of $4.25 per hour in 1996, the same year it won a victory in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to raise the minimum wage for custodial workers to $6.25 per hour."

I think someone should add a cited source to this. I'm sure theres a newspaper clipping or somthing. But it should be cited somehow.

Being a progressive organization is not a controversy. I'm fine with there being a criticisms section, but only if there are actual criticisms.

Being indicted in 17 states for voter fraud is not even borderline. Or perhaps your leader can't consider this an actual criticism? Are you going to allow mention of the fact Lindsey Graham discovered ACORN are earmarked for another $140 BILLION in the current crisis? Or again: does this go against the wishes of your leader?

"This organization did not love Reagan and yet they CLAIM to be non-partisan." does not count as controversy. Dig a little deeper, you'll find plenty to bash if you look hard enough.

Yes. But odds are the Axelrod/ACORN people here will remove it faster than you can blink.

LegCircus 22:47, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

See, that's better. I knew you could do it. Now back it up or it will be deleted. Fair is fair.

• • I think I've provided adequate citations of ACORN's left-wing slant, positions many would consider extreme and therefore controversial. Controversial is not necessarily bad. Wgfinley 00:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In particular, I doubt it was SEIU that unhappy staff went to. More likely the IWW. As I said, I've no problem with criticisms, as long as they are not bullshit criticisms.

LegCircus 23:01, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

• This section is entirely based on 338 NRLB No. 129. It was SEIU although IWW also got involved. Wgfinley 00:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You cannot be indicted for being paid an hourly wage and a bonus. You can be indicted for forgery. ACORN fires staff that forge voter registrations and then turn them into the police.

Oh they do? Well I don't believe you until you back that up.

• The sentence states he was endicted for forging registrations while being paid an hourly wage and bonus for gathering them. Wgfinley 00:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This man being on parole should not be controversial (and thus irrelevant) unless the mainstream opinion is that folks on parole should not be given employment.

It is controversial in the total picture of ACORN. You know it; we ALL know it.

LegCircus 23:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

• I think the fact the organization was contracting a felon, who has consequently been indicted for fraud, is very relevent. Wgfinley 00:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes.

Finally LegCircus, the community showed a CLEAR indication that this article needed to be rewritten with a NPOV. The History section you posted is WORD FOR WORD from ACORN's own history pages and obvioulsy not NPOV. Threatening to delete edits to present the other side of the facts and thus bring the article more into NPOV compliance is not very good etiquette. I encourage you to check out the Be Bold Section for some more guidance on this fact. --Wgfinley 00:24, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think holding you to the same standards you expect of me is bad etiquette. Your NRLB link is bad. Provide the citation. LegCircus 00:32, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

• The link has been updated, it is now in the article itself. I also reworded the section concerning Dooley so that it is more clear he was indicted for forging signatures and not being paid to gather them. --Wgfinley 00:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I still think it's invalid criticism, but now it's a slightly less invalid criticism.

However, regarding your link, I have little idea where you got the idea that these workers (who, by the way, had been on staff less than 2 months) organized with SEIU. I believe this to be false. The linked pdf mentions SEIU only once, and from what I gathered, it was indicating that the ACORN staff had met with an SEIU staffer so that the 3 of them could form a union of organizers. ACORN and SEIU work together closely, and in some cases share office space.

• You say you don't know where I got the idea from and then point out that they are listed in the NLRB decision. The decision clearly states the petitioners (the three employees who filed with the NLRB) were from the Dallas ACORN office and met with a tenant next to the ACORN offices which was the SEIU. I don't have anything to prove, it's right there in the NLRB decision. --Wgfinley 02:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the IWW is the group these organizers sought to affiliate with. What deadline will you give yourself to prove it? LegCircus 01:09, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I changed the article to reflect that they first met with SEIU and then IWW, both are mentioned in the NLRB decision. I'm sure this makes a big difference in ACORN circles seeing as the founder is closely tied with SEIU but the fact remains, the initial organizing talks in the Dallas office were with SEIU members. Leave me out of the union politics, I really don't care and SEIU is, one last time and by your own admission, named in the NLRB decision. --Wgfinley 02:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This whole thing is so poisoned.

NPOV-ectomy Complete

I've completed my revision of the article to bring it more into NPOV. I have tried to condense the article choosing to hit on the organization's major accomplishments and initiatives.

In keeping with an NPOV view I saw the need to introduce a category for controversies or criticism of ACORN. I knew absolutely nothing about this organization before I undertook the revision and have researched the ACORN website, news articles, press releases, and any other sources I could find in trying nto give the article NPOV and that included criticisms since, again, I knew nothingn of them.

As part of my research I did confirm ACORN's recent activity concerning illegal (or undocumented if you want to be PC) workers. I found it interesting that although President Bush has been very vocal in calling for amnesty for current undocumented workers I couldn't find a single press release or article where ACORN supported the president's position. Instead, all I found was sharp criticism of the president on education reform particularly No Child Left Behind and added a section on that.

If you look at articles where ACORN has been quoted and their press releases they have been extremely critical of the president (and, FYI, I'm a Libertarian so criticizing the president is nothing new for me although I certainly applaud his amnesty initiative). However, I found it odd that they wouldn't support him on this point. The education attacks certainly raised some questions in my mind regarding ACORN's ties to organized labor. These ties go back to the founding of the organization and obviously are very deep today.

I tried to bring this out as a counter-point to the group without taking a position on it. Most articles I found critical of ACORN considered ACORN almost in the same breath as organized labor.

So, I am hopeful the revisions will be welcomed, they have been grand in scale yet I feel I have accurately hit upon many of the organizations key issues and accomplishments while trying to remain neutral.

--Wgfinley 06:02, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Shreaded

The ACORN page got shreaded. About two thirds of the article was deleted, and a bogus criticisms section was added. A lot of the work done was good, helpful work, but too much was deleted for no good reason. I think there should be a criticisms section, but the criticisms section has both spurious and wrong information. All changes by one user, Wgfinley (who has made precious few other contributions to wiki recently).

Please take a look at the page and make your own judgement. I am no longer comfortable acting directly in this matter without the support of the community.

Thank you for your consideration.

LegCircus 16:49, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

• Leg -- go back and read all the comments from the VFD action. Almost all of them reference that quite obvioulsy the article was bloated and needed NPOV revisions. That's exactly what I did. This is an encyclopedia, not a vanity page for any group that wants to put them up. There's a link to ACORN if people want your exhaustive history of the organization with its biased (understandably so) point of view. I think you have a general lack of understanding of what this is about.

• As far as my edits, there isn't some prize for number of edits. It seems to me since you can't disprove the facts I've presented backing the information you've resorted to ad hominem attacks (you don't have many edits). You don't know who I am or what my accomplishments are. In fact, your posting reminds me of many a cub reporter's cry when his 60 inch article went under the editor's blade. I personally think it's a great article now with a lot of information on the organization and its accomplishments.

• Again, WHAT in the Controversy section is wrong? I dug further today and don't think you'll like the additions either.

--Wgfinley 22:59, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, actually I think the stuff you back up is good. Part of the problem is you don't go back and erase the misinformed opinions, and when I do point out false information, you don't change it (as with SEIU). You assume that I've an agenda other than to provide an article about a community organization I am part of.

• Once again, by your own admission SEIU is referenced in the NLRB decision, go read it again. I didn't come up with a union off the top of my head, they are in there as the FIRST group that the petitioners in the NLRB case contacted. There's nothing misleading in there at all, it says they talked with SEIU and then IWW, what the heck is the major hangup here? Have I offended some SEIU sensibilities? Are you an SEIU member Leg?

--Wgfinley 03:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

While this is no prize for edits, I think it is telling that you have almost no edits at all for the past two months that do not deal with this page.

• I go through spurts of contributing, I have a life, I have a family, I have other things to do than to do 1000s of edits on Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically make my revisions irrelevent. --Wgfinley 03:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel attacked, I've made at least some small effort to avoid insulting you.

LegCircus 00:33, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

• You mean with the "change it or it will be deleted" threat? Very diplomatic. This whole topic of "shredded"? --Wgfinley

The article needed some NPOVing because it drew heavily from material on the organisation's website and as such was not neutral. It needed cleanup for the same reasons — the tone and wording was appropriate for a piece put out by the organisation, but in places didn't seem right in an encyclopedia. What you appear to have done is cut out vast swathes of text and inserted a spurious and bloated "Controversy" section. Its content is telling: you have named the first subsection "Left-Wing Orientation" (sic, with regard to capitalisation of headings), as if there's something obviously objectionable about that. Facts such as the inclusion in People's Platform of advocacy of progressive taxation are presented as something the reader should shake their head in dismay at ("What a terrible thing to suggest! I'm glad this article shows these people for what they really are!") when really they belong in a section about ACORN's political positions. The only thing clearly worthy of inclusion in the controversy section is the apparent inconsistency of being supportive of unions while themselves trying to prevent their own employees from unionising (and can we have some good references in the news media for these allegations?). What you describe as NPOVing has gone too far — this is an entirely innocuous organisation now portrayed as something sinister. I hope agreement can be reached as we are all sane and civilised contributors and I trust no one wants an edit war. Nonetheless, some work will have to be done to redress the balance in this article. It's far from neutral at this point. — Trilobite (Talk) 00:27, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• It didn't "draw heavily" it was word for word from the website which LegCircus apparently has written for ACORN. That's fine, just don't publish the whole thing here as an entry reflecting an encyclopedia. I have no issue with the groups People's Platform and when I changed the introductory graph to draw more heavily on it LegCircus went back and changed it back to what he wrote which seems to be a hodgepodge of what he thinks ACORN is about. If you look at the platform some of what he mentioned isn't even in there and much of what is there isn't mentioned here. I think there should be a section of this article that covers the platform, it would make logical sense.

• So I'm to understand that you don't think the Voter Registration Misconduct controversies in New Mexico and Ohio are worthy to include in the controversy section? Despite that ACORN has admittedly terminated employees related to this and despite the fact one of its employees has since been indicted? You're assessment that the group is "totally innocuous" is your own personal opinion and has no basis in fact wahtsoever. Again, I knew nothing of this organization before I saw this article on the revision list, that's how I stumbled into it. The group has many positions that are extreme left wing (read the plank on taxation, we're talking about Robin Hood type philosophy which is their right to believe but obviously that's controversial).

• The long and short of it is that this article, by many members who reviewed it before had major POV issues and was a PR piece for the organization. I trimmed the fluff, much of which was claiming victory after victory, if you read ACORN's website you would think they single handedly go the Motor Voter Act passed and that's hogwash. I removed claims that I couldn't find based in fact or where focused on the minutia of particular issues. I think the article nicely conveys the overall view of the organizatoin, I don't think it's slanted against it. Heck, I added the last section about their grassroots activism, their activity on undocumented workers, all the photos in the article. It needed a major revision and it got one, I'll let others decide on how fair it was. --Wgfinley 03:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Legcircus, you submitted an article which was, by general agreement, in violation of wikipedia style guides (NPOV) and have been asking others to bring it into compliance for you. That's a lot to ask. Your criticisms of other members doing what you should have done yourself (i.e. Wgfinley helping to make the article NPOV) are unjustified.--Ryan Wise 20:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Survey

We've had a disagreement between myself and LegCircus and I would like to conduct a survey to get your input. Please sign your name using three tildes (~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding brief comments afterwards. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your names to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Discussion". --Wgfinley 08:20, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Left-Wing Orientation Section Removal

• I support restoring the section as deleted on 9-Sep-2004 @ 20:41 which referenced to ACORN's left leaning positions.

Wgfinley

• No, the removal should stand, being left-wing is not controversial, the section should be titled criticisms.

• The section was valid but shouldn't be in the controversy session but incorporated elsewhere in the article

SEIU Mention

• I support restoring the reference to SEIU deleted on 9-Sep-2004 @ 20:45, SEIU is mentioned in the NLRB decision.

Wgfinley

• SEIU is not germaine to the section

Living Wage Section Deletions

• I support restoring the reference to ACORN seeking to exempt itself from the minimum wage law deleted on 9-Sep-2004 @ 20:45

Wgfinley

• Second --Ryan Wise 19:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• The reference to ACORN seeking the exemption has nothing to do with them promoting a higher minimum wage.

• The section should be rephrased (detail how).

Paid Voter Registrars Deletion

• I support restoring the reference to paying to register voters is seen as encouraging fraud by ACORN critics deleted on 9-Sep-2004 @ 20:45

Wgfinley

• The reference is not germaine to the article

• The point is valid but should be rephrased (detail how).

Controversy Section Rename

• I think the section is titled better as "criticisms" as it stands.

• I think the name should be returned to "controversies"

Wgfinley

• Both names stink, I like ________ better.

Long NPOV Removal

• I think the long NPOV is still needed for this article and should be restored.

Wgfinley

• The shorter NPOV notice is fine now.

• I don't think the article should have NPOV request.

Retagged NPOV (still!), Restored deleted Criticisms

First, I have stated here NUMEROUS times that SEIU is clearly cited in the NLRB decision yet LegCircus deletes the reference every time, this is plainly ridiculous. Why, I don't know, he won't say, he just deletes it. Also, I haven't seen any evidence the employees elected not to return but whether they did nor not is not germaine to the article.

Secondly, despite numerous news articles about the election registration controversy this section keeps getting deleted. [1]. It's now back, new and improved with continuing developments regarding this issue.

There are numerous articles, there are court cases underway in Albuquerque and the New Mexico Supreme Court, an ACORN director took the 5th on the stand in the Albuquerque case, these issues are very germaine to the article. LegCircus continues to delete the references without a shred of reason as to why. If they are removed again, I will revert them again and escalate the matter further and seek to have this article moderated.

Finally, he's deciding for himself that this article doesn't need any NPOV work when obviously there are still disputed sections, I restored the tag.

BTW, for the most part I think the new section is quite good but needs some NPOV work, the language overall is just not very neutral (ACORN won this, fought that, etc).

Wgfinley 21:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The SEIU thing is just wrong.

As is the idea that ACORN is under investigation for voter fraud. Individuals are under investigation after being caught and turned in by ACORN. It's like saying that WalMart shoplifted $3 million dollars worth of merchandise, because you find that employee shoplifting at WalMart cost the company $3 million.

Moderation would be helpful, unfortunately it's only you and me that has much interest in the page.

LegCircus 04:43, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

As far as SEIU then I would urge ACORN to take it up with the NLRB, it's in the decision.

As far as the voter fraud issue (thank you for not removing it), by your logic then any mention of "Iran-Contra Hearings" should be removed from Wikipedia? I'm sure you would agree that would be ludicrous as is removing an issue where an ACORN director has taken the 5th Amendment.

Wgfinley 14:19, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have just read the article, and it appears to have been written by the radicals at ACORN being a propaganda piece rather than a neutral account of this organization. Zouave44 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

LegCircus, once again you've deleted items that are factual and we've discussed a number of times. You have no justification for it. You also removed this article from the NPOV tag as well, which, quite obviously is still a problem.

In an effort to get this resolve I suggest that you and I agree to have a mediator assigned to try to work this out.

In the meantime, I have added more to the voter registration issue, apparently there are new cases in Colorado.

Wgfinley 14:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ACORN is a non-profit organization.

Your information about ACORN is generally wrong.

LegCircus 16:30, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

I reverted back again. Not only did your revert restore inaccurate statements, it also deleted other progress on the page.

How familiar are you with ACORN?

LegCircus 16:40, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Arizona

The Arizona section was really confusing. The lawsuit was not about fraudlent registrations, those alleged registrations were used to show why registrants from canvassers should have to show ID. The source article was actually horrible, in that it was only slightly less convoluted than the Wikipedia page. I tried to clear up the relationships, but I'm a bit concerned that it's still too wordy. Also, does one really need to mention the party affiliation of the Sec State, Sec Elections, and local board in the lawsuit description?

Hipocrite 13:29, Oct 28, 2004 (EST)

It's New Mexico and not Arizona, I corrected that. You got the SoS' name right though. Other than that thanks for tightening up my wording, made for a much easier read.

I restored the SEIU reference which I'm sure that LegCircus will delete when he sees it despite it's a point of fact in the NLRB decision.

A few Colorado voter registration fraud cases have been resolved so I updated that. I haven't seen any updates on the NM or OH cases. I readded the reference that these workers were paid for each voter registered, I think this is an important point and it very germane considering that was the sole nature of their employment and they have been accused or convicted of crimes concerning it.

There's a MD case that involves some embezzling of funds or misuse of funds but appears to be some political infighting, I didn't think it relevent to include at this piont.

Wgfinley 20:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The current version, while misleading, I think is okay a compromise to end the revert war. The quotes around field organizer are unneccessary and unencyclopedic.

The workers, all "field organizers" with ACORN, began discussions with the Service Employees International Union and later sought to organize under Industrial Workers of the World in response to their $16,000 annual salary for a 54-hour work week. The NLRB ordered the employees be reinstated in their former jobs and ACORN cease from interrogating employees about organizing activity.

In the MD case all charges were dropped and an external audit revealed no misappropriation of funds.

LegCircus 22:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources need to be cited

This article is a mass of unsourced statements. I have added "citation needed" tags everywhere that something needs a source. I also added a notes section, and converted the two sources that did exist (NLRB decision and 2006 St. Louis fraud article). Those two are good examples of how everything else in this piece should be sourced. This needs a LOT of work. Before it becomes a problem, I would point out that statements on the ACORN website can be used as sources IF they are non-controversial claims about their own organization, such as who is the current president of ACORN. ACORN press releases can be used to source claims about ACORN, but not claims about anyone or anything else. Pretty much any other claim that someone might dispute has to be sourced by a third party secondary reliable source. - Crockspot 15:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say! Ouch. Jinxmchue 02:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Who wrote this mess?

Maude Hurd?

No chit it reads like an ACORN brochure! It's hopelessly long, hopelessly propagandistic, and hopelessly wrong, if recent and past headlines are any indication.

Good luck to anyone who even tries to edit this mess.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simplemines (talk • contribs).

I came here after coming from the ACORN homepage, and, yes, this Wiki article looks just like some BS from Maude Hurd and the other lefties at ACORN. The article is a PR brochure for ACORNZouave44 (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC).

NPOV tag

I added "sources needed" tags a while back, but no one seems interested in sourcing any of the claims, so I am tagging the article for neutrality. - Crockspot 20:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed

So I kind of gave up on this page, since I feel the majority of people contributing to it have a decidely biased take on the organization. However, I am at a loss as to how to cite some of the places where self-proclaimed conservative activists have demanded citation (i.e. nearly every sentence in the piece).

For example the first sentence states, "ACORN is the largest . . ." This statement is verified by any number of US newspapers on just about any date of the year. How should I cite this?

LegCircus 03:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, either put in a reference to the newspaper article (a hint: SF Chronicle URLs live forever, even if they stop showing up on searches),or find an article which compares ACORN to similar groups which says that ACORN is the largest. There are plenty of references for all the sleazy things ACORN does which are mentioned in the article; you can copy the formatting of those if you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia citation style. Argyriou (talk) 06:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

ACVR does not count as proper citation. This is a highly specialized special interest group, founded by conservative activists, with little influence and less history. LegCircus 21:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Is the comment opening this section supposed to be some kind of personal attack against me? I'm the one who added quite a few cn tags. I was attempting to improve the article by bringing it into compliance with the sourcing and verifiability requirements of Wikipedia, without removing large sections of unsourced statements. LegCircus, you have answered your own question above. If it is so easy to source these claims by any newspaper on any day, then I suggest that you do so, rather than resorting to personal attacks against other editors. If you think my suggestions are stupid, then I will be hard assed and do what I should have done previously, and gut this article of anything that is unsourced and unverified. I consider myself reasonable and willing to work with people I don't agree with. But if you are going to poke me with a stick, then I can be a real shithead. Crockspot 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• OK, I'm calmed down now. FYI, if a single source can source the information in an entire paragraph, then there can be one cite at the end of the paragraph. I tagged each individual statement of fact needing a source, but that does not necessarily mean that each tag must be replaced with an individual cite. There were just a lot of claims in this article that weren't sourced at all. It seems to be improving. Crockspot 18:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

ACVR

ACVR does not count as proper citation. This is a highly specialized special interest group, founded by conservative activists, with little influence and less history. Jerimee 05:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So, what's wrong with citing what conservative acitivists say? Rkevins82 06:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Because OMG conservatives are eeeevil, and they say, like, mean things about those nice people at ACORN! Argyriou (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Because OMG conservatives are not NPOV. ACVR in particular lacks objectivity, as well as credibility. For example, if the ACORN website claims that Senator Elizabeth Dole doesn't give a fuck about her constituents, that doesn't count as a citation on the Elizabeth Dole article. I have to find a neutral study that specifies in an non-biased manner exactly how Elizabeth Dole puts her own goals above the needs of her constituents, if I wish to include that statement in the Dole article. If any citation was acceptable, wikipedia would lose it's NPOV, as it's NPOV would be dependant on the decidedly partisan real world. Jerimee 21:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Provide a reference that shows that the ACVR work cited in this article is making false statements about ACORN, and I'll remove the ACVR references. Argyriou (talk) 05:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. You don't have to disprove POV research to establish NPOV, you have to have the discipline not to use biased sources. Jerimee 17:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• As an eevil neocon, I am going to brush away teh hand of Rove in this instance, and agree with Jerimee that the AC4VR sources are probably being improperly used in this article, but for different reasons than Jerimee states. They are primary sources, and the information is all covered by the reliable secondary source that is cited at the end of the paragraph. Unless I'm missing something, there's no good reason to cite them there. However, it might be appropriate to include them in the external links section, unless there is some dispute over their authenticity. I think one link to the page at AC4VR that indexes all the documents would be sufficient. Crockspot 02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If AC4VR has provided reliable sources for their original research, why not use those sources directly, rather than via AC4VR? Is that what you meant? I feel the connection between AC4VR and ACORN is that AC4VR was founded to inhibit voter regsitration efforts, and ACORN engages in voter registration. Other than this, I see no reason to include them on this page at all. Jerimee 19:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no requirement that sources be NPOV. The requirement is that Wikipedia be NPOV. Sources must be reliable. The New York Times, for example, might have a more liberal POV than the Wall Street Journal, but that fact alone does not make it less reliable.Bdell555 (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Voter Registration

No reputable source claims that ACORN, or any other entity, engages in voter registration fraud in order to produce fraudulent votes. Voter registration fraud occurs when workers feel that it will be easier to falsify voter registration documents, than to actually register voters. This is massively illegal, as well as being counter-productive, even without the resulting attacks by conservatives.

For ACORN members to have an impact on elections, more people have to actually vote. Registering them is the first step. When some idiot copies names out of a phonebook, this will not enable these people to actually vote. The idiot's purpose is not to influence any election, but to get out of 5 hours hard work actually talking to unregistered citizens. If someone writes your name on 16 registration forms, this doesn't help you to vote 16 times, if anything it can hurt your ability to vote at all. It is a serious problem, and it's result is NOT increased votes.

So the natural criticism is why in God's name does ACORN not screen these cards to check for fraud. ACORN does, and when fraud is found, those persons are turned over to the authorities. That's why you continue to hear about these idiots. The right then blames ACORN, not because they are opposed to ACORN preventing registration fraud, but because they are opposed to increased voter registration. AC4VR and like entities can't come out and say, we oppose voter registration, but they can muddy the waters in order to associate voter registration efforts with fraudulent voter registration.

Call up the political science professors at your local university or community colleges if you are interested. Or see if you can find any newspaper reports of the dead actually voting in any number that would have any remote chance to change any election. It's not that this would be easy to detect, it's that, if this occured, it would be apparent immediately.

Jerimee 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If this is so bleedingly obvious, why do you continue to remove references, including court affadavits, from this article which show that ACORN has engaged in voter fraud? Argyriou (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to do this, and don't think I have. Let's improve the article together. Jerimee 02:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Left

Are groups that fit the (here) accepted qualifications as being relevant to, or an example of, "Consumer organizations", "Non-profit organizations", "Community building", "United States political action committees", "Political advocacy groups in the United States", "Social justice", "Affordable housing" "Gun control advocacy groups in the United States", "Immigration political advocacy groups in the United States" left wing, to say nothing of their activities and statements themselves? What type of "political advocacy" and "political action"? Just "social justice", "gun control", "affordable housing" and other things for which we mustn't state the bleedingly obvious? 129.71.73.248 06:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation Needed

The citations on the page are much improved. Anyone opposed to removing the "does not cite" header template? Jerimee 20:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

There are still almost no citations for the various campaigns ACORN has been involved in - citations from ACORN's website uoght to be enough to show that they were involved in those campaigns; claims of results ought to have better verification. Argyriou (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)