Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Response to Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters' comments above & Does Lulu have a COI?

I don't recall writing "that ACORN is trying to 'bring about the demise of capitalist system.'" Does anyone have a citation for that? I believe he is referring to a sourced quotation from the Cloward-Piven Strategy article about what that strategy was supposed to accomplish, but I could be wrong. I suspect Lulu's antipathy for my edits and seeming pettiness (such as thinking that 'thirty' somehow reads better than the more succinct '30') might be related to his communist-anarchist political beliefs (e.g. his stated belief on his user page that intellectual property is theft). I have no COI. What I want to know is if Lulu does. Let me explain. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has revealed his real life identity at his user page. [[1]] On said page he helpfully links to an article on WP about him. [[2]] The article reveals that he is vice-president and chief technology officer of the Open Voting Consortium. Does the Open Voting Consortium have a relationship with ACORN? If it does the question then arises, Should Lulu be editing the ACORN article? It's obviously very dear to his heart judging from the intensity of his actions and his vitriolic response to any change to the article that conveys derogatory information about ACORN. What is his personal and/or professional relationship to ACORN? Syntacticus (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Syntacticus: should the same questions be asked of you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threepillars (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The same questions were asked of me. I have answered them. Some will be satisfied with my answers; some will not. Syntacticus (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm actually not currently a member of the board of OVC, since my term expired (if someone wants to update the Wikipedia article on me, that's fine, I won't because of COI)... I am still generally supportive of them, and volunteer a small amount of time on some technical stuff. In any case, OVC neither has nor ever had an affiliation with ACORN; the purpose of the organizations are rather strikingly different. OVC is thoroughly non-partisan in its lobbying for transparent, accurate and accountable voting systems. OVC is entirely about the actual technical mechanisms of voting (and tabulation), not about any specific candidate, party, or measure that might be so voted.

Obviously, this is a pretty striking contrast with Syntacticus who has a subtantial outside reputation specifically in publishing accusations against ACORN (that are often inserted in article space). LotLE×talk 10:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I guess you don't have a COI. Thank you for indulging my curiosity, Lulu. Changing subjects, what exactly is this "subtantial [sic] outside reputation" you write of? I've noticed other people on the web use my pseudonym too, FWIW, e.g. this guy: [[3]]. I can't control what they write. Syntacticus (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Despite your disingenuous ANI claims and all that, let's just stop the pretense that you are someone other than the very same "Syntacticus" who continually inserts references to articles by Matthew Vadum/CRC at Free Republic and Daily Kos... A belabored claim that you can shed your carapace and emerge as a whole different butterfly is not the meaning or WP:OUTING. Unlike you, I make no pretense of being "some other person" than the one I actually am (in particular, I give all my true biography right on my user page, and make no inventions about "gee, I must accidentally share an IP block with someone I have no connection with other than promoting his articles). LotLE×talk 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New Edits

There's an active IP editor at the moment, i suspect some dust will be kicked up as a consequence. If there are major objections to what state the article ends up in when he's done, I would support efforts to get back to the status quo ante if that would avoid another majore flareup here. I don't even want to provide my take on the substance of his edits yet (I've already asked him on his talk page to seek consensus for major changes here first) because it's ongoing.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is an "active IP editor"? Is that me? Syntacticus (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

IP editor = not logged in (see IP address).Bali's referring to 138.88.159.151 (talk · contribs). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

JeremyMcCracken: But wasn't Bali above addressing the IP editor at 138.88.159.151 here? Syntacticus (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I made two slight changes. I cannot see that either will cause a "dust up." So let's not stir the pot Bali before it happens. The changes I made correct inclusion of poorly supported comments by minor critics, overly detailed deductions about what's going on around ACORN (I put some back in after a revert by Bali), and a non-sequitor about McCain at an event where ACORN was (what does this have to do with the unsupported view from the far right that ACORN's housing program brought on the mortgage crisis?). Sorry I'm not logged in, but my password has failed and I haven't redone the login yet. I'll come back later and fix that if it doesn't auto correct.Threepillars (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of 138.88.159.151's edits are helpful but others are not and I have reverted the latter. Revert explained at [[4]]. Syntacticus (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You still don't explain if serious economists take this claim to be credible. A few wacky people publishing op-eds on their own websites or at those of far right think tanks is not credible enough for entry here. Discuss some more but I will suggest removing it again (and the non sequitar reference to McCain at the ACORN rally). Threepillars (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What proof do you have that the economists are "wacky people"? You really should not smear those sources. Syntacticus (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say economists are wacky people. Please read more cafeully. Also, I'm not smearing those sources, I'm judging (some) of them based on their writings. Threepillars (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW: for some good writing on the issue of CRA and the 2008 econ crisis see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Relation_to_2008_financial_crisis (at least the version on this date.) Threepillars (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

McCain's scapegoating of ACORN as a cause of the bank collapse, as farfetched as it is, is perhaps notable to the organization because it shows how it became wrapped up in the politics of the day. The fact that a professor at UT Dallas wrote a dubious, partisan editorial in the New York Post that supports McCain's position[5] is hardly worth covering in Wikipedia. The claim that ACORN caused the financial crisis (and the other one made the article, that hosing discrimination against minorities does not exist) are outliers to the point of being finge/preposterous. If he were being more honest instead of partisan about it he would have said much more mildly that although ACORN did not in any material way cause the crisis, it was engaged in the same misguided form of thinking about loans that the banks were; also that although housing discrimination is real the studies used to back up the claim were false. The truth is unremarkable, and to the extent the professor stretches the truth in order to make remarkable claims, his doing so is utterly irrelevant to ACORN. We can't cover his claims as true because it's clearly opinion - not a reliable source. In order to say that his claim is worth covering we would have to establish some weight to it, namely a reliable secondary source that says this professor's opinion matters. I doubt it's out there because I don't think anyone took the piece for more than it was, an election year policy statement. Because it's been in and out for some time, and to avoid edit warring, I won't revert, but it's poorly sourced contentious information so it really ought not to be in the article. Wikidemon (talk) 05:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Support GoodDamon's Wikidemon's statement. And whatever ones arguments about the CRA, they don't belong here. They belong at Community Reinvestment Act.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the way the page looks now (on this issue), but if we leave in McCain's far fetched allegations on the impact of ACORN's work on the economy, there should be (for balance sake) links to ACORN's rebuttal and to the CRA page on Wikipedia (noting that the charges against ACORN are really charges against its support for CRA and use of it for negotiating with banks). Thanks for fixing my html footnotes also! Threepillars (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Stan

Just to say i support the liebowitz stuff going now. The actual article is about the 2007 mortgage downturn, not the full blown explosion of this year, it's a fringe opinion of no apparent wide-spread acceptance that, apparently makes a causal link between housing advocacy for the poor and bad loans to buy multiple condos on florida swampland, this economist isn't a big deal such that every opinion of his would be notable, kooky or not, etc... I had argued against the inclusion of this material when it was first placed here and support its removal now.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the main reasons ACORN has been so vilified by its critics is because of its (alleged) connection to the subprime crisis via its CRA advocacy. To omit Liebowitz's work is to leave a gaping hole in the article that would leave readers confused about why ACORN is so disliked by its critics. It is completely relevant and leaving it out is a whitewash of sorts. Readers are free to decide for themselves how to treat his views. You are splitting hairs (WP:WIKILAWYERING perhaps) about the 2007 downturn and the subsequent further downturn in 2008. It is a continuum, not separate events. Syntacticus (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's vilified on the right because it signs up a demographic of voters who tend to vote democratic and supports (generally) democratic causes, not because it supported the passage of a law (which has nothing to do with 95% of the bad debt currently in the US system) 30 years ago. There is no "gaping hole" and no reason to include a fairly incoherent opinion piece by a non-notable economist to make some strained point or other via the 2007 mortgage downturn.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. ACORN is no doubt disliked by rightists for the voter sign up efforts you cite but it is also disliked intensely because it supported CRA which encouraged a general loosening of underwriting standards across the whole lending industry, which is one of the points Liebowitz makes. It is a completely coherent, well written opinion piece, your academic snobbery notwithstanding (notability of the economist's view is relevant, not his supposed lack of academic stardom). The mere fact that the media repeated the CRA/ACORN allegations again and again and again during the 2008 election campaign establishes notability of the argument and supports inclusion in the ACORN article. Excluding the info might lead readers to believe ACORN critics are kooks and ACORN activists misunderstood saints. Maybe that's what you want. Syntacticus (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The tone of the piece is a lowbrow election cycle editoria - it is not written academically. There is no sourcing to suggest that this particular opinion is widespread or influential. During the election cycle almost everything Obama was involved in (or that people could try to attach to him) was criticized for every possible angle. All that stuff is not encyclopedic, and not relevant to the various people and organizations that became objects of the partisan campaigns. Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon that the "ACORN helped cause the economy to collapse" stuff is not a common belief or one that was even picked up by the media. Even the McCain campaign didn't push it hard. It's trivial and should be removed entirely. If included, we should revert to the links to ACORN's dismissal of it or to the wiki page on this issue (assuming that is stable). BTW: I moved the last footnote to the correct place and took out the phrase after McCain's quote as we don't need to finish his thought for him (i.e., we don't know that he meant voter reg fraud, their camp seemed to be geering up for election stealing accusations...bizarre as that sounds).Threepillars (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Some (sourced) content into what McCain was talking about would be useful. Standing alone his claim seems very out of place. Wikidemon (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorsement of Obama

I added a little bit about Bertha Lewis endorsing Obama via YouTube. It is relevant because ACORN goes to tremendous pains to note that it is strictly nonpartisan yet the endorsement of Obama seems to undermine that claim. Nonpartisan groups don't normally endorse candidates for office. Syntacticus (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, ever more craptastic digressions! Lewis was making a personal endorsement, not stating one by the organization. Few, if any, non-partisan organizations prohibit their employees (or even officers) from having personal political opinions, or even stating them publicly. However, trying to twist this into some sort of hypocrisy is farther still from any reality: ACORN can and has endorsed candidates, and never made claims not to; they merely did not endorse Obama specifically, for whatever reason. An endorsement wouldn't be particularly notable, but this particular endorsement didn't happen. LotLE×talk 07:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, upon consideration, I was wrong. ACORN gave the endorsement, not Lewis. It is an official video from ACORN affiliate Working Families Party. I regret the error and have fixed it. Thanks. Syntacticus (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lotle, actually it was on behalf of a political party she's affiliated with. It aint "on behalf of acorn." Syntacticus has mischaracterized that youtube video. (is a trivial endorsement by a member of an org in her capacity as a member of a different political party sourced only to youtube worth including here? Have to wonder...)Bali ultimate (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

this edit [[6]] syntacticus is quite frankly wrong. They are not officially affiliated in any way (at the very least this would be something that would need proving). I'll note that you had originally written this video said "Lewis on behalf of acorn endorsed" which was astonishingly misleading. I'll now leave it to someone else for now to correct this (and invite them to watch the youtube video for themselves.)Bali ultimate (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bali, maybe you have a problem with comprehension. Her wording certainly suggested it was from ACORN. She said so outright on the video, so you have it wrong. Also, you evidently don't know the history of the Working_Families_Party which was co-founded by ACORN and remains its affiliate to this day. Perhaps you should not edit unless you know what you're talking about, hmm? You seem to keep reverting my edits because of some personal animus. Syntacticus (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I watched. It was for this party, which i'd never heard of before. As for "affiliate;" do you have a citation from a reliable source proving this, or something from the WFP web-page at least? I presume by "affiliate" you mean some sort of formal relationship. By the way, your hotlinking to dailykos in the text of the article got me to wondering -- are you and the occasional dailykos diarist "syntacticus," who shares precisely your interests, the same guy?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly do love to speculate about stuff. The Working Families Party was founded by ACORN says the WP entry for the party here:

[[7]] Corroborated by DTN [[8]]. Syntacticus (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that the facts don't speak for themselves, interpreting her speech is a question of WP:OR. You would have to find reliable secondary sourcing for accuracy and weight. Wikidemon (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no other possible interpretation. Syntacticus (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that the material was reverted back in, and I have removed it again. Please do not add marginal material like this. The edit warring is unseemly, and no way to edit an encyclopedia. The burden is on anyone who wants to include information like this to show that it is both accurate, and that it is relevant to the article. Given that we already say that ACORN endorsed Obama in the primary, I cannot see how the fact of an ACORN official personally endorsing OBAMA on behalf of some other organization is relevant to ACORN. No sources have been provided to support that it is. Hence, the material should stay out until and unless this is established and consensus built around it. Wikidemon (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I watched the Lewis video again. Completely irrelevant to any article, but I really like her! What a charming demeanor. Whether Lewis is speaking for anyone other than herself is entirely unclear from the video, and asking readers to interpret the meaning of any Youtube video is definitely WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Lewis gives a "shout out" to a large number of organizations she is sympathetic with, but presumably she isn't speaking for all of them. This seems to be the status of ACORN in her video. She is endorsing Working Families Party by suggesting that you should vote Obama on that line[*], but this looks more like an endorsement of WFP than by WFP to me.

[*] In NY and a few other states, candidates can be affiliated with multiple parties. During a tally, not only the candidate, but the voted affiliation is counted. So while a vote for either, e.g. "Obama/Democrat" or "Obama/WFP" is counted towards the same candidate, the number of party voters is used for stuff like matching funds and ballot access for parties. Lewis, in her statement, more-or-less presumes that her listeners will vote Obama, but wishes that vote to also help WFP. LotLE×talk 20:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you're going to like Lewis because she is a communist just like you -- your radicalism seems to infect all your edits. But I digress, your spin is utterly convincing. ACORN is not supposed to be a partisan outfit and whenever they take heat during an election cycle they invariably respond that their get out the vote/registration efforts are strictly nonpartisan. Earlier in the year ACORN's PAC endorsed Obama, not ACORN itself. The Lewis video is different. In it she, the acting CEO of the group, urges people to vote for Obama. No reasonable person could interpret that as anything other than ACORN, the purportedly nonpartisan group, endorsing Obama. My larger point is that ACORN's claim that it is nonpartisan is bullshit. Syntacticus (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why youtube videos are not a reliable source. They're open to interpretation (besides other like tampering possibilities). Edits should be backed up by a WP:RS and youtube isn't one unless accomplished by one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Nonsense. Watch the video [[9]] again. She says "I want to thank everyone out there for defending ACORN against the scurrilous right-wing attacks and smears. That’ll teach 'em to attack a community organizer! [skip ahead] And if you live in New York there’s one more simple thing you can all do to help ACORN: vote for the community organizer Barack Obama on the Working Families Party ballot line!" Let us recap. ACORN's interim CEO issued ACORN's endorsement of Obama in the general election. If the matter goes to the Federal Elections Commission and or the IRS, they will agree with me because there is no other possible way of interpreting her words. ACORN may very well lose its tax exempt status because they screwed up. Syntacticus (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't nonpartisanship a legal status for tax and election purposes? As long as they meet it, as determined by the relevant controlling institutions (not you), and until they are shown otherwise to have not met it, again not by you, that's the way it stands. No? Threepillars (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • Did you read what I wrote? Yes, they have to be nonpartisan. That's what I said again and again. The IRS uses a facts and circumstances test. The head of ACORN endorsing Obama weeks before the election on YouTube might very well meet the test for sanctions against ACORN. My point was that her statement put ACORN in jeopardy because it got ACORN involved in the election in a partisan way. I'm not sure what your "not by you" comment is getting at. The authorities and any reasonable person would interpret her statement to be ACORN's endorsement of Obama because she is who she is (that is, head of ACORN). If it was meant to be a personal endorsement, she would have said so but there she was on the video with a WFP banner or sign right behind her (and as shown above WFP is affiliated with ACORN). Even if the endorsement doesn't cause legal ramifications for ACORN it still undermines ACORN's claim that it is strictly nonpartisan. At a minimum she has shown that ACORN's claim to be nonpartisan is a sham. Syntacticus (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what you wrote? Their status is what it is and will only change if they or the proper authorities change it. I didn't ask if they have to be nonpartisan. I asked, as a way of trying to politely point out (but manners seem lost on you), that their status is a legal determination by legal institutions, not by you. Stated more plainly: Your opinion doesn't matter. You're not a judge nor are you a tax official. File complaints or do whatever, just don't place your opinions into Wikipedia articles. This is not the place for op-eds or pretend lawyering.Threepillars (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For such statements there are plenty of forums and blogs. If you want to be taken serious on WP you might want to consider reading the guidelines and rules. What might fit into a blog doesn't mean it belongs into an encyclopedia, even if it is an online one. Till you get this straitened out in your mind you should hold your personal effort till you can improve this enziclopedia within the rules, which are or should be non-partisan and always sourced reliable.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus on a Bicycle! (to quote some charming editor I saw comment on something else recently). This strained reasoning of our friend from CRC is getting crazier by the minute. Lewis is not, of course, the CEO of ACORN, but she apparently is "chief organizer", whatever that title means. Someone who does something for an organization really isn't transparently identical with that organization! This is the sort of thing one normally learns in grade school, if that grade school isn't run by a right-wing "think tank". I could record a Youtube video asking viewers to "vote Communist" (to pick up on Syntacticus' trope; minus the insanity of calling Lewis a Communist for endorsing Obama)... and y'know what, even if I did so it wouldn't say anything about the OVC, or the ACM, or the LA Libraries, or MCF, or any other organization I happen to be a member of. Not even if it were freely uploaded to a popular video blog site. LotLE×talk 08:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To summarize for Syntacticus: "What's your point, Walter?"Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Speak plainly. Threepillars (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bali's just goofing around, being flippant as usual and quoting "The Big Lebowski." In any event, I never tried to insert my opinion in the article and recommend that you take a valium, Threepillars. (And what is an "enziclopedia"?) ACORN always claims to be nonpartisan and in so doing it is lying and hypocritical. If you don't agree, fine, but that was my point. As for Red Lulu's thoughtless rambling above, the "chief organizer" of ACORN is the group's chief executive officer. I didn't create the title. Chief organizer is top job (effectively CEO) at ACORN, or so reports NPR. [[10]] Maybe Lulu should read up on ACORN before making unsupported, incorrect assertions about the group. I see the ACORN article is going to continue to be a PR blowjob for some time to come. Syntacticus (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to drop the insults and goofing around yourself, I think. It is fine for you to believe ACORN lies, but this is not a personal essay website. There are such websites, this is not one. Your judgement that the YouTube video violates tax law is not a reliable source. It's that simple. (FYI: continued personal insults will just lead to my ignoring you. You may not care, but just letting you know).12:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threepillars (talk • contribs)

• Threepillars: You continue to obfuscate and throw out red herrings. Surely you're not as clueless as you're pretending to be. I NEVER EVER wrote in the article about tax law. I was explaining in this talk page to you why it was relevant. If you lack the ability to understand this distinction you have no business editing articles. I don't give a sh** about tax law and I don't give a sh** about what you think about tax law and I don't give a sh** if you ignore me. The only point you and Wikidemon below make that is relevant is whether anyone who is a reliable source has raised the issue of ACORN pretending to be nonpartisan. Fair enough. I know lots of people have and I'll see what I can find that comports with WP policy. Syntacticus (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The point, clearly, has been that the only people that would be important enough to report on in this article regarding what they think are those that determine tax status. Anybody else is speculating about a problem that doesn't exist. If the IRS isn't bothered by it, anybody else is blowing smoking.Threepillars (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, setting aside the jibs and the jabs, if you think the political endorsements of their "chief organier" are notable to the group, you're welcome to show that through reliable sources indicating the truth and importance of the matter. If not, the article remains a "blow job", as you say. That is not a matter of PR, it is a matter of WP:RS. We go on what the sources say, not anyone's arguments or opinions on the matter. Wikidemon (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty amazing that Syntacticus hasn't the foggiest idea what the words "non-partisan", "tax exempt", "non-profit", or "endorsement" mean. I thought they taught those sort of things to the members of conservative "think tanks"... I guess standards are slipping noways. Oh well, I am amused by the "Red Lulu" phrase, although I'm pretty sure our friend from CRC is unaware of its allusions. In any case, Wikidemon is right, as almost always: if it's supposed to be notable that an officer of ACORN made a personal endorsement of a party (not really of a candidate), find a source that says so (no, an obscure interpretation of a blogged video isn't a source, let alone a WP:RS). LotLE×talk 17:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Lulu --> Pinko Lulu --> Pink Tutu. It's all logial. Threepillars (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that Lulu continues straddling the line of WP:OUTING by implying ("our friend from CRC") he knows my off-WP identity and holding out the fact that he does not use a pseudonym as some kind of badge of honor. It is as if he feels this somehow makes him better than me and the rest of the anonymous WP editors who comprise an overwhelming majority of all registered WP editors. Whatever. Moving along, there are some reliable sources such as Dan Cantor, executive director of the ACORN affiliate Working Families Party in New York, who says ACORN endorsed Obama. "We admit a little pride that ACORN's endorsement seems so threatening to Fox," Cantor wrote at Alternet on Nov. 1, 2008 in a post about the Bertha Lewis YouTube video. [[11]] Syntacticus (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cantor presumably is referring to ACORN's related org which can legally make endorsements.Threepillars (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And PRESUMABLY you are a mindreader so you know exactly what he meant when he said it. I can only go on the text. Syntacticus (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ACORN 8

WP:BRD

I created a new section after learning that a breakaway group has formed. I'll put more info in later as needed. Syntacticus (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would bet dollars-to-donuts that our friend from CRC was personally involved in setting up this doubtful organization, as some sort of agent provocateur. It's the usual pattern of his self-aggrandizement of his own outside efforts, which he then recycles onto WP and other websites as "important news". Frankly, it's about damn time that this user, and all associated IP addresses, is permanently blocked! (or actually, far overdue) LotLE×talk 09:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Only an interested party with a COI would revert the totally relevant factual addition to this article. I think it is time that you be blocked not only for your prohibited speculation about identity contrary to WP:OUTING but also for this flagrant act of vandalism. I am growing sick of your conspiracy theories (as if I'm in league with ACORN ex-board members who formed ACORN 8--give me a break) and related shit and I'm going to do something about it. I also don't see why you personally merit an article on WP given your virtually worthless contributions to learning that seem to spring out of your presumably diploma mill issued PhD in a useless subject (it must suck to be stuck in a dead end job after spending so many years in university); however, because I have a personal dislike for you based on your conduct here I will refrain from nominating it for deletion. Syntacticus (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt anyone else would support his contentious edit, but procedurally it is pretty unambiguous that having been reverted, the proper action isn't to edit war and spew insults, but rather to try to reach consensus for an addition. Please read WP:BRD, Syntacticus. LotLE×talk 06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So far you are the only editor objecting to the edit. I am happy to discuss the addition I made to the article but I think the change should stay in there for the time being, especially because only one person (you) objects to it. One objecting editor isn't exactly impressive. As far as the insults, may I remind you that you have been accusing me of COI and speculating about my identity for weeks now contrary to WP:OUTING. Tell me: What exactly is so contentious or hard to believe about the fact that a faction within ACORN differs from management and broke away in an effort to draw attention to the dissidents' concerns? Is the Pittsburgh Tribune Review article I cited somehow not a reliable source? How about the website the ACORN 8 set up? Are the newspaper and the ACORN 8 members lying? Is this somehow all just a conspiracy I am orchestrating in order to prevail in a WP editing dispute? Listen to how crazy that sounds, Lulu. It sounds like you are desperately grasping at straws in order to keep true but negative info about ACORN out of the article. I am reaching out to you now. The burden is on you to explain why the edit should be disallowed. As I see it, it is clearly relevant to the ACORN story. I'm not saying the ACORN 8 section should be huge but it should be there. For the time being I am putting it back in. Syntacticus (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And so Lulu takes it out again thus confirming he is engaged in an edit war. You, Lulu, are losing your marbles. You seem like you need professional help. Syntacticus (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, Syntacticus, I know you are loathe to read WP:BRD or other WP policy. But we have rules here. If you can find any other editor who actually supports your contentious addition of material, we can discuss that at such time. The way WP works is that it is the burden of an editor seeking broad change in an article to win consensus, not the burden of an editor to prove prior consensus every time a problem editor, like yourself, introduces new nonsense. LotLE×talk 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have read it. It says to be bold. Have you read it? Besides it is not a major change and you cannot by your lonesome block it. You are a problem editor (your talk page contains more warnings and complaints than mine) who consistently flaunts WP:OUTING and other rules and froths at the mouth with conspiracy theories. It is a factual statement relevant and important to the ACORN article. If you are frustrated with your loser life and shitty job (if that's where this inner rage comes from) you shouldn't take out your frustrations on other editors. In any event, I have reached out to you. You refuse to explain what is wrong with the addition. All you say is that I'm a "problem editor" and somehow "contentious" therefore it gets deleted. That will not stand. WP has rules and you don't give a shit about them obviously. Syntacticus (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hear a case made as to why this material should be inserted. It's not clear to me that A. It should be inserted and B. What weight it should be given. Could someone make an argument for its inclusion? Bali ultimate (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it the material as presented seems to be of undue weight and has some issues with encyclopedic tone and editorializing. It looks like a management fight / splinter group, which may or may not be notable. If it is, it needs some stronger sourcing - the New York Times piece does not support all the statements and it does not use the term "ACORN 8"; the group's own website is a fairly weak primary source. If it is worth including it should probably be trimmed back and stated in a more factual tone, giving some context. Wikidemon (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The source provided doesn't reflect the text as written? I'm shocked, shocked! I tell you. My vote is to wait and see if this develops/turns out to be a major problem/or is just a minor, irrelevant intramural squabble. I'm more interested to see how those FBI "investigations" are developing.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lulu's wholesale deletion was inappropriate, and the use of the term "vandalism" in the edit summary was incivil as well. I've restored the text for now, and urge all parties concerned to discuss here before any further edits on this matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving civility punishments aside, why would you reinsert information into an article that doesn't reflect the citation it's connected to? That is, false, misleading information? I'll go over this myself, and if it as it's been characterized by other editors, will remove it.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have substantially edited the material for tone, relevance, weight, fidelity to sources, and WP:NOT#NEWS. Newspapers often chronicle allegations made in press releases, public statements, and lawsuits by simply repeating them. That is not very encyclopedic. Unless they're proven in court or some other way, it is not our job to repeat allegations. However, if the making of the allegation is notable, then it may be worth including. Boiling it all down, what we have is a fight by a dissident minority group on the board that leads them to file a lawsuit, then they get ousted, then they make a website and issue a press release to state their case. All of this is fairly garden variety organization infighting - it does not happen to every group but it is pretty common. I'm still not convinced that two board members issuing a press release to claim they were wrongly fired, and disparaging their former board, is significant, reliable, or meaningful enough to be mentioned. The press coverage is only slightly about the fact that they set up the press release, website, and name "ACORN 8" - it mentions that in passing, mainly as a way of attributing their claims. Putting it in simple English, is "two former board members publicly called for a criminal investigation, which never happened, and nothing ever came of it" a significant event in the life of a national organization? I think it's fair to mention this, lightly, as context for the larger issue of Rathke's embezzlement and the process of rooting out him and his influence. Wikidemon (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, Wikidemon. I'm not sure what Bali ultimate is talking about. One citation I put in linked to a NYT article and the other to the ACORN 8 website, so both citations supported the material I included (which has subsequently been condensed by Wikidemon). I am gratified that Orangemike agrees with me that Lulu's edits were entirely inappropriate. Syntacticus (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Source for minimum wage case

I agree that the Times source is flimsy because it doesn't cite its own sources. I found someone quoting the case here, who cited it as follows:

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now vs. State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Divison fo Labor Standards Enforcement, Case No. AO 69744, Appellant’s Opening Brief, in the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, August, 1995, cited in Employment Policies Institute, Q & A: Minimum Wage Employee Profile, May 1997.

Unfortunately, I don't know my way around California's court records system; this looks to be the means of searching for cases; I was having trouble with it but will try again later. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We have to be very careful about sourcing content to court records. A formal written opinion by a judge can sometimes be a reliable source for the court's ruling, and potentially for some of the facts recited in the ruling. The parties' briefs, claims, and other filings are reliable for little more than the fact that the party filed a paper with the court - even using them to summarize what the parties are contending is rather iffy. Plus as primary sources they do not establish their own significance / relevance or the significance of the matters they discuss. Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about that paragraph until someone else removed it, and someone restored it. But once I read the paragraph and the source, it started to seem dubious to me. The paragraph in the article does match what the Washington Times editorial says, but that highly partisan source seems to be making an unlikely claim. My hunch is that there was an actual case, but that it can only be read as "ACORN wants to pay its workers less than minimum wage" if you squint just right, and put on specially tinted anti-ACORN glasses.

Purely speculating, on my part, I wonder if it might actually have to do with ACORN requesting a partially commissioned pay structure with a base less than minimum wage. That wouldn't necessarily be a good thing, or something I would approve of ACORN doing. However, restaurant workers, for example, typically are permitted to be paid a base under minimum wage under the notion that tips bring their actual income above the minimum. If it were something like that, I can imagine sources like the Times putting a hard spin on it to get at what they claim. LotLE×talk 18:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Argh... it wasn't searching by case number when I told it to. I found it; here is the case record: [12] An interesting argument: "ACORN contends that California's minimum wage laws, while facially constitutional as supported by the compelling state interest of ensuring wages adequate to maintain a decent standard of living, are unconstitutional as applied to ACORN because they restrict ACORN's ability to engage in political advocacy." It seems to me to be a pretty clear argument, but the amount of anti-ACORN press it created is what would make it either notable or undue weight. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Without Lexis / Nexis available I cannot read the case. But a party's legal theory on why it should win a case is not a reliable source for the party's official position on policy matters or reason for doing things. News agencies often report it as such (an obvious example, parties nearly always include the boilerplate, "so-and-so's claims are utterly without merit", in press releases and responsive pleadings. Newspapers reprint these statements all the time but reprinting an unreliable statement does not make it reliable. The fair and level-headed thing to do would be to ask for a reliable source that establishes verifiability and weight to the notion that ACORN wanted to pay its workers less than minimum wage, and that it was a bona fide controversy (partisan editorials don't count), and if none is forthcoming after a few days, remove the statement again with explanation. Poorly sourced disputed content can be removed at any time, of course, but best not to perpetuate any edit wars except in the most clear-cut of cases, e.g. copyright and BLP vios. Wikidemon (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, looks like I can't direct-link it. You'd have to go here and search for "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now"; it's coming up first in the results for me ("Ass'n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, No. A069744"). I think it is pretty clear what the reason was, as they were pretty explicit. Here is the first paragraph of the discussion:

ACORN contends that California's minimum wage laws, while facially constitutional as supported by the compelling state interest of ensuring wages adequate to maintain a decent standard of living (see Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 690, 701 [166 Cal. Rptr. 331, 613 P.2d 579]), are unconstitutional as applied to ACORN because they restrict ACORN's ability to engage in political advocacy. According to ACORN, this adverse impact will be manifested in two ways: first, ACORN will be forced to hire fewer workers; second, its workers, if paid the minimum wage, will be less empathetic with ACORN's low and moderate income constituency and will therefore be less effective advocates.

I'm not convinced, however, that this is really a notable controversy. There are plenty of bloggers talking about it, but even editorials are few, and I can't find any news-oriented pieces mentioning it. This doesn't seem to be something that drew much attention, either at the time or since. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it could be notable if the context of the court case is understood. The reason I think a context is needed is stated similarly by Wikidemon, what gets stated in court is always tailored to argue a legal matter, and does not always reflect the motive of the legal matter. If I got a speeding ticket while driving my sick kid to the hospital and I went and argued in court on a technicality to do with the spelling of my name, I would be judge as a spelling Nazi by the editorials (instead of maybe a reckless driver).124.171.51.189 (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Malkin

I see the problem editor Lulu of the Lotus Eaters is up to his old tricks again. Michelle Malkin is not a fringe source. Lyndon LaRouche, Paul Craig Roberts, and a chorus of HuffPo writers are fringe sources but she is not. She routinely provides verifiable sources. Accordingly, I have reverted this disruptive edit from an editor whose history of trouble making is exhaustively documented. Syntacticus (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV violation is not even remotely plausible. The proposal is to add material that Michelle Malkin writes, but with not reliable source that she wrote it, only her own words. She is clearly throwing incendiary (and rather lowbrow) accusations out there. It goes downhill from there. Don't edit war, and don't try to add this this kind of partisan nonsense to the encyclopedia, please. Wikidemon (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the routine POV issues with Syntacticus' "contributions", this one was randomly inserted in a section of the article having nothing to do with the ideas it discusses (which are already far better covered in relevant sections). On top of that, it is, to all appearances, a WP:COPYVIO in just dumping material written by Malkin randomly into the article. There's really nothing even remotely plausible in this disruptive insertion (I assume the earlier anon edit was Syntacticus under another guise, which probably makes it 3RR on top of the rest). LotLE×talk 09:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon: I didn't "add" the Malkin material. I reverted it because the arguments made in removing it were unsatisfactory and were made by a problem editor (Lulu) who has been warned about this kind of thing time and time again. Surely you understand the difference and will make an effort to be more accurate in the future.

And now Lulu, true to form, is making untrue and unprovable assertions of sockpuppetry. Why Lulu has not been banned from WP is beyond me. Syntacticus (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Home Defender

I am a bit concerned that this new section is too WP:RECENTist. The only sources are from ACORN itself, and only within the last couple weeks. Whether or not this is appropriate WP:WEIGHT to the organizations overall history is not clear. I think, also, that the editor who added it intends it to be something self-evidently bad, especially given the (slight) negative spin given in the original phrasing. However, that's just an editor, not about the content.

Apart from the relevance of the content, it's driving me crazy that ACORN's URLs seem to break the citation templates. I think the square brackets throw off MediaWiki software. Does anyone know how to fix this:

{cite web|
 title=Refusing to Leave: ACORN Members Step up Fight to Stay in Homes|
 date=February 13, 2009|
 url=http://acorn.org/index.php?id=12439&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=22521&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12387&cHash=5ef36d5092}

It's rendering horribly right now in the footnote. LotLE×talk 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In the course of improving a number of sections I've tried to clean this up - there is at least one reliable secondary source, which I am adding. I've turned that particular one into a non-active link.Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a better, but still hack-ish fix. I used an "alturl.com" redirect that doesn't have the characters that upset MediaWiki software. I don't love this approach, but at least it makes the citation render and link correctly. LotLE×talk 19:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Closed this discussion due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Brothejr (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article should be scrapped and re-written ASAP. 74.202.96.5 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Everything you just said was informative and made sense. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC) this is sadly typical of what you find on wikipedia. Anything left wing is scrubbed clean by the same ideologues who are constantly insisting that there needs to be a section in an article about someone or something conservative, highlighting the people who have written books critical of that person. This reads like a publicity pamphlet put out by ACORN, and you know what, they probably did write it. Welcome to Wikipedia. 69.8.247.231 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC) I find that hard to believe. From personal experience, I can assure you that in all my time on Wikipedia, I have never heard this sentiment shared on any discussion page for any article in any way. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Discussion closed. What a surprise. The powers that be on Wikipedia are so tolerant of dissenting views. 69.8.247.231 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sox?

Five similar edits in two days, each from an WP:SPA. What gives?[13][14][15][16][17] - Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it's the same person, or at least collaborating people. Unfortunately, all but one are from some are IP addresses, so it's hard to do any effective blocks. Nice job rolling back the vandalism quickly, Wikidemon. LotLE×talk 00:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC) (oops, hadn't actually checked your diffs: there are more accounts there; but I think there are also some additional IP diffs not listed).

Investigations

I've moved the following sentence from the article to this location for review:

Also in October 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began investigating voter registration fraud claims against ACORN.

My first inclination is to just delete this sentence, as it is redundant to the information already in the Voter Registration section that states fraudulent registrations are investigated at federal levels. It is also an inaccurate sentence, as the FBI didn't begin investigating in October, nor does the source say it did. The feds have been investigating complaints of vote registrars every 2 year election cycle for a long time now. The source cited here says two anonymous guys confirm the FBI is investigating voter registration problems, and two ACORN guys confirm that no one has contacted them about it. What do we take away from this source to add to the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote of WSJ article re" partisan /non-partisan

I placed a "" tag after the initial edit[18] and the tag was removed and the sentence wording changed. Unfortunately, the quoted article does not say either that ACORN is non-partisan or that its voter registration drives are non-partisan. The article uses the term "technically non-partisan" and references a particular voter registration drive that was held prior to the 2008 elections. I will replace the tag and hope that someone can find and appropriate cite. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The source states specifically:

Its voter mobilization arm is co-managing a $15.9 million campaign with the group Project Vote to register 1.2 million low-income Hispanics and African-Americans, who are among those most likely to vote Democratic. Technically nonpartisan, the effort is one of the largest such voter-registration drives on record.

The source notes that the "voter mobilization arm" (yes, they do their voter registration drives, as described in the article) is technically nonpartisan (which it must be to keep its tax-exempt status). The word "technically" does not mean they are partisan, but it does support the article's further explanation that ACORN tends to focus its efforts in "poor and minority" areas, and voters in those areas are reported to lean democratic. The description of ACORN's voter registration project as nonpartisan is correct, and is cited in a reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The source is about a specific voter registration drive that occurred in mid 2008; that specific instance is what is described as "technically non-partisan". You cannot simply use a description of one registration drive to cover all of them. You say "The description of ACORN's voter registration project as nonpartisan is correct, and is cited in a reliable source." That is correct as a description of a singular instance but cannot be made to apply generally. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically seems to mean "not" in this case. Or rather, it is non-partisan in a technical sense as it is required to be no doubt by some laws and regulations. However, as everyone knows the group is operating to the benefit of Democrats, and draws support for that reason. It would be more encyclopedic to present the whole picture there about the organization as a whole and/or its voter drives (assuming, of course, it is true and can be verified properly to reliable sources). Wikidemon (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify some misconceptions, 1) the source is refering to a joint effort voter registration drive that has been in full swing throughout 2007 and 2008, not "mid-2008", which is an assumption not even mentioned in the article; 2) "technically nonpartisan" does not equal "not nonpartisan" no matter how you try to twist and skew it. The voter registration arm is non-partisan by law; they can't selectively register only democrats. The "technically" adjective is only there to remind the reader that while the project is non-partisan, the results favor the democrats because of the "poor and minority" demographic they target. Just as faith-based organizations registering voters in church, also non-partisan for tax-exempt reasons, produce results that tend to favor republicans.

The article presently states: ACORN is a self described "Non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization", but has worked with Democratic groups and endorsed candidates.

The source mentions the endorsement of Obama by ACORN's political action arm, but doesn't specifically state they "work with Democratic groups". Should that part be removed? While it is true that ACORN's campaigns frequently mesh well with democrat policies and agenda, what "groups" have they worked with, and where is the source? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How about getting some more sources so we don't have to squeeze the WSJ one dry? I think we all pretty much agree. It's clearly a left (or at least Democratic) leaning group. "Non-partisan" in this context has a technical meaning that differs from the common usage, and seems to follow a legal requirement applicable to all comparable voter drives. I think all that can be said in a very straightforward way and sourced - surely there are other solid neutral sources that describe this. If not, maybe we're wrong. Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely a disconnect between the technical and precise meaning of "nonpartisan" that tax and lobbying laws use, and the informal sense that some popular editorials use. Unfortunately, it is really easy to find about eleventy-billion right-wing blogs that exclaim their indignation that ACORN isn't really "nonpartisan" (but exactly what these bloggers mean by nonpartisan is completely individual and subjective). ACORN is by all means a left-leaning organization, perhaps even leftist, and as such finds itself in sympathy with the Democratic party a lot more than with the Republicans. No one ever claimed otherwise. It is also a legally nonpartisan organization, which is something worth nothing about an organization that does things like voter drives and anti-foreclosure direct action.

I am really shy to try to twist the legal and precise meaning of nonpartisan under the grounds that someone who doesn't understand the word won't... well, understand the word. Maybe we can find a relevant footnote or wikilink to clarify the word for those great unwashed masses. But the accurate description really should stay, given we are writing an encyclopedia article. LotLE×talk 00:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a source that says, bluntly:

ACORN is a nonpartisan organization, but it has a liberal political agenda and ties to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. The low-income people it seeks to enfranchise are a group that tends to vote Democratic. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Obama campaign worked with ACORN on the voter drive.

We're getting unnecessarily worked up over the word "technically". It's just another way of putting scare quotes around the word nonpartisan. ACORN describes itself as non-partisan; many sources state ACORN is non-partisan; the government apparently agrees, because they are still listed as a non-profit that receives some government funding — can't do that if you are not legally non-partisan. I'm sure conservatives are incredulous when they see ACORN pushing for higher minimum wages, tighter regulations against predatory loans and other bastions of liberal policy -- but ACORN isn't controlled by any political party, and keeps solid monetary walls between its community organizing entities and its political action entities. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the Democratic Party has no monopoly in supporting higher minimum wages, tighter regulations against predatory loans, etc. In fact, many activists feel that the Democratic Party is only marginally better than the Republicans as far as preventing such legislation from passing; and argue that if one really wants such policies enacted, one should be voting for the Socialist Party, Greens, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

"ACORN is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that typically champions liberal and progressive causes." How can you be nonpartisan and advocate liberal and progressive causes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.158.80 (talk • contribs)

This article is NOT NEWS

As my edit comments indicate, and the history of this article shows even more clearly, we should not attempt to turn this article into a breaking news broadsheet. We shouldn't do so even if some editors who dislike ACORN find tidbits of information critical of the organization in today's headlines. The story on charges in Nevada are a lot like all the previous allegations and charges that have circulated through this article over time. Anyone remember the "anonymous FBI sources" who sat in the article for a long time, basically as an election-year stunt?! In the 35 year history of the organization, some charges that may or may not result in any trial, let alone conviction, don't come anywhere close to encyclopedic significance. There's no deadline for including information; if these charges later see convictions, that would be a good time to consider the matter again. For example, the actual fine agreed to in King County seems notable enough to retain as brief mention, and that's been in the article for a good while. LotLE×talk 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally agreed. However, we've already established / agreed that the lawsuits, criminal complaints, plea agreements, etc., in connection with voter registration fraud by field workers working on quota, is worth some kind of mention. It's important both to describe the organization itself, and also how the organization became an election-year political issue -- the article treats both. That has long-lasting notability, a couple years now at least. The Nevada claims are the latest wrinkle, not an isolated thing. The unique thing about the Nevada case is that it claims that the practice of using quotas is itself illegal in that state, as opposed to other states where the violation was what workers did to fulfill the quota, not the quota itself. We shouldn't ignore that because it's a non-trivial part of the history and structure of the organization. But nor can we have a laundry list of every claim, or a tabloid-ish delving into the details of a particular scandal. No doubt many large organizations would have a long list of employees who've been charged or convicted with something. For an interesting comparison that's hopefully not political or controversial, take a look at Domino's Pizza#30 Minute guarantee. Imagine all the Domino's drivers convicted of reckless driving. That article chooses two of the most notorious / well known cases and describes the outcome and company response. It could be better written but that's not a bad approach. Anyway, although consensus is unclear on the point I do not object to the one-sentence mention of the Nevada case. Whether that will stay in the article or not long-term really depends on how the case unfolds. If the case is quickly dropped or dismissed, not important. If it leads to criminal convictions, resignations, changes in how Acorn does business, then it's worth keeping and probably expanding. In the meanwhile, there shouldn't be any rush - either to put it in or take it out. What's the big deal? Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the article should not be documenting allegations that may or may not pan out. It is customary for us to wait until the case has been resolved, and even then I would have undue weight worries. One thing that concerns me in particular is that the AP article uses the term "voter fraud" instead of "voter registration fraud". The former is much more serious, so it is probably not a good idea to use a source that appears to confuse the two. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we don't know. This wouldn't be the first article that tries to be current with a notable subject. As I said I don't see the harm either way because we can always take a look later. Incidentally, the Nevada case isn't really even voter registration fraud... the claims as I read them are that the quota system is illegal, whether or not it lead the workers on quota to make fraudulent registrations. Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes it all the more important to leave this information out for the time being, because we aren't even sure what section it belongs in (assuming it belongs anywhere). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the content that's being scrubbed: In 2009, the Nevada Attorney General and Secretary of State filed a criminal complaint against ACORN and two employees over its use of a quota system for voter registrations by employees<ref>[http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=10299051 ACORN Facing Criminal Charges], CBS News Las Vegas channel 8, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/04/criminal-charges-filed-against-acorn-two-employees/ Criminal charges filed against ACORN, two employees], Las Vegas Sun, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30567548/ ACORN charged in Nevada voter-fraud case], MSNBC, May 4, 2009</ref> ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of dumping it here is. We all have access to the article history. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, and because it's better that I put it on the talk page instead of in the article, 7 ACORN employees in Pittsbiurgh have just had criminal charges filed against them. source Grundle2600 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a better source, if it ever becomes article-worthy content. Grundle could have said, "7 employees fired by ACORN and turned over to the authorities for illegal registration practices, are now facing criminal charges in Pittsburgh," with equal accuracy, depending on sources, of course. I'm looking at some sources (of questionable reliability) that even claim some of the fired employees are now getting their revenge by making up stories to implicate the supervisors that caught and fired them. Could make for interesting content either way, after it makes its way through the washer & ringer, and ends up printed in a reliable source as certainty, not speculation. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As this unfolds, I think it makes some sense to expand the section on the criminal charges, convictions, and settlements. I wonder how that could be done in summary style without making a litany... probably 1/2 to 1 new sentence pointing to one or more reliable major press neutral sources that describe the entire problem rather than individual reports of specific charges. A few months ago, amidst great hand wringing, the consensus seemed to be that we would not try to list each one individually - that effort brought up a lot of sourcing issues, and questions about contradictory numbers of convictions. No rush, it's an ongoing news item. Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Before anything makes its way into this article, three criteria should be satisfied:

1. Actual convictions
2. Direct involvement of ACORN (with ACORN's complicity, sanction or knowledge - not guilt by association)
3. Covered by high quality reliable sources

It is vitally important the reliable sources state that convictions were made and that ACORN was directly involved before adding anything, because otherwise there are potential libel concerns. The accused individuals may be exonerated, or they may be convicted but found to be acting independently of ACORN. Details like these would prevent coverage in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In general for BLP reasons I wouldn't want to report allegations, dropped charges, unresolved cases, etc., where it concerns specific individuals. However, I wouldn't make an absolute rule that ongoing cases against companies should be excluded until the cases are resolved, something that can take years. There seems to be a widespread issue that ACORN's quota system and supervision of its field workers has lead to abuse. I definitely wouldn't require a "direct connection" to be shown in court. That becomes a technical legal issue that is quite different than the public conception. For example, police brutality, racial profiling, sexual discrimination, workplace safety issues, health violations can be prevalent within an organization but the organization may escape legal culpability on theory that the employees who committed the abuses were acting outside the scope of their authority. That was a big issue in the Domino's 30 minute guarantee cases (Dominoes claimed that any employee who was driving recklessly was doing so on their own, not as company policy), and of course the new nasty food videos (Dominoes justifiably claims that the employees were acting outside the scope of their employment). Yet employee misbehavior can be an issue of note to the employer, even if they are rogue employees. It affected the task that the employer was supposed to be doing, in this case conducting legitimate voter registration efforts. Wikidemon (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then reliable sources would need to frame it that way as well. They would need to talk about ACORN's "widespread issue" with their quota system before we could use those sorts of terms. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My comment that it seems to be widespread is just an impression, and would have to be confirmed by a source that suggests it is actually a significant issue. Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy that notable events are only notable if there's a conviction. What a bunch of illogical silliness. Clinton was never convicted of anything nor Bush. So perhaps we should start removing all the issues and problems they've had from their articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A legal finding or result is a lot more notable than a legal case. For BLP purposes, unproven allegations against individuals are problematic. Please do not use article talk pages to complain about other editors. Do you have a specific proposal here? Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, if you want to rein in the personal attacks and grandstanding you should start with yourself and broaden out from there. The abuse of policies and censorship is obscene.wp:NOTNEWS doesn't say we don't use content from reliable news sources does it? What would we use? If legal cases are reported in reliable sources they are notable and we include them. We don't play games with what we like and what we don't like. This is vandalism. There are vandals who come and replace content with silly words like "poop" and there are vandals who remove sources without discussion, who censor notable content and who refuse to engage in good faith compromise to include notable perspectives as our guidelines require. So as soon as you want to start playing by the rules you let me know. But don't play games and accuse me of acting in bad faith when i've had to put up with your harassment and the personal attacks and harassment by Scjessey, Tarc, Grsz, and others time after time. I'm not going to stand by and pretend it's okay that Wikipedia is being censored and vandalised by POV pushing partisans. End of story. In this particular case we have reliable sources noting an investigation. It should be mentioned and the sources included, obviously. That's what the guidelines indicate and to do otherwise would violate our rules to serve political ends. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Note - I won't respond to that here, but I have filed an AN/I report here after warning the editor over this. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - Clinton and Bush are well known individuals with a multitude of reliable sources. It is a very different matter when you are talking about non-notable individuals who may or may not have committed crimes that may or may not have anything to do with ACORN. Read WP:BLP and WP:HARM for reasons why caution is necessary in this case. Oh, and Bush hasn't been convicted of anything yet.  ;) -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How does WP:BLP apply? Individuals are neither the subject of this WP article, nor are they named (either in the Wikipedia article or the news sources). The fact that the organization is named in a criminal complaint—regardless of how the complaint is handled or the ultimate outcome—is clearly relevant. This has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS, which states that articles about single events that have received news coverage may not constitute appropriate topics for Wikipedia articles. However, nowhere does any policy or guideline suggest that significant news about a topic already covered in Wikipedia is not appropriate for inclusion because it is news. Bongomatic 02:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to this particular situation, so I disagree with Scjessey there. One fundamental thing about BLP is that it is about living persons not organizations. There is a BLP concern (not necessarily a violation, just an issue that may need checking out) when a particular individual is identified as being the subject of an investigation, allegation, charge, or criminal complaint. Many editors feel that because of BLP Wikipedia should be very cautious about reporting these things, even where the making of the accusation is reliably sourced. That's not the case here, as far as I know - the identity of the workers named in the complaint weren't mentioned. I've also argued that WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't really apply so that's not the way to look at this, although that's a fair argument. In fact, for the very reason that this is not just an isolated event that happened one news day, it seems to be worth going into in more detail. To my mind it's really a weight, tone, sourcing, and summary style question. There have been dozens of complaints and allegations, and I think we should expand the coverage of those but as a general statement about the organization as a whole if that can be found in the sources, rather than a laundry list of the individual cases. Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a new article from Pittsburgh's biggest newspaper. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And here are 646 (at the moment, on my computer) from New York City's biggest, dating back at least 4 1/2 years.[19] So the broader issue of allegations and finding of fraud in connection with Acorn's voter registration efforts it's obviously not just the topic of the day. Have we had an WP:RfC on this? Or mediation? I'm wondering if that might be the best approach. I think everyone agrees that the topic should be covered, and there's a reasonable question of how to do it. Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But Pittsburgh is the city where those people live, and a local paper would tend to offer more information. In this example, that local article has the names of the people involved, which the other sources don't. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

True, and thanks for spotting the article. I was just kind of agreeing that there are a lot of sources. Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevada complaint material

This addition[20] looks fine by me. I'm fine with it being in, or fine with it not being in. It is an emerging story and there is no rush so in due course we can see what happens, and whether it's worth expanding or removing. In the longer run, as I mentioned before it would be nice to see if we can get to a comprehensive summary of the whole voter registration fraud issue, based on solid sources that do the same, rather than a list of data points. But in the meanwhile, the Nevada charges are clearly getting some significant press and the added content sticks to the facts, so I see no problem with verifiability, neutrality, weight, etc. Any arguments or objections either way? Wikidemon (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My observations on the new Nevada & Pittsburgh charges, and the voter registration fraud issues in general:

• Both Grundle and Bongomatic have mistakenly claimed that the Nevada story sources don't name individuals. They not only fully name them, they also provide their cities of residence. Their names are not in the Wikipedia article, so I am unsure if this constitutes a BLP violation, but let's not claim there is no mention of defendants.

One of the three stories omits the name. If (which I don't believe) the mention of the names in a link from an article not about the is considered a BLP violation, the two other articles can be de-linked. Bongomatic 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• The recent entry to this Wikipedia article adds content that describes a complaint that was filed against ACORN, while completely failing to mention any of the responses given to those charges by ACORN representatives. It is also worded to present the charges as factual rather than alleged; and fails to mention that of dozens of similar charges across the states, this is the only one to implicate ACORN. If we are going to eagerly insert unresolved charges, allegations and indictments into the article before they even see the inside of a courtroom, we should at least include the defendant's response and position on the charges also.

Sounds reasonable. Please add, not subtract. Bongomatic 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonble, except that prepared statements by defendants, their PR people or lawyers in response to being sued or indicted, are all unencyclopedic, even if repeated by the press. Saying "through a spokesperson, XXX said that all charges are utterly without basis and that it looks forward to the opportunity to exonerate itself in a fair judicial process" or something, doesn't mean anything. We should only report a criminal complaint if the complaint is secondarily sourced; similarly, any description of the company's response would have to be from a secondary source. That's not specific to this article, it's the best way to deal with any court case. Wikidemon (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Every two year election cycle for decades has seen the same song and dance played out, to lesser or greater degrees, by the two dominant political parties: One side points to voter registration drives and screams fraud, while the other side points to tightening of voter eligibility requirements and screams criminal voter supression. The charges rarely withstand examination, and fewer than 5% ever arrive in court; fewer still resulting in convictions. But convictions aren't the goal; the point is to make as much media noise as possible in the run-up to the election, so as to place the opposing camp in a dust-cloud of alleged criminal conspiracy. Interesting read here.
• "Breaking News" stories are often inaccurate, and frequently reflect bias due to the preponderance of allegations and scarcity of hard facts. Voter registration crimes will be deceptively reported as "Voter Fraud." ACORN will catch problem registration forms, mark them as such, and turn them over to authorities as required by law, but the headlines will misleadingly read, "Authorities notice irregularities in registration forms submitted by ACORN." ACORN will discover an employee forging registration forms, fire him and turn him over to authorities, and the reporter will deceptively write, "Police arrest ACORN employee for voter fraud."

Is your claim that there is any chance of the main fact (the lodging of a criminal complaint) cited in these "breaking news" stories is not accurately reported?

No, my claim is exactly what I stated. See my second point regarding accuracy of what was reported versus what was introduced to the article here. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The article already notes that ACORN audits the registration forms and its employees, and works with authorities when criminal activity is discovered. Since they have been doing this for many years, with tens of thousands of employees and volunteers, mostly from poor and minority neighborhoods, I have no doubt you can find 646 related stories about relatively few individuals. As the sources indicate, and I believe you will find this to be true in all 646 related stories, the cases involved "registration fraud, not voter fraud," and "no voters were paid for votes and no unqualified voters were allowed to cast ballots" and "no evidence of widespread criminal activity was discovered." To what extent should we list each charge, if at all? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

When someone finds reliable sources about those 646 (I thought it was 464, but who's counting) charges, your question may become relevant. Bongomatic 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are 646 stories, or article hits as listed by Wikidemon's Google search -- not "charges." And they are all from the New York Times; generally considered a reliable source. I don't think I get the meaning of your response here. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Google hit counts are extremely unreliable... even for the actual number of web hits, much less notability. But still, after you've been googling you start to get a feel for what's well-covered in the news and what is not. I can't be certain either way -- right now it's at the gut feel level. If the reliability, relevance, POV, etc., is challenged and I know it is, one would need to carefully put together the sources. But from looking around at the articles, sources, etc., I'm pretty sure that the allegations and cases involving Acorn go beyond the news of the day and the usual 2-year election chatter. Or think of it this way. Maybe both sides accuse each other of fraud every two years, so the accusation itself isn't surprising. But this accusation seems to be sticking to an unusual degree. Politicians making accusations is one thing. District attorneys filing charges is quite another. Xenophrenic is right - the serious allegations have all been registration fraud (or that publicly acknowledged methods are in fact illegal, which is something other than fraud). The claims that this would threaten the integrity of the election were made by politicians and other partisans, I think, not by neutral commentators, prosecutors, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that I haven't specifically suggested burying the Nevada charges. The charges against the 2 ACORN workers are nothing new, and not article-worthy in my opinion, but... the third charge, against the ACORN organization itself, is unique and noteworthy. The charge is that ACORN officially used quotas and incentives with their employees that were registering voters. Proving the fault lies with ACORN instead of a rogue employee will be difficult, but the attorneys say they have ACORN manuals and documentation to support their case. ACORN, as expected, denies the charge, and says the "work standards" described in their manuals are being misrepresented as enforceable quotas when they are nothing of the sort. I'm guessing ACORN will push to have this end up in court, even if their accusers do not. Like you, Wikidemon, I don't feel strongly either way about including it now or waiting (although I still say it's inclusion should represent both positions, if any). Xenophrenic (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Innocent or guilty, whether the charges against ACORN in Nevada are included in the article should be based somewhat on the criteria Scjessey articulated, but with greater weight given to the interests of disclosure and inclusion. If there is a jury trial, whether the defendants are exonorated or convicted, it would probably be notable regardless of the disposition, but if the charges are spurious and do not survive to trial, then the informational value is somewhat more questionable. It is understood that this is not a news article, but this article is still intended to be a current document, with at least some small status report on the current state of the subject of the article. We should not freeze the information simply because ACORN's relevance to the national political landscape has been reduced as a result of McCain's loss and the cessation of a negative advertising campaign regarding the organization. It is still a group, it still does work, and readers should be allowed to know how it is doing. I think the information should come in, but it should be cleaned up. Just because someone is innocent does not mean they were not accused, and if they were accused and found not guilty, then wikipedia should say that, because proof of innocence should always be shouted from mountaintops and nailed to every door.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

in reading countless entries about other organizations, it has always been made clear in section headings when there are controversies involved with a subject. this entry does not have anything like that, and the controversial aspects are buried in the text which has minimal and very poorly-constructed paragraphs. both of these elements allow the controversies to be easily skipped over by those who skim the entry quickly for the most important info. in addition, factcheck.org is inappropriately cited at least once (#51), partially because it is an appeal to (supposed) authority. the casual reader will see the citation as coming from "factcheck.org" and assume by virtue of its name alone that it is a reliable, non-partisan, and un-biased source. even if this were not the case, the citation attributed to factcheck is in itself not legitimate simply because it states its own opinion of the situation, and is hardly hard fact. i would edit this entry myself to make it able to stand up to scrutiny for intellectual honesty, but from reading this discussion page, it seems that would be an effort in futility. Agent Ohm (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, factcheck.org is a reliable source and it does nonpartisan analysis, not opinion. Its conclusions are open to question of course, and I'm aware of the concern that the name implies more objectivity than it really has. However, citations to sources are all we have here, and as a source it is as good as any. Although the quote here, that McCain's claim was "breathtakingly inaccurate", is colorful evocative speech, the substance of the statement is clearly true, that McCain's claim of potential widespread election fraud was completely untrue.If there's a concern we can make sure the citation links to the Wikipedia article about the organization, and readers can make their own decision. The voter registration controversy is mentioned twice, first in the section on voter registration and again in the "ACORN in political discourse" section that has a full subsection about the controversy as it played out in the 2008 election. Actually Wikipedia disfavors "controversies and criticisms" sections in articles project-wide. Like lists and trivia sections, they are often allowed to remain rather than simply deleted, in hopes that they will be worked into the fabric of articles as they mature. A section on its overall political presence is more encyclopedic than polarizing things by dividing them into "criticism" and "praise". I think Pink-thunderbolt is right, but it is not a given that a single criminal prosecution against an organization's employees or even the organization itself is really noteworthy to that organization. It all depends on how much interest that generates, and how relevant that is to telling the story of the organization. One can probably find many examples of companies accused of crimes where the event was simply not that important compared to the overall importance of the organization. On the other hand, it seems likely that Acorn being charged with criminal voter law violations, over one of its very reasons for existence (voter registration) would generate plenty of interest, and it seems already has. One caveat is that there have been lots of allegations, claims, and prosecutions, so it may be that the overall phenomenon of Acorn and its employees facing scrutiny is more important than any specific incident. Agreed that the article needs some writing quality work, expansion, and general clean up. Wikidemon (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-partisan

The statement that the group is non-partisan needs to be removed. It's self-proclaimed and is disputed by the fact that the group has entities that engage in political activities and endorsements. It's also contradicted by reliable sources here [21] noting an internal report found that " Project Vote and Acorn made it impossible to document that Project Vote’s money had been used in a strictly nonpartisan manner" here [22] "Acorn, the nation’s largest network, which represents 400,000 families in 110 cities, is quite clearly allied with issues and constituencies that are embraced more often by Democrats than Republicans. Unlike other groups that are strictly nonpartisan, its political action committee has endorsed Barack Obama." And here[23] where it's noted that: The group has been criticized by Republicans as being highly partisan, receives money from Democratic groups, and has been investigated repeatedly for voter registration fraud. "ACORN says it's non-partisan. But the first page of its minimum wage plan says the campaign 'will help defeat George W. Bush and other Republicans by increasing Democratic turnout in a close election.'" And here [24] where the New York Times refers to them as a "liberal community organizing group". ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonpartisan is a technical status having to do with the group's nonprofit status. They are still in that status so they are presumably nonpartisan. There seem to be two counterclaims here, first that despite the technical distinction the group is in fact liberal. That's worth fleshing out so that we don't confuse the reader. It's apples and oranges really. Many nonpartisan organizations have a political bent. That is not worth doing in a claim / counterclaim style. It's well sourced and not reasonably disputable that the organization does have this technical status. People reacting against that and claiming "but they're liberal" are missing the point, and we don't owe it to the readers to repeat opinions that are clearly based on a misunderstanding, whether made by political opponents or Fox News in politicking mode. So there has got to be a more straightforward way to describe it. As to the second part, if there is any internal doubt or external criticism that they are breaking the tax law let's see it. The NY Times source here is indirect - it does not find that the group in fact has violated its status, but itself cites an internal audit of some kind. If there are serious claims or any action on the subject they deserve some note, but not int he lead - it does not seem to be that central an issue. Finally, some time back there were proposals that never gained consensus to mention voter registration fraud and Republican election tactics in the lead. I continue to think that highlighting them in the lead unduly politicizes the article, and is of undue weight. They already have a healthy paragraph each in the body of the article. Wikidemon (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The only sources for the non-partisan designation is the group's claim and a couple mention in articles about voter registration fraud (which you won't allow to be included in the lead). We have numerous descriptions conflicting with this designation. We know the group endorses democrats, receives money from Democratic groups, is described as being liberal by the New York Times (you can't be liberal, a political designation and non-partisan which means you aren't involved in politics). So we have this utterly non-notable bit that's disputed in numerous sources and yet you're trying to keep it in the lead. Where is the substantial coverage of it? We know that some divisions of ACORN have to be non-partisan to do voter registration efforts, but other parts are engaged in political activities as is made clear in the reliable sources I've provided. We need to stop misleading and confusing our readers and to remove this innaccurate statement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the gist of that objection to the "nonpartisan" designation. Even assuming it is technically true, it is not terribly noteworthy as shown by the fact that relatively few sources see fit to mention it. Moreover, it potentially misleads the reader, as evidenced by the need of most sources to qualify or dispute it when they do mention it. I too question why the "nonpartisan" statement is important in the lead. If it is sourced and relevant it can go in the body in a description of the organization structure, and even there it is best put in context, something like "As a xxxx[designate type of organiation] Acorn is required by tax law to be nonpartisan. In practice, it has openly supported Democratic candidates for office and advanced liberal positions, and some critics question whether by doing so it has violated the tax rules for such organizations." (assuming proper sourcing). There are other sources to be sure. I haven't had a chance to vet all of these but in a few seconds on google I have Washington Post[25], San Francisco Chronicle,[26] Chicago Sun-Times,[27] fairvote[28]. Wall Street Journal says the project vote was the nonpartisan operation / wing.[29] All in all not a big haul of sources. Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Doing a little background reading, I see our article Nonpartisan mentions the issue of tax-status versus de facto sympathy with a particular political party right in the lead of that article. Moreover, that lead mentions the National Rifle Association as an example of such a nominally-nonpartisan-but-sympathetic-to-Republicans organization. Following the link to the NRA article, that particular organization lists its nonpartisan status in its categories, but not in the article lead. Just one data point. LotLE×talk 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking for more data points, I started browsing the category for "Nonpartisan US organizations". Here I'm only interested in ones with a clear de facto political slant. Given the methodology, all of these obviously do include the category:

• American Enterprise Institute: "Nonpartisan" not in lead or body
• Cato Institute: Not in lead or body
• Center for American Progress: Not in lead or body
• Los Angeles National Impeachment Center: "Nonpartisan" mentioned in lead.
• Future of American Democracy Foundation: "Nonpartisan mentioned in lead (but slant is not as obvious)
• Heritage Foundation: Not in lead or body
• National Association for the Advancement of Colored People: Not in lead, sort of in body via title of bibliographic source.
• Commonweal Institute: Not in lead or body

The "take away" I start to get from this is that we are not all alone in listing "nonpartisan" in the lead description, but neither is doing so the most common approach of Wikipedia articles on analogous organizations. I would not object to removing the adjective from the lead (but leaving in the category).LotLE×talk 17:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are interesting results. Thanks for looking into the issue. Much appreciated. Of the two that do include the non-partisan designation, the Future of American Democracy Foundation appears to be legitimately non-partisan (in principle and fact). Calling the Los Angeles National Impeachment Center, a group dedicated to impeaching George W. Bush non-partisan seems ridiculous and should be clarified or excised.

I have no objection to noting ACORN's technical non-partisan designation (although it seems to apply only to one part of the organization?) with context in the article body. Stating it in the lead when it's disputed by political activities, endorsements, alignments, and media coverage, I don't think is right. I'm open to alternative suggestions if there's a better approach, but removing it or addressing it in the body of the article seems to me to be the best approach. Thanks again for taking my concerns seriously and looking into them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add a few comments and questions of my own. Like CoM, I was formerly under the impression that "partisan" = "involved in politics", and as such one could only logically apply the nonpartisan label to ACORN's non-Political Action branches. Then I learned the real meaning of the label, and its "of a party" requirement. ACORN is an issue-driven organization, not a party-controlled organization. We can all agree the majority of issues championed by ACORN are also championed by Democrats, but that is not what defines partisanship. Take a look at the now famous video of ACORN members waving John McCain signs and cheering him as he spoke about immigration. Was ACORN for Republicans before ACORN was against Republicans (if I may so mutilate a now popular political turn of phrase)? No, it was not about political party, it was about issues and McCain was saying what this nonpartisan organization wanted to hear. This was previously discussed, by the way, a couple sections up on this very page. See heading: Quote of WSJ article re" partisan /non-partisan

Looking closer at the interesting wordplay used above, being called "liberal" does not indicate party affiliation. Endorsing Obama for president does not equal "endorsing Democratic candidates" just because he is one, nor does it imply multiple endorsements indicated by "candidateS". Looking at CoMs 4 reference links in the initial paragraph above, "self-proclaimed non-partisan" does not mean it isn't also proclaimed in reliable secondary sources. Project Vote does not equal ACORN. Saying other groups are "strictly non-partisan" does not mean ACORN is not nonpartisan. "Criticized by Republicans as being highly partisan..." doesn't mean they are, obviously; it merely means it's election time again. "The first page of its minimum wage plan says..." nothing of the sort (although I would welcome being proven wrong on this. Link, please?). "...investigated repeatedly for voter registration fraud," has nothing to do with partisanship. In summary, where's the beef?

Wikidemon, how does having the description "non-partisan" in the article "potentially mislead the reader"? It is present in a sentence that, in my opinion, sufficiently precludes any sort of misunderstanding:

ACORN is a non-profit, nonpartisan social justice organization, but its legally separate political action arm frequently champions liberal causes, and endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008.

I suggest that the confusion (resulting in "the need of most sources to qualify or dispute it when they do mention it") is manufactured, in much the same way "voter registration fraud" is confused with "voter fraud" to give the scary false impression of tainted election results instead of the actual reality of a worker trying to make an easy buck. Just about every mention of a voter registration issue is also accompanied by the clarification that it "isn't voter fraud, and no unauthorized votes were cast, nor were any legal votes denied, yada yada...). I suggest that having the accurate, reliably sourced "non-partisan" description in the lead serves to clear up confusion, not add to it. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: I agree that the sentence about the nonpartisan nature of ACORN is worth having in the article. I am not one of those who misunderstands the term to mean "non-political" or whatever. They are most certainly not affiliated with any party, and hardly always agree with Democrats (usually because ACORN is far to the left of the Dems, actually). However, per the evidence I gave above of analogous nonpartisan organizations, I think the weight of Wikipedia editorial patterns suggests the sentence is better put in the article body rather than its lead. I'm not terribly happy about you reverting my edit that did that. LotLE×talk 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

@LotLE: I felt a similar unhappiness when I saw you implement a change "per discussion" that I wasn't a party to, despite being a recent editor of the content in question. I did not mean to dismiss your research into editing trends, and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been about my reasoning as it pertains to your findings. Allow me to succinctly explain my position as it relates to your conclusions. (1) The "partisan/nonpartisan" description is found in the lead in some analagous articles, although not the majority of them. (2) The question of partisanship is of particular interest with regard to this organization, as noted by Wikidemon's observation that many sources make extra effort to explain the status. (3) CoM's opinion (as well as the similar opinion of other editors) makes clear that, unlike in the other articles you reviewed, the partisanship issue is of significant importance.

The partisanship is questioned several times in the article, under multiple headings, with multiple mentions of ACORN endorsing Obama, Republicans questioning endorsements, accusations of conflict of interest, accusations by conservatives of ineligibility for certain government funds. It is my understanding that when this much main-body content is devoted to the partisanship issue, having a single summary sentence in the lead is not only appropriate, but routine practice. If I am misunderstanding something here, please let me know. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is that "non-partisan" has a specific meaning here which is likely not to be the meaning a reader ascribes to it. The meaning is brought out clearly in the text. Explaining it in the lead would be too much detail for the lead. So, best not mention it in the lead at all. PhGustaf (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Nonpartisan has a specific meaning everywhere, not just here. If a reader is unclear on the meaning of the word, it has been conveniently wikilinked. If they are still prone to ascribing a different meaning to the word, that should be remedied by the fact that its use is self-clarifying, by the single sentence in which it is used. No need for "too much detail" at all. Just to be sure I am not misunderstanding your assessment, could you tell me what meaning you feel a reader is likely to ascribe to the word? And if you feel the word requires a much detailed explanation later in the article, how would you phrase that explanation? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible meanings include "taking no political position", "endorsing no political party or candidate", and "qualifying as a 25 USC 501(c) non-profit corporation". In this context it means the last, as it does for the NRA, where Democrats are about as common as they are in NASCAR. Without qualifiers, the word suggests they take no political position, which is silly. PhGustaf (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

On the narrow point of where the "nonpartisan" sentence goes, I think we should follow the example of the strong majority of analogous articles. ACORN is not alone in being accused of "partisanship" in the informal sense of "taking political positions" notwithstanding their non-party 501(c) nonpartisan status. That is, this information is a bit notable, but its intricacies belong in the body not the lead (per my recent edit). Counter Xenophrenic, many of the other organizations I found in my brief research above are equally subject to discussion of "partisanship" (no one ever breaths a word about the Heritage Foundation (nor the NRA) without mentioning its political slant, nor pretends it is "non-political" because it is nonpartisan). However, I think PhGustaf's concern is somewhat misguided. We can wikilink nonpartisan to indicate what it actually means. I'm sure someone can misunderstand the word if they don't know US tax law... just like I'm sure many people misunderstand what "non-profit" means (which is different from both "not-for-profit" and "non-profitable" in ways that some readers don't know "without qualifiers"). Wikilinking is an excellent capability. LotLE×talk 16:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a Wikilink is all it's worth. From the above discussion, the "officially nonpartisan but accused of having a political agenda" thing seems to reflect either a common misunderstanding or a common rhetorical device that goes with the territory of any politically-oriented 501(c)(3), not a legitimate criticism or real controversy. The reader is best educated by learning the substance of the event, not hollow criticism. Maybe the link to "nonpartisan" could be further refined by also linking to a subsection that goes over this. The notion that these organizations draw that kind of criticism is best centralized in articles about political action groups as a whole. Wikidemon (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what where the outcome of this discussion is heading. At the very least I hope the word non-partisan can be moved to the body. Alternatively it can just be replaced by 501c3 which is more to the point anyway, Describing politicized and politically active groups like the NRA and ACORN as non-partisan is very misleading and confusing. We can do better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon and ChildofMidnight are mistaken to think that ACORN is 501(c)(3). That status is reserved for tax-deductible organizations, which ACORN is not. They are incorporated under one of those 501(c) articles, most likely, but it wouldn't be (3). The correct word to get at what we are trying to say is indeed, and exactly, "nonpartisan" (just like the NRA and Heritage are... neither of which are probably (c)(3) either; I'm sure Heritage isn't). I tend to agree with Wikidemon's idea that a simple wikilink to the relevant article (maybe a subsection of it that we create) is better than the current "nonpartisan but that doesn't mean what you might mistakenly think" approach we currently have. Whether that is in lead or body... well, in the body the current explanation doesn't seem bad, but if we leave the adjective in the lead, I definitely prefer the short, bare wikilink. LotLE×talk 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's 501C(4), but they don't say and it doesn't matter much. Donations are tax deductible[30], which is the point. Your changes look fine. PhGustaf (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's figure out how Acorn is organized, then use and source the right term with a link to that article, rather than confusing things with the word "nonpartisan" - which itself is only going to be one among several things that come with being that type of corporation. It adds little, and confuses much, to call them nonpartisan. True, they aren't affiliated with a party. But most orgs are not, so it goes without saying. Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah... there's some subtlety here, PhGustaf. It appears that the ACORN Institute is a 501(c)(3) tax deductible organization. However, that Institute is not ACORN itself. I would guess that ACORN, the parent organization, is 501(c)(4), but I'm not sure (however, I am pretty sure that they are not tax deductible). It is not uncommon to organize sister organizations where one acts on the tax deductible aspect of an overall purpose, but the other side does things that wouldn't be eligible for tax deductible status. I suspect that is what's going on here.

Good point about "Institute". Two groups I'm associated with, Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club have, as you suggest, separate practical and political arms, one whose donations are deductible and the other not. There's a little nudging and winking involved. Perhaps Acorn is the same way, but we surely have no cite. PhGustaf (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Wikidemon's newest comment is that "nonpartisan" simply is the correct and straightforward term for the sense in which ACORN (or NRA, Heritage, etc) are not affiliated with a political party. To try to come up with some original circumlocution just promotes some other misunderstanding in some other subset of readers (as well as bordering on WP:OR). It really doesn't "go without saying", however, that an organization with distinct political goals is nonpartisan; distinguishing between these nonpartisan organizations and, e.g., the Democratic Leadership Council or Republican Leadership Council is a worthwhile bit of information we should give to readers. Just saying that ACORN has 501(c)(4) status (assuming that's correct) fails to do so, since DLC/RLC probably have the same filing status. LotLE×talk 00:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a complicated organization and the sources indicate they have parts that are most definitely partisan and that do political endorsements and fundraising etc. The link PhGustaf provided, for example, targets the Republican party and its chairman specifically. So that certainly falls into the category of what partisanship is all about. If there is something about the organization's tax status or legal status that needs to be said, (that they aren't allowed to officially affiliate with a political party?) then include that. But the word non-partisan is way too confusing and doesn't add anything meaningful or encyclopedic to people's understanding about what ACORN is or isn't. I don't even think it's accurate to say they aren't affiliated with a political party. It's best to avoid this kind of ambiguity and misleading wording and to be clear about what's most notable. As it's only mentioned in a few articles about voting issues, the questions of partisanship are probably best left out all together. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Attacking Michael Steele (or any politician of a particular political party) absolutely does not make an organization "partisan" in itself. Even more particularly, the link PhGustaf gives doesn't even have a whiff of partisanship in its actual meaning (as opposed to in some meaning-of-the-week about "non-political", or "does-things-I-dislike"). Steele apparently attacked ACORN, and he Acorn Institute disagrees with that attack on its sister organization. One would presume that if Tim Kaine also attacked ACORN, ACORN itself or the Acorn Institute would react in a similar manner... or in any case, their reaction would not come out of party affiliation. Likewise, and obviously, the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland might like or dislike some particular politician, and make statements about why their theological beliefs promoted that. The Catholics are equally nonpartisan (even though tending to lean in a particular direction among the US political parties). LotLE×talk 00:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ACORN Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) organization. The main ACORN organization is registered as "tax-exempt", but does not specify a (c)(3) designation. The IRS recognizes 174 "affiliated organizations" under the ACORN name. In 2008, records from one source showed at least 3 of ACORN's social welfare lobbying PACs were registered as 501(c)(4), allowing for a lot more political activism. (Heritage was definitely, at one time, a 501(c)(3), but I am not sure of their present status -- and note that the non-profit NRA also endorses candidates).

I agree with LotLE's most recent edits to the article. My biggest objection was against dumbing down the article because some readers may be uneducated about the meaning of a word. Nonpartisan doesn't mean non-political (for Pete's sake, ACORN was founded to BE a political organization that would take political postions); it doesn't mean non-liberal or non-conservative; it isn't the same as "bipartisan". My second objection was against having the word removed from the lead when it summarized, per WP:LEAD, the large sections of content in the main body devoted to discussing it. As the edits are now, they inform the reader, instead of perpetuate misconceptions. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I feel like I'm witnessing the incredible morphing deletion attempt.

• First, it was "'nonpartisan' is inaccurate and self-sourced! Delete it!" (Editors then showed it was very accurate, and from reliable secondary sources.)
• Next it was "Ok, so it's accurate, but it is confusing to some readers! Delete it!" (Editors then wikilinked it to avoid any confusion.)
• Next, it was "but 'nonpartisan' isn't notable information!" Delete it! (Editors pointed out the fact that it is so notable that many sources go into extended detail describing its nonpartisan status, and the challenges to it.)
• Next, it was "But the word is already in the body of the text! Delete it!" (Editors pointed out it is WP:LEAD compliant to summarize main body content in the lead, most especially controversies.)

This is beginning to take on the appearance of a premade decision to remove this word based on a particular point of view, followed by a tour through the wikilawyer rulebook in an attempt to find a policy to justify that decision. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You've pegged it, Xenophrenic. Welcome to the world of CoM. LotLE×talk 19:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Numerous editors have explained why non-partisan is innacurate and confusing. Sources have been provided contradicting it. It's also not notable enough to be in the intro as it was mentioned in a couple of articles about voter registration fraud investigations (something not included in the introduction). It's been moved to the body where it belongs and needs to be removed from the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• In case anyone wants to hear me repeat myself, I agree with CoM's comment above and I don't think I'm pushing any agenda here, just wanting the article to best inform the reader. Also, a friendly nudge to others here, please be friendly even when disagreeing! Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Repetition does not equal accuracy. Addressing each of CoM's statements that Wikidemon agrees with above:

• Numerous editors have explained why non-partisan is innacurate [sic]...

No, they haven't. At least not in the sources you have provided. Some sources directly say ACORN is nonpartisan, while others feel the need to add "...but tends to be liberal." Even your NY Times report about the attorney's internal memo doesn't say ACORN isn't nonpartisan — it just points out due to shoddy record keeping, lack of audits and cross-affiliate employees, ACORN couldn't provide proof if needed. Exactly the problems this attorney was hired to find, and help remedy, which the article informs us was well underway last year. You can find plenty of accusations & criticisms every election cycle, but you still haven't provided a source showing they are not nonpartisan. We can't be any more disingenuous when we say, "That word is inaccurate, so stick it in the body of the article." This is telling; if it isn't true, it shouldn't be anywhere in the article.

• ...and confusing.

We resolved that complaint by wikilinking it. In the interest of "wanting the article to best inform the reader", any confusion as to the nonpartisan status of the organization should be cleared up as soon in the article as possible, and not buried near the end of the article.

• Sources have been provided contradicting it.

Incorrect. Please provide a source showing ACORN is not nonpartisan, instead of just accusations, criticisms, charges, allegations, speculation and hearsay.

• It's also not notable enough to be in the intro as it was mentioned in a couple of articles about voter registration fraud investigations (something not included in the introduction).

Being mentioned in articles supports its notability, not the converse. Accusations of voter registration fraud are not in the lead, correct, and neither are accusations of partisanship. It is disingenuous to say, "it is not notable enough to be in the intro, so stick it in the body." If it isn't notable, it shouldn't be anywhere in the article.

• It's been moved to the body where it belongs and needs to be removed from the introduction.

It does? What is the reason this time? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It boils down to confusion and noteworthiness (my new name for it, to distinguish it from WP:N). Regarding confusion, of course it confuses the reader to call an organization "nonpartisan" when it has a political slant. It's correct but confusing because of the difference between the technical meaning of the word and the common usage. Indeed the word can be partly resolved by linking to the technical definition of "nonpartisan". But not completely - how many people actually click on the link rather than assuming incorrectly they know what it means? Moreover, the fact that it is nonpartisan goes without saying - all similar organizations are. There isn't anything particularly remarkable about Acorn in this regard. Mentions in the press tend to show that something is worth noting in the article, but that is not the only test. We are written in encyclopedic tone, not news-speak, so the phraseology the press chooses to use to identify things is not the wording we choose. There are plenty of places, most places, where we use our own language to paraphrase things. We don't call summer days "balmy" or winter "frigid", or blame "mother nature" for a deluge of rain, as a newspaper might. When dealing with common misconceptions or words with multiple technical meanings in different context (as in, whether black is the absence of color, or a color, or a perception, or whether tomatoes are a fruit or a vegetable), we use some editorial discretion. The point is to educate the reader. If we want to fully educate the reader, and be technically correct, we can link to the type of organization it is, not that it is nonpartisan, which is but one attribute of that type of organization. Wikidemon (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Approximately the same number of readers misunderstand "nonpartisan" (despite the wikilinking) as misunderstand other adjectives in the lead, such as "community-based", "non-profit", "social justice", "lobbying". I really do think the success rate for readers is about exactly the same for all of those... it's just that the right-wing ACORN-haters put more words into encouraging the one misunderstanding than they do the others. The fact someone could misunderstand amounts to wikilink, but no more than that.

Moreover, it does not "go without saying" that ACORN is nonpartisan. Many similar organizations are not nonpartisan. I gave the examples of the 501(c)(4) organizations DLC and RLC above as counterexamples. The word really doesn't have the vague or multiple meanings that some editors seem to be pretending... it just has some pundits who deliberately and grossly misread it by inventing wrong meanings. But we're not the Mad Hatter here. LotLE×talk 17:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ACORN and the National Rifle Association are partisan organizations. They are closely affiliated with one party, they campaign for one party, and they work against the other party. Stating that they are non-partisan (because part of their operations are required by law to abide by certain rules) without qualifying the statement is simply dishonest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, whatever! And up is down, left is right, and winter is summer. LotLE×talk 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Tomatoes are referred to, factually, in the lead, as a fruit. The confusion between fruit and vegetable is explained in detail later in the body of the article. ACORN is referred to, factually, in the lead, as nonpartisan. The confusion between nonpartisan and partisan is explained in detail later in the body of the article. Thank you for the analogy.

When I use the Google on ACORN + partisan, I get more than a quarter million hits. On ACORN + "voter fraud", I get over a quarter million hits. ACORN, in 40 years of operation, has never committed voter fraud, nor even faced that charge a single time in a court of law. However, there is reader confusion about these terms because of (what Wikidemon has termed) common usage. The source of the confusion is the same for both terms, and the "common usage" is intentional; that source was generally described in LotLE's most recent comment. It is likely the same reader confused about one of these terms is also confused about the other. Every election cycle, conservative forces launch their misinformation campaigns against the liberal-agenda-driven ACORN; citing individual worker misdeeds during registration and falsely calling it "voter fraud"; citing ACORN policies favored by Democrats, and donations given by Democrats, and falsely calling it partisanship. Voter Fraud and Partisanship (while claiming a tax-exempt status) are both federal crimes, felonies, and while the frivolous accusations have become routine and cyclical (and yes, undeniably "noteworthy"), there has never been a conviction.

ACORN and the NRA are nonpartisan organizations. They are closely affiliated with their respective issues, they campaign for these issues, and they work against opposing issues. Stating that they are partisan just because the issues they champion frequently mirror the issues embraced by a particular political party is simply dishonest. Hiding or burying the fact that they are nonpartisan is a thinly veiled attempt to perpetuate the cause of the disinformation campaigns.

I'm still waiting for a reliable source showing ACORN is not nonpartisan. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, ACORN is not nonpartisan. Name ONE (1) Just ONE Republican they have in any way helped... at all. Just one. We all know... it's almost fact, that they support the Democratic ticket, especially President Obama. Wikipedia CANNOT lie. It isn't right. They're also under investigation for voter fraud, a fact not mentioned in the beginning paragraph. And then all the money.... You need to remove "nonpartisan." User:anonymous user (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.45.83 (talk • contribs)

"it's almost fact" — that summarizes the above comment nicely. Just another illustration that the disinformation campaigns do effectively resonate with a certain percentage of the public. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the following to the article to prove that ACORN is nonpartisian: "It is also nonpartisan, because half of its members voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections." Grundle2600 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Whom someone votes for has nothing to do with partisanship. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit was reverted almost immediately. I see that my point has been made. Now to be serious, I added the following to the introduction: "While ACORN is classified as nonpartisan for tax purposes, its members and activities generally side in favor of left wing, liberal, and progressive causes." Grundle2600 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the general focus of your edit (with some tweaks probably) and have discussed that above, but others seem to disagree and it does not seem to have won over a consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tried some tweaks (basically returning to the wording of a couple months ago). It now directly states they are nonpartisan, satisfying the concerns of some editors, while also directly stating they usually lean left in their activities -- without all the wishy-washy words diluting those two facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ACORN Voter Registration Fraud in 14 States

Why has it not been included in this article about the indictment of ACORN in 14 states for Voter Registration Fraud? Also about the controversy surrounded the ponzi scheme this organization is in the middle of? How their connections with organized labor put them in conflict with so many programs they are getting federal money for ? this article is very biased!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellieida (talk • contribs) 03:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to add content. Be sure to cite the content to reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you consider to be a reliable source Mr. Xenophrenic? Someone's blog? An opinion article in Newsweek (not much better). This ACORN article is OUTRAGEOUSLY biased, and is being watched and gaurdeded by like thinking individuals who seem to have the power to censor those that disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterwj (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What Wikipedia considers a reliable source is explained in detail here. No editor has the "power to censor", and all editors are welcome and encouraged to improve articles, as long as they follow Wikipedia policies. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Censorship is quite common on Wikipedia. A pack of partisans hangs out on the Obama articles and related subjects and tries to keep out all notable dissent. It's pretty saddening and there's an Arbcom proceeding dealing with it. Believe it or not they're siding with those violating the wp:NPOV guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not confuse enforcement of Wikipedia editing policies with censorship. Wikipedia has numerous rules and guidelines specifically constructed to prevent the subtle introduction of disinformation, speculation, innuendo, half-truth and rumor into articles, even when cleverly disguised as notable dissent by packs of partisans. Do not be saddened; you will find that packs of partisans never prevail — even in the case of Obama-related articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is articles like this that threaten to make Wikipedia little more than a joke. I don't know a single article about a conservative person or organization that does not — fittingly enough — have a criticism section (or the equivalent thereof). By contrast, articles like these have little to no criticism whatsoever (unless it is immediately and irremediably contested (or "put into perspective") by some "expert") and read like company fact sheets. (Oh yes, of course, we can just "add it ourselves", can't we; but as a veteran of these edition wars, I know that within a day, or less, that information has been watered down, or eliminated entirely; in contrast to conservative articles, where positive — and even neutral — assessments are (at best) qualified and put into doubt throughout the text.) Where, for example, is the information contained in articles such as The Truth About ObamACORN by Michelle Malkin?! Asteriks (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"American constitutional government cannot survive if the population count is managed and manipulated by organizations with partisan bias" writes Phyllis Schlafly in Get Acorn Out Of Our Pockets, Elections, regarding the fact that the Obama administration chose Acorn to recruit counters for the 2010 Census (and they are already canvassing neighborhoods). "The importance of a fair and accurate count cannot be overestimated because the count can give one party an unfair advantage and control over America for the next decade." Where is the Wikipedia article is this view (or criticism) openly and fairly expressed? Asteriks (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Most articles in general do not have criticism sections. I see no liberal / conservative divide here. This one has some significant information about Acorn, which it (correctly) organizes by topic and within sections by chronological order, rather than dividing it into "praise" and "criticism". At the same time the quality of the article is only so-so, and it could stand some improvement. If you feel that another article is substandard, you can discuss or work on that article in its own article space. Criticism like the conspiracy-ish editorial you posted is, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, discussed only if it is noteworthy in the context of the article. A single person's making a speculative claim is not terribly noteworthy, but particularly prevalent or well known examples, such as McCain's claim about Acorn stealing the election, do get mentioned. Wikidemon (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source about ACORN being investigated in 14 states.[31] Showtime2009 (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be heavily biased in favor of ACORN. I noticed scant, if any mention of the 2008 voter fraud, and even where I found a single mention, it did not seem to mention that ACORN was even at fault. --Scouto2 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See the above discussion. The majority of two sections, about 15 sentences in all, are devoted to this issue. Reading through them, the wording could be improved. As it is, taken in total it sounds somewhat defensive in my opinion. Note that the issue is voter registration fraud. No serious allegations and no conclusions were ever made of actual vote fraud. Wikidemon (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)