Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Massively unbalanced

This article contains as many words trying to catalog everything bad everyone ever associated with the organization has done as it does discussing what the organization is. In general, "Criticism" sections are always a bad idea, see WP:CRIT for a good discussion. This article is particularly egregious because of the huge WP:UNDUE weight devoted to that section.

C'mon folks, we're not here to advocate for or condemn organizations, just let readers know what they are (history, members, actions, charters, etc). If you want to soapbox about whether a given organization is good or bad, get one of the many free blog sites available, or write political editorials. When here, write an encyclopedia. LotLE×talk 21:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Voter fraud charges in a dozen states? Shell games? You won't even mention it? We know your name.

Without looking thoroughly at the article with respect to overall NPOV or considering how the allegations of voter fraud should be dealt with, I'd just note that not every juicy allegation out there is "cataloged" here; for example, there's no mention of when

"... a worker for one affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters, dead voters and pillars of the community named Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey." "The Acorn Indictments" The Wall Street Journal, November 3, 2006.

I've attempted some cleanup, including completely merging the content from the criticism section into the main body as well as removing WP:PEACOCK language and a misleading paragraph. The sourcing on both sides is still crap though, and needs immediate attention. I've tagged the article with refimprove, any help on that is appreciated. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added this (fairly) blanced article (ACORN Cracks Wide Open by Carl Horowitz ). I hope that will provide some balance for the rare few who will bother to click on a hyperlink. Asteriks (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"employee misconduct in voter registration"

1. Fraud is a legal term, and is accordingly the appropriate term for legal matters. "Bad behaviour", "misconduct", "deadly sins", "shameless outrages", "peccadilloes", "ados about nothing", "Republican smears", are all POV twists on what the law calls alleged FRAUD. It's not without reason that the sources here use the term "fraud" and not "misconduct". One can argue that there is serious fraud and minor fraud, but minor fraud is not non-fraud. The gravity of the offences should be made clear in a NPOV way by simply noting the gravity of the sentences (e.g. probation vs jail time) and, where possible, by using the language used by the court to describe the offence.. Reliable sources indicate that the Washington state incident has been described as "the worst case of election fraud in our state’s history". Did I add such a claim? No. Why? Because the speaker was politically partisan. The law, we must presume, is not.

2. Would it be appropriate to rename Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill "Captain Hazelwood's oil spill"? Note that in this section it says "ACORN agreed to pay King County $25 000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again". If there was no employer fraud (or "misconduct"), why did ACORN agree to a settlement?. I'll tell you why: because of Vicarious_liability#Employers.27_liability. Whether one should morally exculpate an employer for the actions of its employees is a matter of one's POV, but whether one can legally exculpate is not, that's a function of the law.Bdell555 (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As you know, no citation you've managed to locate says that ACORN was charged with any fraud. A number of employees were. However, even the title "Fraud by employees" would be reaching towards POV, since only some of those stuck into the article have been convicted of fraud ("investigated" isn't the same as convicted, and is misleading as a headline); apart from that, this is an article on ACORN, not on those investigated, charged or convicted employees; from the perspective of discussing ACORN, the employees engaged in misconduct (i.e. failure to follow ACORN employment rules). ACORN acknowledged they could potentially be liable for future behavior, but see WP:CRYSTAL.

This is all completely unlike the Valdez case, where Exxon was found liable in court, and specific judgment was made against them. Actually, it is also unlike that because the spill article was named after the ship itself, and presumably would be even if Exxon had been found non-liable.

I understand the concept of vicarious liability, which may or may not have anything to do with any information provided by sources. You can speculate privately, but the sources do not use the language you wish to imagine "must be true". LotLE×talk 07:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the cases that did not result in any convictions, then. I don't necessarily have a problem with that. The fact remains that "failure to follow ACORN employment rules" is not legally exculptory, and its not our job to go around trying to exculpate ACORN. Your contention that Exxon is liable in court for the actions of its employees and ACORN is not is false. I happen to have a law degree, but if you don't believe me feel free to request comment from legal experts. The overwhelming majority of both corporate and non-corporate liability cases are settled, especially when the dollar amounts are low, and I believe Exxon did end up settling with some litigants even though the dollar amount was in the tens of millions.

You evidently believe that something like this case (which is typical) is irrelevant or non-notable because although the employer paid $22.2M, the deal with prosectors meant no admission of guilt. That's an arbitrary contention. Are you have the view that ACORN was never charged such that ACORN just DONATED $25 000 to county prosecutors?

We are already failing to give equal time to the employees and ACORN since we are giving ACORN's spin on the charges and giving nothing with respect to the employees account of events. Did you note that I provided management's side of the story in the Colorado case? Should we be trying to stick it to the employer by trying to dig up employee comments that suggest their managers or ACORN's culture encouraged them to cut corners? No? Then why try and stick it to the employees? Why not just report the sentences without spin?

We are not going to come to a consensus that "misconduct" is the appropriate terminology. I believe that term throws the offences into the same category as adultery or legal mismanagement. These are matters of illegality, and I suggest that instead of saying something like "serious offence" or "minor offence" or "misconduct" we use objective legal terms like Misdemeanor or Felony. I disagree with you that when someone is convicted of fraud is it POV to say someone was convicted of fraud. It's rather POV to contend he or she was convicted of something else.Bdell555 (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Jive Turkey

LotLE evidently considers both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times "tabloids" because they both discuss "titillating" matters such as Jive Turkey Sr.

One speaker in the New York Times says "the new regulations have everything to do with preventing Jive Turkeys..." Another speaker says that "All this flak about Jive Turkey is a red herring." LotLE believes that Wikipedia should take the side of the latter speaker and exclude all mention of Jive Turkey and its equivalents. I disagree. It should be left to the reader to decide whether Jive Turkey and cocaine highlight the flagrancy of the offences OR whether they highlight nothing at all. To contend that those details are just gossip is to take the side of the "nothing" view and reject the side of the "flagrant" view. The fact that both the WSJ and the NYT refer to "Jive Turkey" indicates that they believe their readers should be advised of the fact that Jive Turkey is an issue, rightly or wrongly.

If someone believes that the speaker of the "red herring" point of view makes an excellent point by arguing that Jive Turkey never "showed up at the polls, which is really what matters", that point could possibly be added (so long as NPOV is maintained by not precluding further elaboration from the other side), and would be a more neutral response than simply deleting "Jive Turkey" on the grounds that it is a non-notable "red herring" or bit of titillating gossip (implausible given that serious newspapers call attention to it).Bdell555 (talk) 08:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT#NEWS. A level of minor detail that might be appropriate for a breaking story in a WP:RS is not necessarily (and not usually) appropriate for an encyclopedic summary at years distance. To present the arguably relevant issue of an employee falsifying registrations, it makes no difference whether the false name was "Jive Turkey" or "Sam Smith"; colorful details only add a false specificity (fraud would not be any worse or better if more plausible names were invented). Similarly, whether a fraud was incited by a bribe of cocaine, or a bribe of cash, or simply as a request by some party, equally makes no difference to the possibly encyclopedic issue of fraudulent registrations submitted by ACORN employees. LotLE×talk 08:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

If "Jive Turkey" is NOT NEWS then why are both the WSJ and NY Times covering it? Again, these are not tabloids. Is the problem REALLY that it is "too minor a detail" for you or is the problem that it is unfavourable to ACORN?

re whether it "makes [a] difference" you're begging the question. You're taking the POV of the side that says it "makes no difference". Fact is, it entirely reasonable to believe that when ACORN managers fail to detect bogus "Sam Smiths" on registration forms before submitting them, that's more exculpatory of ACORN than submitting "Jive Turkeys" and "Mary Poppins". You evidently don't think that's reasonable. I say let the reader decide. A bribe of cocaine and a bribe of cash isn't the same thing either, since having access to cocaine with which to bribe is notable. Even if they are the same thing, given that you are reverting any mention of a bribe at all, that seems to be of greater concern to you than supposed discrimination in favour of reporting one type of bribe instead of another.Bdell555 (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How hard is it to understand WP:NOT#NEWS?! Wikipedia is not a newspaper!! Newspapers cover news. Wikipedia does not cover news. The WSJ and NYT are newspapers. Is there really some part of this you don't understand?! LotLE×talk 11:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question then: why are the WSJ and NYT covering it as opposed to a News agency. Please see the list of "major news agencies" listed in that link. I don't see either the WSJ or NYT there. Both papers are known for quality investigative journalism and opinion pieces. The part I don't understand is how this constitutes "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism". This was 4 years ago, so it's hardly "breaking news". You seem to be saying that the WSJ and the NYT cannot be cited by Wikipedia because they are "newspapers" and Wikipedia "does not cover news". If that's not what you are saying then when can they be cited?Bdell555 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you won't read WP:NOT#NEWS, it is quite clear. News sources can be cited, of course; but not in order to turn an encyclopedia into a newspaper. Details that might be newsworthy (in this case, borderline so) when a story breaks are not necessarily part of the lasting historical significance of an event years later.

You and I both know perfectly well that the only reason you want sensationalistic details in the article is to cloud the underlying basic facts by making them seem more titillating. Let's not pretend otherwise: I've read your blogs along with the contrived arguments on talk pages, and none of it shows a desire to write an encyclopedia rather than a smear editorial. LotLE×talk 20:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How did I manage to quote the policy word for word if I never read it? The rationale for my calling attention to something off-Wiki might be different from the rationale for my calling attention it on-Wiki. I've explained to you already how not all voter registration fraud is created equal. If you're an election official and you find a bogus "Sam Smith" on a submitted form, you'll conclude that the submitting organization did less than a perfect job. If, on the other hand, you find "Mary Poppins" and "Jive Turkey Sr" on a submitted form, you'll conclude that the submitting organization not only didn't do a perfect job, but quite possibly did no job at all. I suggest you stop trying to minimize the potential flagrancy of the violations by deleting duly sourced material that is notable by virtue of the fact that it may illustrate the flagrancy. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions about whether it, in fact, indeed illustrates the flagrancy or is just a "red herring". While you are at it, perhaps you could stop trying to offload everything onto the employees. For all we know, the employees might well have been poorly trained and working in an organizational culture that valued the number of names generated over their accuracy.Bdell555 (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added this (fairly) blanced article (ACORN Cracks Wide Open by Carl Horowitz ). As I have said elsewhere, I hope that will provide some balance for the rare few who will bother to click on a hyperlink. Asteriks (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

possible to suggest that allegations of fraud may be politically motivated in neutral way?

Perhaps the article should indicate something along the lines of what this source observes:

ACORN has accumulated many enemies -- including major business groups and conservative politicians that have done battle with the feisty activist group -- who would love to see the organization destroyed.

I note that the source goes on to claim that "The current Bush administration has sought to harass and smear ACORN with accusations of voter fraud."

Can we say the organization has enemies in an encyclopedic way? If we just say that it was right wing enemies, readers could then decide for themselves whether that's relevant to the credibility of the allegations of voter fraud.Bdell555 (talk)

The quote itself looks far too "colorful" to be encyclopedic to me. However, something expressing the general sentiment (with proper citation) seems OK. Maybe this:

According to a Huffington Post editorial, ACORN has "accumulated many enemies" and has been "subjected to vicious attacks from business lobbyists, conservative politicians, and right-wing media. This same source alleges that the George W. Bush administration has sought to harass ACORN with accusation of voter fraud.

That's still a bit colorful, but not as much, and the quotes are attributed to the specific source. LotLE×talk 07:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to having something like that preface, follow-up, or qualify the allegations section, although I think there should ideally be something in there as to WHY it's accumulated many enemies, something that acknowledges its "fiesty activism" or that it's been accused of pushing a radical left wing agenda. It may be POV to just give the impression that it doesn't deserve its enemies. Perhaps a select quote from both sides of the controversy, in other words.Bdell555 (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I suggest someone balance the material from ACORN Under the Microscope by John Atlas with material taken from ACORN Cracks Wide Open by Carl Horowitz. Asteriks (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)