Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

A constructive proposal

Workerbee has made a constructive proposal. Accusing him of being a sock, claiming that the sources don't specify felony convictions, and othere elements of lotle's response are provocative. I would ask that everyone stop provoking Workerbee, and examine his constructive proposal:

Please take note of Anita Moncrief's sworn testimony in a civil lawsuit against ACORN in PA. The contents of her testimony are also very notable. [1] She stated that quality control on their voter registration drives is "minimal to nonexistent." This also sounds very, very familiar: "Everyone wants to paper things over until later." Nate Toler, another former ACORN employee, says that "There's no quality control on purpose."

Since we don't like bullet points in article mainspace, make paragraphs out of it: eight in St. Louis, four in Kansas City etc. The St. Louis Post Dispatch, for example, stated very clearly that the eight guilty pleas there were on felony charges. ... I only want the words "charged or convicted" in mainspace.

The quotes from ACORN are self-serving. This provides another POV. NPOV is not the absence of any POV, but reporting all notable POVs. There are several important, noteworthy facts about the registration drives, and all of them need to be clearly presented in this section.

1. The numbers of voter registrations claimed by ACORN. Millions of voter registrations have been turned in. This is notable. It's in there. Good work.
2. However, hundreds of thousands of them were rejected. Thousands have been declared as fraudulent by local officials. This gets a vague and incomplete mention. Spell it out.
3. A substantial number of ACORN workers have been charged or convicted in several states. I think we can find a neutral way to say that. It's very notable, and should be in the article with all the reliable sources cited. Don't cherry pick just two of them.
4. ACORN's statements in its own defense, while self-serving, deserve to be in there. The local official saying that it was just local con artists fleecing ACORN, rather than an attempt to steal the election should also be in the article because it's neutral notable commentary from a well-informed source. It's all in there. Good work.
5. Unfortunately, now we have sworn testimony by Ms. Moncrief, a former ACORN employee, and it's in reliable sources, very notable and very damaging, contradicting ACORN's self-serving statements. It is recent, but I anticipate that minutes after the last state is called for Obama to get him past 270 Electoral Votes, a Featured Article Barack Obama will declare that he won the election. Minutes after some notable person dies, his Wikipedia bio is edited to reflect that fact. We do not need to get a verdict in this notable Pennsylvania lawsuit to include her sworn testimony. It's notable, it has already happened, and nobody is going to unring that bell.

Only two of the five numbered points above have been included in the article. All five are notable, all five are well supported by reliable sources such as the Associated Press and New York Times, and putting all five into the article is what should be done here. Marx0728 (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Marx: Do you have a recommendation to improve the article? It's not clear what you want exactly from the above. Write up the content you think deserves inclusion, provide citations, and bring it here for review.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and some of your assertions above are demonstrably false. Can't be bothered yet another point by point refutation of soapbox stuff; just, please, write text of quality to be inserted to the article, provide sources, and we'll seek consensus here on the talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight. However, let's cut the "Allegations of" nonsense. Here we are discussing recentism; both pro and con arguments are discussions of recentism. I've changed the header to suit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We do need to be firm about disruption here. Spelling out #2 requires context regarding voter registration process. Spelling out details without context is not going to work. #3 is in the article. For #4 we do not need ACORN's statements but we could include the more notable. There are reliable sources for the point. There is no "rather than an attempt" - there is no evidence of any attempt in the first place to steal elections or conduct voter fraud, so no need to refute anything. #5 is not notable, ripe, or a reliable source. A single low level worker's testimony in an ongoing case cannot reasonably be used by Wikipedia to impugn a company. Perhaps at the conclusion of any case, the results of the case are important. Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You say #3 is in the article? Where? Is it in the "Voter registration" section? If not, then we need some mention of it there, however brief. If you choose to go into the details of the charges and convictions in some other section, that is worth discussing, so please explain. #5 is very notable. It's ripe because Ms. Moncrief has already testified. Unless she is charged with contempt of court for giving false testimony, the words "minimal to nonexistent," in quotation marks, should be in the article to describe ACORN's quality control. ACORN's self-serving explanation is in there and in some detail. There is another side to the story. This is it. It isn't just one "low level worker" either; you forgot about Mr. Toler, who was not a "low level worker." The Wall Street Journal has fact-checking, but if you want a more reliable source, here's one: [2] It's the Philadelphia Inquirer. Marx0728 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I move to close this "recentism" section. Marx: Do you have a proposal, written, for the article? Please bring it here in a new section, with the citations. The soap-boxing on this talk page, which has been going on for weeks like a pony express (one horse drops off, new one comes on, etc...) has grown tedious. I honestly can't be bothered reading through screeds anymore. Bring text, in the form you'd like it to appear in the article, and then we'll see what you're proposing and can judge that thing on its merits.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw. I took a look. The citation to the testimony in an unconcluded civil suit that WB cites (and advocated by "surrogate" Marx0728) is to an opinion piece by a familiar opponent of ACORN. No matter who reports this testimony, it's wouldn't make it past the WP:NOTNEWS cutoff; in this case it also doesn't come close to WP:RS. LotLE×talk 23:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new "voter registration" section

ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004. During 2007 and 2008, ACORN claimed that it gathered over 1.3 million voter registrations in 21 states(1); this number included 450,00 first-time voters and 400,000 rejected forms. During this drive, 60-70% of registrations were among people of color, and 50% were among (2)citizens voters under 30. ACORN collected 1.7 million registrations during drives in 2004 and 2006. During the earlier campaigns, 400,000 new voters were among the registrations. (3A)However, the New York Times has reported that the 1.3 million number is a "wild an "exaggeration" and Michael Slater, executive director of an affiliated organization, Project Vote, has stated that the real number is closer to 450,000; the remainder include registered voters who were changing their addresses, and about 400,000 that were rejected by election officials.

Where ACORN has discovered that its workers submitted potentially false voter registration forms, it has followed legal requirements to submit the forms to voter registrars, flagged as requiring additional attention. San Diego County, California officials stated that ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors in 2008, whether innocent or intentional, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations.

ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in various cities and states, in some cases as a result of the ACORN-flagged registration forms, (3B)resulting in criminal convictions for voter registration fraud against ACORN employees. (3C)and some ACORN employees have been convicted of voter registration fraud. In a case in Washington state, 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. According to the prosecutor, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections." In October 2008, the FBI (4)investigated began an investigation of ACORN to determine whether the group coordinated any registration form falsification.

ACORN has publicly supported and cooperated in the investigations of employees submitting fraudulent voter registration forms, fired them when it found that evidence supported any charges, and has stated its concern with false information on registration forms. (5)Testifying in a Pennsylvania lawsuit against ACORN by the Republican Party, fired ACORN employee Anita Moncrief stated that ACORN's quality controls on their voter registration drives were "minimal to nonexistent," that training for canvassers was weak, ACORN knew most of its new voter registrations were fraudulent, "forty percent [bona fide registrations] was OK," and ACORN's cooperation with authorities in prosecuting ACORN employees was known as "throwing "threw them under the bus." Marx0728 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made a few modifications to this rough draft per discussions below. WorkerBee74 (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on proposed revision

Vote against the above being included? Reason: It's a restoration of previously edited/deleted/changed content, reasons for all of which were given at the time the edits were made, and are as good now as they were then. Marx - you're making it very hard to take you seriously.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I put most of it in and Bali ultimate reverted it without discussion. These are notable facts from reliable sources, accurately and neutrally stated. Don't point in the direction of the archives. Tell me why it is unacceptable to quote Moncrief's testimony, since it is a direct refutation of ACORN's self-serving claims. Marx0728 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I support Marx's proposed edit. It's weak, it's tame, it should list the states and number of ACORN employees charged and convicted, and it should include Nate Toler's statement, but it will do for now. If the FBI investigation produces indictments, this section should be doubled or tripled in length with all of the details LotLE and his canvassed friends are trying to keep out. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If I had to do an up / down on the entire change it's a strong oppose. I see it does not show the differences so it makes a comparison difficult. I'll try to go through it paragraph by paragraph.Wikidemon (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

All the sources are reliable and properly formatted. All statements are neutrally worded and they describe notable events. Do you want me to italicize the portions that were changed /added? Marx0728 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll withhold comment on the specifics. Yes, a strikethrough of deleted text and an underline or italicization of new text would be helpful. Wikidemon (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon: This was all gone through before, with reasons given. His burden should be to make the case that these changes should be made. he hasn't done that. Some of those sources are weak; some do not reflect what they're claimed to bolster; some of its vaque; some of it is franky ridiculous (the pov pushing from the NYT article, using a headline as "quote" and attributing it to the author of the article, for instance). The list could go on. Fortunately, Marx, workerbee, wacker and the whole delightful cast of characters will be gone soon.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bali ultimate: you didn't give a reason, you just reverted it.[3] The words "wild exaggeration" appear in the text of the New York Times article, in the first paragraph. So I will change the suggested edit to say "wild exaggeration," rather than "wildly exaggerated." Marx0728 (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the best, most news release worthy, most self-serving pro-ACORN material in the section (added by lotle) came from an article and an ACORN press release dated October 2008. If we're going to enforce recentism against what I want to add, then that should be deleted as well. The sword of recentism is a double edged sword. Marx0728 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the word "citizens" with "voters" because the source doesn't support "citizens." I have replaced "investigated" with "began an investigation of" because there is no indication that the investigation has concluded, so it shouldn't be described in the past tense. Marx0728 (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my response. #1 - no. It is already in the article in a more neutral form; claiming it is a wild exaggeration is simply editorializing and not pertinent, so a POV violation. #2 - yes, improves wording. #3 - fine in principle, criminal convictions are sourced and worth knowing about (specific sources may have to be vetted). #4 - yes, an improvement. #5 - no, poorly sourced / POV / BLP. An opinion about the organization given in testimony during a trial is not a reliable source to characterize the organization. Further, I am not interested in horse-trading. If you have a problem with the sourcing or edits to other sections of the article feel free to bring that up as a separate issue.Wikidemon (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The alleged editorializing is a direct quote from a news article in the New York Times. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

...where it is editorializing... Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My comments. I think the numbering of points and using bold and strikeout is actually nice to present clearly what is proposed. So kudos on that much:

• (1) vs. (3): (3) is extremely unencyclopedic soapboxing that tries to take bits and pieces of an article to create the worst spin possible. (1) simply neutrally states the facts reports. So that choice is obvious.
• (2): I used the word "citizen". At the time I recognized it was clunky; the problem is that we don't actually know whether a first-time registrant will ever actually vote (and hence be a voter). I was trying to fudge that (the earlier clause avoids needing to use the noun for the voters/citizens/registrants. However, I don't care much about the change, I just get pedantic.
• (3) (numbering duplication): I think it's OK to add the convictions. The way the proposal is worded it implies that every investigation was accompanied by convictions, which is not true. This would be better: some ACORN employees have been convicted of voter registration fraud.
• (4): Sure, that's fine, "began an investigation".
• (5): Absolutely not usable in any portion. Gross soapboxing based on an opinion piece about an unresolved civil suit. Fails WP:RS, WP:NOTNEWS, and it's entirely WP:UNDUE weight.

LotLE×talk 01:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you're objecting to a fact-checked WSJ article because it's written by John Fund, the same applies to the high velocity spin doctoring from ACORN's October '08 press releases. They're POV whitewash. We can rely 100% on a Philly Inquirer article. The phrase "minimal or nonexistent" may have been said by a GOP lawyer instead, so let's leave it out. Let's rely on a Philly Inquirer news story. It's the gold standard of reliable sourcing. Now, according to the Philly Inquirer, Moncrief said that ACORN "knew that most new voter registration forms it had gathered were fraudulent. 'Forty percent [bona fide registrations] was OK.' " The Philly Inquirer also says Moncrief testified that if canvassers "were caught committing fraud, the group 'threw them under the bus' as scapegoats to take all the legal blame.' " [4] On the weekend of October 12, there was an excellent, well-sourced list of all ACORN investigations, with numbers of employees charged. It was deleted in an extremely bad edit, and replaced with self-serving crap from October 2008 ACORN press releases. A very bad edit. Gross soapboxing. So I suggest that editors who are now complaining about recentism and POV should take a look at the handiwork of the editor who made that very bad edit. WorkerBee74 (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't like the term "wild exaggeration," even though it's from a news article in the New York Times? Fine. Take out the word "wild" and leave in the word "exaggeration." I am fine with using the phrase "some ACORN employees have been convicted of using voter registration fraud" if all eight of the reliable sources are cited as Marx has done. The gross soapboxing from ACORN press releases can only stay if it's balanced by the Moncrief testimony as reliably reported by the Philly Inquirer. Bear in mind WP:NPOV does not mean "no point of view." It means accurately presenting all significant POVs and both the self serving crap from ACORN and the Moncrief testimony are significant POVs. I'll go ahead and make those changes in the rough draft in the preceding Talk page section, for further discussion and review. WorkerBee74 (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Still oppose the same parts of the proposed change for the same reasons. And I am not going to tie this to negotiations about any other part of the article. It's pretty simple. We don't editorialize, and we don't use unreliable sources. I don't know why that should be so hard to accept. Wikidemon (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Then we don't act as a mouthpiece for the ACORN editorializing either. I'm removing the self serving press release crap. Please explain why the Philly Inquirer is unreliable. If it's a good explanation, it won't be so hard to accept. WorkerBee74 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some quick rules of thumb for you, WB:

• Opinion piece from a blog - Not a reliable source
• "News" article from a blog or online source that has been rejected, or would be rejected immediately, at RS/N - Not a reliable source
• Opinion piece from an otherwise reputable, reliable news blog - A reliable source only for the opinions of its author
• Opinion piece from a partisan or tabloid newspaper or television show - Usually not a reliable source. Occasionally a reliable source for the opinions of its author
• Opinion piece from a mainstream, reliable, reputable newspaper or news show - A reliable source only for the opinions of its author
• News article from a mainstream, reliable, reputable newspaper or news show - A reliable source!

Kind of limiting, isn't it? Well, frankly, that's intentional. No one wants articles to become a tug-of-war between WorldNetDaily and, say, TalkingPointsMemo. So if you could please stick to sources that fall into that last category, I think everyone else here will gladly agree to do the same. --GoodDamon 13:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice overkill there, completely unnecessary, carefully dodging the question that I actually asked. Please explain why the news article from the Philly Inquirer, linked above, does not fall into that last category. While you're at it, please explain how LotLE could have believed that self serving, spin doctored crap from ACORN press releases could possibly have fallen into that last category. Thanks for your kind attention to this matter. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that one is certainly a reliable source. It's a news article, not an opinion piece, and it comes from a respectable, reputable news organization. It could definitely be used as a source for something in this article. However, you've been misrepresenting what the article actually contains. The article does not refer to ACORN in the manner you've described; rather, it quotes Anita Moncrief. It makes no judgment as to the validity of Ms. Moncrief's statements, and in fact asserts -- makes its own statements of fact -- that Ms. Moncrief's statements are "vague on many details" and generally makes her out to be unreliable. Another choice quote, right from the beginning: "On cross-examination, she admitted that she had never visited ACORN's Pennsylvania operation, the ostensible focus of the hearing, and was not familiar with the state's voter-registration laws."

WB, it's not enough that you use reliable sources, although I commend you for apparently finally accepting that you need to do that. You also have to accurately reflect what reliable sources say. Now then... As for the removal of ACORN's press releases... Great! Those didn't belong there. We can cite ACORN's responses to different articles anyway. --GoodDamon 15:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We can and have used reliable sources that quote ACORN. Splendid. They make no judgment as to the validity of statements by ACORN. Likewise, we should use this reliable source to report what Moncrief said. Pardon me, but I fail to understand how the source "generally makes her out to be unreliable." Although she hadn't visited the PA ACORN offices, she worked for Project Vote in Washington, and she testified that the two groups are so closely aligned that they were one and the same. Moncrief is intimately familiar with the culture within ACORN and its close affiliates such as Project Vote. While she did not work on the PA registration drive, she "was privy to national briefings on the subject" of the PA registration drive, a fact which you omitted; therefore her testimony was well-informed. Any witness providing an overview of an organization with 350,000 members is going to be a little vague on a few of the details. By the way, the Inquirer said "at times vague," another little fact which you omitted, suggesting that at other times her testimony was well-detailed. The Inquirer has made no judgment as to the validity of her statements, but it's all sworn testimony, not a self serving whitewashing in a press conference or press release. Like the Inquirer, we should make no judgment as to the validity of her statements. We should simply report them. By the way, I've always considered the WSJ to be the gold standard of reliable sources and when a WSJ columnist makes a statement of fact, I would consider it to be reliable enough. But OK, we're using the Inquirer instead. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not worth arguing that an eyewitness testimony in a civil suit is an unreliable source for Wikipedia. She's not a journalist at a neutral, fact-checked, publication. She's not a scholar writing in a peer-reviewed journal in her area of study. She's not a government official producing official government records. She is a mile away from any of the categories of sources considered reliable. We simply cannot selectively repeat things people say in court; otherwise Wikipedia becomes the partisan battleground of agendas that courts are. And Wall Street Journal editorials? They are some of the worst. Their journalistic articles are well done, but their editorialists are as loose with the facts as Fox's and have free reign to distort and misrepresent things at will. It doesn't matter what newspaper she is quoted in; her claims are just claims and not a reliable source of information.Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) When we use a reliable source that quotes ACORN, we attribute the quote to ACORN and cite it to the reliable source. We do not attribute the quote to the reliable source itself; we're using the source to provide the quote, not to establish that the source somehow agrees with that quote. Similarly, if we add a quote from Ms. Moncrief, we attribute it to Ms. Moncrief, and cite it to the source it comes from. But it doesn't quite have the same ring when we say, "according to fired former employee Anita Moncrief" as it would if we said, "according to the Philadelphia Inquirer," does it? Look... You can't just say a reliable source makes a statement of fact when it's actually quoting someone else, especially when that reliable source feels it is pertinent to mention that the person it's quoting committed $3,000 worth of thefts from her employer and makes vague statements. That is misrepresenting what the source actually says. --GoodDamon 16:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WD, with regard to the WSJ columnist, you are beating a dead horse. I already conceded the point. But please point me to a WP policy or guideline saying we can't use Moncrief's testimony, as reliably reported by the Philly Inquirer. I realize that you don't like it, but that's not enough to keep it out of the article. She may not be a journalist, or a scholar, or a government worker. But she's an eyewitness and a whistleblower giving sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury. We have abundant examples of quotations from politicians who are not under oath. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS. Statements that are not reliable are included only for the relevance of the fact that they were made.Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WD, those two policies are wonderful red herrings. They don't say that we can't quote sworn eyewitness testimony by whistleblower as reported by a reliable source. GD, the Inquirer doesn't use "thefts" to describe Moncrief's unauthorized charges on a Project Vote card. There's no report of any criminal charge and she was paying them back, which does not indicate an intent to steal or defraud. Please be careful about BLP violations. I think it's sufficient to say she was fired. If readers want to know why, they can click on the link. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is, to say the least, a little odd here. Let's say I started saying publicly that ACORN was a front for a space alien invasion, and then went to court over it. Heck, let's say my space alien invasion comments are in sworn testimony, and a newspaper quotes me. That doesn't make my testimony reliable, even though it was quoted in an honest-to-gosh newspaper. You're trying to associate the fact that she was quoted with the reliability of the news organization quoting her. --GoodDamon 17:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to know all the facts about these space aliens and then let the earthlings decide. If any details about the space alien fraud allegations, that are reliably-sourced, are excluded by the so-called "regular editors", it will show just how biased Wikipedia is. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cute analogy, GD. Let's examine its gigantic flaws. First, if you file suit claiming that this is a front for a space alien invasion, it will be dismissed so fast that it'll make your head spin. You'll never get a chance to testify. And second, on some astronomically unlikely chance that you happen to get a sympathetic judge who is willing to hear your testimony, any reliable source reporting it will publish in a "News of the Odd" section and identify you as a crackpot. Apples and oranges, GD. Here we have a whistleblower giving testimony that is NOT inherently incredible. She is not talking about space aliens, or claiming that the sun rose in the western sky at 3:30 in the afternoon. Her testimony is credible. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Simply said, the only reliable part and fact here is that she did testified this, whether stating the truth or not.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion of proposed revision

(un-indent) I think a useful link to mention at this point would be Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. It's important to understand that, as an encyclopaedia, we rely for most of our content on reliable secondary sources (e.g. newspapers) to evaluate, interpret and give context to the information provided by primary sources (e.g. court transcripts). It would be an error (original research) if we were to apply our own interpretation to the information provided by the primary source. Another error would be to represent unfairly or with any bias the viewpoint put forward by the secondary source. Please bear these principles in mind when deciding which sources to include, and how to represent what they say. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, SS. The Inquirer, a reliable secondary source, says that Anita Moncrief's testimony was "scathing, though at times vague." No apparent judgment as to her credibility or lack thereof. We should report it while avoiding any such judgments of our own. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting your source. I already explained what the source says, with quotes, and we're all capable of reading. You are misrepresenting it, and I think we all want you to stop that immediately. Anita Moncrief's testimony is not going into this article. It carries zero weight here. End of story. --GoodDamon 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should be made aware that lotle is still edit warring against this new consensus version that excludes self-serving material from ACORN press releases. Please be vigilant regarding this, help me preserve the new consensus version, and report lotle for a 3RR or edit warring violation if appropriate. I've reverted it back to this new consensus version. I don't believe consensus has yet been shown on Ms. Moncrief's testimony. Congratulations on your rehabilitation, Workerbee. Please continue to edit responsibly. GoodDamon and Wikidemon, you are to be commended for refraining from provocation. It appears to have worked wonders. He's much less thorny. Now let's try to be vigilant about lotle's continued attempts to put in ACORN press releases, and continue to discuss Ms. Moncrief. Workerbee made some very solid and courteously presented arguments. Marx0728 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to the pre-edit version, as we obviously do not have consensus on a specific version even if there is consensus for something and not others. I do not concur with the above analysis of the editors involved. I suggest that anyone who wants to make an edit make sure they have consensus for their specific edit, and take it one step at a time.Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious we have consensus for removal of ACORN's self-serving press releases. We can get that far. The mainspace should reflect this. Material that cannot be supported by reliable sources must be removed, particularly where there are BLP concerns. It's clear that the other sources cited by lotle do not support his self-serving ACORN claims. If a spokesman is saying something about ACORN, and is quoted in a reliable source, that spokesman needs to be identified in the article and his statements need to be accurately represented here. Do not cite some other, apparently reliable source and use it as an excuse for adding ACORN press release material. Marx0728 (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If they're cited appropriately in reliable sources, then I agree, ACORN statements can go into the article. But that raises the question of why a whistleblower giving sworn testimony is being kept out, if ACORN spokesmen who are not under oath are being allowed in. If ACORN statements are allowed in this fashion, then they would have to be described in the same fashion that Ms. Moncrief's testimony would be described, for example, "An ACORN spokesman, John Smith, said that blah blah blah."[Reliable Source.] But what lotle is trying to do here, and what Wikidemon is supporting him in, is citing apparently reliable sources and then using them to stuff in press release material that isn't supported by the reliable source. Please consider your sources and what they really say. Marx0728 (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not replace them with valid sources? ACORN has made plenty of statements to the press about their current troubles. A quote from ACORN, attributed to ACORN, cited to a reliable source, is certainly a reasonable addition here. --GoodDamon 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can find such a source and identify the ACORN spokesman, for example, "An ACORN spokesman, John Smith, said that blah blah blah."[Reliable Source.] Then of course, go right ahead. But the statement in the article must be 100% supporetd by the source, and the ACORN spokesman telling these self-serving tales must be identified as the origin. His statements must not be presented as fact, as has heretofore been done. Marx0728 (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec X4)I'm not making excuses for anything. The revert-warred new version seems to have at least six changes to the article. I do not think I support that version, but with eight (and counting?) reverts in quick succession it is hard to know which specific version we are talking about. Please slow down, respect BRD and discuss rather than re-add disputed changes, and take any proposals one by one. Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I'm intrigued by the space aliens analogy. Allow me to offer one that's a lot less ridiculous. Suppose that a consumer rights group sues General Motors. There's a mechanical engineer who worked for GM for 30 years, designing brake systems and passenger restraints. He testifies, as the consumer rights group's star witness, that GM has been reckless in its crash tests for many years, that they don't care about the accuracy or integrity of their crash test data, that any GM executive could have tampered with the results to make all GM vehicles look perfectly safe when they're not, and that now people are dying. Any GM employee who is caught faking or tampering with data is "thrown under the bus" but there are others, the engineer testifies, who aren't being caught. His sworn testimony, in a so-called "obscure" lawsuit in Pennsylvania, is reliably reported in a Philadelphia Inquirer news story which describes said testimony as "scathing, though at times vague." In other words, some parts were better than others. A typical witness and a classic whistleblower. Does it belong in the General Motors article? WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I finally have a minute to answer this absurdity. Marx, you can't compare a theoretical GM employee who has worked for the company for 30 years and been a sterling employee to Anita Moncrief, who worked for ACORN for three years before being fired, and -- to put it charitably -- failed to understand the purpose of a company credit card. She might be a credible witness for other reasons. She might not be. We don't know. So how much weight should we give quotes of her testimony in this article? None. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. This is yet another case of recentism trumping all sense of proportion and logic. Since every single one of your edits, without exception, has been an attempt to include recent, conceivably negative events related to ACORN -- and then hang them around Barack Obama's neck -- I have a challenge for you: Find something neutral, some weighty fact about ACORN, and add it to the article. For bonus points, have it be something unrelated to their signature gathering efforts. Right now, I take the same perspective as bali below: Revert on sight. You want to restore some good faith? Answering my challenge would go a long way. --GoodDamon 20:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• comment The problem with marx and worker is they are very, very hard to work with and, at least in my case, have exhausted good faith. Discussion about proposed charges immediately deteriorates into personal attacks, shifts to other parts of the article and other content disputes, more allegations of this or that, false horse trading, etc... It's almost impossible to engage what they bring up in a serious matter. I write all this because at this point i'm simply inclined to mass revert their edits (which are frequently made simultaneously in multiple sections of the article, without edit summaries etc...) because they demonstrate little "actual" willingness to focus on making this a better article(i use the scare quotes for actual because Marx seems to be a devotee of burns: "Sincerity: If you can fake that, you've got it made.")Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Worker Bee: To label my comment as an unhelpful personal attack (and of course not provide an edit summary to notify me or anyone else that you've done this) is silly -- Imagine if i were to go through and label every comment of yours i found objectionable in such a way.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit

All those supporting the most recent edit by Marx0728, found here, as a starting point for further discussion, please signify by stating your support below.

• Strongly Support. Self serving spin doctored crap from ACORN press releases is removed. More self serving ACORN crap that was passed off by LotLE's sleight of hand as being supported by reliable sources is also removed. Spokesmen for ACORN need to be clearly identified as such when they speak and they need to be found in secondary sources. This edit is just a starting point for further discussion because it removes all the self serving spin doctored press release crap. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment In my experience, this is exactly the sort of complex edit that (a) is very commonly "fought over" in edit wars, and (b) is unlikely to achieve consensus. I would suggest proposing smaller changes, discussing the merits of each, with reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, I'd like WorkerBee74 to dial down the rhetoric by about 4 notches, and stop making remarks such as "sleight of hand" when referring to other editors' contributions. Assuming good faith is more necessary than ever when attempting to resolve a content dispute. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Per SheffieldSteel above. While there are some components of the edit that I do support, the attempt to rapidly alter the article with multiple edits -- only 1 or 2 of which are defensible in any way -- smacks of a return to POV-pushing. Here's how it works in contentious subjects. 1) Propose an individual change. 2) Get consensus for that change. 3) Make that change. 4) If no consensus is reached, do not make the change. And I would add, abusing WP:BOLD is no excuse for POV-pushing. --GoodDamon 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Support. It is a good starting point. From there, we can discuss what material to add back into the article. This is the "Voter registration" section, stripped down to its least objectionable form. All agree that at least this material should be in the section. All disagreements arise over adding other material to this. Marx0728 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean up first paragraph

A more specific proposal (without prejudice to considering other proposals in addition):

1. ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004. During 2007 and 2008, ACORN gathered over 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states; this number includedincluding 450,000 first-time voters new registrations.
2. The remainder included address changes, as well as 400,000 forms rejected among other things as duplicates, incomplete submissions, and fraudulent submissions.and 400,000 rejected forms.
3. During this drive,Acorn claims that 60-70% of registrations during the drive were among people of color, and 50% were among citizens under 30.
4. ACORN claims it collected 1.7 million voter registration forms registrations during drives in 2004 and 2006. During the earlier campaigns, 400,000 new voters were among the registrations.These included 400,000 new registrations [needs valid cite]

Discussion

Rationale as proposer.

• Change #1 is for accuracy and conformity with source. It does not say there were 450,000 new votes, but 400,000 new registrations. The source does not say whether those people actually voted after being registered, or whether they had ever been registered anywhere else before, only that there were 450,000 new registrations.
• Change #2 is for completeness and conformity with source. As it was our article failed to account for 450,000 of the forms. The New York Times source says it was changes of addresses. Also, it is important to note why the forms were rejected - the Times says that the reasons included duplicates, incomplete forms, and fraudulent submissions. We can neutrally repeat what the Times said.
• Change #3 is to insert the statement that the demographic breakdown is Acorn's claim, and also for flow.
• Change #4 is again to insert a statement that this is an Acorn claim. However, note that the 400,000 number is not in the source and needs to be properly cited.

- Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with all of these changes suggested by Wikidemon. They all improve the language flow and/or the conformance to what's given in citations. LotLE×talk 21:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

seems fine to me.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Half of the proposed edit (Sentence #3 and Sentence #4) cannot be reliably sourced and therefore should be removed. The actual source is a self serving ACORN press release. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 21:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion, per Words to avoid, change "ACORN claims" to "ACORN said". The use of the word "claims" can make it look like we want to call into question the veracity of their statement. Of course, as an encyclopaedia, we just want to document it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The following should be removed.

#During this drive,Acorn claims that 60-70% of registrations during the drive were among people of color, and 50% were among citizens under 30.

#ACORN claims it collected 1.7 million voter registration forms registrations during drives in 2004 and 2006. During the earlier campaigns, 400,000 new voters were among the registrations.These included 400,000 new registrations [needs valid cite]

We might include a very brief, extremely generalized, and strictly neutral summary statement, such as "ACORN has reported being involved in earlier registration drives." Then follow it with a citation of the ACORN press release. This is as far as I would go with this material, and I'm very reluctant to even go this far. All this needs to be reported by a reliable secondary source. What we have here is a self-serving primary source. Marx0728 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you accept my recommendation, here is what the first paragraph would look like:

ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004. During 2007 and 2008, ACORN gathered over 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states, including 450,000 first-time voters new registrations. The remainder included address changes, as well as 400,000 forms rejected among other things as duplicates, incomplete submissions, and fraudulent submissions. ACORN has reported being involved in earlier registration drives.

Is this acceptable to all concerned? Marx0728 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• (Sigh.) Whatever. Support. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• That's fine too, except that I would cut out the last sentence until and unless someone proposes a reliable 3rd party source on past drives. I don't think we need to decide the point yes or no that Acorn is an acceptable source about its own past drives - surely, if it's worth reporting here then some third party source wrote about it in the past, so leave it out pending a more solid citation.Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have stricken that last sentence, then. I was reluctant to put it there in the first place. Marx0728 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course one would not have to search very long on google to find that their registration drives, and the controversy over bad form submissions, do date back.[5] But if we can get this paragraph down for now, we can consider that separately. Divide and conquer.Wikidemon (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Of course I Support. Marx0728 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean up 2nd & 3rd paragraphs

Only positive votes on that one. Everybody else has had several hours to comment. Let's move on. Another specific proposal - the first retained sentence, starting with "San Diego County," would be added to the end of the first paragraph above:

Where ACORN has discovered that its workers submitted potentially false voter registration forms, it has followed legal requirements to submit the forms to voter registrars, flagged as requiring additional attention. San Diego County, California officials stated that ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors in 2008, whether innocent or intentional, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations.

ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in various cities and states, in some cases as a result of the ACORN-flagged registration forms, and some ACORN workers have been convicted of voter registration fraud.[All eight cites, of course.] In a case in Washington state, 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. According to the prosecutor, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections." In October 2008, the FBI investigated started an investigation of ACORN to determine whether the group coordinated any registration form falsification, and other investigations by state authorities are also ongoing.

Further discussion

strongly oppose this proposalBali ultimate (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

would you care to explain why, and keep your comments to the "Discussion" section?

Rationale as proposer, even though we've already thoroughly discussed most of it.

• The first sentence is unsupported by the only cite in that paragraph. In fact it's fully supported by self serving press release crap. We all know better.
• "... and some ACORN workers have been convicted of voter registration fraud." This wording was originally proposed by LotLE.
• "... started an investigation of ..." Present tense, not past tense, is appropriate here.
• Final phrase gives the full current picture accurately and is easily supported by several reliable sources. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree that if the first sentence is challenged as being disputed material without a source, it should be removed unless a source can be found. You would think there is a source for the three issues: (1) there is a legal requirement to submit forms even if they are believed to be false; (2) there is a legal requirement to flag those forms as needing attention; and (3) Acorn has followed those requirements. The part that is self-serving, and should probably be reworded even if better sourced, is the implicit statement that Acorn followed the law and that the reason Acorn did it was to follow the law. There's no proof that Acorn as an organization didn't follow the law, but also no demonstration that they did - that's a legal conclusion, and not one we can make without sources. Moreover, a statement by the organization about its own motives seems pretty unreliable. The second and third changes are fine and seem uncontroversial. The statement that other state investigations are ongoing is fine if sourced. It all looks uncontroversial to me (even if some people oppose it).Wikidemon (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Of course I Support. Marx0728 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Demon: I can't even follow what's needed or why anymore. But in response to your specific requests here are some news links: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15campaign.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1225556056-jVNCbllc97JaLNR70KHvSA is a new york times article that's good for Acorn defenses of itself (rather than via press releases) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/14/cbsnews_investigates/main4522374.shtml is a link in which it is again asserted that laws require them to submit forms even when they look fishy, though again, this has been framed in the frustrating "Acorn says" manner (bonus: embedded video of McCain at Acorn rally telling them "what makes america special is what's in this room tonight.") http://mediamatters.org/items/200810140010 is to a partisan website. However, the linked post is done by a credible, named person who both read and links to a florida statute that does, in fact, say that all forms must be submitted. The laws on this matter are state by state. In the case Florida, as the post states (and as i have backstopped by reading the linked statute) lays out a $500 fine for each application received by groups like Acorn that are not turned in. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/acorn_rallies_its_troops.php this also asserts the legal requirment in a more general way. Unfortunately, it's a blog by Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic -- he's a credible guy, but may not prove a sufficiently reliable source. http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title3/ar14/ch2.html#IC3-14-2-5 is indiana law. Probably can't be used as constitutes original research. In the case of Indiana it basically says that failure to deliver a form is a Class A Misdemeanor, but also classes "knowingly" delivering a false form as a Class A Misdeamonor.

I could go on, but i'm sure it would prove as exhausting to me as it would be to everyone else. It seems to me fair to report Acorn's assertion that "in many cases, they are required by law to hand in forms." But what all this shows is that there are a patchwork of electoral laws in the US -- broad sweeping assertions, either positive or negative, about Acorns legal obligations in a national sense, are almost impossible to make. The more I read up on this issue, the more it seems all such assertions, accept perhaps when made as a matter of opinion (i.e. "acorn haters say acorn sucks. acorn lovers say acorn rocks. (wiki article is completely incapable of saying who is right") should not be made.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If a source frames it in the "annoying" but entirely accurate way of "ACORN says," since the neutral, reliable reporter can't verify it for himself but must take the self serving ACORN spokesman's word for it, then that's the way Wikipedia must report it. That's the central problem with this section. Unsupported and unverifiable claims by ACORN spokesmen are being presented as facts chiseled in granite. No mention of the indictments, convictions and sworn testimony of ACORN workers that indicate the opposite is true. And by the way, if proving these partisan claims is exhausting I truly cannot care any less. Prove it or lose it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Also, if we include statements by the self serving ACORN spokesmen, we must report them as "ACORN spokesman David Hagstein said," just as the reliable sources do; and we must balance it with the sworn testimony of "Fired Project Vote worker Anita Moncrief said." Make no judgments about credibility. Just neutrally report what both of them said. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm all for sourcing it as "Acorn says." I though your complaint that sourcing anything directly to Acorn made its use completely inadmissable? To be clear: I assent to any direct statements from Acorn being described as "acorn says" as in "Acorn says that it is required by law in some states to turn in all forms." I'm even more comfortable in my position after having read statute that backs their statement up. After all, they're not saying "the sky is red" or something manifestly ridiculous. In this specific case, the assertion by acorn is backed up by reality.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Moncrief isn't saying "the sky is red" either. Her sworn testimony is backed up by the reality of indictments, felony convictions, and stacks and stacks of fraudulent registration cards, turned in to election authorities in 15 states. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, on Moncrief: No, we must not "balance" what acorn says in an organizational sense against what a disgruntled former worker says. There is no balance here. And by this logic, we would then have to quote every current and former worker who says nice things about acorn ,and then maybe more former workers who have mean things to say about acorn, and round and round it goes. Please stop with the false "x must be balanced with y" assertions." We are not horse-trading here.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to quote every disgruntled former worker whistleblower or every self serving ACORN mouthpiece ACORN spokesman. One of each is sufficient. But I'd be fine with leaving both of them out. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Presenting the ACORN spokesman's self serving statements without balancing them with Moncrief's testimony and the criminal cases is, effectively, an official Wikipedia endorsement of one side in this dispute. You are aware, I'm sure, that this defies the most fundamental policy: NPOV. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Article protected

(un-indent) I think a useful link to mention at this point would be Consensus. Please discuss the desired article content and try to reach consensus. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees; it doesn't mean tyranny of the majority; it certainly doesn't mean "I have agreed with everyone who agrees with me"; it means there is a predominant willingness to accept one version. If you're not prepared to be persuaded to accept a compromise, don't attempt to persuade others.

As and when a consensus does emerge, I'll be happy to unprotect the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

What happened to this article? Did a revert bomb simply explode inside the histories? That's my rant, but I can't help but notice the links directly to the ACORN page. I highly doubt that ACORN has a "neutral" description of itself or it's actions. Anything coming directly from ACORN needs to be removed per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Additionally, this page shouldn't be protected as the edit war has come and gone. I'm so sick of seeing fully protected pages as a result of admin laziness, meaning, instead of fully protecting the page, just warn the folks involved and start blocking. Why punish a community of editors for the actions of a few? Digital^Ninja 19:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's better to block editors, at other times, it's better to protect the page. Several factors can "tip the scales" either way, such as how many editors are making reverts, how many edits are being reverted, any how many useful contributions are being made by other editors. Now, you have to go back about 30 edits in the history to find a change that wasn't either reverted or itself a revert. Multiple reverts were being made by multiple editors on either "side". Under the circumstances, I felt that protecting the article was the best course to take.

No one is being "punished" by this. All editors are still welcome to contribute. Uncontroversial edits can still be made to the article using the {{editprotected}} template. Controversial edits, and edits without consensus, arugably shouldn't be made anyway. And, as I said above, if editors can reach consensus on the issues raised above, protection can be lifted altogether.

Of course, if you're unhappy with my decision, you can always request review at the admins' noticeboard. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Usable edits

In the midst of WB/Marx's rather bad edits that he's been warring over, there were a few worthwhile changes. It's difficult to sort through large edits and find the reclaimable bits.

• The little thing that, indeed, the FBI began an investigation (rather than "investigated")
• The ACORN press release claim: "During this drive, 60-70% of registrations were among people of color, and 50% were among citizens under 30.". I think this information is valuable in terms of showing their registration focus (hence why I added it). However, a press release is definitely a biased source. We should stick in something like "According to an ACORN press release, ..."
• The sentence or clause "some ACORN workers have been convicted of voter registration fraud" is worth sticking in there next to the fact they've been investigated (with a couple WP:RS citations, probably ones already in the article).

LotLE×talk 21:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all three...which does not necessarily mean that I don't agree to exclude other changes (see elsewhere). Is ACORN the only cite for that 60-70% and 50% figure? I think it's reasonable to include it as a self-reported statement, and useful because it gets to their mission or focus. But there must be somewhere where they say that Acorn's effect is to sign up disproportionately lower income, people of color, younger, liberal, etc., registrants. Even if the RS reports on somewhat different issues or statistics it would still get that point across. Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to find some other source, even if it was less precise in the percentages. Everyone seems to agree that ACORN focuses registrations on certain demographics, but that is spun differently by different parties, for obvious reasons. Young people and people-of-color lean Democratic, so folks who don't want more Democratic votes often oppose those targeted efforts. I suspect, however, that we'll find editorials railing against the focus more easily than news sources per se. LotLE×talk 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)