Jump to content

Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Embezzlement Charge

I added a segment taken directly from the Founder's wikipedia article. It is relevant, because it deals directly with the organization. If somebody is scrubbing this article to remove unfavorable information, then it will vanish. But I would find it hard for somebody to justify that, since it has reliable sources, and is not alligation. Mushrom (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition. The exact same material appears in the same level of detail, in the section above. Please assume good faith about other editors' motivations, and do not use article talk pages to make accusations to the contrary. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I do like this edit[1] though. I've added back the quote marks and mentioned that the quote comes from the Times. Would it be better to paraphrase rather than quote the news source? That might be hard given the loaded words like "enemies" and "strident".Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Quoting an article that quotes a person who speaks in words that further require emphasis quotes is a cumbersome business. Your edit was a definite improvement. I'm not sure converting the paragraph into prose would convey the same meaning, as we would be paraphrasing the NYT reporter, and she is already paraphrasing much of what Rathke said. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You must be joking if you believe this issue is resolved. Did the president of ACORN write this herself? 72.10.215.230 (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, this particular passage describing is a summary of the sources written by Wikipedia editors. This section concerns the consolidation of two different sections that were on the same topic, and the wording of the attribution of a quotation from the New York Times. Exactly what are you saying is not resolved about this discussion? Do you think we should say the same thing twice, or remove the attribution that makes clear the words quoted are those of a New York Times journalist rather than of an ACORN representative? I believe I made the edit I described? Do you wish to ask me if I am the President of ACORN? Considering this section is about nepotism, embezzlement, cover-up, power struggles, and litigation, either I'm not the President or the President is rather open about her organization's past scandals. Wikidemon (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition to Housing section

Additionally ACORN has successfully urged lenders to accept alternative forms of income such as food stamps. [1]

I removed the above sentence because it is actually sourced to an opinion piece from the Capital Research Center (Matthew Vadum), and merely quoted verbatim by spectator.org. Do we have a reliable source that can be used to cite this as factual content? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the claim was added by frequent troll/sock-puppet Mathew Vadum himself. I would go so far as to say that anything attributed to Vadum is per-se ruled out as WP:RS. LotLE×talk 06:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


2010 census

With regards to this revert, even if there weren't any criticism of its involvement, isn't being involved with a census a notable part of an organization's history? Andjam (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Rep. Michele Bachmann seems to hold a large number of beliefs which can most generously be described as "bat-shit insane" (the cited source even says as much). The fact she seems to have some fantasy about ACORN and the census is pretty much automatically irrelevant (though possibly germane to her article). Do you have a source for information on ACORNs actual involvement with the US census. It is conceivably relevant--but definitely not at the level of a whole major section--if we find out what the story is actually about. LotLE×talk 08:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I came across one reliable source about congress not limiting their involvement, but I'd prefer to come across more than one before flat out saying that they are involved, especially as more coverage will probably be available soon. Can you please take back the bat... label for BLP reasons? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I look forward to reading solid sources on ACORNs connection to the US census.
The WP:BLP concern isn't as you suggest; my opinion of Bachmann is clearly that, my personal opinion, and my summarization may be colorful, but is is not anything close to libelous. Moreover, this is obviously a discussion where I suggest context, on a talk page. An opinion like mine, even well cited to published sources, might raise a concern in article space, but it doesn't in talk space.
On a similar line, in the archive of this talk page, you will find many examples of editors stating their negative opinions of ACORN or of individuals connected with the organization. While few of those merit any consideration within the article itself, I would not dream of suggesting they were BLP concerns sitting in the talk page (merely that they were unhelpful to writing the article). LotLE×talk 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From The Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 26, 2009:

"ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) is one of 40,000 organizations nationwide that are working with the Census Bureau to promote the census, said Nick Kimball, a spokesman for the Commerce Department, the bureau's parent agency.

'They're getting no money from the Census Bureau, and it's incredibly misleading to insinuate that ACORN will be going door to door, collecting information. It's simply not true,' he said." Abeger (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census
The U.S. Census Bureau is working with several national organizations to help recruit 1.4 million workers to produce the country's 2010 census, including one with a history of voter fraud charges: ACORN.[2]
We have two sources with differing numbers as to just how many "organizations" will be involved in the census unless one is able to meld "several" with "40,000", to say nothing of the voter fraud charge and multiple convictions [3][4]Eyesockett (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
So, you've got a link to an opinion column in the WSJ, a link to "conservative politicians attack ACORN again, and here at FAUX News we take them seriously", and a link to the old voter fraud story, where the guy actually convicted says, ""When I did it, when my team did it, it wasn't to steal any election". And this all proves what? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that the Wall Street Journal opinion piece is based upon a nonfactual assertion? One would think that a reliable source such as the Journal would not permit that. When someone is convicted of fraud, fraud is the crime not to mitigated by rationalizations/excuses . But I will now search for newsworthy source to support the facts posited by Mr.Fund. I do think we need to remember that facts exist in their own right and should not be subject to political skewness.Eyesockett (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I a very new at this so bear with me. Would the follow source from the Seattle Times fulfill[5] the requirement of supporting some of Mr. Fund's factual claims? If so then let us use it to support Mr. Fund and perhaps answer: "And this all proves what?" Eyesockett (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I am also at a loss as to what you are asserting here. ACORN has been convicted of fraud? Never. ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud? Never. The Seattle Times article you cited mentions charges of registration fraud, not voter fraud, and says nothing about convictions (although I believe a few workers eventually pled guilty to certain charges). Every two years during the election cycles, like clockwork, ACORN deals with routine registration fraud accusations. With thousands of temporary paid workers dealing with millions of registrations, there are typically a few bad apples that ACORN and the authorities weed out; just as described in the article. As for the other sources you mentioned above, yes, it appears ACORN will be among the hundreds of organizations enlisted to help with the 2010 census. When that happens, I'm sure that, too, will become part of the article. What, exactly, was your concern? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"I am also at a loss as to what you are asserting here. ACORN has been convicted of fraud? Never. ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud? Never." I do not remember stating such. That would be editorialize (POVing) would it not? what i prefer to do is to let the news do the talking. I believe this statement is self annihilating: "The Seattle Times article you cited mentions charges of registration fraud, not voter fraud, and says nothing about convictions (although I believe a few workers eventually pled guilty to certain charges." I do believe a plea of guilt serves as a self conviction!

two quotes from the article will suffice:

ACORN President Maude Hurd said in a statement, "It appears that a handful of temporary workers were trying to get paid for work they hadn't actually done. While we don't think the intent or the result of their actions was to allow any ineligible person to vote, these employees defrauded ACORN and imposed a burden on the time and resources of registrars and law enforcement."

"Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Stephen Hobbs told the board that six ACORN workers had admitted filling out registration forms with names they found in phone books last October. The canvassers filled out the forms while sitting around a table at the downtown Seattle Public Library, Hobbs said."

what does it mean when one says "I am guilty as charged" if not an admission of guilt to the charge?? In this case fraudEyesockett (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It means that the speaker says he was guilty. The articles make it clear that this was a pattern of greed and desperation by lowest-level workers for ACORN; ACORN as an organization was not charged, much less convicted, except in the kangaroo courts of the far-right blogosphere. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
orange mike's point of view is pejorative to the collaborative spirit espoused by wiki and i find that sad. I have not formed conclusions about Acorn. Indeed when challenged on the neutrality of a WSJ opinion piece, i produced a neutral news article in supporting of Mr. Fund's factual claims.
Don't be silly; Orange Mike didn't express a point of view. He reiterated the fact that ACORN is always under frivolous accusation by the far-right fringe, and he said nothing about your conclusions or opinions. The sad act doesn't fly. I noticed that this was the one fact from my comment above that you also declined to respond to. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

to this: eyesockett: 'what does it mean when one says "I am guilty as charged"' orangemike "It means that the speaker says he was guilty. it could be said that if multiplied enough one could argue that a "culture of corruption" is tolerated thus impugning the organization. i do not believe that is a correct conclusion, but it does not mean that Acorn does not have a problem worthy of note. Surely we do not want the Acorn article to be a "botoxed" promotional.Eyesockett (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Please specifically state what this "problem worthy of note" is. It isn't clear to me from the above conversation. Could you also clearly state what "factual claims" of Mr. Fund are supported by the article you cited? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"Please specifically state what this "problem worthy of note" is." Charges of fraud will diminish the public's trust in ACORN whatever its etiology; systemic or individual, regardless of the causative agent, incompetence/criminal. When one read this:
"....During the 2008 election season, ACORN gathered over 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states. Many of these registration forms were flagged by ACORN's internal auditors for election official review, with approximately 400,000 being ultimately rejected as incomplete, duplicated or fraudulent." from the article page under voter registration..." from the article page under the subtitle 'voter registration' coupled with reliable sources reporting convictions and ongoing national investigations in many states there can be no doubt the egregious effect, rightly or wrongly, upon the public's trust of ACORN. Thus it is a "problem worthy of note".Eyesockett (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"Diminish the public's trust in ACORN?" Incorrect. Charges of registration fraud by ACORN workers will diminish ACORN's trust in it's employees. It is ACORN that is being defrauded (as it says in your sources), not the public. I ask you again to reiterate what this "problem worthy of note" is. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"Could you also clearly state what "factual claims" of Mr. Fund are supported by the article you cited" - yes I could, given that the articles i cited were the Seattle Times[[6]] and the Wall Street Journal[[7]]. Would you like me to clearly state what "factual claims" made by Mr. Fund are supported by the article I cited? Assuming yes I offer the following:

WSJ's Fund: "Elsewhere, Washington state prosecutors fined Acorn $25,000 after several employees were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2007. The group signed a consent decree with King County (Seattle), requiring it to beef up its oversight or face criminal prosecution......" Seattle Times: "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.

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is the worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington. There has been nothing comparable to this," state Secretary of State Sam Reed said at a news conference with Satterberg, King County Executive Ron Sims and Acting U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan." .... ACORN President Maude Hurd said in a statement, "It appears that a handful of temporary workers were trying to get paid for work they hadn't actually done. While we don't think the intent or the result of their actions was to allow any ineligible person to vote, these employees defrauded ACORN and imposed a burden on the time and resources of registrars and law enforcement."

It needs be noted that Mr. Fund went on to other claims that need to be source elsewhere. Eyesockett (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that Mr. Fund is looking out for the best interest of ACORN? ACORN was defrauded by it's own workers, and suffered for it. The only harm to the public was the wasted time needed to investigate the trouble caused by the few problem employees, and ACORN paid that $25,000 in investigation fees. It appears you are confusing the work ACORN does for the public with the work employees do for ACORN. What "other claims" of Fund's need to be noted? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, yes, it is well sourced that there have been incidents and convictions of voter registration fraud by ACORN employees, and in a few cases accusations against the organization itself or its managers. The Nevada case involved their registration incentive pay system being illegal per state law. What we have are a small chorus of Republican operatives and commentators complaining that ACORN is a bad seed (pun intended), and because they can't be trusted they should not have a hand in the census counts. The more paranoid and conspiracy-oriented would take that farther and say ACORN is trying to steal elections to favor the Democrats, whether by election fraud or census fraud. Republicans have for decades been very vocal on the questions of fraud in elections and in census counts. The more cynical would say that this is a purely instrumental concern, because an undue restriction ends up undercounting legitimate homeless, poor, transient, foreign-language-speaking, college student, immigrant, etc., residents, who are more likely to vote Democratic. If enough people make that accusation against ACORN, it will lead to reliable independent coverage in mainstream sources about the accusation being made, and if that rises to a certain level I think it is notable and worth including, as an accusation. Something like: "Conservative [or choose some other adjective] commentators raised objections to ACORN's participation as [what is their role?] in the 2010 census, citing earlier accusations and incidents relating to voter registration fraud in the 2008 [and 2006?] elections." However, we do not need to repeat those anti-ACORN arguments as if they're valid, just report that they exist. Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"What we have are a small chorus of Republican operatives and commentators complaining that ACORN is a bad seed (pun intended), and because they can't be trusted they should not have a hand in the census counts." or perhaps alternately, ACORN is a seedy operation manifest in metastasized malfeasance that has grown from a one state dog and pony show to a full fledged circus involving 14 or more states and indeed it involved the then to be president of these united states, B.H.Obama! Yes to this: "If enough people make that accusation against ACORN, it will lead to reliable independent coverage in mainstream sources about the accusation being made, and if that rises to a certain level I think it is notable and worth including, as an accusation." But I would add that if enough little acorns are rotten then perhaps one should look to the oak tree for a causative agent. Surely, it might be said "The nuts do not fall far from the oak".Eyesockett (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
So based on your response to my last 3 questions, I guess we can agree that (1) Fund's allegations are frivolous; (2) It is ACORN, and not the public, that is being defrauded by the illegal activities of a few bad ACORN workers, and (3) there are no new claims or issues that aren't already covered in the present Wikipedia article. It's been an interesting conversation, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Your summary of my response is simplistic and diversionary. I have alluded to a "culture of corruption" that seems to permeate ACORN. Then I argued that the agent of this proven malfeasance could be one of ACORN the organization's incompetence or ACORN's the organization's corruption. The shadow that darkens the public's perception of ACORN consists of the umbra, the darkest shadow of proven illegality with the parse-able results attributed to either the ACORN the organization or the worker drones (with a few cases, plausible denial is plausible) or the semi-lit/semi-dark penumbra world of the unresolved world of indictment that now caste its darkness in many states. ACORN is now well enveloped in this darkened world and to expect the public's trust to be placed behind the excuse of "plausible deniability" regardless of the competence or criminality is a burden of doubt the public trust should not have to bear. Thus is noteworthy. This topic is not an ACORN promotional unless proven to be otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. The indictments and alleged criminal activity need status in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyesockett (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
So once again, based on your response to my last 3 questions, I guess we can agree that (1) Fund's allegations are frivolous; (2) It is ACORN, and not the public, that is being defrauded by the illegal activities of a few bad ACORN workers, and (3) there are no new claims or issues that aren't already covered in the present Wikipedia article? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
If we are going to perseverative on the theme of whether or not we have a Fund-amentally frivolous allegation in the WSJ opinion piece or one built upon credible evidence perhaps we need to review this:
Fund: "Acorn spokesman Scott Levenson calls the Nevada criminal complaint "political grandstanding" and says that any problems were the actions of an unnamed "bad employee." But Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada's Democratic Attorney General, told the Las Vegas Sun that Acorn itself is named in the criminal complaint. She says that Acorn's training manuals "clearly detail, condone and . . . require illegal acts," such as requiring its workers to meet strict voter-registration targets to keep their jobs."[[8]]
and juxtapose it to this reliable source: "Criminal charges filed against ACORN,two employees from" article from the Las Vegas Sun from which this: "Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada's Democratic Attorney General, told the Las Vegas Sun that Acorn itself is named in the criminal complaint. She says that Acorn's training manuals "clearly detail, condone and . . . require illegal acts," such as requiring its workers to meet strict voter-registration targets to keep their jobs...."Nevada will not tolerate violations of the law by individuals nor will it allow corporations to hide behind or place blame on their employees when training manuals clearly detail, condone and, indeed, require illegal acts in performing the job for the corporation, Masto said during a media conference today."[[9]]. Both Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and Secretary of State Ross Miller are Democrats and both "announced Monday that voter registration fraud charges have been filed against an organization that works with low-income people and two of its employees in its Las Vegas office."[[10]].
in summary your claim of Fund's frivolity is specious, your "bad apple" metaphor is rotten and you third point on adequacy of coverage by article page is not borne out by the apologist nature of the article. Further the claims of partisan attacks is disproven by the fact it was democrats who brought the charges in Nevada. Eyesockett (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but you lost me. What were your specific answers to my last three questions again? As near as I can tell based on your responses to my last 3 questions, I guess we do indeed agree that (1) Fund's allegations are frivolous; (2) It is ACORN, and not the public, that is being defrauded by the illegal activities of a few bad ACORN workers, and (3) there are no new claims or issues that aren't already covered in the present Wikipedia article? And a correction: I've not made a claim, nor have I mentioned apples, nor have I put forth any points. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
That's alright, i shall keep trying. Fund's article used Nevada's democratic A.G. in establishing ACORN's activity in Nevada and that the fraud was institutional, IE, ACORN as an entity and not the employees. Both she and the Nevadan Democrat Secretary of State, Ross Miller made the charge against the ACORN institution as opposed to your POV that it was errant employees, thus contending with your, Xeonphrenic claim, "The only harm to the public was the wasted time needed to investigate the trouble caused by the few problem employees" which you, Xeonphrenic, claims not to have made with "nor have I put forth any points." The "observation" that the attacks on ACORN were the work of republicans/right wing hacks dot this discussion like fly droppings. Noticing them i decide to do a cursory exams of a couple of the states charges against ACORN. A statistical sinking of the shaft, testing the theory of republican attacks against ACORN. I found that three out of my first four sallies involved democrats!
Incorrect. Lomax, a republican, filed the charges. The two democrats you keep mentioning are the people with whom he filed the charges, and are the people that will be handling the case as required by their position, but they didn't instigate it. I'm still waiting for you to reiterate your answers to my three questions. I should take your four instances of avoiding responding as my answer, but I'll push on and ask once again. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

for economy sake i present two:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/regional/s_629482.html

"A quota system for voter registration drives is barred under state law and has been cited as a major factor in pending criminal cases in Pittsburgh. Seven people, all with ties to ACORN, have been charged by Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr., with violating state election laws and submitting fraudulent voter registration applications. Those cases are pending"

Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. is a democrat.

(Which is irrelevant, because the actual charges were filed by Allegheny County Detective Robert F. Keenan, a republican, but it is Zappala's job to prosecute all such cases. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

In Reynoldsburg, Ohio, Claudel Gilbert was indicted on two felony counts of illegal voting and false registration, after being registered by ACORN to vote in two separate counties. He pled guilty to the illegal voting charges..... Common Pleas Judge Richard A. Frye sentenced Gilbert to probation for one year and fined him $500 but suspended a six-month prison sentence[9]

Common Pleas Judge Richard A. Frye is a democrat.

(Which is irrelevant, because this has nothing to do with ACORN or it's employees, and ACORN did not register this man, as you state - you think we don't look this stuff up to verify? Nice cut'n paste from Ballotpedia, by the way. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC) )

couple those with the Nevadan Democrats and surely Wikidemon et al needs to modify their POV position. it may be that conservative talking heads bring up the subject but only after democrats prosecute it! Eyesockett (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(Couple those with the Nevada republican responsible for filing the Nevada charges and you have 2 cases instigated by republicans, and 1 misrepresented case totally unrelated to ACORN, which comes as no surprise. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC))
I'll be brief because when you start to accuse people of editing out of POV the discussion is more or less over. Viewing legal matters through the lense of the political party of a judge and prosecutor is usually not a fruitful way to analyze events. If reliable sources say it's relevant we can consider it, but chatting about that here based on partisan sources is WP:FORUM-ish. The criminal complaints are that ACORN's quota system is itself a violation of the election law. That is not a fraud claim, nor do I see any claim that in doing so ACORN as an organization was doing anything surreptitious. I don't see what any of this has to do with the discussion about the census. Some Republicans are clearly upset about ACORN, and this fits in with their expressed concern about voter registration and census issues, where in both cases their power is threatened should the counts change to reveal a higher proportion of Democrats. Wikidemon (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
While I agree with much of your response, Wikidemon, I'd take issue with the wording of your assessment that, "The criminal complaints are that ACORN's quota system is itself a violation..." when I've read that they don't have a quota system. ACORN claims they do have employee productivity standards that are expected and enforced, just as any employer does, and they claim these standards don't come near to being a "quota system", and are being misrepresented as such. Until it clears the courts, it's just more of the same: allegations with intent to besmirch the organization, not protect the voting public. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Xenophrenic: "First, you appear to have the misconception that these are "emerging ACORN legal problems" when accusations like these have been routine since at least the 1992 election season"
These 'accusations' may have been routine, but have the charges fraud and the convictions that have been successfully pursued as in the case in Nevada and Penn and that "Voter registration fraud complaints like these continue to mount for the group, already under scrutiny in 11 states where hundreds, if not thousands, of new registrations are being questioned [[11]] or to quote the national review "As of Monday, ACORN was under investigation in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin" [[12]]changed that? Permit me a question: Is there a tipping point at which mere accusation transmogrify into a legal problem for ACORN? And I don't simply mean at the entity ACORN wrong doing, but I mean for ACORN by means of successful prosecution of its members.Do you hold that ACORN is free of the legal shadow beyond all reasonable doubt, what one might refer to as the umbra, or is there another standard, preponderance of the evidence, as in civil cases where the semidarkness of a penumbra would serve? Much has been made that the ACORN's legal problems are partisan at the core yet when mention of democrats involved in pursuing ACORN you talk as if the prosecutors and secretaries of state are mere pawns of some detective and cannot judge for themselves the merit of the fraud cases.this quote from you: "Which is irrelevant, because the actual charges were filed by Allegheny County Detective Robert F. Keenan, a republican, but it is Zappala's job to prosecute all such cases." are you telling me that Allengheny County Detective Keenan, a detective, initiated the prosecution and Zappala followed his lead? I would like to have an answer to that also. Also in pursuing the legal avenue at what point does some success sully ACORN's reputation and fracture the public trust? Eyesockett (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Your questions are unclear to me. If you are asking if the routine accusations of this past election cycle are any different from the routine accusations of previous election cycles, the answer is no, they are the same. If you are asking if the temporary employees of ACORN should be punished for wrong-doing when they are guilty of such, the answer is yes, of course, and ACORN will continue to push to have them prosecuted. Does the quantity of accusations against ACORN workers equate to "a legal problem for ACORN?" It hasn't, and it shouldn't; considering there have been fewer than three-dozen problem workers out of many thousands of workers over the decades, it isn't likely. As for your question about Keenan and Zappala, the answer is no. As for pursuing legal action in order to sully the reputation of, and trust in, an organization — it's interesting that you should mention that. I would agree with you, that is no doubt the motivation behind much of it. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I have reverted this edit for too many reasons to enumerate here, but they include: use of opinion pages as sources; violation of WP:SYNTH when inserting "democrats are involved", as if it pertains to the content; inserting the Washington State content when it already exists elsewhere in the article; creating a non-encyclopedic header about "legal woes"; and false information, like "voter fraud" charges in 12 states, sourced to someone's opinion, and falsely implying ACORN's FAQ commented on investigations when it only commented on attacks against ACORN., etc. If there is any salvageable content in that reverted paragraph, its introduction to the article should be discussed. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like thank Xenophrenic for his input into my immersion into the wiki article page. It is good. I will now pursue to remedy my errors. one has to start somewhere. At some point with the emerging ACORN legal problems expanding amongst the states will necessarily be considered noteworthy. I have one article from the National Review Online [[13]] dated October 14, 2008 8:45 AM stating that "As of Monday, ACORN was under investigation in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin." and another article from the New York Post dated October 12, 2008 saying [[14]] "Voter registration fraud complaints like these continue to mount for the group, already under scrutiny in 11 states where hundreds, if not thousands, of new registrations are being questioned." perhaps xeonphrenic would explain the worthiness or lack there of of these sources thus making this a collaborative effort of a contentious issue.
now to xeonphrenic's justified observation "when inserting "democrats are involved", as if it pertains to the content" I would answer, let's get rid of the insertion. Would the removal of those onerous words not make the rest acceptable? If not let us collaborate on what would. Eyesockett (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
In principal I am not opposed to expanding and bringing up to date the treatment of the employee fraud claims and investigations, and other legal problems having to do with the voter registration campaigns. However, I would not consider National Review a reliable source on the subject. They play politics far too much and are often believed to mischaracterize things. This one in particular is an editorial column. Best go with a more standard and more clearly unbiased source. Further, I don't think we should devote a separate section to it. Per WP:CRIT, it's best to add that material thematically into the section on voter registration, where it now is, and perhaps into the presidential campaign section (which does serve as a place to describe how the issue became a controversy). Wikidemon (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
First, you appear to have the misconception that these are "emerging ACORN legal problems" when accusations like these have been routine since at least the 1992 election season. Are you suggesting that we itemize each accusation that has been made against every temporary employee for decaades, along with resulting convictions and/or dismissals? If so, please explain how this would help the article. The Voter Registration section already indicates that these do occur and are handled appropriately.
Second, you need to be careful about interchanging "voter fraud" and "registration fraud" as if they were the same. They are not even related, but the incidence of carelessly confusing the two tends increase in direct proportion to the partisanship of the source reporting on them.
Third, unlike Wikidemon, I am opposed to having an itemized list of each individual worker that tried to scam ACORN, and their resulting punishment. I don't see it adding to the quality of the article. Sourced content indicating that it does happen; is routinely inflated in importance and severity every election cycle by opponents of ACORN; and has resulted in ACORN having to tighten their procedures as a result, seems sufficient. The most recent (See Nevada and Pittsburgh) charges involving quotas, and ACORN's counter suit involving the same issues, are too recent for the article based on WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. The result of those cases may provide interesting content for this article, but trying to insert every play-by-play while it progresses isn't practical. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed edits

Could someone please restore this version[15] or something like it but keeping the New York Times link? We have an IP editor who keeps making bad edits that have the effect of removing citations and adding personal opinion and commentary about what they think they saw in the video.[16] Also, per the heading there is no sourcing as yet that there is a "controversy". That may be coming but for now the single reliable source does not state that there was a controversy, that ACORN denounced the couple that appears, that they were "working" undercover, etc. We should be very literal and faithful to the sources here because obviously people are trying to spin this. Also, there have been a lot of IP editors and SPAs edit warring, adding unsourced or poorly sourced material, etc. If this continues I think we should seek semi protection for the page. I think I'm at 1RR or 2RR right now, and don't want to edit war, even to do housekeeping in the face of some bad edits. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you.[17] I've given the IP editor a WP:3RR warning so let's see if the article can evolve constructively from here. There are sure to be more stories and more fallout from this, so let's keep an eye out for the good sources. Wikidemon (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If you include the FOX sources, the AP, and ACORN's response looks controversial to me, not to mention the subject matter. I fixed a claim that FOX news released the video, as they merely presented it. BigGovernment.com did the investigation. Fox was simply the first to cover it in mainstream media. DMBradbury 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
We'll see what comes up. But if you're going to claim a controversy you need third party sourcing. Saying that something is "controversial" is a judgment call, and asserting a "controversy" is a factual claim that there is some kind of widespread disagreement over whether something actually happened, or whether something that happened is right or wrong, or who did it, etc. By analogy, if you're going to claim there's a storm at sea you should find an article that says so, not just look at the waves and make your own call. I'm guessing that it will probably become a controversy very quickly, and that word will slip into the news accounts within a day, so there's no big deal waiting a day to put that in, or leaving it in for a day until the sourcing arrives. Either way we're not reaching out on a limb. But there's a small chance it will blow over without much happening. Who knows? Maybe nobody is interested. Maybe there's another side to the story we don't know yet. Fox News trumpeting an issue is not guaranteed to make it a controversy outside of the circle of people who watch Fox news. Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
As opposed to any other Network, like ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, any liberal network, trumpeting an issue to make it a controversy outside of the circle of the people who watch those networks? Careful, your bias is showing. 64.53.136.29 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I removed Fox due to their minor role in this, if you wish to rename it go right ahead. I assert controversy because the issues involved are controversial. If it blows over, it still is worth reporting for now. I guess we'll find out! DMBradbury 02:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is CNN "the big time", and Fox News is not? Didn't CNN just today make up a story about an attack on the Potomac River, only to later blame their incompetence on someone else? Why does Fox News continually destroy every other cable news network in the ratings? Bias. Bias. Bias. 64.53.136.29 (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Baltimore Sun.[19] Did I call this or what? At present it looks like a fair discussion of this incident would describe it as a project of a couple young citizen journalist / activists... Covering this without the context would be like reporting the content of a Michael Moore film without saying it was one of his films. Wikidemon (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Removed Fox? They were the first and for a while Beck was complaining Fox was the only exclusive organization that even covered this Bachcell (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there is a second ACORN office that tried to help the same couple set up a brothel... in D.C. Sorry to butt-in, but you guys outta know... so you can... you know... be neutral and informative. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.34.96 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Added information about the Washington D.C. incident. Removed Baltimore from the title. Bachcell, like I said, it is great that they are reporting this information, but it doesn't really affect the story. If you wish to include it, go ahead - Remember WP:Bold !- I personally don't really think it matters though. DMBradbury 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
DMB, do you have a link to an unedited video? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I have placed a link to a transcript of the incident at the bottom of the page, surely if you would like to see the video, the transcript would also be of interest. Unfortunately my link has been undone several times by vandals who then had the gall to accuse me of spamming. Please realize that these facts will come out one way or the other, sending my link down the memory hole does nothing to protect Acorn.Methusedalot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC).
To whom is the transcript sourced, and who produced it? Those are a couple things I would need to know before determining if the transcript would be of interest. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The external link I provided was from a web site called Big Government, it is I believe the original source of the story. If you have deep epistemological doubts about sources pulled from the web, which by the way have been cited by both Fox and CNN, than perhaps you should not hazard your delicate soul on Wikipedia. The answers to you questions not that I think you don't know already are James O'Keefe and Big Government respectively --Methusedalot (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The accusations against other editors and their motives are most unhelpful. Note that calling other editors vandals is a violation fo editing policy. So please cut it out. The problem with the link, per WP:EL, is that we don't use that section for lists of pieces about the subject of the article. The transcript would be most appropriate as a citation link with respect to verifying the content of what was actually in the tape. Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The link now exists a citation as per WP:EL and I am satisfied. It was only my intention that a link to this interesting information be made available on this site. It is my belief that Wikipedia should be a source of information collected from a broad selection of sources. I will in future be more regarding in my use of the term 'vandal', but would you be so kind as to note that I referred to no one particular editor as a 'vandal'. --Methusedalot (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for being patient. All's well that ends well, no? Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservative activists

Attempting to hide the fact they are conservative activists violates NPOV. They are a part of the story. Telling the story honestly includes mentioning who they are to the extent it's relevant. The fact they are conservative activists is relevant to understanding why they were doing what they were doing in the first place. Trying to hide or obscure that aspect of it is clearly POV. Mystylplx (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the reliable sources to this point call them conservatives and/or activists, although I don't think they explain the basis for that so I'm not sure how informative that is for the reader. Is it drawn from this one act or do they have a track record or public statements about their political beliefs? Whether you support Republicans or Democrats as a political affiliation, posing as a pimp and a prostitute is not exactly a conservative thing to do on a personal level. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, doing a web search at this point. Hannah Giles is daughter of Doug Giles, a regular Townhall.com columnist. Hannah is a 20-year-old college student, and apparently does some columns of her own there. In early summer she pitched the idea to James O'Keefe, who had done some other anti-ACORN films in the past (filming ACORN people breaking into foreclosed properties in Baltimore), as well as other undercover style things. They both do seem to be allied with conservative beliefs and causes, if you really have to divide the world into conservatives and liberals. In the few statements they've made they alternately say this was a very calculated, deliberate attempt to expose/exploit ACORN's institutional weaknesses, but also the most outlandish thing they could think of doing. It's a shame we don't have more sources on that, or a profile in a reliable source of them or how the film got made - there's a reasonable chance they may individually become notable at some point. Although exposing corruption is not a conservative / liberal issue, where the corruption is an organization allied with the Democrats and current administration in the US, things can fall along that line. It's true that the film is being championed by the conservative press and blogosphere, and the apologists and defenders for ACORN are non-conservatives. However, there are liberal groups like the "ACORN 8" who are also publicizing claims of institutional corruption at ACORN. I guess the bottom line is that calling them conservatives and activists serves both a helpful and an unhelpful purpose. As part of understanding who they are, their history, and why this film happened, it's useful to know that background. On the other hand, labeling them as conservatives and activists is also part of ACORN's way to defend itself, casting aspersions on them by making them seem like part of the fringe of the conservative discontent in America. I don't think any of this can be sourced reliably enough to put in the article, at this point it is just background regarding why the reliable sources choose to use those two words, conservative and activist, in their coverage. Wikidemon (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
James O'Keefe has done lots of these 'gotcha' type films. Stuff like getting Planned Parenthood to accept a donation from him with the proviso the money only be used to abort a black baby, and getting the UCLA health center to give him lots of free condoms so he could have an orgy on his boat (all caught on hidden camera.) He's a part of Live Action Films, which is a pro-life group of filmmakers who do exactly this kind of stuff. Another example is he's involved in trying to get MA to sanction the marriage of two straight men, each of whom has a girlfriend. I'd say they are part of the story (wouldn't have happened without them) and it would be helpful for readers to know where this is coming from, the context and motivation of those who made the film. Simply describing them as "conservative activists" is quite mild. To remove even the word "conservative" from that mild description is violates NPOV since it's an obvious attempt to hide the history and motivations of the filmmakers.Mystylplx (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you know of any reliable, neutral sources that describe his background and his films? We'd need third party sourcing, not his own websites, to establish notability. All that sounds like interesting stuff to know. Maybe the best thing to do is to create an article about him so we don't have to decide how much or little background to add - people can just read it in his article. Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
CNN[20]Reliefappearance (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any sources right off hand, but then I'm not saying all that stuff should be included in the article. I'm just saying it should be noted that he's a conservative activist, which fact is already supported by most of the sources already listed.
I suspect a separate article about him, though ideal, will have to wait for a reliable neutral source to do a story on him... unless Jill Stanek could be considered such a source. She's a blogger, but a big name blogger. I doubt she could be considered "neutral," but since her bias would be in his favor I'd think it might be OK to use her as a source for his past activities. Personally I have mixed feelings about using a blogger as a source. Some bloggers are quite reliable, and every bit as good as MSM journalists. Most, however, ...not so much.
But again, this is all beside the point of this particular discussion. Most of the sources already cited refer to them as "conservatives" or "conservative activists." To remove the word "conservative" from this article seems to me to be an attempt to obscure a relevant part of the story. It doesn't change what the ACORN employees said or did, but it does help the reader understand the motivations of the filmmakers in the same way that understanding where Michael Moore is coming from politically helps to inform the meaning of his documentaries without necessarily changing the meaning of the facts presented in those documentaries. Mystylplx (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
As a source Stanek might pass BLP concerns but not be considered a major or neutral enough source for establishing vulnerability. My main concern here is finding enough material to do a good story, and also avoiding deletion. Without enough sourcing people would think that the very presence of the article is a POV matter, on one side or the other. Yes, I guess it's a bit beside the point. The reason I went down that whole path is to question whether the two words, conservative and activist, are really meaningful in the reliable sources that repeat them or whether they're throw-aways. I'm fine either way and leaning towards including them because that's what the sources say, and they seem to do so deliberately and accurately. And like you said, if interpreted literally instead of as a denigration of the filmmakers' efforts, it helps the reader understand the event by noting that they are conservative and activists. They didn't do it as journalists in a strict sense (e.g. 60 minutes, which would open them to the charges being made that they are not acting as responsible journalists), and they didn't do it strictly for edu/advo-tainment (as with Sasha Cohen or a more typical documentary filmmaker). Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
If the term "conservative activists" has an inherently negative or "fringe" connotation I'm not aware of it. I suppose some people might equate "conservative activists" with "birthers" or "teabaggers," which terms do have fringe connotations, but then we can't go around worrying about all the possible connotations some people might apply to factual descriptions. "Conservative activists" is how they are described in the cited sources, so by default the word should be included unless there's some valid reason to remove it. I'd say the burden is on those who want to conceal the political stance of the filmmakers to show good cause for doing so, rather than on those who merely want them accurately described with a very mild, unoffensive term that is supported by most of the cited sources, and which is relevant to understanding the context and motivation of those who made the videos in the same way that, if they were a more typical edutainment filmmaker (such as Sasha Cohen) it would be relevant to describe them as "documentary filmmakers," or if they were investigative journalists it would be relevant to describe them as such. Mystylplx (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
LotLE, if you'd stop chopping out other editors' references, you wouldn't need to add [citation needed] tags. This is a very very noteworthy event and satisfies concerns raised in WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BLP. Consensus for adding the paragraph in the lead was established on Wikidemon's Talk page by at least three editors. Before you revert, let's talk about it. Please explain why you insist on removing all of this material, and all of these references, and then adding [citation needed] tags. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the location of the new video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.132.89 (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Undercover Prostitute

A video of two individuals posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend went undercover into a meeting with ACORN representatives. ACORN members informed these two how they can bring in 13 young girls from El Salvador to work as prostitutes. The ACORN members told them how they are not required to pay taxes, and how to use the children as Dependants.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109444 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574404962227305566.html

The Transcript http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/10/complete-acorn-baltimore-prostitution-investigation-transcript

Videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtTnizEnC1U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNYU9PamIZk

  • I agree, someone needs to put in something about this. This is very big and damaging to ACORN. It comes from a realiable source in my opinion. Their will probably be objections because the big network news programs (those on NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN) are not covering it. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

72.10.215.230 (talk) 15:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Fox News is generally a reliable source for news items. Less so their political maneuvers. If other sources pick this up and report on it, we can see if it meets relevancy and weight tests and if so figure out how and where to work it into the article. For now, if it's just Fox News and nowhere else, that's a good sign that this is not considered noteworthy by anyone other than Fox, which has a vested interest in tooting its own horn as far as undercover investigations. This is so new, it's probably too early to judge it either way. There's no rush here, let's take a few days and see what the sources say. It doesn't have to be NBC, CNN, etc. If Wall Street Journal, the Baltimore Sun, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, NPR, other local papers, news magazines, etc., start carrying this outside of "breaking news" or editorial mode, then we know there's something to it. Further, if the transcript is what it seems to be, plenty of other people will be interested in this - politicians, law enforcement, organizations that deal with ACORN. If they make a stink, the newspapers will surely cover that, and then we have the sources we need. If nothing comes of it, then we have our answer that way too. Wikidemon (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The two employees have now been fired.[21] John Asfukzenski (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The google news link to the story about prostitution will expire, as all google news links do. The same article can be found here on the website for the San Francisco Chronicle. I would replace it myself, if I was not topic banned from political articles. I am allowed to make suggestions on the talk pages for political articles, so if anyone else agrees with me that this change would improve the article, please make it. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Grundle. I'll put in the Chronicle link! - Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon, thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


Not to stray from the topic at hand, but why is CNN considered more reliable, and unbiased than foxnews? Foxnews is to the right, ok.... but CNN is to the left. no better, no worse... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.215.230 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

this is just silly66.134.170.155 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully with all this video proof proving what for long has been suspected this dispicable group will fade away and die

U.S. Senate votes 83-7 to end federal funding to ACORN.

Source: Washington Post. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Offical text is Senate Amendment 2355 to H.R.3288 (and record) — the bill which is generally about funding the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies through September 30, 2010. In particular admendment SA 2355 adds the funding exclusion:

Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available under this Act may be directly or indirectly distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

also another potentially related amendment (proposed by the same senator around the same time, but not yet voted on) is SA 2356:

[from SA 2356]

Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available under this Act shall be distributed to--
(1) an organization which has a pending indictment for or has been convicted of a violation under Federal or State law relating to fraudulent voting in any Federal or State election; or

(2) an organization which employs an individual who has a pending indictment for or has been convicted of a violation under Federal or State law relating to fraudulent voting in any Federal or State election.

Note that the amendment SA 2355 passed the Senate 83 to 7 (with 9 not voting) see vote record, but the bill to which it is attached is still in-progress. --Dmeranda (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Certainly more significant then the census participation denial, should be switched out/added. Hobartimus (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"San Bernadino" typo

Within a few days, additional videos were released which showed similarly unethical advice offered by ACORN loan advisers in Washington DC, New York City, and San Bernadino.

Should be San Bernardino. 64.85.229.248 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 12 hours

I have semi-protected the page for 1 day12 hours. During this time, I encourage all users to stop editing on the article and discuss changes and proposals for additions on this talk page. We cannot continue to go back-and-forth removing each others' additions. Thank you, MuZemike 03:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't notice this earlier. If it's generally agreed upon, would it be appropriate to move this to the top of the page? Thmazing (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

History/Timeline

The article is written around a History/Timeline. Two of the biggest events, ever, in its entire history are its rise to fame and prominence during the 2008 election - and the controversies that engulfed it in 2009. We even have a section for each of these. As such, this edit:[22], which tears apart the History/Timeline and disjoints the article should be reverted and the timeline restored.99.142.9.33 (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the claim about "biggest" it is hard to say. Those are two big events in popular culture / mainstream news coverage. I think it makes sense to have at least two different sections about their current troubles, one about how they became an issue in the 2008 campaign, and another, how in the long term their voter recruitment efforts involved voter registration fraud. The latest flap, the undercover video, might merit a third secion, or else some sway to tie it into an existing section. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The events are of notable significance and loom large in the history of the organization. Certainly, and without doubt, 2008 was all about the election. And 2009 is controversy.
In showing a timeline history we can have no logical reason to ignore these facts. 99.142.9.33 (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight of Section Heading, "Under Cover Video"

Why the undue weight being placed upon the Video?
There are dozens of major events from Senate action in the legislative branch to Census action in the executive branch to reports of investigations in the judicial branch. And then dozens more actions in the states and at the local level - not to mention major political figure commentary from the President's spokesman on down criticizing, distancing or realigning relationships and alliances.
This is a major event in the history of an organization, the encyclopedia should record its significance and notability without POV. Many of the current manipulations are so convoluted that they bear little, if any, relationship to the actual events we seek to neutrally record.99.142.9.33 (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS. If and when these investigations materialize they may be more appropriate to expand upon, but right now a governor or AG's statement is of little importance on the grand scale of things. Grsz11 14:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
But this is the news [:::This should go in : [23]--128.186.84.243 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)]--128.186.84.243 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The sentence applicable to events (rather than people) is, "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." That also means that breaking news shouldn't be discounted just because it is news. While it's difficult to judge the long-term impact from soon, it's clear this is a major event (judging by the actions of the federal, state, and local governments) and should thus be described without leaving out anything crucial that would violate NPOV. Calbaer (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a bit long, but it's reasonably well written and balanced. It's an emerging story and too early to tell what the lasting impact is. I don't think there's much harm in letting it sit for now, then reviewing it in another week or two, or however long it takes the dust to settle. I can't imagine that a year from now the article will still say that ACORN plans to sue Fox - either it will, in which case we can report that it did (assuming the suit goes somewhere), or it won't, in which case the fact that they said they would but didn't will be utterly non-noteworthy. Similarly, the defensive claims ACORN made in the days after the first video (audio was dubbed, filmmakers tried but failed elsewhere, hidden video is a violation of local laws) will either pan out and they can remain, or they are incorrect in which case they're not really worth repeating. Even if this passes it's significant enough to be worth a mention. But if it dies down and ACORN picks up the pieces and continues without much change, it's probably worth a sentence or two at most. However, this could be the beginning of the end, or the beginning of some major changes, at the organization. If that happens it will in hindsight be a significant part of the organization's history. So, too early to tell. Whether we crunch it down, or keep it long, the section will probably have to be rewritten in a few weeks. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The way it is now, there are no undue concerns. The section has been raised by secondary sources as important issues. Maybe I jumped the gun with Arnold but the section is appropriate now. Richard (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As A Criminal Enterprise?

There is an interesting report on ACORN as a criminal enterprise from Congressman Issa, a minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Released on 23 July it cannot be found on the Websight for the full committee. The entire document can be found at the following link http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090723ACORNReport.pdf A summary; The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud. Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate. • First, ACORN has evaded taxes, obstructed justice, engaged in self dealing, and aided and abetted a cover-up of embezzlement • Second, ACORN has committed investment fraud, deprived the public of its right to honest services, and engaged in a racketeering enterprise affecting interstate commerce • Third, ACORN has committed a conspiracy to defraud the United States by using taxpayer funds for partisan political activities • Fourth, ACORN has submitted false filings to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Labor, in addition to violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) • Fifth, ACORN falsified and concealed facts concerning an illegal transaction between related parties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

It will be interesting to see if anyone will attempt to incorporate this information in the article as I can't find any mention of it. Bachcell (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the news, it doesn't make news. If many reliable, major, neutral, third party sources describe the report and it seems to have some significant relation to ACORN itself, then we can cover it. If those charges are borne out, either with criminal convictions, serious journalism, etc., we can report on their substance. It's already clear that a founder was embezzling, and that there have been numerous voter registration fraud problems. You could call that systematic or not, and the problem may run deeper, but that's for the sources to analyze. For now, we don't dig deep into websites to reprint what minority politicians might have to say to disparage something. It may well be true, based on the current news. But that's not for us to decide. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Many articles have links to official government reports at the end. Would it work to add it to the end of the article without comment since it is an official report, an important one, and certainly notable?Bachcell (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
In this case and looking at that document, it would be considered a primary reference. We would need many tertiary sources (I.E. the neutral RS's) to back that up before it could be put into the article. Brothejr (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This should go in : [24]--128.186.84.243 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN has not been accused of embezzlement

The article currently reads (last paragraph opening section) as if ACORN has being accused of embezzlement. It was the brother of the founder who embezzled from ACORN, though ACORN management's handling was criticized. I can't edit, somebody correct please. The facts should be written clearly. 68.175.101.2 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what you think is wrong. The full matter of the embezzlement is covered in the later section on its history from 1998–2004 (and also duplicated on the Wade Rathke article). And according to the cited NYT article, Dale Rathke was an employee of ACORN during the period of the embezzlement. Could you suggest perhaps a better wording, and/or more specifics on what facts you think are in question? - Dmeranda (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The article has been changed so it's OK now, but at that time the article said that ACORN had been accused of embezzlement when in fact, legally speaking, ACORN was the victim of the embezzlement. Yes, unholy appearance because it was the founder's brother, but still, just the facts. 68.175.101.2 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Political connections and Corporate structure?

I would very much like to have a record of the current and historical organizational chart of ACORN and its subsidiaries as it is today as well as a clearly document what political connections can be verified as of right now. I'm tossing this out for discussion rather than throw it straight into the main page because I'd really prefer to see some solid due diligence and a neutral position that captures clearly the vast number of layers of this organization and get that clearly represented in the document. Disclaimer - I am not a fan nor supporter of this group, however given their significant influence on the political arena an unbiased look at their structure may be called for. Dell dud (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Much of the information that you would like to see is included in a report issued on July 23, 2009, by the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It is 88 pages long and can be found at the following link: http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090723ACORNReport.pdf Missouri Citizen

New section

I think its about time for a Legal troubles / Controversies section or the like.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we already have something close to that, the bottom section on "ACORN in political discourse". There are two controversies described outside of that section, the embezzlement scandal and subsequent management fight, and then the part on the voter registration fraud (as a larger matter beyond its being raised as a 2008 presidential campaign matter). I think it's best to keep those where they are because they fit by subject matter and chronologically. Taking all the controversies an organization has and putting them all in a single section tends to make the article harder to follow, and also encourages more editing disputes as it focuses people on point-of-view questions. If all these scandals and legal troubles have some effect (e.g. contracts and donations dry up, staff quits, etc) I think we can say so directly in the existing "political discourse" section, and possibly expand the title to be something like "public perception of ACORN"... Speaking of separate sections, a WP:SPA editor has twice added a rather mangled new section out of place at the top regarding the pimp-n-ho video[25][26] that is entirely redundant with the section near the bottom. I've already removed it once and do not wish to edit war, so if anyone would kindly look at it to see if they share my view that we don't need to say it twice? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough and well put.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point Wikidemon about article readability, but I also think listing Acorn's legal troubles under "political discourse" is a misrepresentation, the implication being that all of Acorn's legal difficulties are the product of political attacks. We could use a legal issue section that is followed by a section on how those legal issues are used by their political opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Methusedalot (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN doesn't have legal troubles (although there is a case pending regarding compensation of registration workers). Like any organization with many thousands of workers, there are going to be a few bad apples; they get fired and life goes on. There is only a "story" when the politicos try to paint the whole organization in a bad light because of these incidents. People don't stop shopping at Wal-Mart just because they had the highest incidence of shoplifting by their employees (caught by their own security); people don't stop calling the police just because a few of them were also thieves, or citizen-beaters; people don't stop using the post office just because some of them went ... postal. Which "legal difficulties" of ACORN's, and not those of a few of their employees, are you speaking of? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
ACORN does indeed have legal troubles. ACORN (or, more specifically, a regional office of ACORN) is under indictment and awaiting trial in Nevada for voter registration fraud, and one of its executives has accepted a plea agreement to testify against ACORN at ACORN's trial. This is very serious legal trouble. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's a link. [27] 71.57.8.103 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. You are mentioning the very same pending case I mentioned above. They are not indicted for "voter registration fraud" as you claim, but for an alleged incentive plan used to compensate registration workers, which is not legal. The prosecuting attorneys toss the "fraud" phrase around a lot, but it isn't part of the actual charges. While this one case could have significant ramifications, it doesn't justify the creation of a "legal troubles section" for "all of Acorn's legal difficulties..." suggested above. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
An indictment is an indictment. It is a felony charge against the entire organization. I'm sorry that I misidentified the precise charge applied, but "ACORN doesn't have legal troubles" is much farther from being accurate. I agree that at this time, a separate "legal troubles" section may not be the way to go. But efforts to expunge any mention of it from the article lead are POV pushing. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
An indictment is an indictment and not a conviction, correct. It is a felony charge against a regional ACORN official, and they hope to prove the national office was complicit. Your apology for misidentifying the charge is accepted. "ACORN doesn't have legal troubles" outside what is normal for an organization its size, and that is very accurate. There is nothing extraordinary about the legal issues it tends to that requires a special section in the article. The story you linked is already mentioned in the article, and as for putting unproven accusations (that's what an indictment is, you know) in the lead of any article: that is POV pushing. Come back after there are actual guilty convictions against the organization before trying to make a case that it is important enough for the lede. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
An indictment against an organization is very frequently enough to destroy the organization, without ever reaching a conviction. When you say there is nothing extraordinary about the charges .... having an entire organization indicted -is- extraordinary. Drexel Burnham Lambert and Andersen are two examples where the firm was eradicated by an indictment, just about immediately ... no further proceedings really needed. So to not mention an enterprise indictment would be a colossal omission.
First, an indictment against an organization is very rarely enough to destroy an organization. Indictments of organizations are commonplace, especially so when politics is involved. Your two examples compare apples to oranges; ACORN is not being indicted for wrongdoing at the core of its operations, but for simply paying it's employees incentives to work. Even a conviction is only going to result in an insignificant fine, and we aren't close to that point yet. There is no colossal omission here; the article already states what has transpired so far, and we'll see if there is more to add after the Sept. 29th hearing. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the lead

Wikidemon, another editor and I agreed that the following paragraph should be added to the article lead.

ACORN has been the subject of public controversy involving embezzlement, management fights, voter registration fraud committed by its workers, and an undercover exposé on employee misconduct that led to the loss of its contract with the United States Census Bureau.

This single sentence concisely describes the controversies ACORN has encountered. Without it, the lead could have been written by ACORN's public relations director. The loss of the Census Bureau contract is an enormous blow to ACORN, in terms of both money and reputation. It makes the lead WP:NPOV. Without it, the lead is no longer WP:NPOV. LotLE has been unilaterally deleting this new paragraph, with offensive edit summaries each time. I ask my fellow editors to express their opinions about this new paragraph for the lead, and about LotLE's uncooperative behavior. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you - that sentence should be added to the introduction. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes your statement should be included in the lead. Currently the lead gives no mention of controversy surrounding this organization which is absurd and biased, but unfortunately that's what is expected on wiki when it comes to hot-button topics. --71.107.78.149 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

added that senate voted to not fund them anymore to the above written lead lines Solarguy17 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the current state of that added paragraph:
ACORN has been the subject of public controversy involving embezzlement, management fights, voter registration fraud committed by its workers, and an undercover exposé on employee misconduct.
It currently has three footnotes, to ref= cbs/, cnnvideo/, foxnewscensus/, and "nyt"/. The sentence about the census dropping ACORN has been left out. I think there was some dispute about whether the census officially stated why it was dropping ACORN, but clearly it announced that it was dropping ACORN, and that seems important enough to include in the lead, so I think we should add it back in some form. --Noroton (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the Census Bureau, their position was not a public announcement (as far as I know), but rather a letter addressed directly to Maude Hurd president of ACORN. However the full text of that letter, which describes their rationale, has been obtained and is reproduced in full at several sources:
--Dmeranda (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

although i added the info about the senate withdrawing the budget I think the result of all controveries should be in contrveries section. If it turns out they have done or promoted other illegal things they should be added to the above sentace and the full story including resutl be below in the appropriate section. I think the sentance it is now is good.Solarguy17 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes given the controversial nature of this group there should be criticism in the lede. Richard (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be unanimous, with the sole exception of LotLE, who believes the sentence is a "puerile" "rant." Read his edit summaries, most of them are inappropriate to say the least. He also describes "criminal activity by tapers" in violation of WP:BLP. The "tapers" (the activists who created the videotapes) haven't even been charged with any crime. You've avoided offering an opinion on LotLE's behavior. How do you feel about a topic ban for LotLE? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Add on the list of "accusations" on the lead "facilitating child prostitution". 94.101.5.97 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the main part of the lead sentence:
  • a community-based organization in the USA that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues
  1. I thought ACORN was a national organization, so what does "community-based" mean? That it is active in multiple communities, or what?
  2. What does "advocates for" mean? Does ACORN assert that its activities are intended to benefit low- and moderate-income families? Or that its activities have actually benefited those families? Or what?

McCain criticism rebuttal

I also would like to know more about the voter fraud controversy. I don't know if it is true, but I know they have been accused very publicly. That should be reflected.

I can't help but notice that the reference used to cite the final sentence of the article's statement that McCain's statements were exaggerated and unfounded was from Newsweek of all places. Newsweek is sometimes jokingly referred to by Conservatives as Obamaweek for devoting itself so loyally to Barack Obama over the last 5 years. I don't see this as being a reliable source under those circumstances, though I'm sure some[who?] will argue[clarification needed]. 24.186.126.200 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the funny thing about facts. Regardless of where you find them, or who repeats them, a fact is a fact is a fact. If you look more closely at the Newsweek article, you'll see it contains a verbatim report from Factcheck.org. Perhaps you don't trust Factcheck.org either? If you look more closely at the Factcheck.org investigation, you'll see they reference each of their findings to sources including the Inspector General with the U.S. Department of Justice; official statements from the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign; the Office of the Secretary of State, Nevada; the New York Times; the Bloomberg News; CNN; and the Associated Press. Wikipedia has rules regarding where we can get our facts, and Newsweek qualifies. You can disparage Newsweek all you want, but they didn't create the facts — they just report them. Instead of shooting the messenger, how about you show us some facts to the contrary? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Factcheck.org is an organization tied to the Annenberg Foundation and Bill Ayers, not to mention Barack Obama. Therefore, a rebuttal using that as a source to back up a statement in Newsweek will carry very little weight with conservatives or other critics. 64.85.229.248 (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The anon reminds me of Stephen Colbert's statement (in character) that he doesn't like facts because facts have a well-known liberal bias. LotLE×talk 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if I can get that on a bumper-sticker ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure you can. Here's the video of Colbert at WH correspondence dinner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A&feature=related (or Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner)

Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias. ... Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's two-thirds empty. There's still some liquid in that glass, is my point. But I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash.

Here is some proof of ACORN voter fraud, http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/I suggest that the factcheck org be removed and either left blank on criticsm or put this as an alternate response on the voter fraud proof.Tannim1 (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Here is a second one from the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.htmlTannim1 (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's noteworthy that McCain made a campaign issue out of ACORN, and it's noteworthy that McCain's claims that the voter registration fraud was going to rig the election were untrue to the point of implausibility. There really isn't another side here. The first link is dead, and the second is neither on the subject of McCain's claims, nor does it support them even considering the inaccurate headline. Wikidemon (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Content of Controversial videos

I believe that the 2009 disputed video claims section should include the verbatim dialogue, or a non-biased summary of the dialogue between the young couple and the ACORN associates. This is important information in the description of ACORN as a company and a political organization, and even though it has not been proven in court yet, the video taken leaves the recent news about ACORN undeniably factual and encyclopedic in nature. Bullercruz1 (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are right and the corrupt nature of ACORN and these illegal practices should be mentioned very carefully as this is not a forum for breaking news but for encyclopedic information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.82.215.197 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There have been a total of a four videos and the article here sounds slanted by only mentioning one. Also Bertha Lewis (the CEO) has said she is outraged by the behavior of staff, which is a total turnaround from her earlier lawsuit-stance against the filmmaker. I believe this article needs to list the facts and let readers decide from themselves. Unfortunately there are a LOT of facts missing. Does anyone want to tackle this? MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

New AP article

I haven't had a chance to go through it in detail but this long-ish Associated Press article presents a comprehensive overview of ACORN's history, operations, and current scandals. I think it's useful as a source for expanding the article's discussion of the organization overall, and as a reference / example vis-a-vis the weight to attribute to various allegations made and attempts to stymie ACORN, and the various misdeeds on ACORN's side that drew the allegations.

Sharon Theimer and Pete Yost (2009-09-19). "Did ACORN get too big for its own good?". Associated Press.

- Wikidemon (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm here I do support this edit, even if the exact language is not set in stone.[28] As the AP article makes clear, the controversies / scandals have mounted to the point where most discussion of ACORN and its history address them upfront. This is an emerging story and things could change, but for now and the foreseeable future, any capsule description of ACORN would reasonably devote one sentence out of several to its current troubles. I might have said differently a month ago but that's what I feel the sources are saying these days. Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes and no. We follow sources. But we also keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS, so we don't only focus on this week's sources. Just because a source was published a year ago, or ten years ago, doesn't make it any less weighty to the "long view" of the article. LotLE×talk 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, yes and no. I considered that. This has been brewing for five years, a front rank political fight for more than a year, and the latest scandal for a month. It's not exactly an ephemeral story. We don't exactly use 10-year-old sources to describe the state of e-commerce or American political parties, either. Wikipedia describes both the current state of things and their history. The current state of ACORN is clearly that they are beset by scandal, with some wondering if they can even survive. That view can only come from current sources. I would say that if you look at most any article written about ACORN in the past month, and then you look at this article, you would find that Wikipedia is a lot less sensationalistic with less attention to these problems. That may be okay because we do take the long view. The AP story is reported as an analysis piece that also takes the long view, going over the organization's entire history and operations, albeit on the occasion of trying to explain what got ACORN to this. It's noteworthy, as I said, that a neutrally reported piece like this considers the scandals so important. Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Of course we use 10-year old sources to describe e-commerce and political parties... when they are described in relevant historical frame. If we want to understand "the impact of Bill Clinton on the direction of the Democratic Party" (something that might be discussed in various articles), a 10 year old source is just as good--perhaps better--than one published this week. Or likewise, if we want to discuss "the creation of Amazon.com" (what year was that? you see what I mean, in any case).
I'm not opposed to the AP source, nor to any particular source that might be suggested (subject to WP:RS, etc). But I do see a minor pernicious trend to give great deference to the very latest source when discussing topics with much longer histories. I really don't believe that AP in 2009 is a better source for the activity of ACORN during the Reagan administration than is AP in 1988... in fact, the more recent one is more likely to be biased by trying to retroactively cast all the meaning in terms of current politics. LotLE×talk 19:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

H R 3221 Motion to recommit (the Defund ACORN Act)

Today, the House of Representatives voted on the "Defund ACORN Act" 345-75 to terminate all Federal funding of ACORN. A new paragraph, with linkage to appropriate news articles, is warranted.

The "Defund ACORN Act" is I think just the name for an amendment, not a bill on it's own. But this is just-breaking news and we need to wait until the secondary sources (news agencies) start reporting on it. Even the House Congressional record has not yet been updated with the vote and final action information at this time. FYI, HR 3221 is a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, which includes some provisions for funding, etc. I'm not sure which amendment yet references ACORN until the Congressional Record gets updated. Also remember, bills are not laws yet until it goes through both houses and then signed. - Dmeranda (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
[29]--68.35.239.206 (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Sonny had somming to say too:[30]--68.35.239.206 (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This is an executive order by Governor Sonny Perdue of the state of Georgia. Although perhaps interesting, it is unrelated to the Federal actions by the House. Also, the official text of the executive order is a [31] - Dmeranda (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The amendment in question appears to be H.AMDT.447 (removed dead link) by George Miller (CA) with a summary title "to prohibit federal funds from certain indicted organizations". Note that this particular amendment was agreed to by voice, not by roll call. It was the entire bill itself (including all the agreed amendments) that was voted on with the indicated counts. We are still waiting on the congressional record to be updated with the text of the amendment, so until then this Fox story is one of the better secondary sources so far describing it. And none of this is law yet. - Dmeranda (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Update... The amendment introduced a new section: Title VI Section 601-602 titled "Defund ACORN Act". It is more complicated than the Senate action (approx. 25 paragraphs); but it does specifically call out ACORN by name. A electronic vote was taken on the motion to recommit with instructions (effectively approving this amendment) with 345 for, 75 against, and 3 other. Still waiting for the official texts to be logged, bill to become law, and more analysis and reporting from secondary news sources to see how noteworthy this will be. - Dmeranda (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Update 2... The official text of the Defund ACORN Act as passed by the House has finally been published in the Congressional Record and is available for inspection. As part of the HR 3221 EH (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House); this amendment is subpart Title VI; and consists of sections 601 and 602. It limits Federal funding, contracts, promotion and referrals, agreements, and acquisitions to/from so-called covered organizations; of which it specifically, by name, includes ACORN or its related affiliates. It still may or may not be noteworthy until or if it becomes law. - Dmeranda (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tapes Controversy, Philadelphia Office and Police Report

Someone who cares enough should include the part of the story (generally) not being told on major networks. The fact that ACORN actually called the police on O'Keefe after he began asking suspicious questions. See link: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200909180055

That's an interesting read so thanks for finding it. However, Media Matters is a liberal media watchdog and that piece is clearly an editorial / opinion, and hence not a reliable source that would stand the test here. If the major media are not covering the mechanations of the conservative media against ACORN, most likely it is just not considered noteworthy enough for the readers' edification, and hence would also fail the WP:WEIGHT test as well. Perhaps there are some neutral, reliable, third party sources describing coverage by the partisan media, and if so (and subject to other concerns like NPOV, relevance, article length and organization, faithfulness to the sources and WP:BLP) we could consider an addition to the article. Wikipedia lives and dies by the reliable source, they form the basis of the factual statements in all the articles. Wikidemon (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
They mentioned it on CNN http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/11/ldt.01.html Mystylplx (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it, Fox News are also reporting that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police office, 2 days after the incident in question. The police office then contacted the human trafficking task force, then it was revealed to be a hoax. --Diamonddavej (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

IRS and Louisiana government punish ACORN for not paying its taxes

The New York Post just reported, "ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis told Fox News' Chris Wallace on Sunday that her group 'absolutely pays its taxes.' Not true: The IRS and Louisiana's taxmen have imposed nearly $2 million in liens against ACORN for failing to fork over taxes at its New Orleans national headquarters. The IRS recently filed a $548,000 lien against the group, and Louisiana state tax officials have slapped $334,000 in liens on ACORN since last October." Grundle2600 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

Hello. I came to this article to read more about what I was hearing on NPR. I amconfused as to why the current controversy is tucked away in the "political" section. It seems to me that the controversy is notable enough to be it's own section. I mean, it's the only thing I and some others have ever heard about them. Please consider allowing that section to stand alone rather than trying to insinuate that the current internal issues are just a part of politics. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is in its own section. Titled "2009 controversy: undercover videos". Grsz11 02:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I made the same mistake, I thought I'd see what the fuss was about. I'd even read a newspaper article over the weekend that talked at length about the ongoing turmoil of a big embezzlement and coverup by leadership at the very top. Does the article on Catholicism also read like it was written by the Catholic Church? It's amazing how you can stand things on their head or flatten them paper thin and turn them on their side to obscure anything. Call me when you guys actually decide to write an encyclopedia and not a political prism for viewing events.

That wasn't very helpful. I don't know what you guys are expecting. An organization with a 20-year history and thousands of employees gets caught up in the rugby scrimmage politics of the moment. There are clearly internal issues that may undo the organization, or they may not, but the fact that this arose now publicly is clearly a matter of party politics. You can read all about that in the articles cited in the footnotes; the Associated Press piece is an especially good overview. This is an encyclopedia, no a scandal sheet. So in our article about Catholicism, for example, we start with the pope and the holy ghost, and maybe a footnote over the priests and the little boys, not the other way around. Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
By in large, I agree with this, although I think calling it "party politics" makes it sound like it was the Republican Party who went after them, not independent but ideological conservatives opposed to the organization's tactics and influence. Also, it might be worthwhile to have a blurb in the introduction about the scandal, e.g., "ACORN rose to public prominence during to the candidacy and Presidency of Barack Obama, due to his earlier involvement in the group, their involvement in his campaign, and later due to an undercover investigation involving the willingness of branches to support various illegal activities," or "Public awareness of ACORN grew in the 2000s due to their connections with Barack Obama and scandals within the organization." Calbaer (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I would say that a more accurate characterization would be "ACORN rose to political prominence in the early 1980s, during the Reagan administration"... of course, there are certainly some politically uninformed readers/editors who first learned of ACORN through some Fox News hate editorial more recently, but that's hardly anything to do with the organization itself... the latter being the actual topic of this article. LotLE×talk 17:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Um, okay. The fact is that ACORN hasn't been discussed much in national mainstream media until recently. I doubt most politically aware folks knew about it in the 80s or 90s, and that doesn't make them ignorant hate speech fans, just people who didn't have an infinite amount of time to learn the details of every sizable NGO in the U.S. It is not very useful to say "Fox News!" any time you want to discredit something without resorting to facts. There are plenty of other sources for recent coverage, as a brief skim of the references to this article will reveal. Anyway, this is sort of like the beginning of an article on any group: It might have formed at one point, gotten some level of success shortly thereafter, then everyone become well known. That third point is worth saying in an introduction, e.g., "After the departure of one bandmate, the replacement of their lead singer, and a slight change in their repertoire, the Dixie Chicks achieved massive country music and pop success, beginning in 1998...." I'm not going to fight for this, but just propose that it's worth saying. I suppose, in such a contentious article, if no one fights for it, it's not going to be said. Calbaer (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting and common question with a number of Wikipedia articles and I wonder if there's a good essay or guideline about that. A person or thing is notable for a long time within a small or specialized community, with a long encyclopedic history, then gains much wider exposure through some events that are collectively just a small part of that history. A professor or artist wins an award, a career politician is part of a controversy, an old factory has a fire, a small town has a natural disaster. How to balance that out? Wikipedia is not news, but it is a compendium of notable things, including as in this case organizational missteps and the controversies that ensue. If we're going to blame the employees, not the organization I think it would be more accurate not to say that Fox News whipped up the scandal, but certain employees of Fox :) But more seriously, except in the case of the embezzlement and leadership infighting, I don't think it's complete to say either that the underlying actions caused the controversy or that political operatives caused the controversy. A more complete view, which I think the mainstream sources confirm, is that the voter registration fraud and undercover videos gave the political operatives and conservative press an opportunity to discredit ACORN, and they took the opportunity to raise the issue which eventually reached mainstream awareness. Fox & company often agitate against liberal institutions but most of their issues don't make the leap outside of conservative circles. This one, for a combination of reasons, caught everyone's attention. Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, this investigation was, to anyone's knowledge, totally independent of Fox and its employees. After the first video was released, Fox (and its employees) gladly publicized the story, putting pressure on the government and the rest of the mainstream media. So there were actually two leaps made: One from the web to Fox and one (presumably from Fox) to government and media outside of Fox. Calbaer (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem with limiting the controversy to the political section, demonstrates the opinion that the actual controversy was only political. I think that presenting this opinion without demonstrating notable citation that the incident was purely political is both OR and POV. It should be presented more nuetrally than a "political controversy" --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The controversy over the videotapes is arguably a political matter. It's mainly covered in politics-related mass media. Being tricked into giving tax advice to someone pretending to be a pimp is not sourced as being a significant part of the company's history or operations. What is covered is the scandal over the incident, which is entirely political. That may change. As more and more federal agencies stop doing business with them, it reaches a point where despite the political / mass media origin, the scandal has a substantial effect on the organization. Anyway, it's in a nice tidy section by itself so it would be very easy to just move the whole section to a different header, if that's people want to do. Also note that two other issues, the founder's embezzlement and the voter registration fraud, are in separate sections outside of the politics area. Wikidemon (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Treasury Begins Investigation of Acorn: Status as Non-Profit Under Review

Regrettably though, the story was reported by Fox[32]. Therefore it never happened, it's just another devious editing trick by conservative activists.

Actually, the story is starting to spread: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27547.html, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/60193-treasury-to-probe-oversight-of-acorn-similar-groups. Soxwon (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a little preliminary. They're reporting a letter from the commissioner to the politicians promising to conduct an investigation. There will probably be a more formal announcement soon, and most likely it will get picked up. Per the research I did for Nonpartisan (American organizations) the IRS does 50+ investigations per year into impermissible political activities out of approximately 1 million nonprofits. A majority do, or do not, find a violation depending on the year, and in most cases the outcome is a clarification or reprimand. The fact of an IRS investigation in response to a referral is not big news by itself, but may be seen as so in light of the circumstances of ACORN. ACORN may be a special case of course. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger

Hey looks like Arnold wants the state AG to investigate ACORN.[33] Richard (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah....I put that in and now it's gone.... Thmazing (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that we're discussing everything before adding right now.
Check this out.
It's the governor's tweet announcing that he's having Jerry Brown look into Acorn's activities in California.
I think this should be added alongside the similar notices about NY etc.
Thmazing (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Has ANYONE here bothered to read WP:NOTNEWS?! Just having happened this week doesn't automatically (or in fact, ever) make something encyclopedic for a long-term view. The fact that Schwarzenegger wrote something yesterday on Twitter kinda obviously fails as "deep history". Maybe if Brown actually investigates, and if that unfolds to something actual, it reaches notability... just being true gossip doesn't do it. LotLE×talk 06:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't think it's gossip if it's not hearsay. What if his office had put out a press release? Or a letter to the public on his website? Or entered something into the state record? At what point does an officially sanctioned communication to the public cease being "gossip"? (And you don't have to yell. Sheesh.) Thmazing (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN Sues Filmmakers - IRS severs ties with ACORN

ACORN Sues Filmmakers

IRS severs ties with ACORN

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice that the second link is to the fringe source that issued and produced the videos. Not anything close to WP:RS. Moreover, even there, the headline does not match the story. The content seems to be that IRS no longer includes ACORN on a list of "recommended tax advisors." That might be interesting, though not article-level, but it's not "severing ties"... the headline claim is pretty weird an incoherent, actually: would it mean that IRS no longer "wants the money of ACORN"?! (if not, there are still "ties"). LotLE×talk 22:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The first link is worth adding, and changing our wording from "intends to file" to "filed". LotLE×talk 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press is now a fringe source? This is like watching a cheap hot dog get made.

Meh - LotLE didn't bother to actually read it and just saw the URL. Here's Google News' copy: [34] (and here's a shorter Google News AP version of the other one: [35]). Calbaer (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for alerting us, Grundle. I guess pimps will have to find a new source for free tax advice :) I think both are noteworthy and can be included, although my prediction is that in short order the lawsuit will fail legally, backfire in terms of PR, and only generate more awareness of the videos and galvanize people who wish the organization ill. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikidemon, you're welcome. I agree with you that this lawsuit will hurt ACORN. In the article, it says that Andrew Breitbart said he is looking forward to the lawsuit, because the legal process known as "discovery" will give him access to ACORN's private files and information, which could end up embarrassing them even more. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
LotLE, why do you say that Associated Press is a "fringe source"? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Grundle, if I am reading correctly, I believe the "fringe source" comment was directed at Breitbart's site. If that was the case, I don't know if I'd agree with the exact terminology, but it may be worth weighing whether or not to take direct sourced stories from either ACORN or Breitbart/Giles/O'Keefe unless they're being used as quotes. If I misread LotLE's comments though, just ignore this ;P 68.44.212.4 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, it's Breitbart not AP that I described as a fringe source. Grundle2600's bad joke or personal attack didn't seem worth addressing... but thanks for doing so, anon. LotLE×talk 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Breitbart is a reliable source - they're the one who broke this story in the first place. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
But surely Breitbart would face a COI when reporting on a lawsuit filed against it. Best to use an independent source, of which I'm sure there are many by this point. Ronnotel (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Partisan or non-partisan

Was ACORN a non-partisan organization, or one which leaned more toward pursuing partisan goals, such as electing President Obama? If it was indeed non-partisan, how much weight should we give to conservative claims (as in the National Review) that it's really partisan? (Maybe these claims are themselves partisan?

If it was partisan, what it did it do to advance party goals (and for which party or parties)? I've heard it described as "radical" and "socialist", and that it helped elect Obama. Are these partisan goals, or non-partisan goals?

Its avowed aims of "advocating for" the lower and middle classes: is there anything partisan in the specific ways and means ACORN has chosen? The living wage campaign would seem more socialist and thus related to the Democratic Party than, say, a campaign to reduce or eliminate wage controls (generally seen as more conservative and thus related to the Republican Party). --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Except "[t]he ACORN political action committee endorsed Barack Obama in February 2008." - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/19/AR2009091902550.html
Partisan. Clearly. 116.14.27.77 (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe there is any satisfactory way to answer that question, partly because the legal definition of partisanship and the common layperson meanings can be quite different. See the article on Nonpartisan. I think technically ACORN is nonpartisan because it doesn't have any official policies directly supporting a particular political party; but on the other hand it is obviously apparent that they are much more openly aligned with left-wing politics than right; and also have past interactions with Obama (direct or indirect). However that's all a matter of opinion, viewpoint, or original research, and not probably suitable for discussion in the article. - Dmeranda (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The organization is technically nonpartisan, which means it is not formally affiliated with a political party. That is a specific structural issue with respect to American nonprofit organizations. Classifying it as a different kind of organization would be mistaken. It is, however, left-leaning in various ways. Partisanship does not really mean conservative versus liberal, although the word has taken on that informal meaning. This issue has been discussed several times on the talk page. It seems we have to describe it as nonpartisan. I would favor a parenthetical comment or a footnote to make clear that this is a structural distinction and not a claim that the organization is unbiased, but others don't seem to agree with me here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
As has been discussed numerous times before, many nonpartisan organizations (both left and right) are described neutrally and factually so in their WP articles. This is as it should be. Just because some reader might fail to know or understand the, rather commonplace, word doesn't mean we should not use it... it just means we should wikilink it, as we do. There's nothing "technical" about this status, or at least certainly nothing more technical than, e.g. "non-profit" which we also use in the lead (accurately and relevantly). In point of fact, almost every nonpartisan organization has a distinct political tilt, since it is only political organizations that are subject to classification as nonpartisan or partisan. LotLE×talk 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How about saying, "It is not formally affiliated with any political party," per Wikidemon above? We could add a link: "(compare Nonpartisan)". The definition I moved down there (from Merriam-Webster) include the idea of being free from "bias", which hardly applies to any left-leaning or right-leaning organization. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How about if we clarify the exact situation by including: ACORN is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that typically champions liberal and labor-oriented causes. That should cover all the ground we need to. LotLE×talk 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Based on the above, I've boldly done a few edits to try to clear this up in a neutral way.[36] First, I've created a new article, Nonpartisan (American organizations), that is specifically about the distinction between partisan and nonpartisan political activity by nonprofit US groups. In my opinion that's a better link than the general non-partisan article, which treats both the common meaning and the US legal distinction. Although partisanship is, historically and technically, a matter of supporting or opposing a party, rather than supporting or opposing causes that are seen as political, there is some overlap, and some dictionary definitions suggest that political bias is a form of partisanship. Our goal here is to inform the reader, not to expect the reader to come to the article with a correct technical understanding of the word, so I think it's important to link to this specific issue, not the broader concept. I hope that article can grow, in order to cover some of the legislation, debate, issues, and controversies over what it means to be a partisan organization, and organizations (like ACORN and many others) that are accused by some of overstepping the bounds. One can be classified as a non-partisan organization and break those rules, just like one can be classified as a nonprofit, and actually make a profit - at the penalty of an investigation and IRS action. Second, I've made the fact a little more prominent that ACORN is not a single legal entity, but rather several. The state-level orgs are 501(c)(3)s, which means they are required by law to be nonpartisan. Rather than getting into a debate over whether they follow the law or not, I hope we can be more direct: the entities are organized as 501(c)(3)s, which by definition means they're classified as nonpartisan. Any argument that they are in fact partisan is a claim that they are violating the rules, which is a different issue, and can be treated somewhere in the article if sourced. The national lobbying organization is a 501(c)(4), which by definition is not nonpartisan. I hope that makes it a little clearer. Wikidemon (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've surveyed some other organizations to see how they deal with it, in the course of linking to my new article. It's all over the map. Some are simply listed as nonprofit nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations. Others couch it in words like "officially" or "self-described". Many omit the designation entirely. A few, such as the American Enterprise Institute have had some disagreement over the term on par with this one, and go into a section describing claims of bias. It looks like the editors removed the term from the Heritage Foundation article. Anyway, I think my solution is the cleanest. Keep the term but link to a page that gives the word full treatment. And if necessary or there is some objection, say that it is "organized as" or "classified as" a nonpartisan organization under US tax code. Hope that helps. And if you want to work on the new article, I invite you, please help. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Your expansion is excellent. Providing more full links and description of tax laws is helpful, and you have made it sufficiently concise not to disrupt the lead (I wouldn't mind finding a way to trim a few words though). I had done a similar survey of many other "political-but-nonpartisan" organizations back in the archives, back when this was raised only for the 10th time, not this 20th time. Basically, what I found then was like what you found: different articles take different approaches, and some are subject to argument. Many or most seem to use "nonpartisan" in its actual IRS meaning though. There is probably no reason to find my old archive comment, since presumably all those article I noted a year ago (or whenever it was) have been edited since then. LotLE×talk 17:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Liberal?

FWIW, there had been a recent flurry of back-and-forth variation between "liberal" and "left-leaning". I do not care greatly about this difference, but a little part of me winces about the (commonplace) misuse of the term "liberal" (Locke, Mill, and Ricardo are rolling in their graves). Inasmuch as I have a slight preference, "left-leaning" looks better. Actually "progressive" has also come and gone, and that also looks more accurate. LotLE×talk 20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
"Progressive" seems more accurate to me as well: in the current political climate it's more meaningful than "liberal", which has largely drifted towards a synonym for "poo poo head". It stood for a long time; did we have a reference? PhGustaf (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, kind of like "right wing" drifting towards a synonym for genocidal maniac (see Hitler). But seriously, folks, what does the left and right political spectrum article say? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
You mean Left-Right Politics, and there doesn't seem to be much there we can use -- it would be OR based on uncited paragraphs. Don't forget that Wikipedia has tougher standards than that other place you've been hanging around; we can't just make shit up. PhGustaf (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
"the other place" (sounds like how C.S. Lewis described hell ;-) is not a source in any sense, for WP articles. I added two links to Left-right politics, because they seemed to have accurate position lists, based on my extensive experience in US politics. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting lists of no particular value. You and I could have made a couple up, too, and they'd likely most agree, but be of no help here. Fun test, though: It's nice to know I'm a "Reality-Based Intellectualist". PhGustaf (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with your edit summary changing "left-leaning" to "liberal." The sense you mean it in has a connotation that is used only in US political discourse, often as an epithet. As the article indicates, ACORN is active in several countries - another reason to not use the US-only term. I feel the phrase "left-leaning" isn't confusing at all, and that it is fair enough and broad enough to describe the nature of the group. The use of the term in a Washington Post article doesn't really change that, it only reflects the writing style of the authors. Twalls (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
By the standards of much of the world, including most of western Europe, ACORN isn't left-leaning at all. "Liberal" at least fits with the link to US liberalism. I agree that there's no really good word to use; maybe we just shouldn't use any. Allow the reader to assign his own label based on the outline of the group's political stances. Pretty much any such label is an epithet to somebody. PhGustaf (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN is a partisan organization. It's simply innacurate to state otherwise. They have parts that are non-partisan so as to be compliant with funding requirements, but other segments are very active politically and in endorsing and campaigning for Democratic candidates. Sources were supplied refuting the absurd characterization that they are non-partisan, but those wanting to portray the group in the best possible light (even if innaccurate) insisted we refer to them as non-partisan. I'm sure the public relations workers at ACORN are tickled pink we've played along. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN is a nonpartisan organization. It's simply innacurate to state otherwise. They have parts that are partisan so as to enable them to lobby and endorse candidates, but other segments are distinctly and legally separate, and registered as 501(c)(3)s which must remain nonpartisan compliant. Sources were supplied confirming that ACORN is still listed in government records as nonpartisan, but those wanting to portray the group in the worst possible light (even if innaccurate) keep insisting that we refer to them by the uneducated, layman-slang partisan. I'm sure the critics of ACORN are tickled pink that their attempts at distorting the accurate meaning and application of the description, nonpartisan, is taking hold. (You can see the previous arguments on this matter here under the "nonpartisan" section heading.) Xenophrenic (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm okay with leaving the word partisan out all together. But calling them partisan is far more accurate than calling them non-partisan. Speaking of which, what happened to the mentions of the voter registration issues, embezzlement and other notable issues that the organization has been in the news for and that are discussed in the article body (though scrubbed regularly to a large extent)? I understand modifying the statement to give it appropriate weight, but eliminating it all together looks like spin doctoring. Xeno, you're not trying to make Wikipedia look bad by promoting ignorance and a one sided promotional depiction of this organization that ignores the more controversial aspects are you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"Xeno, you're not trying to make Wikipedia look bad by ... yada yada yada ..."; cite the diffs of my specific edits to which you refer, CoM - or you can just retract now, and save yourself the embarrassment.  ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Not trying to violate a topic ban on articles related to Barack Obama, are you? 70.91.155.242 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This is totally insane! I didn't realize the ban was aimed at ChildofMidnight. Or that it is not OK to make sure that a topic is fair and balanced. Im also not sure how one can possibly say that this is about Barak Obama as the president is currently busy lying through his teeth saying he has barely even heard of ACORN. Are you guys outing the president? -MShavzin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This article is about B.O.? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
"Related to" Obama. Obama is mentioned in this article, and this article (and it's subject) have been frequently employed as tools with which to attack our President. Looks like a violation. Just sayin'. 70.91.155.242 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Am I allowed to work on subjects related to the U.S.? That's where he's president. What about articles about food he eats? Can you provide a list please of subjects that cannot in some way be connected to him by abusive POV pushers who want to promote bias and censorship on Wikipedia? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does appear that CoM is skirting his topic ban, if not outright crossing it.... while yelling "Nah, nah, can't catch me" and thumbing is nose with his toes bumping that line. LotLE×talk 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Here's an idea, how about we focus on content and sourcing issues instead of trying to tar a competent and good faith editor? Or would that interfere with the POV pushing efforts of those whose arguments in favor of innaccuracies like "ACORN is non-partisan", when parts of the organization are explicitly partisan, and other disruptive and policy violating pushes for censorship and bias have been thoroughly debunked? Lulu I thought you'd be somewhat more careful after your false statements and distortions about Barney Frank's mafia connections were exposed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    Here's an idea, how about we avoid referring to the efforts of other editors as "POV pushing" just after you have described yourself as a "good faith editor"? Your stunning hypocrisy rivals that of the formerly Czar-loving Republicans. 70.91.155.242 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
What do the POV pushing policy violations and disruptive personal attacks of other editors have to do with my desire to focus on article content and sourcing issues? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Since we have a conflict that is getting more and more entrenched and more and more off-topic, I will be blunt and to the point. The issue of the topic ban should be discussed in the relevant forum, not here. If editors persist in insulting other editors, accusing them of various things, and dragging in unrelated conflicts from other pages, I will consider entirely new "topic bans" in the form of editing blocks. Gamaliel (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"The liberal political organizing group ACORN" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/19/AR2009091902550.html 116.14.27.77 (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And on that same note: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164200/output/print, http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/03/23/acorn_judge/print.html, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/16/MNHN13HGJL.DTL&hw=voter&sn=010&sc=561, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9981606, http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/32432124.html, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_081015.htm, http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/10/20/, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/06/missouri_attorney_a_focus_in_firings/, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110501260_pf.html Soxwon (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Defund ACORN Act

Rachel Maddow has a really brilliant editorial about the Act. See: Maddow Puts ACORN Scandal In Perspective!. She points out a rather interesting point that the Act is facially unconstitutional as a Bill of Attainder. She goes on to point out many other organizations that receive far, far more government money, and who have committed far, far worse fraudulent acts. Which seems like an interesting comparison. LotLE×talk 08:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of non-editorial sources that could potentially be used in the article (about the unconstitutionality):

LotLE×talk 08:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That was my first thought on hearing of the bill, and the constitutional prohibition gets to the very thing Congress is doing here, making a show of punishing specific companies for political purposes rather than legislating on policy matters. ACCORN is not primarily funded by Congress in the first place, although I suspect that the withdrawal of all the federal agencies will have both a direct and an indirect effect. The provision seems like one of those pieces of symbolic legislation, where they praise something or express concern about something. This is part of a related category, laws of questionable validity passed in response to public outcry, which legislators cannot oppose for fear of seeming unsympathetic. I'm not sure if we need to report anything about the bill other than that it was passed, and remove it if it doesn't, and then note that it was stricken by the courts, if it is. But if we do have to characterize it, and the sources support this, I would add a few words to suggest that the bill was a political response. Wikidemon (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we include an equally lengthy discussion in the article highlighting (through third parties naturally) the editorial voices of its opponents? I'm sure we could find several things equivalent (although not as you pointed out earlier the Associated Press or "AP") to the Huffington Post, Pubrecord blog[37] subsidiary of IH[38] or "The Volokh Conspiracy" - all of whom you which you list, with a seemingly straight face, under the title of: "non-editorial sources that could potentially be used in the article". Perhaps we should just retitle the section, "Acorn's Perfect Being". Maybe also add an entry on the Wiki home page News section, "Wikipedia Finds Bill Unconstitutional! Acorn Funds Restored."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.169.79 (talk • contribs)

Huh? That was random. Anyway, the constitutionality of the act is under some question. We'll see if that becomes an issue. Wikidemon (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a little hard to find the meaning in the anon's rant above. There is one minor point where the anon is sort-of right: Volokh's blog is an editorial, despite me listing it in non-editorial sources. I haven't added anything to the article yet, in any case, so was just suggesting background sources editors might be interested in reviewing. Volokh, although a blogger, is a well known conservative law professor, and the blog I link to above primarily just quotes the non-editorial CRS report (which is really why I linked it). However, it indeed probably isn't usable as an actual article source (assuming we ever do use any of this stuff around the constitutionality matter). LotLE×talk 18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
That women´s opinions are really not notable.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Is D4D channeling Bill Clinton now (that woman)?! I'm not sure what opinion Monica Lewinsky has expressed about all this. :-)... or maybe it's just what was actually written, and D4D doesn't think that women's opinions are notable. LotLE×talk 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Monica agrees! Completely unconstitutional :) Anyway, I agree with Die4Dixie. More broadly that speculating, opining, and grousing over the supposed unconstitutionality of a proposed measure rarely matters unless it gets to the point where the measure passes and a serious constitutional challenge is raised. And even there, unless the challenge is successful it's barely worth mentioning in an article about the challenged legislation (e.g. "measure x was challenged as unconstitutional shortly after passage but a federal district court dismissed the challengers as lacking standing, and the issue never again arose"). Big yawn, notability-wise. Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The opinion pieces are definitely non-notable in themselves. However, the CRS is plausibly more relevant. It's pretty darn unusual for CRS to make such an straightforward "ruling" on pending legislation. LotLE×talk 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I of course meant "woman" (ahem, one day I will take a keyboarding class). If we want to look at opinions Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have litterally thousands of utterances about the question at hand (and most are not particualry notable either).--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The effort to defund ACORN is legitimate. Attempts to smear this effort as a "bill of attainder" are pure, unadulterated bullshit. A bill of attainder seeks to criminalize past behavior that was legal at the time it occurred. "Criminalize" means criminal sentences and fines. The effort to defund ACORN doesn't even suggest any criminal sanctions (prison sentences and fines) beyond those in the existing fraud statutes. It only seeks to withdraw this corrupt organization's federal funding. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Embezzlement

I think this new edit[39] is good stuff. Well, bad stuff, but interesting encyclopedic stuff. Anyway, I think it makes some sense to put the embezzlement and subsequent disclosures and management fights in its own subsection. But I also think we should organize it chronologically according to what happened, as opposed to concentrating on the dates that different allegations were made. Thus, instead of saying that in October 2009 the Louisiana Attorney General alleged XXX, we should say in XXX, 200X, so-and-so did Y, in an amount of $5 million according to the Lousiana Attorney General [cite]. I hope that makes sense. This is just a quick reaction. But overall, focus on the substance of what happened as opposed to the allegations. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Except the claim is absolutely terrible, and a gross violation of WP:BLP. The Louisiana AG isn't even claiming that this actually happened, according to the source, but investigating if it might have (while simultaneously saying he has no jurisdiction to do anything because of statute of limitations). The claim really stinks like old fish, and absent much better sourcing, there's no way it go anywhere on WP. LotLE×talk 08:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, okay. I need to read up on the sources a little more thoroughly. I suppose it's a BLP concern because it involves the co-founder, although he's already admitted to embezzlement so I think the BLP analysis would focus on any additional info in the new claim. But regarding organization, I'll stick with my comment that we should have a chronology of the organization, not a chronology of the accusations against it. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Mention controversies in the lede?

I think we have a consensus to note that the organization has (recently? starting year 200x?) been the subject of some controversy. There seems to be some disagreement over whether to enumerate the controversies or describe their effect in the lede, or whether to leave that to the main body. Personally, I think given the magnitude of the controversy it's okay to briefly hit the main points in a single sentence, as this edit does here.[40] That's based on a WP:WEIGHT concern that there is a substantial amount of coverage of this, and a reality-check for relevancy and POV that this is more than a superficial issue and more than this week's news, and instead goes to long-term, structural issues with the organization. I felt somewhat differently during the 2008 election, because at the time it seemed it was just a political controversy, but now the scandals and related controversy have gone on for another year, broadened, and are better covered in the mainstream press. So I think if one is going to say only a few paragraphs about ACORN, there should be a full sentence devoted to these troubles. However, other people may disagree and I can't assess what consensus may be - just my thoughts here. There has been some reversion and this is a heated subject in the off-Wikipedia political world so it might help if the editors here leave their $0.02 on whether it deserves to be in the lead. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We agreed, on your User Talk page, that the controversies should be briefly itemized. The mention of the controversies in the lead is still a single sentence. It is clearly supported by consensus on this Talk page, in the section I started a few weeks ago. Two editors are POV pushing every time they revert it. The rest of us are in agreement, and I think it's time for us to do something about the two editors who insist on defying the well-established consensus here. A six-month topic ban for both of them. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reminding me. Yes, you and I agreed. Some other people agreed. It is supported by citations and, I feel, the weight of the sources. But some people keep reverting, which I guess we can count as a vote against. I won't assume POV-pushing. People have legitimate differences of opinion. The two editors who revert are editors I respect. So I'm not going to wish swarms of locusts down on anyone here. Just a joke, but I think an anonymous IP editor is going to need a few serious power-ups before they get to call in a topic ban.  :) How about discussing it here and seeing if we can use the powers of persuasion? - Wikidemon (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As one of the editors that didn't mind seeing "something" in the lead mentioning ACORN's prolific involvement in "controversies", I should probably explain why I seem to be back-peddling now. Bothersome to me is the addition of content asserting ACORN's loss of the Census contract as due to the pimp-cam scandal. I don't believe the census folks ever specified that as a reason (and I assumed it was more likely a combination of recent happenings). I'm also evaluating the need to have something that appears lead-worthy, only because the past 12 months seem so agitated, in the article of a 35-year old organization. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
As they say, timing is everything. ACORN lost the Census Bureau contract instantly after the release of the undercover videos. In a letter to Maude Hurd, the director of the Census Bureau said that ACORN had become a distraction. That wasn't a coincidence. I don't believe in coincidences. I'm sure we can (and should) find a way to describe the event in the lead, consistently with those facts. We should also mention both houses of Congress voting, by an overwhelming margin, to cut off all federal funding for ACORN. These are "turning of the tide" events, and may signal the demise of the organization, or its decline into something much smaller. Both LotLE and SOV have caused a lot of trouble at other times, and in other articles. This isn't their first rodeo and, while WD may respect them, some action is called for. Describing "an anonymous IP editor" in such terms diminishes the contributions of all IP editors, and unless his real name is "Wikidemon," he is anonymous as well. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to accommodate Xenophrenic's concerns in a rewrite of the longer proposed sentence. It becomes very awkward, unless it's split into at least two sentences. I propose the following wording for the final paragraph of the lead.
The organization has been the subject of numerous public controversies involving embezzlement, management fights, voter registration fraud committed by its workers, and an undercover video exposé on employee misconduct. Immediately after the release of the undercover videos, ACORN lost its contract with the United States Census Bureau,[2][3] and both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly to withdraw federal funding from ACORN.[4][5]
What are your thoughts? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the first 2/3 is great, but I'm not sure the loss of the Census contract and vote to lose federal funding are as solid. There's clearly aftermath but we don't know where it goes. That could be the least of their problems, or it could just be a few poignant ones. Loss of the census contract isn't a huge deal money-wise. There are many different long-term impacts. Maybe we can lose the material about the aftermath or summarize it without mentioning specific issues, because there must be dozens of different negative consequences and it would be hard to know where that is going. But overall, it's a good summary. In the interest of disclosure I've commented on this a few times before so this is just an update. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Since the first 2/3 seems acceptable (not speaking for Lulu or SofV, mind you), I tentatively added it to the article. I see the purpose of that lede paragraph as an indication to the reader that there are significant controversies discussed later in the article. However, I don't think that lede needs to dabble in the results (loss of contracts, funding, fines, forced audits, arrests, etc.) of those controversies - that's better handled in the body of the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xenophrenic's slight expansion of the lead sentence about controversies, but strongly disagree with the anon's longer and highly contentious WP:SOAPBOX version (btw. does anyone else feel like this anon is a new name for an old and familiar editor?). We had something very close to that in the lead for a while; in fact, I think I wrote something very close a week or two back. The completely bare "there are controversies" is too little, but partisan editors quickly get carried away in trying to enumerate everything and rant in the lead. This is a good balance (pretty much). LotLE×talk 17:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Partisan opposition to paragraph breaks?!

This one is just wacky and weird. Several anon addresses and one recently de-anonymized account (which all might be connected) have recently and repeatedly reverted a wording improvement I made that, in the main, added a paragraph break between a description some 2008 events and one 2009 event. Instead, she seems to want half the 2009 event described in the 2008 paragraph, with the other half of the description described after a paragraph break. Attempts to make the writing coherent are apparently "left-wing conspiracies by bad Wikipedia editors who are part of the WP Cabal" (or something like that).

Could we instead just cut the crap and stop playing revert-war games over purely stylistic improvements. I do not object to inclusion of a description of Buddy Caldwell's subpoena (at this point), but do we really need the WP:SOAPBOX nonsense of reverting ever cleanup?! LotLE×talk 19:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, "in the main" you were shriveling any mention of the scandals that are now wracking ACORN, a left-wing organization. As Louisiana AG Caldwell said, this is an investigation of the entire ACORN organization. That's a very notable quotation from an unimpeachably WP:RS and it belongs in the article. According to The New York Times, "A lawyer for Acorn said in a statement that the raid was prompted by accusations that former Acorn employees had removed or altered electronic documents and might do so in the future." SO the removal of dozens of computers from the ACORN office by investigators is also notable, and belongs in the article.
I don't have a problem with your paragraph breaks, LotLE, just with your POV-pushing. I seem to recall that on Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation, in your haste to revert a description of right-wing media's role in exposing flagrant misconduct by Churchill, another left-wing icon, you were restoring old typos. Paragraph breaks are a matter of sound editorial judgment, and in that limited context I accept your judgment; but spelling and punctuating words correctly is not a matter of editorial judgment. Nor is POV-pushing, to protect the image of left-wing professors and organizations, a matter of editorial judgment. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I notice that LotLE is again pushing his POV, by trying to eradicate any mention of the lawsuit ACORN filed to reverse the federal funding cutoff. All are encouraged to discuss this most recent effort by LotLE to conceal anything that makes ACORN look bad. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can we take a break from worrying about each others' motives and look at the content? I think both the act and the suit are significant enough to the history of the organization, and well enough sourced, that we should cover them. As a matter of style, tone, etc., I think we should stick to the facts rather than what people say about them. The comment from a Republican politician that the suit is "baseless" doesn't add anything, and his opinion doesn't really count. However, I would preserve the law professor's statement as emblematic of what most scholars probably think, that defunding a company is not a bill of attainder because the government gets to decide who it funds and who it does not. Bills of attainder are about punishment for past acts that were not covered by the laws of the time, not about choices going forward (so goes the argument). There's a second argument that is not covered, though: it is not a bill of attainder because it is not aimed at ACORN. ACORN may have triggered the act and that may be their intent, but the act is carefully written so it does not mention ACORN by name, but rather defunds all companies that have been the subject of voter registration fraud of this sort... something like that, I'm going from memory. Also, it would be helpful to cover the act before covering the (likely unsuccessful) lawsuit against it, and to name the legislation this was attached to. The specific vote margins are not critical. Either it passed or it didn't. The only reason to add those is to say it had strong congressional support, publicly at least... Congressmen vote for various reasons in the end, including things they wish would not pass, so as to keep up appearances. So quoting vote tallies is not the same endorsement of legislation that some people might think. Merely listing the number, without sourced discussion of why the votes were the way they are, is not all that helpful. I hope that explains the proposed middleground edit I just made. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hans von Spakovsky is a former member of the Federal Election Commission and his voice carries some weight. He mentions the fact that the legislation at issue "does not mention ACORN by name, but rather defunds all companies that have been the subject of voter registration fraud of this sort." I've added a phrase and a source cite to include his commentary, so you may wish to elaborate in the mainspace. Also, the vote tally in the House and the Senate demonstrate strong bipartisan support. Even most of the Democrats turned against ACORN after those videos surfaced. Ultra-liberal Barney Frank said that ACORN had forfeited the privilege of federal funding, and that quote belongs in this article. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
There was the Act, and then a lawsuit in response by ACORN. That means everyone and their neighbor will have an opinion — some more qualified than others, and ranging all across the spectrum of possibilities — but opinions nonetheless. Let the article convey the known facts, and leave the legal theorizing and political posturing out of it. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(before ec) I think there was widespread bipartisan support, but I don't think that can be demonstrated well by vote tallies. There are plenty of things that people vote for after opposing because they want to be on the winning side, or don't want to be portrayed badly in the media or their opponents at the next election. ACORN is so toxic right now that Democratic legislators don't want to be associated with them, even the ones who owe ACORN a favor or who stand to benefit from ACORN support. Thus, some Democrats don't like the bill at all and wish it would go away but when it was up for the vote they did not want to be perceived as being on the side of corruption. Others had loyalties or perhaps truly believed that the act was a bad idea, so they voted against it. Yet others were legitimately upset and felt the government should not be supporting them. On the Republican side there was genuine outrage but also political opportunism: scores to settle, opponents to undermine, etc. The reasons behind other bills are that convoluted or more so, and don't reduce neatly to final numbers, which I think is why we don't generally list them after mentioning most bills. Sometimes it makes sense to characterize the vote as close, or lopsided, or unanimous, though, and I've tried to portray that. The more complex politics behind that is covered, I think, in the first sentence I moved from higher up, that Republicans were trying to portray Democrats as corrupt, and Democrats were jumping off a sinking ship (to paraphrase). I think Hans von Spakovsky's observation (can we call him "Spanky"?) is what I was getting at, that the bill is not specific to ACORN. It's all about ACORN, but if any other group allows its employees to commit voter registration fraud they will be defunded too. That probably takes it out of the bill of attainder category as well. I think it might make sense to list what one or two politicians said about why they supported the bill (if they seem to be the most important, or emblematic, or most frequently quoted). My objection was to the opinion on the merits of the suit. Lawyers are always calling things "without merit", and the phrase doesn't mean much. Plus, the court is the body that decides at this point, not Congress. Thanks for the dedicated work on this, by the way, and for being flexible. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
(after ec) Xenophrenic has a point too. Legal theorizing is a little WP:CRYSTAL - ish. Either the court will rule for the suit, or against it, or it will bounce around on appeal. In the end it will be declared a bill of attainder by the courts or not, and only the court's ruling will matter. Plus if the suit is quickly dismissed the suit itself might be too trivial to mention, or may only deserve a few words. It's only if the suit becomes a landmark decision, with dissents and scholarly opinions, that different experts' opinions will matter in the end... and that, probably, in a separate article about bills of attainder or about the suit. For now I don't have any objection to a couple expert opinions if they're representative of the overall body of academic / scholarly / legal thought, and reflect some kind of consensus regarding the suit's merit. We would just keep in mind that we'll have to update it once the suit is decided. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I think there are enough eyes on the article, and the subject, that final legal decisions will be noted almost immediately. ACORN has lots of fish frying right now: Lawsuit in PA re: compensating their voter registration workers — Lawsuit in MD re: wiretap law violations when their employees were stung — Lawsuit against a potential bill of attainder. The only guaranteed winners are the attorneys. Is there an easy way to follow each of the legal proceedings stage by stage? Xenophrenic (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Bill of attainder

It looks like we are doing fine here. I confess that it is annoying for P&W to lie about my edits above (no edit of mine removed the recent addition about the Acorn bill-of-attainder suit). And I'm not all that thrilled for him to edit war to reinsert misspelled section headings. That said I think the current heading works OK, and the length seems OK. I'm not really convinced that the opinion of Prof. Dorf, adds anything we need. He's probably right as a legal opinion, but obviously some lawyer thinks otherwise too. At least the one who took the case, though I've seen a bunch of stories on other law professors expressing the bill-of-attainder concern. As Wikidemon observes, it's only the courts whose opinion will matter. LotLE×talk 00:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

P&W's assessment of your edits seems accurate to me. Both Dorf and von Spakowsky provide useful insights into the law for Wikipedia readers, and their evaluations are cited and linked with remarkable brevity. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think both of them make a lot of sense, and likely represent the majority opinion in the legal / academic community on how a court is likely to rule. The issue for me is an encyclopedic one, why we choose these two particular individuals to stand for the position rather than anyone else, and how we really know that these are good opinions beyond our own personal reasoning. In other cases I might disagree that a couple particular quotes are on target. These two, I happen to agree with. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemon, in that we don't know if these are good opinions. The issue for me is also an encyclopedic one, but to that end, I come to a different solution. Rather than pick and choose, based on "our own personal reasoning", which opinions (a dime a dozen, mind you) we should insert in this article, we should not be inserting any. Insert only the facts, then let the situation play itself out, then insert only the results. I'm sure we all have our own favorite hypotheticals we'd like to see represented in the article, but resist the urge. Strip them all out, that includes Dorf, too. And Spazky is the guy, according to P&W, who says the legislation "does not mention ACORN by name, but rather defunds all companies that have been the subject of voter registration fraud of this sort"? Was he speaking about:

Title VI: Defund Acorn Act - Defund Acorn Act - (Sec. 602) Prohibits the federal government from providing any funds to, or entering into agreements with, any organization that: (1) has been indicted for violating federal or state election law; (2) had its state corporate charter terminated due to its failure to comply with federal or state lobbying disclosure requirements; (3) has filed a fraudulent form with any federal or state regulatory agency; or (4) employs, has a contract with, or has acting on its behalf, an individual who has been indicted for violating federal or state election law. Prohibits federal employees or contractors from promoting such organizations. Includes the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and any ACORN-related affiliate among the organizations barred from such funding, contracting, and promotion. Requires the Federal Acquisition Regulation to be revised to satisfy these prohibitions.[41]

Or am I thinking about a completely different Act? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood Wikidemon, who said,

I think both of them [von Spakovsky and Dorf] make a lot of sense, and likely represent the majority opinion in the legal / academic community on how a court is likely to rule. The issue for me is an encyclopedic one, why we choose these two particular individuals to stand for the position rather than anyone else, and how we really know that these are good opinions beyond our own personal reasoning. In other cases I might disagree that a couple particular quotes are on target. These two, I happen to agree with.

Including both of them is supported by consensus, and WD is part of our consensus, which is why I'm reverting your removal of von Spakovsky immediately, Xeno. ACORN employees across the country have been indicted and convicted for voter registration fraud. The House bill specifies organizations involved in election-related scandals as targets of defunding. For these reasons, the commentary of a former FEC member like von Spakovsky is very valuable. This is his area of expertise. I don't know why you insist on including a lengthy opinion from Kenneth R. Thomas, while erasing any mention of the opinion of a former member of the FEC -- while claiming, "Rather than pick and choose ... which opinions ... we should insert in this article, we should not be inserting any" -- but I can guess. Skoal. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I understood what Wikidemon said, and including various speculations by uninvolved individuals has not been agreed to by concensus. You'll note above that LotLE comments that he is not convinced the opinion of Dorf adds anything we need; nor am I convinced. You say you don't know why I insist on having an opinion by Thomas? Let me help you out: I insisted no such thing. I can add an opinion by the Center for Constitutional Rights, then you can add an opinion by Spakovsky, then I can add an opinion by Eugene Volokh, and so on. None of it is appropriate for the ACORN article. May I suggest you start a "Defund ACORN Act" Wikipedia article, wherein you can play arm-chair attorney with competing opinions by legal heads in a fantasy courtroom? This article here is an inappropriate venue for such an endeavor, and should stick to established facts and relevant results. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea, Xenophrenic. If the suit grows a little more leg, it could well merit its own article. If a high court, especially SCOTUS, actually hears it, that would seem to have all sorts of interesting legal issues about the limits of legislation and the meaning of bill of attainder. We already seem to have seen quite a few notable legal scholars opining (admittedly, the relevance of Spakovsky in particular is doubtful; the FEC has no special expertise in bills of attainder or precedent about them). However, I think we probably are not quite there to merit a sister article. Right now it's all just arm-chair, since no court has heard anything yet. LotLE×talk 19:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank Critical of Acorn: "they have forfeited their right to get federal funds"

Regrettably he spoke on Fox and was quoted by the WSJ. No doubt he was misquoted as saying, "I think they have forfeited their right to get [federal] funds.". Frank also stated, "People have said, 'Well, the sting [against Acorn] is terrible.' I will tell people there is a great defense against being stung. Don't do the kind of things that put you on television."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.242.61 (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No doubt he was misquoted? Chris M. (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Budget figure

I couldn't find any source to confirm or deny the $100 million+ budget claim. I wouldn't doubt that it's pretty close, but I wonder how the number was arrived at. - dtfinch (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found any confirmation of this budget number either. The sources I found have the annual budget at $25 million. Djma12 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Most recent decision by DOJ

Eric Holder's Department of Justice has ordered that all existing contracts with ACORN (including payments to ACORN) must be honored until they expire. There will be no effort to terminate these contracts, despite congressional action supported by overwhelming majorities. This should be mentioned in the article under the Defund ACORN Act, since the Obama Administration is finding a way around it. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Got a cite? On face value it looks like standard political posturing versus following legal obligations. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
[42] "The Justice Department has concluded that the Obama administration can lawfully pay the community group Acorn for services provided under contracts signed before Congress banned the government from providing money to the group. The department's conclusion, laid out in a recently disclosed five-page memorandum from David Barron, the acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel, adds a new wrinkle to a sharp political debate over the antipoverty group's activities and recent efforts to distance the government from it. ... [On] Oct. 1, President Obama signed into law a spending bill that included a provision that said no taxpayer money — including money authorized by previous legislation — could be 'provided to' the group or its affiliates." Do you see the contradiction here? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that we Anon's have become increasingly proficient in the ways of the Wiki??? 24.12.93.206 (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
In the five days that have passed since I posted this, there haven't been any objections at all to including this material in the article mainspace. I'll add it now. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I've edited to flow with the paragraph about the act, and also to more accurately reflect the source. The source doesn't say that the White House ordered any action. It simply wrote an advisory memo interpreting the meaning of the law. There's no contradiction at all, and the New York Times source explains this. In general, if a law is subject to two conflicting interpretations and one of them violates other laws or the Constitution (as the lawyer concluded it would, if interpreted to mean that the government would withhold payment on contracts already completed by ACORN), then rather than choosing the interpretation that makes the law invalid, the presumption is to follow the interpretation that makes the law valid. Here, the lawyer interpreted "provided to" to mean discretionary act of providing new money based on previous authorizations, not to mean making good on existing debts. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

ACORN in US vs COI

To clear up some confusion: the organization that was ACORN International is now called Community Organization International and is connected to Rathke. See his blog below on this. The changed caused many panicy writers and bloggers to believe that ACORN was trying to change its name, but this is due to the confusion over ACORN and various groups (related through Rathke) that use the name ACORN in their name. I don't know if ACORN Canada is related to the US ACORN, but I assume for now it's part of COI. Sadly, the ACORN webpages are very dated and cannot be used to shed light on this. There are other interviews out there with Rathke if people don't want to use his blog as the source for this. If people don't have problems I'd like to revert to cutting out references to non-US offices. Threepillars (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

http://chieforganizer.org/2009/06/24/name-games/

As a general rule, personal blogs are useless except where the individual's personal input is needed in his own biography. Whatever you do, it has to have very solid sourcing. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of Videos and Transcripts

ACORN has done an interesting analysis of the transcripts and videos (beyond what's in the Hershbarger report). It seems to undermine many points made commonly in media summaries of the videos (indicating that the media has not really watched or analyzed the videos). Should this be included as "ACORN says..." or do people have time to cite the transcripts to show the points directly. I.e., the O'Keefe did not portray himself as a pimp, that Giles was asking for help to protect the underaged girls (not smuggle them), that staff tried to convince her to stop being a prostitute, that no assistance was given to the pair, that tax evasion was not advised (the opposite was stated), etc. This seems monumental, no?

http://www.acorn.org/fileadmin/HomePageNews/2009Dec/Video_Transcript_Analysis_withExcperts.pdf Threepillars (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like that's a list of things that didn't happen, but what did happen is still pretty damning. I think we'd still need a reliable source rather than ACORN's analysis or our own original research. We could technically say that "Acorn released an analysis of the videos, in which it said that xxxxx", but without a third party source we have no independent way of knowing whether this is truly monumental, or whether this is a press release so insignificant that it's not worth mentioning at all. If it really is a big deal then surely some press will pick up on it. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"Surely some press will pick up on it". I doubt it, but maybe I'm too cynical. The press hates to write about what other press got wrong on a story after it has passed. I also don't agree it's a list of what didn't happen, it's a list of what has been said repeatedly about the videos that are, in fact, (according to ACORN, but some of their analysis is undeniable) untrue. I.e., that ACORN advised anybody remotely about smuggling teens or that O'Keefe portrayed himself as a pimp. It seems odd to see the evidence and have to wait for the press to also see it, but I understand that original research is not allowed. I guess it's best to put it down as "ACORN responds that what the videos really show is..." Do other people have ideas? Threepillars (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
How about an analysis by Media Matters? Is that considered useable?
http://mediamatters.org/research/200912080007

Threepillars (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe Conason discusses this a bit here, too. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/12/11/acorn/ Threepillars (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Harshbarger's report includes in Appendix D (the last several pages) some discussion of the videos and a visit by Giles (without O'Keefe) to a Miami ACORN office. Apparently (although it is not clear) the sources for this information are other ACORN employees, Harshbarger's own review of the tapes, and some information from police departments that were called by ACORN staff.
http://www.proskauer.com/files/uploads/report2.pdf
Not sure what these various sources add up to, but when media summaries continue to state "giving advice" (or similar) to prostitutes regarding smuggling children or running a brothel, etc., it seems pretty unfair; overall, the press coverage is starting to look worse and worse. Any suggestions for how best to work this in to this article, or word summaries of what the tapes show? Threepillars (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Wikidemon that this should wait until we have reliable mainstream media sources. If we start using Media Matters, we'd also have to start using Newsbusters. Both are biased in their analyses -- Media Matters to the left, and Newsbusters to the right -- although they do provide links to reliable sources. And if we start using Joe Conason, we'll also have to start using Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What have you fine editors been up to while I've been away?[43] That does seem to downplay the reasons why the videos were so interesting to peole. Hmmm. Just saying...- Wikidemon (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The "reason the videos were so interesting" is largely because their content was misrepresented in many sources. We are not allowed to perpetuate such a misrepresentation just to make the article "juicier"... hence the neutral language instead of the slanted exaggeration. LotLE×talk 07:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe that most sources say that the videos were notorious because they show (or according to some, appear to show) ACORN workers advising the filmmakers how to do various unsavory things. Perhaps some reliable sources say that the videos were edited or taken out of context to misrepresent what happened, in which case we can say exactly that. But wording it to suggest that the videos depict uncontroversial advice-giving, without more, misses the entire point. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
We're starting to see an edit war on the page. Consensus was against the material proposed in this topic, but someone put it in anyway, and now there are a few editors who are reverting any attempts to restore the consensus version. Please discuss. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed your edit warring, Jc-S0CO. You should immediately revert your last reversion, and restore the neutral and consensus version of the wording. Removing an established neutral version in order to more forcefully express your POV is not good edit practice. LotLE×talk 20:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Will you PLEASE READ the above discussion? There is no consensus for the version you keep injecting. I have not violated 3RR, and what I have been doing is restoring the version that not only matches the subarticle, but has been the consensus version here for months. You can keep throwing that acronym around, but you have not discussed how the consensus version (the real consensus version) is in violation of the policy, or how the policy even applies here. You're the one who is edit warring. You reverted first, claiming a consensus that does not exist and a policy that does not apply - but that's beside the point. I'm asking for discussion here, not an ultimatum. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 20:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
A BLP violation is a BLP violation, and your agenda-driven edit is exactly that. WP:BLP applies to every single page on Wikipedia. When referring to living persons, you absolutely must use neutral language. Potential violations must be stripped from the article, and I recommend that any specific language that is controversial should be brought up at WP:BLPN. Incidentally, any editor removing these BLP violations from the article need not concern themselves with WP:3RR - that is only a concern for users putting the contentious material in. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't appreciate your bad-faith accusations that my preservation of the original article text was agenda-driven, Scjessey. As Soxwon demonstrated, the material in that paragraph was taken verbatim from reliable sources. I'm sorry if you don't like how it was covered by the mainstream press, but the situation is what it is. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
BLP would presumably apply because it's discussing the actions of identified living people. However, BLP does not say that all damaging information about living people must be removed, but rather that it must be well-sourced. This is really an argument over sourcing, not BLP - what do the weight of the sources actually say, and does the article fairly represent those sources? 3RR and consensus apply here because this is not the case of an obvious BLP violation. Edit warring in lieu of discussion is bad, and anyone who does that may be exposing themselves to administrative intervention. Even in much clearer cases there's always some risk of claiming the BLP 3RR exception. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Reviewing the sources given, the CNN piece does not support the language of the text at all. It makes liberal use of the word "allegedly" as well. The FOX News source (from an unidentified reporter) goes a little further, but still doesn't seem to fully support this agenda-driven, scandal-inflating version of the text. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Tax evasion, human trafficking, and child prostitution (but of course this is from the agenda-driven, scandal-inflating LA Times so it might not be reliable). Soxwon (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Attorneys and charges that include tax evasion, child prostitution and human trafficking Soxwon (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't see anything about "disguising the identities of underaged sex workers" (which is quite a specific charge). Also, I routinely ignore FOX News as a source, because they seem incapable of reporting without putting their right-wing spin on everything. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
No, the Fox News directly quotes the attorneys of the case using phrases like "child prostitution," "child trafficking," and "tax evasion." No spin involved. Soxwon (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
In that case, it should be something like "prosecution attorneys described..." in order to avoid the BLP vio. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Scjessey, READ, the CHARGES were what I mentioned, you need to actually read the goddamn source. Soxwon (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. Charges are not the same as convictions. As usual in this article, allegations are being misrepresented as facts. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
However, they need to be reflected in the article rather than ignored for a whitewashed version. Soxwon (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
(responding before the comment above was refactored) - It's the "disguising the identities" bit I'm having a problem with. Also, there is a world of difference between "appears to give advise on tax evasion" and "discussing income taxes". It is the job of prosecution lawyers to frame every detail in the worst possible light in order to secure a conviction, but Wikipedia is not supposed to regurgitate their rhetorical flourishes when neutral, BLP-happy language is available. Now, kindly refrain from attacking the editor and focus on the content. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

- Wikidemon (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

ACORN Funding restored

A little bit of news yesterday: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30504.html. This should be added to the article probably in the section discussing the defund ACORN act. Brothejr (talk) 13:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Liberal

[44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] [52][53] [54][55][56][57]

All classifying the organization as liberal. Surely this must indicate some sort of concensus (nor are they cherry-picked as they come from everything from Salon to LA times). Soxwon (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It should not be introduced in an "X is a liberal y that z" format in first few words of the lede. Doing so gives undue emphasis on this trait, and suggests a POV that the world is divided among liberals and conservatives. If you look at most other articles, mention of political leanings if any is worked more carefully into the prose. For example, in Democratic Party (United States) the statement that it is considered "center-left" is at the very end of the first paragraph, after we establish that it is one of two dominant political parties in the US, the oldest one, etc. With Fox News Channel the third paragraph discusses its being called conservative, and it denying the claim, after the first two already establishing the basic facts of its being a news channel. One may infer from the causes ACORN supports that it would be classified as liberal by those making such classifications. If we say that in the lede, it belongs after we establish that it is a nationwide American nonprofit devoted to certain projects. Calling it liberal based on its focus area is an opinion, not a hard fact - the commentators base that label on the same facts covered in the article. It might make some sense to discuss the affinity between various ACORN entities and the US Democratic Party, which is more fact-based and more salient than saying whether that makes them liberal or not. Either way it is something that would have to be developed in the body and if appropriate placed in the lede. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The article is pretty clear about ACORN's political stances, and the reader has the information to decide whether the group is "liberal" or not. The problem with "liberal", especially in an international context, is that it's become about as meaningful as "poo-poo head" PhGustaf (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
As an "international", I have to say that PhGustaf is hilariously correct. We foreign types think of "liberal" as generous, socially free and permissive. In the US, however, it is seen as evil, socialist and islamofascistpinkonazi. </sarcasm> (at least partly) -- Scjessey (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected, Phgustaf. Soxwon (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about this debate. If you ever listen to ACORN or read what they publish, it's always in the us vs. them format, liberals vs. conservatives, democrats vs. republicans, even poor vs. rich(which really doesn't follow the previous two). There are many organizations that prefer a progressive label over the somewhat(perceived to be) negative, liberal label. If we wanted to go in that direction. ThinkEnemies (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue is whether a "liberal" tag in the lede is useful or helpful or informative. My feeling is that it isn't. PhGustaf (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi all, Please check out this article- http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/707 As you can see, ACORN has indeed collaborated with several people on the right.

Whatever one might think of them, ACORN works for impoverished Americans, whether on the left or right. It has endorsed and worked with many right-wing/Republican politicians, and registers voters for the GOP, so it ought not be labeled as a "leftist" organisation. Its too comprehensive to be a single party organization. Anyone with even a slight exposure to urban relief might know that.

A helpful analogy might be a soup kitchen. In a soup-kithcen, you have many people: religious conservatives, religious liberals, athiests, college hippies, clergy, professionals, vegans, meat-eaters etc... all with different voting priorities. None of them have a unifying code other than the goal of the soup-kitchen (eg, some might be pro-choice, whereas others might be pro-life, but the difference doesnt cease the functioning of the mission, and is usually left at the door.)

That's how many social service agencies (like ACORN) are. Because ACORN is social service, it's frequently called "leftist"; and certainly, it has now become a favorite boogey of the GOP (many of whom once worked with ACORN only 3 years back.) Since the controversial (and questionable) attack on the group through the persons of James O'Keefe and Fox News, ACORN has taken a defensive posture with Republicans (and with the Democrats that allowed questionably edited video to determine public policy.)

Nevertheless, ACORN still works with people despite political affiliation, and Bertha Lewis did appear on very hostile territory by interviewing a number of times on Fox news last year. Point being, it's better to label this group what it is- a support service... leave the whole "ACORN hates the GOP" over at an article more appropriate to that.

(BTW for the record, and considering recent personal attacks, i hope that sharing this does not give some people the impression that i am an ACORN employee or volunteer. But i do volunteer in relief services, something which familiarizes me with options that are presented to under-priveleged communities.) Ceemow (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You said "It has endorsed and worked with many right-wing/Republican politicians, and registers voters for the GOP....". This is blatantly false and absurd. 75.150.245.244 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "ACORN'S Food Stamp Mortgages".
  2. ^ Sherman, Jake (September 12, 2009). "Census Bureau Cuts Its Ties With Acorn". The Wall Street Journal. online.wsj.com. pp. A4. Retrieved September 20, 2009.
  3. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/us/politics/24acorn.html
  4. ^ Taylor, Andrew (2009-09-14). "Senate votes to deny funds to ACORN". Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-09-15. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ "House Votes to Strip Funding for ACORN". Fox News. 2009-09-17. Retrieved 2009-09-17.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now/Archive_8&oldid=1136534979"