Jump to content

Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 9

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

ACORN Institute

An anonymous editor removed non-US countries of operation from the infobox, using this edit comment:

151.200.178.249 (talk) (ACORN operates solely within the US.When former CEO Wade Radthke was fired he formed the ACORN Institute,which works outside the US, It is incorrect to say ACORN serves other countries.)

This may be true, I think it should be verified and cited. However, given the likely confusion, I think it is at least worth stating the matter clearly in the body. E.g. (assuming such is true): "The ACORN Institute is a legally distinct group that was founded by former CEO Wade Rathke which operates in Peru, Canada, etc." LotLE×talk 18:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This page from ACORN's official site would indicate they have gone international. I haven't seen anything to the contrary. I'm returning that content for now. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no opinion either way, just keep in mind that ACORN is a large cluster of related organizations, not just one entity. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

District Attorney label

I've reverted this paragraph back to this version[1]. I don't know that this edit is proper[2], but this response[3] reads pointy to me, although that may not have been the intent. I'd recomend further discussion on the talk page to discuss proper wording.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. Whatever the editing history we should not take it upon ourselves as an encyclopedia to argue by association that a district attorney's affiliations are relevant to his actions. That's the stuff of political games. If the DA's actions were criticized, praised, or called into question, that might be worth noting but only if we found significant enough coverage in mainstream neutral sources to satisfy WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV concerns. For us as editors to dig into organization websites and make conclusions out of them is original research. We should just say what the DA did, not try to argue how legitimate that is. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that the District Attorney has an association with the organization that he was issuing an opinion on. This is backed by RS references. This is very relevant to the issue. Trilemma (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
You might want to begin by setting forth links for what the reliable source references are, followed by pointing out what the sources show the DA's "association" to the organization was. Please be very specific, as vague conclusions about what a source shows will likely be scrutinized very closely. --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The link in my second edit was to the Working Families Party website, documenting the relationship. Trilemma (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the link, but I didn't see a relationship - only a long list of political candidates that received WFP's endorsements. No relationships were mentioned; nor did I see any mention of ACORN. I'm with AzureCitizen in requesting reliable sourcing for your edits. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The DA sought out the endorsement (see: http://web.archive.org/web/20070502233621/www.workingfamiliesparty.org/endorsements/quest_nyc.html). This is, in and of itself, the RS evidence of the DA building a relationship with the organization. Trilemma (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No, that is a link to some questionnaires, and still no mention of affiliations. Perhaps you copied the wrong address? Still waiting for a reliable source to support what appears to me to be a flimsy attempt at guilt by association. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the link, but didn't see "evidence of the DA building a relationship with the organization," instead it appears to be some sort of generic questionnaire. I'm guessing here that the assertion you wish to make is that maybe Hynes filled out a questionnaire to obtain a political endorsement from the Working Families Party? We don't know if he did or if he didn't, but let's assume he did for a moment to follow that line of inference. Hynes was the seated incumbent in the election and ran unopposed as the only candidate on the ballot. He was endorsed by the Republican Party, the Conservative Party, and the Democrat Party in addition to the Working Families Party, which means that organizations at all ends of the political spectrum approved. Should we then conclude that Hynes had a valued "association" or "relationship" with all of these parties? As Wikidemon commented, consider WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV --AzureCitizen (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The link demonstrates that one must seek out the nomination of the party. The DA did. Trilemma (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
It still doesn't demonstrate that the District Attorney established a special "association" or "relationship" with the party. At most, it demonstrates that if he applied for it, they endorsed him just like the other major political parties in New York. Furthermore, the subject of the DA's investigation were three employees of ACORN, not the WFP. --AzureCitizen (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bankruptcy in the article lead

As a result of the many scandals plaguing ACORN, 15 of its 30 state chapters have folded and others (particularly New York and California, two of the largest chapters) have changed their names and severed all ties with the national organization. Federal funding has been cut off (and remains cut off despite a judge's ruling that the cutoff was unconstitutional -- appeals, you know). Donations from private foundations have also dried up.

The organization is now discussing bankruptcy. This weekend, there's a teleconference by the board of directors regarding a possible bankruptcy filing. This could be the death of the organization.

All of this has been documented in a story published yesterday in The New York Times, the paragon of reliable sources. The director of the now-shuttered Maryland chapter is quoted, blaming the O'Keefe videos. One could be forgiven for believing the videos, and the contemplation of bankruptcy is a benchmark event, a major development, in the lifespan of ACORN. I made a series of edits detailing all of this and including it in the article lede.[4]

Xenophrenic removed it from the lede.[5] What do the rest of you think? Are the videos, the shutdown of half of ACORN's state chapters, and the possible bankruptcy filing (being blamed by a high-ranking ACORN official on the videos) important enough to put in the lede? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a short statement would be appropriate in the lead.Boromir123 (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
A short statement stating what? Xenophrenic (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't feel it is appropriate to devote lede-paragraph space to "possible" anything. The same article cited on the closing of offices also mentions many others are renaming and continuing, or sticking with ACORN for now - let's see how it pans out. I left the recentism in the body of the article because it does appear significant, but it isn't settled and defining of the topic of the article as of yet. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It is very revealing, regarding the damage that the O'Keefe videos have done, that (A) 15 of the 30 state chapters have closed, and the large and important chapters in New York and California are severing ties and renaming themselves; (B) the national organization itself is even contemplating bankruptcy. The videos have caused both private donations and Congressional funding to be cut off. I've said it before ... money is like oxygen to groups like this one. When they have it, they can respond effectively to problems. When they don't have it, they're dead. By Monday, there could be an announcement that they are, in fact, declaring bankruptcy. For now, is it really appropriate to not even mention the O'Keefe videos in the article lede? I don't believe so, particularly since it is so painfully obvious that they have done enormous damage. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Which is why they are mentioned in the lede. For the details about them, there is the body of the article (and a full separate article on them). Xenophrenic (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
They announced that they're folding on Monday, as I predicted. This content dispute has resolved itself. By the way, Xeno, the previous "mention" of the video scandal was so short and vague that it really couldn't be understood. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This will probably justify a significant adjustment to the tone and weight of different parts of the article. As a minor quibble, it shouldn't be "was" just yet - the expiration date is April 1 apparently, and the groups will probably continue to exist in shut-down mode for a little while after that. No rush, though. It's probably easier just to see where the dust settles, though, and do a post mortem later. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Inflation of the lead with "controversy" edits

I think we should keep the lead balanced with a brief factual mention of the most significant controversies (the voter registration fraud issue and the Giles/O'Keefe hidden camera videos) which resulted in a loss of funding by the government and private donors. The embezzlement by the brother should definitely be covered in the main article, but it was not the same kind of high profile public controversy or politically charged event like the voter registration fraud and the hidden camera videos about prostitution which focused national attention. Two days ago, the article only had once sentence on ACORN controversy, now it's the largest paragraph in the lead. Edits like "for years, ACORN employees had been facing similar charges in several other states as well as accusations of mismanagement and embezzlement" paints too broad and critical a swath to be in the lead. --AzureCitizen (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I was clinging to the past. The embezzlement case had been mentioned in the lede for a long time, and it's still being investigated by the Louisiana Attorney General's office, but WP:WEIGHT clearly indicates that at this point, the voter registration fraud cases and the undercover videos are a lot more important. Thanks AC for setting me straight. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a little like watching a car with three blown tires and asking which one was the worst. I think the embezzlement case is an important part of the history of the organization while it was afloat, and the VR fraud as to why it became such a political firestorm, but the hidden camera videos were the beginning of the end. We should go over the whole thing but as always I think it's best to tell in narrative form in some logical order, rather than segregating "about" sections from "controversy" ones. Usually modified chronological order is best. Tell the history of the organization from start to finish, but where one theme is particularly important like the VR fraud, you can put that section time-wise where it was most important (say, the 2004 or 2008 elections). I hope that makes sense. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Anthony diMaggio

why this guy's two cent's-worth is included here under the Undercover Video Controversy in the first place, is beyond explanation. coming from a small school that nobody's ever heard of, the opinion of some low-level assistant professor that even fewer people have ever heard of seems, not only irrelevant but, certainly far from a "qualified, unbiased source, or that therein is contained any semblance of consensus of fact" (as said by 24.43.183.78). and i guess that's ultimately the main point: it is OPINION, not FACT. parts of this article read like a partisan apologia.

however, PhGustaf, since some people insist upon the inclusion of Mr. diMaggio's fast-and-loose opinion, it must certainly be qualified as just that: opinion. to that end, cited is one of many book reviews - from his most adamant of supporters and frequent collaborator, Paul Street, no less - which insists upon his unquestionably Leftist bent. and while "Rate My Professors" is not Lexis Nexis, it is certainly not a "poll". when such an overwhelming consensus is achieved regarding his left-ward slant (amongst both his promoters and detractors), there must be some fact to it. not to mention, since the website has a similar "anyone may contribute" policy as Wikipedia, if Rate My Professors is not a "reliable source" (says PhGustaf), is the same true of Wikipedia? at least the former is more discriminatory than the latter of who may contribute (must be students at the school, must have taken his courses, etc). however if, for some reason, that's STILL not acceptable, the inclusion as citations of a number of his articles, as well as many more which can be found very easily in a quick google search, contribute to an overall picture of a very Left-leaning individual worthy of notation as such.Whatavividimagination (talk) 9:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, please review WP:RS. User opinions on social media review sites bear none of the hallmarks of reliable sources. Further, we generally don't qualify people as liberal or conservative in that way. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
"we" don't generally qualify people in that way? a quick search on Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and many others begs to differ - often within the first sentence. however, it's not so much the person i was qualifying as the extreme slant of his writing. but forget the "social media review site"; did you not read the book review by his colleague? just one of many that describes his writing as such. that is reliable.
but this is all really irrelevant; the Ass't Prof's quote shouldn't even be there in the first place. the WP:RS page you yourself cited proves that. as do numerous items within WP:NPOV (undue weight, equal validity, balance, etc), WP:V, and elsewhere. this is clearly just a case of an editor editorializing and using a quote from an incredibly obscure and insignificant like-minded partisan to cover his or her tracks. a better quote would be one containing observable fact, not inflammatory conjecture and postulations. for now, i'm reverting the text (with the lesser, but corroboratory, "social media review site" citation removed). i'll consider further - and i would advise any future would-be editors to do the same - whether the quotation wouldn't better be removed altogether and replaced with something more appropriate, verifiable, and reasonable.Whatavividimagination (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Where a person's liberalism or conservatism is part of their identity and job description, yes, it is sometimes included in the main article, or where it is sourced as relevant to the context. Here you are using it to frame the validity of their comment, which is a WP:POV problem because it would endorse the practice in politics of dividing the world into liberals and conservatives. In general, I don't support adding people's opinions to articles sourced solely to their statement of opinion, because that is arbitrary. To show that an opinion matters it's best to establish it as a fact that they have that opinion, like any other fact - not by what they themselves say, but based on strong sourcing from third party publications, e.g. major newspapers, books, etc., see fit to report that a particular person has an opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
exactly: appropriate in the same way that O'Reilly is a "Conservative author", diMaggio is a "Liberal author" - it's not framing the validity of the comment; rather, noting the source of that comment, indicating the fact that it is merely opinion and, thereby, allowing the reader to make up his mind whether he finds validity in it. it's immaterial now, however, as User:AzureCitizen has solved for us the problem of his meaningless quote's inclusion. thanks, AC. Whatavividimagination (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Undercover videos controversy subsection and main article

After seeing the discussion above on Asst. Professor DiMagio, and looking at the subsection in the article, I'd have to agree that the quote, its source, and its context seem out of place. More importantly, that entire subsection is now a mess and out of sync in so far as being a good "synopsis" of the main article (ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy). I'm going to boldy move to swap out that entire subsection with the lede of the main article, and suggest we let the reader follow the main article link accordingly if the read the synopsis and want to know more. This also minimizes the problem of article content here and article content there diverging and spreading apart again over time. If you think this is a huge mistake, revert it and come back here to post your concerns - but please, put both versions up in your browser first for a side-by-side comparison and seriously consider what an economical and practical long-term solution this is. --AzureCitizen (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

i absolutely agree that it's a good idea to keep these two articles on the same path and keep them from becoming too terribly divergent. this was a good choice, AC. the only thing to do now, in my opinion, is to bring both articles a bit more toward impartiality. both articles have a tendency, as i suggested before, to act as apologia for Acorn and to treat any accusations of misdeeds as the vitriol, tyranny, and outright delusions of Right-wing zealotry (one of the quotes even says something like that). far from being a Republican, even i have a problem with that. the tenor of this topic, as it is now, undeniably suggests that these Acorn representatives did absolutely nothing wrong and even, in fact, didn't say all those things you can clearly see and hear them saying on tape. that's just patently false. i point to, for instance, the use of the word "purport" to suggest these people didn't do something you can see them doing, and the extremely selective use of quotes and sources from only one side of the issue. any thoughts? Whatavividimagination (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello WAVI (is that a good abbreviation to use?) Glad you agree with keeping the article limited to the other (main) article's lede is good way to prevent the usual drift and divergence. The same thing was going on over at the James O'Keefe article until the same solution was implemented...
With regard to article impartiality, I don't perceive the main article treats the contention that ACORN employees committed misdeeds (? can't say crimes) as vitriolic tyrannical delusions of right wing zealots - it does say right up front that the ACORN employees appeared on video to be giving advice on how to avoid taxes and detection by the authorities with regard to tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution. I assume the "right wing zealotry" quote you're referring to is the attorney general's reference to "partisan zealots" but those are the post-investigation comments of the top law enforcement officer of a U.S. State, not some obscure assistant professor who falls to the far end of the political scale and says the entire thing was a "hoax" (a characterization which is not supported by mainstream news reports or the results of the different law enforcement investigations - and I have reverted edits that previously tried to re-label the entire event as the "ACORN undercover videos hoax", etc).
I note your concern as to exactly what the ACORN employees said - if you scroll down, you'll find the individual city locations have more narrative descriptions from the unedited transcripts which show ACORN employees behaving in an inappropriate manner. With regard to the use of "purported", however, I think that's appropriate because the Big Government.com release videos (i.e., the edited versions) present a version of events that was cherry picked. For example, in one of the released videos, there is a scene where O'Keefe and Giles talk about prostitution earnings followed by an ACORN worker explaining that they should get a tin can and bury the money, while the unedited video shows Giles and O'Keefe telling the ACORN employee that an abusive pimp is "aggressively" pursuing Giles and that she wants to get out from under his control, and the ACORN employees tells her "You get a tin if is going to come beat you and bury it", etc. Thus, the use of the qualifier "purported" leaves it up to the reader to investigate further and decide since it is a point of contention between both sides of the aisle as to exactly what the "facts" of the edited videos mean, e.g., was ACORN worker Theresa Kaelke seriously trying to help them commit crimes, or was she joking around with them (replete with telling them she'd even murdered some of her ex-husbands?) The American Heritage Dictionary (4th Ed) defines purported as "Assumed to be such; supposed", which is neutral in that it neither validates nor invalidates the intepretation of how the videos are described. Just my 2 cents.
With regard to extremely selective use of quotes and sources from one side of the issue, perhaps you could elaborate more on that - do you mean the quotes from investigation outcomes? Or do you mean quotes further down in the body of the article itself? --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "TAYLOR":

  • From ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy: 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)[dead link‍]
  • From James O'Keefe: Taylor, Andrew (2009-09-14). [ttp://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jxhq8CPN8LdLntDEDtE5NrEBQ2IgD9ANF3F01 "Senate votes to deny funds to ACORN"]. Associated Press. Retrieved 2009-09-15. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Reference named "times-acorn-lorber":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I fear for the day that you simple computer programs take over my job, my wife, and my world :-) †TE†Talk 18:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, today's edits have introduced three reference names, "TAYLOR", "FOX" and "times-acorn-lorber" but without including the sources being refered to. If you could please repair these edits, it would be greatly appreciated. In turn it will remove this page from Category:Pages with broken reference names. Thanks! - Salamurai (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

My fault. Fixed now... :) --AzureCitizen (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

ACORN name changes

The following blog has a list of ACORN name changes. Since it is a blog, it might not be a good original source document. However, the blog does list the four organizations already listed in the article. If someone could find reputable sources for the other renamed organizations, that would be ideal. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.resistnet.com/profiles/blogs/here-is-list-of-acorns-new

ACORN -> Community Organizations International  Done

ACORN -> New York Communities for Change  Done

ACORN -> Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment  Done

ACORN -> Arkansas Community Organizations

ACORN -> New England United for Justice

ACORN -> Affordable Housing Centers of America  Done

ACORN -> Missourians Organizing for Reform Empowerment

ACORN -> Affiliated Media Foundation Movement

ACORN -> Baltimore Organizing and Support Center

ACORN -> Coalition for Economic Justice

ACORN -> Chief Organizer Fund

ACORN -> Austin Organizing and Support Center

ACORN -> Organization United for Reform Washington

ACORN -> Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change

ACORN -> Texas Organizing Project

ACORN -> Pennsylvania Neighborhoods for Social Justice

ACORN -> Los Angeles Community Organizing Network

No fraud found in the Minnosota Senate Race

Now there is more proof that ACORN registered illegal votes that fraudetly elected Al Franken should that be put on the page.Unicorn76 (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I heard the same news stories, and you seem to have misunderstood. ACORN wasn't involved. There were a number of "felons" that voted in the Minnesota race when they shouldn't have. Some have been formally charged with voter fraud, and when investigators traced their voter registration information, they discovered every one of them were registered by Republican county election officials. Probably just a weird coincidence. Sounds like Al Franken may have won by even a larger margin than initially calculated, but that really isn't appropriate for this article. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link, Fox News reported it. It should be in the article. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=181125[[User:Unicorn76|Unicorn76]] (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That link doesn't say anything except something about supporting a change in the law. Most democracies give ex-offenders the same voting rights as other citizens; see Felony disenfranchisement). Rd232 talk 09:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Read further Fox News reported it, I also heard on Fox is that acceptible?Unicorn76 (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't hard to find a link for a Fox News article on the subject. You can see one here:
"Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds"
However, it is not clear that this implicates ACORN. The conservative group that did the research points out that they are not making any assertions and that headlines like that from Fox News are "not conclusively provable" and that "isn't the point of the report." You can read more about their methodology, and what it is they are saying, on their own website here:
"Setting the Record Straight on Felon Voters"
Essentially, what they are saying is that there is evidence that some convicted felons registered to vote in Minnesota’s 2008 Senate election. They used a computerized list of names of possible ineligible felon voters by comparing publicly available databases and found matches for 2,803 persons using first, middle, and last names and year of birth. Of those, they found 341 court records which indicated a possible match that the voter in voter in question may have been convicted of a felony. If those ineligible voters cast ballots that were counted, however, 1) there is no way to know who they voted for, and 2) there is no verifiable evidence that ACORN had anything to do with this. --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
That looks shoddy on the part of Fox News. The piece is not reliable as to any analysis or conclusions it draws, and I would be careful about using it to support factual claims. Anyway, this has nothing to do with ACORN so it's not pertinent. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WaPo Author FINALLY Corrects Inaccurate O'Keefe/ACORN 'Pimp' Misreport

Does this contain anything worth including? (The original sources should be used.):

Filmfluff (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. I would edit in a lot of changes right now if I were better at Wikipedia.
The simple fact is, this wiki article as it currently stands is completely misleading, by omitting the crucial detail that the videos that took down ACORN were found to be completely phony. This fact was evidenced by the *unedited* versions that were released and subsequently reported on in various sources.
Somebody who knows how PLEASE edit in these changes ASAP.

169.232.190.58 (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Acorn Housing

This article says that Acorn was composed of different organizations that include local chapters and Acorn Housing. This is not accurate. Acorn Housing was established by Acorn but as a separate organization with its own board, finances and staff. Bertha Lewis, for example, was the head of Acorn but had no control over Acorn Housing. Several federal agencies have looked into the connection between the two organizations and found they were not connected. These include the GAO and HUD. This was done to determine if the de-fund Acorn legislation passed in 2009 applied to Acorn Housing, which they found did not. GAO found that Acorn Housing was neither an "affiliate, subsidiary or ally of Acorn." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahcoa (talk • contribs) 05:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The article says:
ACORN was composed of a number of legally distinct non-profit entities including ... the ACORN Housing Corporation.
You and the article agree that they were legally distinct organizations. You and the article agree that ACORN established ACH. They share the ACORN name. Reliable sources in the article such as this one, or this one or this one all convey that the Housing Corporation is an offshoot of ACORN. If you have reliable sources indicating the GAO (or any other reliable source) has determined otherwise, could you please provide them here? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems with the sentence ACORN was composed of a number of legally distinct non-profit entities including ... the ACORN Housing Corporation.

First, it appears that the entities of which ACORN was composed are legally distinct from each other, not from ACORN. Second, ACORN and ACORN Housing (AHC) may have both had the name ACORN but AHC was separate from ACORN and had been since it was created. Therefore that sentence is incorrect in saying that ACORN was composed of different groups including AHC. being an offshoot and being part of an organization are two different things. It is an important difference as one could assume that ACORN had some control over AHC, which it did not. Both were run by different boards, had different finances and staff. Moreover, AHC did not support labor or any other cause -- it is a service agency. As far as the two sharing the name ACORN, Harvard University and Harvard, IL share the name Harvard but are not related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbesian1789 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

PS. Even reliable sources get things wrong. The AP was wrong to call AHC an affiliate of ACORN because that term has a very specific meaning and in order for it to be applicable, one of the two organizations would have had to have financial or other control over the other, which was not the case. Here's the GAO report, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/320329.htm#_ftn2. Also 501c3 organizations cannot support causes, at least not political causes, without losing their tax status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbesian1789 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The source you provided is not a GAO report. It is a letter, with a footnote, that indicates a preliminary report was issued in June of 2010, and that a final report was being worked on. The link you provided does not indicate the findings of the preliminary report. Furthermore, the source you provided does not support, and specifically avoids addresssing your assertion that "AHC was separate from ACORN and had been since it was created." From your source:
In the past, after AHCOA received grant funds, it contracted with various offices of ACORN to provide outreach services for AHCOA. AHCOA Certifications, at No. 24. AHCOA and ACORN also used the same entity—CCI—for financial, accounting, legal, and human resources services. AHCOA Certifications, at No. 15. In fact, ACORN itself listed AHCOA as an "allied organization” on an earlier iteration of its Web site. ACORN, Allied Organizations, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20080822090025/www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12375 (archived on Aug. 22, 2009). However, for purposes of the question at issue in this opinion, it is not necessary to determine whether AHCOA, when formerly operating as ACORN Housing, may have been financially or organizationally related to ACORN. At issue here is whether AHCOA is presently an allied organization of ACORN.
So contrary to your assertions, the source you provided basically says, "Yes, they were connected before, and even shared human resources, but we're only concerned with their status at this very moment ... so that's all that we'll speak to."
Would it be possible for you to provide a source reflecting the conclusions of the final report (or even the preliminary report)? Preferably from a secondary reliable source reporting on the matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Acorn and Acorn Housing DID NOT share human resources. Acorn Housing had a vendor contract with Acorn -- by your logic, Dominos Pizza is employed by me because I have bought their pizza from time to time. People at Acorn created Acorn Housing in 1985. From that point on, they operated independently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbesian1789 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea or not?

Since ACORN is officially defunct, does present company think it would be a good idea to re-write this article in the past tense? I don't want to do it w/o some consensus. TIA. The Sanity Inspector (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to see this article without the extreme liberal bias 98.199.212.25 (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

New book needed in Bibliography

All 3 books that were there were pro-ACORN. A new book is critical of ACORN. The book by Matthew Vadum is Subversion Inc.: How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers. Book has reviews at Amazon, is endorsed by major public figures such as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Andrew Breitbart, and Hannah Giles, who participated in the undercover sting videos that helped bring the group down. Book should be listed so Wikipedia users can research ACORN on their own. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.175.34 (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Research is done in WP:Reliable sources. The title alone would seem to guarantee that this isn't one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to add a non-notable, unreliable and clearly biased book in order to make sure there's a book that's critical of ACORN in that section. Reviews on Amazon and endorsements by people that share the views expressed in the book do not constitute notability.Kate (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
There are several hundred books that cover ACORN in whole or in part, and the fact that we don't list most of them in no way hinders a Wikipedia user's ability to "research ACORN on their own". I'm sure there are many entertaining conspiracy theories in Vadum's work published by World Net Daily, but we should limit ourselves to including only those works that give the subject matter encyclopedic treatment. (By the way, there is quite a bit of criticism of ACORN in the three books presently listed.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

More proof of the left-wing bias of Wikipedia. You tolerate no dissent and twist rules to fit the circumstances. ACORN sources are quoted extensively in the book. You are censors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.175.34 (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

More proof that some people will not let sources and facts get in the way of their opinion. Although the book itself isn't reliable and may not be notable, I wonder if the "left wing Obama terrorist fascist communist" conspiracy theory aspect could be covered more thoroughly as one of the factors of the strident conservative party objections to the organization, and also the public perception in those parts. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine idea. Maybe the book can be even mentioned if RS's discussed it. Could make an IP happy :) TMCk (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment Isn't User:67.155.175.34 well over 3RR at this point? Should something be done about this? Kate (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I already filed a report.TMCk (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
A couple of years ago there was a concern that this IP was also user:Syntacticus, who in turn may have been someone with a clear conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Syntacticus and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive498#Neutrality_dispute_at_ACORN. These latest edits are consistent with that hypothesis.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the "capital research center" should be blocked if there is further editwarring coming from their IP range.TMCk (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Puppets is what this group is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.45.70 (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Nevada case

Why did someone remove the fact that on August 10, 2011 ACORN was slapped with a fine by a Las Vegas District Court judge? And please, don't even try and make the absurd claim that it has been in the entry since April, because it hasn't. The judge just handed it down three days ago. Is someone honestly trying to argue that being fined by a district court judge doesn't belong in the entry? I think the more likely explanation is that this entry is being edited by obvious ACORN partisans who don't like what the judge had to say about their beloved organization. Seems that same person also tried to whitewash everything by even removing the talk section that discussed what happened in Las Vegas. Sorry, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and in that regard what happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas. If the information is not replaced, I will be adding it back every single day until it stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The fine is already included in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead trimming

I'm going to trim the lead which is quite long. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully it is more readable now. There shouldn't have been anything deleted from the lead that isn't in the body of the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Six paragraphs down to two in the lede; sounds like an improvement to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Acorn behind the Occupy Wall Street Protests

I have added a reference from a media source (Hey, Fox is a media source, even if you disagree.. I don't always agree with them either) showing that Acorn is behind the Occupy Wall-street Protests, and is funding them. Any information on this should be collected and added to flesh out the page as I'm at work and cant do it atm. Belgarath TS (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Fox is probably not a reliable source here, as it is in full politics mode on this so-called exclusive story. If other less partisan sources were to confirm the truth (verifiability), relevance, and weight of the possibility that the apparently defunct ACORN is now lending its support to Occupy Wall Street then it is conceivably pertinent here in the ACORN article. However, if you strip away the hyperbole, what Fox actually sources is not what they conclude, that ACORN is "behind" OWS, but rather that former ACORN individuals are now supporting it. As these people are not banned from politics, it seems utterly unremarkable that associates once involved in an a now-defunct organization are now supporting a new political movement. What is perhaps more interesting and better sourced is the fact that Fox set out to do an expose on the topic (there is some reliable coverage on Fox's methods here), and that these claims about OWS are percolating through the conservative blosophere and press. For that we need some perspective. First, statements about what Fox is doing need to be verified by third party sources, not Fox. Second, there are a lot of disparaging claims about Occupy Wall Street being made by a lot of conservative groups, they would have to be put in context and probably not in this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Earlier this year, I also heard from Fox News that Google, Facebook, and MTV, in collaboration with our State Department, were in bed with a coalition of radical Islamists and Communists, who were behind the Egyptian uprising against Hosni Mubarak. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • So basically because it comes from FOX you will not include it. Got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.68.33 (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

ACORN Did Not Disqualify The Votes, Election Officials Did

It was clearly written in that New York Times article that election officials disqualified some of the votes.75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

True. But the material you removed said that ACORN just flagged some forms forms for further attention. Once ACORN, or anyone else, gets a filled-out registration form, they can't disqualify it themselves. Else they might just throw away a lot of applications for the "wrong" party. Did you actually read what you reverted? PhGustaf (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Complaint

I am inquiring of this part of the lead. "selectively edited videos by two conservative activists using a hidden ". There is no proof that the videos were edited and I don't think testimony from the leader of the organization can be considered reliable in the case of something that could condemn him. And I also question the relevance of calling them conservative, what does that have to do with ACORN at all? I don't think that the things the Attorney general said can be sourced in the lead, and at the very least cannot be stated as fact.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello 174.49.24.190. The various criminal investigations involving the videos found them to be deceptively and selectively edited, hence we summarize that information in the lede. If you're looking for the source citations, you'll find them further down in the body of the text. Accordingly per WP:BRD, I'm reverting the text back to the prior version. You can continue discussing it here, while you might also want to check the archives for related discussions on this issue. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I personally read the entire article that was cited and the information that is sourced to the article is nowwhere to be found in the article. Hence, I replaced the information with what was ACTUALLY in the article. I am reverting your revert and I advise you actually read the article before further action.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I want to add that if you have legitimate sources that actually have information of the various criminal investigatoins and their results, then please add that information and source them. But the current source has none of the information which I deleted in it, which is why I deleted it, feel free to read it yourself and see that I am correct. The article says nothing of multiple investigations but says that a SINGLE ex-attorney, not even a current one, that was commissioned (PAYED) by ACRON, which in my opinion is very suspicious, concluded that no laws had been broken. But that wasn't even what the controversy was over and there were never any claims of criminality making that entire paragraph a 'Red Herring' fallacy.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
You've stated that you personally read the entire article and that the article says nothing of multiple investigations except for "a single ex-attorney..." that was paid for by ACORN. I take it you somehow missed the sourced material in the body of the article which reported the results of the criminal investigations conducted by the District Attorney's office in Brooklyn and the California Attorney General, which both determined the videos were heavily edited and concluded there was no criminal conduct on the part of ACORN employees. It also covers the GAO investigation also revealed that there was no sign that ACORN had mishandled the money it had received. The information has the requisite source citations. Take some time to read them over and familiarize yourself with them. On the issue of reverting the revert as you did, please understand that when you come to an article and make a significant change (in this case, reframing the issue on the editing of the videos to your point of view), and then someone reverts the change back to prior long standing state of the article and asks that you discuss the change on the talk page, the normal practice under WP:BRD is to discuss the changes, not double revert the article back to the new version you just created. Doing so starts the process of edit warring, which as you can imagine creates entirely new problems. Also, it is important to try and set aside personal views when editing articles that perhaps you feel strongly about (especially when those feelings are negative). One of your recent posts to another article included the statement that ACORN is a "corrupt company that defrauds it's donators and sets up undercover prostitution and human trafficking channels across america as well as many other things." You might want to give Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View a read for more on this issue. Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If the information referenced is actually in a link inside of the referenced article, wouldn't it be best ot make the reference the linked article? An editor's job is to make this easy reading, and not make the reader have to go looking in links to find the information sourced. And I did not read those articles because my natural response wasn't to go wandering around in hyperlinks to find material referenced.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
We strive for easy reading. Is there a particular reference (or references) you can point me to, wherein it points to something that's actually a link within another article? I might be able to help you get it fixed. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes there is, this entire section: "Following the publication of the videos, four different independent investigations by various state and city Attorneys General and the GAO released in 2009 and 2010 cleared ACORN, finding its employees had not engaged in criminal activities and that the organization had managed its federal funding appropriately, and calling the videos deceptively and selectively edited to present the workers in the worst possible light." is referenced to ten but none of it is actually in that source. I had edited it earlier and replaced it with what the article actually said about investigations, then it was reverted.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, 174.49.24.190 (may I call you Jacksoncw?). The text you quoted is not cited to source ten (10). This text is cited to that source: "Despite this, by March 2010, 15 of ACORN's 30 state chapters had already closed". The text you quoted is actually a lede section summary of content (with citations) contained further down in the body of the article. Hopefully that clears up any confusion. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
If that is the case, wouldn't it be good to put the reference after the summary as well? Could you point me to the information that my quote summarizes so I can check out the reference?--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The information starts at word 4766 of the article. Also, you'll find that words 4766 through 4773 direct you to another Wikipedia article that covers that specific subject in more detail (and cites even more references). (...and thanks for the fix, TMCk!) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you be more elaborate, I have no idea which word that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should remove selectived editing see fox news report http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549903,00.html, also I would point out that Harshbarger was hired by ACORN so he is not independent.Basil rock (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that story by Fox; it describes only what the selectively edited videos showed. Later news stories, after investigations and careful, real journalism were conducted, revealed that the videos were indeed selectively and misleadingly edited. (See follow-up NY Post story.) And yes, Harshbarger was also hired to do an independent review (you should read the reliable sources), and his independent review came to the same conclusion as law enforcement investigations did. Also, I would point out that your link is to a "Fox News" piece. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fox is a legitimate source, as far as Harshberger he can't be independent when he is selected by the people being investigated.Basil rock (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The local landfill is also a legitimate source. The question is, "source for what?" You suggested above that we should remove the fact that the videos were selectively edited, and then you pointed to the Fox piece. That Fox piece doesn't dispute the fact that the videos were selectively edited. So perhaps you would like to provide a reliable source that does refute the findings of several law enforcement investigations, as well as independent investigations by Harshbarger, the Government Accountability Office, investigative journalists, etc.? As for Harshbarger, of course he can conduct an independent review when he is hired to do so. And since you fail to cite a single issue with his findings, which concur with the results of all other investigation, your assertion makes no sense to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Basil rock, I agree that Harshbarger was hired to conduct an independent investigation. Companies and organizations frequently hire outside firms to conduct investigations and reviews without oversight or control by the requesting entity, and it is normal and routine to refer to that investigation or review as being "independent." Since you are the one trying to institute the change here, the burden rests with you to convince other editors first instead of simply reverting it back. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Azure you reverted without discussion he was hired by the entity they can call him Independent but that definition does not fit. Mine is more reflective and does give a POV the way the previous edit did. Please go on talk page in the future before revetting another's edit. Thank you.Basil rock (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the discussion here beforehand and saw that you decided to delete "independent" without responding to another editor's opposition first ("As for Harshbarger, of course he can conduct an independent review when he is hired to do so."). It is more appropriate to try and get consensus for such a change before trying to revert the revert as you did; you might also want to give WP:BRD a read for some perspective. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Before you rentered the discussion it was 2-1 in my favor. now it is 2-2 so the nurden is on you to not prove your point to the majority.Basil rock (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is the other editor who you are saying supports your position that "independent" should be deleted from the article? AzureCitizen (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. For the record I don't believe any of the most recent discussion supports a change in the article or adds anything to the previous consensus discussions on the same topic. I would suggest not making any changes absent a showing of consensus, but if you want to take WP:BRD literally, that's fine too - just realize that others may revert changes they don't feel are supported. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
indeed, it's not a vote. However, if you wish to consider it to be a vote, you can add me on the "independent" side - independent auditors and reviewers are routinely paid by the target organization, and independence refers to control and/or oversight of the findings, not financial support. It's a basic principle. Kate (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as the Harshberger investigation independence it was debunked http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/08/covering-up-for-acorn, as Media Matters is ued as a source on Wikipedia do not discount a non liberal sopurce.Basil rock (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finding that opinion piece very convincing, and I noted at the end that Mr. Vadum's book is titled "How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers". Perhaps you could try to find something non-partisan that we can seriously consider? Your argument above isn't looking very promising when it's 4-to-1 against. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
We don't "discount a non liberal sopurce." We discount non-reliable sources. You've linked to a source that doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

According to you, you can't have it both way, Media Matter is a self proffessed propoganda site, Fox is a leading U.S new source.Basil rock (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take any concerns you have to WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard. There, you can ask for commentary and guidance on your Vadum source, with regard to your opinion that he has "debunked" the investigation being "independent". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Selectively edited with intent to deceive

Editing a video (or anything else) is a selective process, it is essentially the definition of the word "edit", and it's what an editor does. So, "selectively edited" doesn't really add any literal meaning, we could go around all of wikipedia and change every occurence of "edit" with "selectively edit" without changing the literal truth of the articles. However, we native speakers of English can "hear" what is actually meant by the phrase "selectively edit", it's a POV that one employs to make an accusation of an opposite POV. For wikipedia to quote a POV is for wikipedia to take a POV. Wouldn't a better compromise be for the wikipedia page to point out that the video was edited (i.e. not an entire raw video) and that it has been characterized by some (even some ostensibly reliable parties) as "selectively edited", i.e. to describe what happened on a partisan issue, rather than to adopt a side of a partisan issue. 69.204.224.25 (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing routine editing with the misleading editing performed by O'Keefe. There is no "partisan issue" about his selective editing; the article simply conveys what reliable sources tell us. You might also find the previous discussions (above) informative as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


My apologies in advance if this explanation is not in the right place or is formatted incorrectly. I am new to this process and simply want to explain my edits. Please advise on the proper way to do so in the future if I am doing this incorrectly. On to the meat of this entry: Edited Xenophrenic's revisions: Re: "return to wording per cited sources" - Disagree. "partially falsified" & "deceptively" does not appear in cited source; assertions beginning with "portray" & "apparently" removed and replaced with actual events recorded at the bottom of p.16 in cited CA AG Report; removed any mention of illegal activity per the cited sources; added back the negative findings of the report, which were, ironically enough, "selectively edited" out of the original edit of this article. The attention brought to weaknesses surrounding ACORN's accounting of finances, while not illegal, were enough to raise concerns which led to the defunding and loss of donors. This is a case of "two wrongs don't make a right", wherein the methods used to illuminate these problems were flawed and could be illegal, but legitimate problems with ACORN were raised nonetheless, magnified by the fact that part of its funding comes from taxpayer money. ACORN was only cleared of prosecutable crimes and of evidence of mishandling of federal funds; clearly, other negative concerns were raised, which are proven facts clearly recorded in all original reports cited (as opposed to biased news coverage OF the sources, which attempt to spin the actual findings of the report). This article should present both sides of the argument in an unbiased manner, and not insert subtle assertions as to whether ACORN was actually innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. The reader can read both the good and bad aspects of this issue from the original sources for themselves, then make his/her own decision. DancefightTillDawn (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for registering an account. This is indeed the correct place to propose and discuss edits, and don't worry too much about the formatting. Since you are new, I should mention a couple things right off that may be of help. First, your edits are to the lead paragraphs of the article. The lead is primarily a summary of significant content covered and referenced in the body of the article, and as such, will have fewer citations, and will use summary language. This may account for your inability to find a citation for a specific word, or to find a word in a specific citation. Second, that section of the lead deals with events more thoroughly covered in the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy article, where you will find considerably more references on the matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Just wanted to add a thought: As it pertains to the video controversy, what I'm attempting to do is remove opinionated assertions and create an edit which only presents facts from original sources. This way, specifically on this issue, the article will be as unbiased as humanly possible. Original sources would mean original reports released, original court documents, official records, sworn affidavits, etc.--NOT news coverage of the original sources. News coverage should only be cited if it presents original, verifiable facts not found in original sources. We shouldn't be citing events which "allegedly" occurred if they are not verified as fact yet, for example. To this end, both positive and negative facts directly cited from these original sources should be given equal attention. Alternately, if other editors insist on using speculation and assertion to explain one side of the video controversy, then they should be clearly labeled as such, and not written in such a way as to portray them as actual fact. I.e., you may state that "so-and-so reported that the videos were partially falsified", but you should not just state that in fact "the videos were partially falsified". That wording does not appear in anywhere in the report cited and, in my opinion, is an assertion. I can only verify the "selectively edited" portion in the report, but nothing about falsification. In that respect, the opposing viewpoint should also be presented (i.e. that so-and-so stated that while the videos were edited, they did expose inappropriate behavior which was of enough concern to move for defunding). DancefightTillDawn (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a thorough reading of Primary and Secondary Sources might serve you well here. Wikipedia actually prefers reliable secondary sources over primary sources, which can be misused or misinterpreted. Opinions shouldn't be used in the article to support assertions of fact. As noted above, please read the more complete Wikipedia article on the controversy and review the sources. I'm sure you'll find that the videos were not merely selectively edited, but done so with the intent to deceive. A law enforcement source even noted, "Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister." As for your desire to insert an "opposing viewpoint", viewpoints are opinions. The article should cover what transpired, with proper weight and context. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Extinction?

Shouldn't that read "defunct" in the infobox? DragonFury (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Lead

Paragraph 2 is not only blatantly POV, SYNTH and OR, it has claims not even made by the cite given in the first place. Collect (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the offending citation from the summary statements in the WP:LEDE. Could you please be more specific about what actual text the above Alphabet Soup of policies is supposed to apply to, and what the violation is? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Make short declarative sentences without linking them (SYNTH) making sure that each is directly and exactly supported by the reference given. This current edit is still not in compliance with Wikipedia policy otherwise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
You'll find your short, declarative sentences in the body of the article, with references. You'll find further content and references on the topic in the main article. I asked you above if you would please "be more specific about what actual text" you have concerns about, and I'll repeat that request. Without an actual, specific substantiation for the tag you have placed on the article, it will need to be removed. Xenophrenic (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you err. Read the sources and show where in each source the precise claim ascribed to that source is made. That the body of this article is in horrid shape does not excuse a lead violative of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, everybody errs. I've asked twice that you specify the precise text you are concerned about. Twice now you have balked at the request. I'll be removing the tag, which requires that its placement be accompanied by specific concerns here on this Talk page. Feel free to reinsert the tag if you have indicated here specific text that we can review and work on. Please abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Xenophrenic (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The content appears to be a fair characterization, and it's supported by sourced text in the article. The accusations of voter fraud were misleading and the overall campaign against it was partisan, done by groups aligned with Republican causes. Perhaps the tone / focus is a little less than ideal. It's not necessary to describe it so emphatically as a republican plot. Also, repeating several times that it was false overdoes that, as the final paragraph makes that clear in a more neutral way. Regarding the tag, inasmuch as the editors are actively discussing the matter here, the tag is an unnecessary escalation. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The tag is a notice to readers that discussion is ongoing. While there is a discussion, it is the removal of the tag which is contrary to Wikipedia practice. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The tag looks like WP:BATTLE to me. It's not conducive to a collaborative editing environment, and all it alerts casual readers to is the sort of bickering that happens around here over politics-related articles. This board[6] is a more appropriate notice, and it might have helped if this discussion moved over there instead of a redundant (but so far mostly content free) discussion here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
IOW, you find the tag 'intrinsically objectionable despite its stated reason for existence? I think that discussion should occur at a deletion discussion for the tag -- but use of a tag as it was intended to be used is what tags exist for. Try posting on the tag talk page if that is your position. The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles that need additional insight. Which is why I placed the tag there and started a discussion thereon here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm fine discussing it here. I find your placement of that tag on this particular article at this time to be provocative and unhelpful, that is all. If the editors here have a consensus to remove it, out it goes. You probably shouldn't be edit warring over something so pointless, that plus your strong minority opinion on the matter do seem battle-ish as I said, and I think are distracting away from discussing the actual content. Given the sources and apparent reality behind the matter, and the editing history of this and related articles, that battle is an uphill one if the intent is to give the allegations of voter fraud and the video activism the credibility of being described without noting their falsity.You already escalated the matter to the NPOV notice board. It might also be useful to close this discussion with a link there, at least direct people there to avoid a process fork. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Try reading what I consider to be a neutral version as posted on the NPOV/N board -- I find you to be a teensy bit condescending here, alas. Collect (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
OK. On WP:NPOV/N, you suggested the following text:

ACORN has run voter drives since the 1980s. These drives have been criticized as being subject to voter fraud. ACORN also received criticism for statements made on videos by some of its employees regarding advice given about illegal activities not connected to the voter drives. An ACORN independent report faulted ACORN for insufficient training for its employees, and recommended that it cease certain activities. ACORN asserted that the videos were misleading. ([7])

Do you believe that to be an accurate, neutral, and encyclopedic representation of available reliable sources? MastCell Talk 04:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe it to accurately follow WP:BLP (that is, not using the names of people accused of "falsifying" videos), and WP:NPOV, that is neutrally stating facts in a readable fashion. How would you improve it? Collect (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
To mention the videos without mentioning they were falsified, or the accusations of widespread vote fraud without mentioning that there was no vote fraud, is grossly misleading and utterly misses the context of these incidents. The point, confirmed by the sources and reflecting consensus of editors of multiple articles across the encyclopedia, is not that ACORN argued that the videos were misleading, but that by promoting misleading videos activists caused the organization to unravel. NPOV requires that we relay things as the sources indicate, not that we adjust outrageous behavior to look respectable. If this is truly the proposal, the tag really needs to be removed to avoid suggesting to readers that we're seriously considering skewing the article to reflect a partisan political narrative about the subject. Regarding BLP, it's not necessary in the lede to highlight the identity of the activist videographers, but people who are famous for antics can reasonably be covered as such by the encyclopedia. It's not as if there aren't thousands of mainstream sources for this.[8] - Wikidemon (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Second paragraph is blatently POV. It's understandable to defend ACORN against criticisms of fraud, but it sounds like the author is taking the offensive with words like "mischaracterize" and "falsified". Now the author is accusing O'Keefe and Giles of fraud! I read the referenced report of the Attorney General, and it only says that the film was "heavily edited to feature only the worst or most inappropriate statements of the various ACORN employees and to omit some of the most salient statements by O’Keefe and Giles". That is hardly "partially falsified". The tone is clearly POV, and I suggest changing "mischaracterized" to "accused", and instead of "partially falsified", use the AG Report's own words, "heavily edited...".JoelDick (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I think there's a long term consensus on this one. Call it what you want but the video falsified the facts, and saying that there was voter fraud mischaracterizes the true situation. The AG report is not the only source here. I'm not attached to or even fond of these particular verbs, and word choice is a matter of editorial discretion. Nevertheless, NPOV coverage on the encyclopedia of POV events in the real world requires pointing out the POV. Neutrality means presenting the sources fairly, and sometimes digging deeply into the sources to see where they are coming from, not pretending that people in the real world never lie. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Current version is partisan as demonstrated by the fact that it frames the "misrepresentation" as being done by "supporters of republican candidates". The tone targets specific groups, and in partisan. Why the objection to neutral terms like "accuse" and remove "falsified". Anyone can "accuse", but "misrepresentation" implies sinister intent. What's wrong with rewording in a less partisan manner, and more NPOV? JoelDick (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I think perhaps when you say "misrepresentation", you mean the word "mischaracterized" in the article text. Have you read the body of the article, with regard to what happened with supporters of Republican candidates in 2008 (and the candidates themselves in the case of Senator McCain during the final presidential debate), and how they frequently portrayed fake ACORN voter registrations as being "voter fraud"? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(od) ACORN has run voter drives since the 1980s. These drives were criticized as being subject to voter fraud, although ACORN itself was not charged with vote fraud. ACORN also received criticism for statements made by employees concerning illegal acts, presented on videos edited in a misleading manner. An ACORN independent report faulted ACORN for insufficient training for its employees, and recommended that it cease certain activities. Would seem to address your stated concerns, and still abide by Wikipedia policy. BTW, what happens elsewhere on the project is not relevant to this discussion, as I think you knew. Collect (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

distinction

There s a clear distinction between accusing ACORN of seeking fraudulent voter registrations, and the accusation that ACORN employees cast fraudulent votes -- that Republicans made the first accusation does not mean the denial of the second accusation which was not made is supposed to be in the same sentence as though it had been the primary accusation made. Read the sources and see that dichotomy. The goal is NPOV and accuracy here. Collect (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy and NPOV is exactly what is needed here. If Republicans had simply accused ACORN of fraudulent voter registration, there wouldn't be an issue. Instead, the sources show that Republicans portrayed ACORN's activities as voter fraud and repeatedly called it such during the election. Voter fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election, such as people showing up polls pretending to be someone they're not and voting to stuff a ballot box with fraudulent votes (actual voter fraud is extremely rare; out of 300 million votes cast in the U.S. from 2002 to 2007, only 86 people were convicted for voter fraud, and in most of those cases they involved persons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility). In ACORN's case, it's clear there was no voter fraud, but the sources state that Republicans repeatedly called it such. The Republican nominee for President even repeatedly the statement that it was "massive voter fraud" in the final presidential debate. Having the lede summarize the issue by saying only "ACORN's voter registration drives, which it has conducted since the 1980s, have been frequently called "voter fraud" by supporters of Republican candidates" leaves out the salient points from the article body that it was portrayed as voter fraud when it was not. Previously, it at least had the word "mischaracterized" in there to cue the reader to the problem. AzureCitizen (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. At the heart of the issue is that ACORN was widely accused of committing and enabling voter fraud to the point where many people believed it, and the reaction shut the organization down. That the accusation was unsupported and false is at the core of the issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
How should the situation be resolved? I reverted the removal of the key word "mischaracterized" yesterday, and was promptly re-reverted by Collect two minutes later; when I attempted to rephrase the details to more fully explain what happened, the edits were again reverted in full. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The status quo version, going back at least a few months (I haven't checked beyond that) is: ACORN's voter registration drives, which it has conducted since the 1980s, have been frequently mischaracterized by supporters of Republican candidates as "voter fraud". Anyone proposing a change to that needs to establish consensus. Further, that is a neutral, correct description of the fact of the untrue accusations. To merely describe it as an "accusation" or saying that they are "called" voter fraud without pointing to its untruth is perhaps journalistic, but not encyclopedic in approach. The tone and placement of either statement may not be right, though. Both descriptions suffer from a slight subject / direct object mismatch. The claim is not that the drives themselves are fraud or are called fraud, but rather that fraud was committed or encouraged in carrying them out. It would be more straightforward to say that supporters of Republican candidates (is that truly the main source of the claim?) accused ACORN and some of its personnel of committing voter fraud in carrying out the campaigns, a claim that has been widely described as mischaracterizing the voter registration fraud that actually happened. Or you could say fraud was committed in carrying out the campaigns, something that formed the basis for attacks on the organization by Republican supporters, and save the discussion of different types of fraud for the body of the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Going through the sources indicates no claims that ACORN employees were personally voting fraudulently, so the juxtaposition of the fact that did not do so implies that they were accused of doing so. The sources do not support such a juxtaposition, so we need to be precise in language here. And we ought not use "mischaracterized" where the source does not use that term in a precise manner. I suggest the wording I proposed is both precise and accurate, and directly according to the reliable sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon, the prior version (that Republicans mischaracterized ACORN's voter registration drives as "voter fraud") was a neutral and accurate description summarizing what's in the article body. I also just noticed this issue was discussed previously in the Talk Page section "Lead" above (back in August 2013). I'm going to revert it to the prior version now as it's become obvious that removing "mischaracterized" was the bold edit and consensus for it's removal should be obtained on the Talk Page first. Of course, that doesn't mean the issue is resolved. I'm sympathetic to your observation that no source uses the exact word "mischaracterized", but when summarizing you have to distill things down to the key points. Perhaps we could entertain using a different word or phrase for mischaracterized? The point must be conveyed somehow. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I do think that a different verb and different way of describing this would all be more encyclopedic. Going out of the way to describe things as mischaracterizations or falsifications, even if true and sourced, is unnecessary and sets the wrong tone. For example, Mark Twain said (apocryphally) that the coldest winter he ever spent was summer in San Francisco. If he had actually said it, we might report that MT said it, that it was for humorous effect, but in fact summers in SF are far warmer than most of the places MT is known to have wintered. We would not say that MT "falsified" or "mischaracterized" the temperature for humorous purposes. We would just present the facts and let them speak for themselves. In the case of the video, I think we can say that it was selectively edited and created a false impression for viewers that there had been criminal activity (or something like that). In the case of the voter fraud accusations we could say that Republican operatives repeatedly accused ACORN of voter fraud, in a successful attempt to undermine the organization. In fact, although there had been voter registration fraud there was never any evidence of voter fraud. Or else, per my earlier suggestion you can just say that they accused ACORN of fraud, and that there was fraud, and leave the nuances of what kind of fraud to the body of the article. You can let those facts stand for themselves. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikidemon and AzureCitizen - two people is hardly a consensus. Collect and I have been arguing to rephrase to something less partisan sounding. Who exactly are the Republicans who are making all these terrible mischaracterizations? The only thing that's clear is that a video was made showing ACORN employees engaged in questionable behavior, and it was edited to make it seem worse. Investigations showed that there was no rampant voter fraud, but that's not what my edit is attempting to state - all I'm doing is changing "mischaracterized" to "accuse" and changing "falsified..." to "hevily edited", which is exactly the language the referenced AG report stated. Why do you insist on changing my NPOV wording to a something that sounds like a general attack on all Republicans? Mine and Collect's "consensus" is no less valid than yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelDick (talk • contribs) 22:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)The CA AG report specifies "voter registration fraud" - since there were no allegations that ACORN employees voted fraudulently. Thus the bit about "no voter fraud" in that sense is a tangent at most. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This.[9][10][11][12] It's readily sourceable that the false accusations of voter fraud were a Republican tactic in the partisan effort to take down ACORN and cast blame by association on Obama and other Democrats. McCain is not an idiot, he clearly knows the difference between voter fraud and voter registration but his campaign kept repeating the accusations as long as it suited them. Likewise, the video was clearly more than a product of overzealous editing. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

First one you cite states What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud. which is what I said. In fact it does not say that such accusations were wrong. Your NYT cite has The group was also battered by conservatives for having submitted some voter registration cards with incorrect, duplicate or false information. Your second NYT cite does not back your claim that allegations of voter registration fraud were a Republican tactic either when read. Acorn employees raised no objections to the criminal plans. Instead, they eagerly counseled the couple on how to hide their activities from the authorities, avoid taxes and make the brothel scheme work. Lastly you cite a Slate ezine opinion column which does not back the claims you make either. (What's the central legacy of Bush v. Gore, which has its 10th anniversary next Sunday? Republicans see the Supreme Court stopping a lawless recount, while Democrats see a lawless court stopping a legitimate recount) Gosh -- when giving sources at least try to find ones which explicitly back the claims you make for them -- using ones which do not back your claims is not really gonna fly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No way around it, Republicans falsely accused ACORN of voter fraud and the accusation stuck. If McCain had meant voter registration fraud he could have said so; instead he chose to mischaracterize it. The fact that the accusations were false, and promoted specifically by Republicans, is readily sourceable as I said, as is the fact that the video was something of a hoax. The sources I provide are simply a quick illustration. I'm not going to get into the Wikipedia game of arguing individual sources anew over an issue that been rehashed here at this article for years now. I'm just pointing to my conclusion that calling Voter Fraud an allegation or claim without pointing out that it's false and promoted by partisans is incomplete and unencyclopedic, as is citing the content and effects of the video without pointing out that the video is a put-on. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The sources you provided do not support your assertion and the NYT specified voter registration fraud as what was being attacked. When you provide sources, it would help if you looked at exactly what they said. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
They absolutely do support the assertion that the claim, the bit about "no voter fraud" in that sense is a tangent at most, is incorrect. Republicans were alleging voter fraud in an effort to undermine ACORN, and there was no voter fraud. If you or anybody else doesn't think so you're free to use google yourself, there are plenty of other sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Then tell the NYT that they lied when they stated the references were to voter registration fraud. I am not the NYT, so if you tell me they are wrong, then it is up to you to tell them that they are wrong because you know the WP:truth. I am not the New York Times and I do not care if they only print the "truth" but I stick by Wikipedia policies which say misuse of a source is actually improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, trying to bash my understanding of Wikipedia sourcing is not reasonable discussion. I'm not going to engage in rhetorical games but if you have a substantive argument I'm all ears.- Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Put it this way -- I read all the cites you gave. None of them support the claim you assert they support. This dichotomy creates a real problem - one in which what is in the actual sources count for more than the claims made for them which are not in the sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
First sentence of source 1, from factcheck.org (which means we can trace this to other sources): The McCain-Palin campaign accuses ACORN, a community activist group that operates nationwide, of perpetrating "massive voter fraud.". Directly contradicts claim that Republican political operatives did not accuse ACORN of voter fraud. First sentence of source 2, a NYT piece: conservative activists repeatedly claimed that the problem of people casting fraudulent votes was so widespread...That debate is flaring anew. Source 3, NYT analysis: amateur actors, posing as a prostitute and a pimp and recorded on hidden cameras...Conservative advocates and broadcasters were gleeful about the success of the tactics... the latest scalp claimed by those on the right who have made no secret of their hope to weaken the Obama administration... (contradicts claim that this particular accusation was not partisan. Source 4, Slate analysis, quotes John McCain saying ACORN was "maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history." These are 4 fairly random sources out of likely tens of thousands available, I wasn't trying to build a complete argument but rather rebut an obviously incorrect claim. There is plenty of support for the article's description of the accusations as: (1) untrue, (2) promoted primarily by the Republican party, and (3) intended to and successful in causing the demise of the organization. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


Let's start with what you asserted it said: It's readily sourceable that the false accusations of voter fraud were a Republican tactic in the partisan effort to take down ACORN and cast blame by association on Obama and other Democrats. This is the claim you made, and it is clear that your source does not back up your claim. The source adds: What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud. Several ACORN canvassers have been found guilty of faking registration forms and others are being investigated. It does not say it was a "false accusation of voter fraud" as it recognizes the issue was "voter registration fraud" and that ACORN canvassers did, in fact, make fake voter registration forms. I am sorry -- but your inferences are not compatible with the wording of the source. Your second source refers to "2006" and your elision of that year (a year in which McCain-Palin was not even on the ballot!) is disingenuous. I fear removing dates from sources is a tad less than being straightforward. And 2006 was not even involved in your claims before -- are you saying that the journalists made the recordings in 2006 or are you simply handwaving here? Scratch your first two sources -- they absolutely do not support the claims you made. On to number three: It refers to the glee of those filming, and does not support any claim that Republicans made false claims about voter registration fraud. You seem not to understand the reason for WP:RS which is to ensure we do not let anything into an article unless it is specifically supported by a reliable source. You appear to draw inferences and conclusions not found in the sources. Last source is an editorial column from the Slate ezine.

The common thread is hyperpartisan controversy. Before 2000, candidates and the public were both quick to accept official election results even in close elections. Bush v. Gore taught political operatives and everyone else that there are significant problems in how we administer our elections and that when contests are close enough to be within the margin of litigation, it makes sense to fight on rather than to concede. The battle in the courts (and the press) can focus on whatever legal tool is at hand: a suit over treatment of overseas ballots, polling-place errors, mismatched signatures between registration cards and absentee ballots, votes for the "Lizard People," or allegations of fraud. Since Bush v. Gore, the number of lawsuits brought over election issues has more than doubled.

which ascribes the acrimony to all sides, and does not make the claims you wish to claim it makes. In fact the entire editorial simply proposes a national voter registration with uniform laws for identification. It does mention by link the ACVR which went extinct in 2007, which means that specific reference is totally bogus when dealing with this article in the first place. ACVR did not attack ACORN -- and so your "claim" is factually impossible. BTW -- that editorial does not say anything remotely like Nasty Republicans lied when they said ACORN was the most massive creator of fake voters in the nation's history, and ACORN was unfairly smeared by people who actually 'edited' raw footage of interviews. Oh by the way -- tell me of any TV station in this entire country which does not edit raw footage. I would live to see your examples! Collect (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You haven't stopped the ad hominem attacks and now accusations of bad faith so I don't think it's productive to engage in much detail here. Bottom line, the content in the article is both sourced and sourceable, and the proposed changes run against the sourcing by presenting a false impression of things. I see no merit in any of the attempts to find "black is white" in the sources. The first, as you point out, states directly that the McCain campaign misrepresented things: What a McCain-Palin Web ad calls "voter fraud" is actually voter registration fraud. That is precisely the point. Factcheck.org is the one setting the record straight here, not the McCain campaign. As for it being readily sourceable that the claim was: (a) promoted by Republicans, (b) false, and (c) lead in part to ACORN's demise, the article contains that source and another.[13] There are plenty of other sources.[14][15][books.google.com/books?id=MZ1mCPVzZ-cC&pg=PT205][16] The ACORN allegations were Republican issue, not a Democratic one, as you correctly point out the sources say (but then claim the opposite). - Wikidemon (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Pointing out that a source does not back the claim made for it is not an "ad hom attack". I think you should look up the term before making such accusations. Wikipedia sticks to what reliable sources state, not the inferences drawn by editors who wish the "truth" to be in articles. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Collect, as a point of fact, would you agree or disagree with this statement? During political campaigns in the 2008 election season, a number of Republicans portrayed ACORN invalid voter registrations as "voter fraud," although no actual voter fraud took place. I'm just asking if you believe that statement to be true, or you believe it to be false. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Try During the 2008 political campaign, some Republicans spoke of the voter registration irregularities from ACORN registration drives as "voter fraud." which covers the actual facts at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Collect, please stop this nonsense. You can't get away with saying I am being "disingenuous...less than being straightforward" and pull a "You seem not to understand the reason for WP:RS" after I've asked you to cut it out, then claiming you're not making ad hominem attacks and telling me I should look up the term. You seem to be enjoying this kind of wikipedia WP:BATTLE. I don't, and if you seek me to join a consensus for your proposed edits you're not going to get it that way. As far as what happened, it appears that these accusations were orchestrated by Karl Rove as a deliberate way to strike at Obama. It wasn't an innocent difference in terminology. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Um -- a direct question was asked which I answered succinctly. Try assuming good faith and deal with what I wrote as to possible language rather than making some threats of any sort. Such ill suits the article talk page. And where a source is used to make a claim about McCain-Palin and the source specifies the year 2006, I find that it is quite likely that McCain-Palin was not involved in 2006. YMMV. And for your threat not to even consider my proposed language -- I fear that WP:CONSENSUS applies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll accept that as a grudging promise to be civil. The source you claim is about 2006 is not about 2006, and regardless, the the distinction is not relevant to the issue. The serves to rebut the untrue assertion made here on the talk page that the accusations of voter fraud were non-partisan, and thereby oppose attempts to edit war a corresponding change to the main page. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
In 2006, conservative activists repeatedly claimed that the problem of people casting fraudulent votes was so widespread that it was corrupting the political process and possibly costing their candidates victories. ' seems quite to mention "2006" but I will take your word that the article does not start off referring to the charges made in that year. The minor problem you might have is that nowhere in that NYT article is McCain or Palin mentioned whatsoever. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Why are we debating that black is white when the article is one click away for anyone to view? The next eight words of the introductory setup you quote read "The accusations turned out to be largely false" and the paragraph after, which ends the introduction, reads in its entirety "That debate is flaring anew." The article is set in 2010, not 2006, and it asserts that the accusations that brought down ACORN were partisan. End of story. This is one among numerous sources that establish the point, red herrings notwithstanding.- Wikidemon (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Gosh -- and can you tell me exactly what McCain was running for in 2010 then? The fact is that articles does not in any way, shape, manner or form make any claim that the McCain campaign made any false accusations, and in fact does not mention that campaign at all. Or did you think that 2010 was a presidential election year? The NYT article clearly ascribed the accusations to a specific year (2006) and said the issue was arising again in 2010. Last I checked, the presidential election with McCain was in 2008. YMMV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see that editors here have chosen to edit war proposed changes rather than discuss. If this continues: (a) the discussion is over, because people are obviously not taking it seriously, and (b) either an administrator will likely notice, or I will ask for page protection. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Um -- read this damn talk page before making a (fill in the blank) of yourself please. I suggest that your pontification is less than helpful, especially since you have a penchant for citing sources which do not say what you assert they say. Cheers. `Collect (talk)
That's not an excuse for revert warring. I mentioned page protection here as courtesy so nobody can say they were blindsided. If the behavior problems stop, I'll stop lecturing editors who should know better. I made a single reversion to what seemed to be the status quo version in an attempt to encourage BRD process, but obviously that didn't stick. If I see edit warring from either side here I'll file an RFPP, and I doubt the administrators there or anywhere else will be too keen to hear arguments why we should be disregarding WP:EW. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Falsely Characterized versus Frequently Mischaracterized

Regarding this edit[17], although mischaracterize is indeed a verb in the modern (American) English language, I don't particularly see much difference between that and falsely characterized. "Frequently" is a squishy word. It happened more often than the running of the bulls in Pamplona, but less often than people forgetting to shut the light when they leave the room. Who is to say what the threshold is for frequency? The one qualm I have is calling it a conservative thing versus a Republican thing. I suspect true conservatives could not care less about ACORN and its inconsequential foibles, and certainly conservatives outside of the United States, or outside of the election year process, probably were not too active on the topic. On the other hand, it was an issue promoted by supporters of the Republican election efforts. I think that wording is careful, it wasn't the party as such but the wider range of partisan activists supporting the Republican campaign effort. That's sourceable. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course "mischaracterized" is a verb in the English language, with more than a century of usage. (See more than a dozen references.) "Falsely characterized" is a functional equivalent. As for the frequency of the false cries by Republicans of "voter fraud", use of the word "frequently" is understated and tame. Who is to say what the threshold is for the frequency, you ask? I would suggest Richard L. Hasen, and recommend a quick read of his academic study on exactly that question - or the more thorough scholarly book that resulted from that study, The Voting Wars (pgs. 45-73). Replacing "Republican" with "conservative" is wrong for the very reasons you have listed. I intend to revert the most recent edit, and have left a note on the editor's Talk page. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've returned the content conveyed by sources cited in the article, pending valid reasoning presented here to do otherwise. I've no objection to replacing the word "mischaracterized" with "falsely characterized" if other editors don't object. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good either way. Mischaracterized is more neutral and includes a broader set than falsely characterized because it does not assert deliberate deception. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Voter registration in the introductory section

The whole episode with the falsified videos obviously belongs in the introductory section, because it was so important in the organization's history (by stampeding Congress into joining the right-wing attack). That doesn't apply to the Republican charges of "voter fraud", though. ACORN worked on voter registration and many, many other things, as the article makes clear. There's no reason to highlight voter registration in the introductory section. If the subject is taken up there, then the treatment must be balanced, reflecting the elaboration later in the text. Yes, there were Republican/conservative attacks. There were also responses, such that PolitiFact rated the claim as False.

I lean toward deleting the subject from the introductory section, but if the summary of the bogus attack stays in, then the refutation should also be summarized. JamesMLane t c 21:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Lede: use of the word "falsified"

This topic has been extensively discussed at [18] and [19]. There seems to be no clear consensus on that page, with myself and collect arguing for more neutral wording and Wikidemon and Xenophrenic arguing for the more accusative and partisan wording "falsified" and the like. My proposal is to word it as neutral as possible and avoid words like "falsified", "mischaracterrized", "misrepresented", which are negative and seem like an attack on the filmmakers, and instead stick to the exact wording as given in the source [20]:
"The recordings were edited by O’Keefe and released on the internet between September 10 and September 17, 2009. The edited footage showed ACORN employees engaging in conversations with the couple regarding prostitution, human trafficking in underage girls, and reporting false information on tax returns and loan applications. The recordings engendered widespread media attention and touched off a rash of government reactions and investigations. "
Nowhere does that report say that the videos were "falsified" or the like. Regardless of the argument of whether one wording or another is more NPOV, certainly the wording should reflect as closely as possible the reference given. Using words like "falsified" do not reflect the source. JoelDick (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not just two editors reverting your proposed change, but a long-time consensus of editors on this article and the more in-depth article ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy. There's nothing partisan about calling something falsified, selectively edited, or untrue if it is falsified, selectively edited, or untrue. What would be POV is to portray, as the media sometimes does, that there are two sides to every claim and that truth is not an issue. The various AG reports certainly establish that the filmmakers' portrayal was false, and yes, that certainly damages their credibility. But the investigations do not say that in so many words as that is not their role, and moreover they are primary sources. There are certainly sources that make that connection based on the investigations. We can hunt for additional sources, though I suspect the sources already in the article are adequate. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Soros

Please comment on right wing conspiracy theories regarding Soros and ACORN Skysong263 (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now/Archive_9&oldid=1103537886"