Talk:Project Vote

Actual name

It appears to me that the official name does not contain the exclamation mark. That may have been a trademark or part of an advertising campaign.

Project Vote!

Founded by?

The CRC newsletter/article given in a reference states that

Project Vote is another get-out-the-vote group. It was created by the radical group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and it is set up as a 501(c)(3) charity. Project Vote euphemistically identifies itself as “the top technical assistance and direct service provider to the voter engagement community.”

Given the tone, I have doubts whether we can use this under WP:RS. The newsletter seems fine as a general background cite, but it's hard to know what "[Project Vote] was created by [...] ACORN" means exactly. A non-profit is created by the IRS, essentially, upon someone filing necessary documents; but I do not believe another organization can be the filer, but rather some individual(s). I don't doubt there could be a connection, such as board members of ACORN doing the filing (hypothetically), but the condemnatory tone of the CRC article makes it hard to tell what the fact is, and what's partisan rhetoric. LotLE×talk 04:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Building the article out of Project Vote's various self-descriptions of its origins and purposes might just be repeating "euphemisms". I threw this source in with the idea that readers should be subtly tipped off that the organization may be more tied to some organizations, or may be more partisan or controversial, than it or its allies claim (by subtle I mean in a footnote as opposed to in a problematic "criticism" section). Reasonable people may disagree with its inclusion. It's not easy to communicate this "may" aspect when one's faced with the binary choice of either including or excluding.Bdell555 (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If we had a more precise citation for "Project Vote was founded by ...." I'd love to include that information. For example (again, hypothetically), "John Smith, at the time on the board of ACORN, founded Project Vote (Cite: Neutral source)." Or anything about their history or concrete actions that wasn't only from their own publicity. LotLE×talk 08:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Vote works closely with grassroots organizations often including ACORN, but it was not founded by ACORN. Anything coming from CRC should be suspect.Threepillars (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Success in 1992

The source article is tricky to summarize accurately. I don't want the unadorned phrase "registered 150k African Americans" because it creates an insinuation that PV turned away other voters in its registration efforts. Obviously, if you target a (de facto segregated) neighborhood, your outreach will get a predominant group, but that's not the same thing as discrimination is the registration efforts. The source article does not do make the false insinuation, but it uses more sentences to describe the underlying story than we want to devote. What the source says is:

• PV was one of the (main) registration organizers (we don't have precise information on the contribution of PV vs. other groups/individuals, however).
• 150k AAs were registered (in all the efforts).
• Most of the registrations were among AAs (we don't know exactly how much of a majority this is, however).

My edit attempted to describe what we actually know from the source, without insinuating details not in it: efforts led by Project Vote registered over 150,000 previously unregistered, mostly African American, voters. I recognize that "led" is not really directly indicated though... is there some other way to connect that. LotLE×talk 23:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

""More than 150 000 new African-American voters were added to the city's rolls" insinuates that other voters were "turned away"? If this isn't editorializing about what a source says I don't know what is! No "tricks" are required here! Provide a uneditorialized quote about the number (which is what goes to success) and move on!

I put the support for the "success" contention in the footnote because footnotes are typically used to provide source support for what is claimed in the body of the article.Bdell555 (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in my above comment, the source (Chicago Magazine) contains no such insinuation. The edits by Bdell555 created this insinuation by selective excerpting from the source. LotLE×talk 01:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

One step at a time then. Does "More than 150 000 new African-American voters were added to the city's rolls" ALONE insinuate that any voters were turned away? Yes or no?Bdell555 (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

From WP:Footnotes: "The general consensus is that quotes are acceptable if they are brief, relevant to the article text that is being footnoted, and of use or interest to the reader." See also WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Use_of_quotes_in_footnotes: "The question of what material—such as quotes—should or should not appear in footnotes is substantially a legitimate disagreement over content"Bdell555 (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Vote founded as an arm vs currently an arm

The cited sources say that Project Vote IS CURRENTLY a voter mobilization arm. They do NOT say that Project vote WAS FOUNDED as an arm.Bdell555 (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, some older sources, most not meeting WP:RS, suggest a closer relationship than is described by the majority of sources. LotLE×talk 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As one might expect, I happen to suspect that your edits are an effort to "suggest" the relationship is less than what it is, just as you suspect my edits are an effort to "suggest" the relationship is more than what it is. Where does that get us? We have to identify the SPECIFIC problems we see in the wording choice of each other's edits. My edit is sourced to the New York Times, TIME Magazine, and Slater's description of his organization. Which of these sources are not reliable and why? Then explain how the sources support your preferred wording, which claims that Project Vote was merely FOUNDED by ACORN (and thereby implies that Project Vote might no longer be an "arm").Bdell555 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem, given the sources we have, in saying something like Project Vote has been described as "an arm" of ACORN. and sourcing it to both the New York Times source and the Time magazine source. The "has been" is a bit vague as to whether or not it is now, but I see no reason for us to be certain of it. They seem to be technically separate. We can also say that PV works closely with ACORN in voter registration drives, and Project Vote worked on a project to "re-connect" former [ACORN] staff into its voter turnout campaigns. That's all sourceable with what we have below. Sound fair?

1. New York Times October 20, 2004: Project Vote, the charitable arm of Acorn
2. Project Vote has been called an "arm" of ACORN by The New York Times, Sept 26, 2004: ... Project Vote, the nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or Acorn.
3. TIME magazine, October 18, 2004: ... Project Vote, a nonpartisan arm of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)...
4. National Voter magazine, author described as deputy director of Project Vote. Project Vote provides support to ACORN's voter registration program.
5. The Beldon Fund grant to Project Vote indicated a continuing close relationship between the two groups: A grant to Project Vote/Voting for America for its ACORN Alumni Mobilization Project to reach out and re-connect former staff into its voter outreach and turnout campaigns.

-- Noroton (talk) 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Noroton's suggested phrase (Project Vote has been described as "an arm" of ACORN) look fine to me.LotLE×talk 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my suggestions for phrasing are in the top paragraph of my post just above, and the italicized words in the numbered list are all direct quotes from those sources. Noroton (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How does the phrase "Project Vote provides support to ACORN's voter registration program" indicates that Project Vote is an "arm." Instead it indicates that they provide techincal assistance to ACORN. Is your doctor or business consultant an "arm" of you or your business? If Project Vote works with ACORN "alumni" or local organizations to achieve voter registration goals, does that make theses groups "arms" of Project Vote instead? I raise they in part to point out how silly this debate is: use of "arm" is vague. I think it should be cut for clarity sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.250.250 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom?

As an aside, ArbCom says they do not deal with content disputes per se, but they do deal with problem users such as vandals. I accordingly suggest that this matter be submitted to formal arbitration under the title "vandalism to Project Vote.Bdell555 (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your point here, but you are free to post to whatever administrative page you feel is appropriate. LotLE×talk 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that your accusation of vandalism can and should be taken to formal arbitration to assess the merits of the charge unless you intend to withdraw it.Bdell555 (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

fraud allegations

1. If the allegations are not notable, why did the Executive Director feel compelled to publish an article titled "Voter Fraud?"?

2. There are many sources that allege fraud. Must we cite ALL of them? Why not just have one as an example?Bdell555 (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Please provide at least one source on this talk page that meets WP:RS so that we can examine it. Note that if you can only find a source by WP:SYNTHicizing multiple steps, it is not usable. Specifically, if you need to use this reasoning, it's not going to fly:

1. Project Vote is really just ACORN (False)
2. Everything ACORN employees do is an action of ACORN as an organization (False)
3. Some ACORN employees have committed fraud (True)
4. Therefore Project Vote has committed fraud (Not implied by False premises, plus WP:SYNTH)

Try to let us create an encyclopedia article rather than simply an editorial soapbox against organizations you disagree with politically. LotLE×talk 23:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing, please. And can we put the proposed language right here? Noroton (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lulu wants to delete "Some politically conservative sources allege that Project Vote's voter mobilization efforts have frequent problems with fraud."Bdell555 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote, please provide one WP:RS that makes this allegation; and specifically, one that actually makes the claim, rather than it being something you believe you can reach with sufficient WP:SYNTHesis. LotLE×talk 00:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

One step at a time here: where in "some ...sources allege" does it say "some RELIABLE sources allege"?Bdell555 (talk) 01:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A) I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest here that if I am going to try to do what you ask me to do, you reciprocate by trying to do what I ask you to do. You could start by answering my questions (1) and (2), above.

B) One source FOR WHAT? For proof that fraud has been ALLEGED or for proof that fraud has been COMMITTED? If the latter, may I remind you that the edit at issue says some sources "allege" fraud, not that Project Vote has engaged in any fraud?

C) If anyone's using that invalid argument, it appears to be you (believing that "not #1" follows from "not #4)!

D) I'd advise you to get off your "editorial soapbox" FOR organizations you AGREE with politically but I'll do my best to assume WP: GOOD FAITH.Bdell555 (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please, let's keep this focused on the subject, not the editors. I think the only issue is whether Bdell555's sentence confirms with what the source(s) explicitly state. Does it? Please don't make me hunt for the source. (I'm trying to add something about PV on the Obama "Early life" article.) Can someone post the source(s) here? Noroton (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is a piece published by an apparently conservative leaning thinktank that is titled "Voter Turnout or Voter Fraud?" and claims that "Project Vote denies that it deliberately orchestrated any registration fraud. But a stream of television and newspaper stories reported on the shady practices its workers used to register people to vote." Looks like an allegation of fraud to me. Whether the allegation is true or not is, of course, irrelevant.Bdell555 (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/OT0406.pdf (cited in the article), and the source is Capital Research Center which seems to be about as reliable as this source from which we could equally well say "Project Vote's voter mobilization efforts have been subject to frequent baseless accusations of fraud". The point is neither of these satisfy WP:RS. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Where in WP:RS does it say that a source cannot be used as a source "about itself" or to indicate "the view of the proponents" who allege fraud?Bdell555 (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that one cannot say "some politically liberal sources allege that the allegations of fraud are baseless", cited to that source you mention.Bdell555 (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When I google "project vote" and "fraud", I get more than 35 000 hits. Seems rather unlikely to me that Capital Research is the only one making allegations.Bdell555 (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia primarily relies on (reliable) secondary sources. Saying either some politically liberal sources allege that the allegations of fraud are baseless or some politically conservative sources allege that Project Vote's voter mobilization efforts have frequent problems with fraud from direct observation of liberal or conservative sources making this claim is original research. Either of these statements should be sourced to a reliable secondary source that has made the observation.

Let's break this down. Let's say someone wanted this article to say Project Vote's voter mobilization efforts have frequent problems with fraud but couldn't find a reliable source for this statement. By adding Some conservative sources allege (sourced to one of these conservative sources), the statement becomes verifiable and manifestly true - problem solved! This works fine at Conservapedia, but Wikipedia's rules are (deliberately) more stringent. The trio of WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V make it really hard on our hypothetical person. Whatever this person adds has to not only be true, but attributable to a reliable source that has already said it. So, trying to get around WP:RS by adding Some conservative sources allege simply shifts the sourcing burden from the original statement to the new statement. Sourcing the new statement to the conservative sources themselves violates WP:OR. Unless some verifiable reliable source has already made this observation, our hypothetical person is simply stuck. Attributing a POV statement to an unreliable source may turn it into a true (i.e. verifiable) statement, but unless this attribution is from a reliable source it can't be used here. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules explicitly allow it. Did you not see the quotes I used around "about itself" and "the view of the proponents"? That's direct from policy.Bdell555 (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please return to the top of this "fraud allegations" section where I ask questions numbered (1) and (2). I'm interested in hearing your response to #1.Bdell555 (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you challenge Noroton's original research, since he's flagrantly attempting to engage in the "Conservapedia" stunt you describe by "solving" the real or imagined reliability problems of the NY Times and TIME by changing "Project Vote is an arm of"(cite: NYT and TIME) to "The New York Times and TIME magazine described Project Vote as an "arm of""(cite: NYT and TIME).Bdell555 (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference is Noroton is explicitly attributing a controversial claim to a reliable source (which is perfectly fine). The shades of meaning here are:

1. Project Vote is an arm of ... (cite: NYT and TIME) - this presents a "fact" that Wikipedia's editors essentially agree with, citing NYT and TIME as the source of this fact

1. The New York Times and TIME Magazine described Project Vote as an arm of ... (cite: NYT and TIME) - this presents a claim (made by a reliable source) that Wikipedia's editors think is not necessarily an agreed upon fact in the world at large. This particular construct should usually be followed up with some other claim presenting another POV and is used to adhere to NPOV.
2. Conservative sources describe Project Vote as an arm of ... (cite: NYT and TIME) - presents a claim (made by a reliable source) that Wikipedia's editors think is not necessarily an agreed upon fact and that NYT and TIME Magazine don't necessarily agree with either. Including something like this in the article on Project Vote (as opposed to an article on "conservative sources") is dubious. This sort of construct should (IMO) always be followed up with some other claim (ideally also sourced to NYT and TIME) presenting another POV to adhere to NPOV.
3. Conservative sources describe Project Vote as an arm of ... (cite: conservative sources) - attempts to present a claim (made by an unreliable source). This construct should not be used here.

-- Rick Block (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If some editors "agree" or "think" that original research is OK, that doesn't make it OK.We are here to apply policies developed by the consensus of ALL Wikipedia editors, not whatever is made up at any particular article. Whether a quote should appear in a footnote is an example of something subject to local consensus. Whether to violate policy is not.Bdell555 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If the NY Times IS reliable, we can and should stop this at your #1. If you believe it is not, may I remind you that, according to Wikipedia's New York Times article, "it is often regarded as a national newspaper of record, meaning that it is frequently relied upon as the authoritative reference for modern events"? The consensus over there is that the NYT is "authoritative". If that consensus is wrong, why don't you, and the rest of the doubters here, go correct it over there? Why just here? acorn.org reprinted the article on its website without objection or correction so THEY evidently don't consider it unreliable.Bdell555 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My goodness! This conversation has more arms than Kālī. Rather than concentrating on trying to find sources to support the "arm" language, why not look for some that backup the "support" language instead? I was under the impression that ACORN had donated substantial monies to Project Vote, so if a source can be found that corroborates this it would not be unreasonable to use the "support" terminology. It concerns me that this obsession with "arm" is starting to look like the obsession with "criticism" we recently had at the Obama BLP. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that "arm" should be censored even it is reliably sourced because you consider it "criticism"?Bdell555 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all - you have completely misread my comment. I am saying there is credible evidence, from reliable sources, that refute the sources that use the "arm" terminology. This contradictory evidence is why I think an alternative approach is needed - one that discussed how Project Vote is funded. I have noticed your frequent (and inflammatory) use of the word "censored" (or variations thereof) in your comments. Also, Wikipedia does not censor anything, nor should it. Do not confuse a desire to be accurate and neutral with suppression of facts for an agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Name a source that says "not arm". If it says somewhere else that PV "works with" ACORN etc etc, that doesn't mean it isn't also an arm. If you've noticed my "frequent" use of the word "censor" then tell tell us where else I've used it. Why are you raising the issue of "criticism"? Explain why that's relevant, please.Bdell555 (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me first apologize. I got you confused with a different editor, and I have retracted my comment. That being said, any suggestion that I am trying to get something censored is ridiculous. Secondly, please don't ask me to provide a source that specifically states Project Vote is not an "arm" of ACORN. That's a ludicrous request, quite frankly. There are sources (already documented above) that imply the two organizations are separate, which would be enough to indicate a contradiction. Not only that, Project Vote is a 501(c)(3), which means it must be a separate entity. Clearly, your reliable sources contain factual inaccuracies that are refuted by other reliable sources and implicit facts. It is that very contradiction that leads me to suggest an alternative approach that links the two organizations by donations, rather than by disputed evidence. With respect to "criticism", I am referring to the specific use of the word "criticism" desired by certain editors in the Barack Obama BLP, rather than the concept of criticism. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Separate organization

(indent) No, it doesn't imply a contradiction. Have I said that 501 stuff must be removed because it is an arm? Have I said that you can't add whatever you want to say about how it "supports", "works with", "partners with", etc etc as well if reliably sourced? If it is obviously contradictory, why can't all of those statements go in, such that the reader can discount the "arm" terminology as obviously contradictory herself?Bdell555 (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that would not be acceptable. If we suspect that the "arm" terminology is inaccurate (due to clear, contradictory evidence) we should not use it in the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is ZERO "contradictory evidence". You can "suspect" the New York Times all you want, but unless the rest of Wikipedia shares those suspicions, that's irrelevant. Again, how about a trial where you ADD what you believe is "clearly contradictory" to the article? Readers should be popping up here in Talk saying "hey! This article contradicts itself! Clearly!" I have no objections to making such a trial permanent, either.Bdell555 (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is that 501(c)(3) means "not an arm". That's the simple and plain meaning of that tax status. Obviously, no source is going to write "PV is 'not an arm' of ACORN" any more than they will state every other possible negative assertion: "PV is not a branch of the Spanish Inquisition"; "PV is not made up of Martians masquerading as human activists"; etc. However, we also are not going to stick in the other absurd statements based on "lack of specific refutation." We're not even going to stick them in under the assumption that "the reader can recognize the absurdity herself." LotLE×talk 17:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You are not going to find a negation of the contention that PV is a branch of the Spanish Inquisition because no one has alleged that. That PV is alleged to be an arm of ACORN is alleged all over the place: Michelle Malkin says "arm", the National Review says "arm", etc. The New York Times and TIME believe that the "conservatives" are right on this point, if only for the first time in history. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes.Bdell555 (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh... but there is a source for the claim that PV is a branch of the SI. We better work on finding a refuting source. LotLE×talk 18:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So Ford Canada Ltd is not an "arm" of Ford Inc because Ford Canada was founded under the Canada Business Corporations Act and Ford Inc was not? I don't understand why a compromise whereby you water down the "arm" business by moving it out of the top line or introduction and adding other language is unacceptable to you.Bdell555 (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

501(c)(3) is a different tax status than the for-profit incorporation of Ford Canada. Part of the requirement of (c)(3) qualification is that an organization not be a direct agent of non-tax-deductible organization. LotLE×talk 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ford Canada Ltd has a different tax status from Ford Inc as well. The whole reason why Ford operates in Canada as Ford Canada is because Ford Inc is limited in terms of the extent it can operate in Canada and minimize its tax liability if there is zero separation. The presence of legal separation doesn't mean Ford Canada is not an arm.Bdell555 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not a tax accountant, and if I was I still wouldn't be your tax accountant. But if you leave aside the sophistry, you'll acknowledge what we all know perfectly well: a for-profit national branch of a mutli-national corporation is permitted to have an explicit corporate charter to operate on behalf of its parent. A non-profit, tax-deductible organization in the USA is not permitted to operate that way, as a condition of its incorporation status. This isn't subtle or indirect (national laws on non-profits might vary in other countries, but that's the familiar USA rule; and we do link to 501(c)(3) for clarification). LotLE×talk 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If PV has to operate as "nonpartisan" and Acorn does not, that does not mean that PV could not be the nonpartisan arm of ACORN! Why didn't you provide this reponse to Arzel at the bottom of this page, anyway?Bdell555 (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read Arzel's statement. I don't have anything to respond to since it restates (as has everyone other than you) the obvious and well-documented fact that the organizations are separate (no "arms"). LotLE×talk 18:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What part of "[my] non-profit created a for-profit 'arm'" says "no 'arm'" to you?Bdell555 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If rather than leaning on a claim that is obviously false at a literal level, but may be based on an informal shorthand with some basis, Bdell555 were to find specific factual claims, we could just use those in the article. For example, if we have a source that says: "N% of PV's operating budget came from donations by ACORN" that would be interesting and factual (and if N was a high number, it would get at the association Bdell555 is looking for). Or similarly, if we knew that the two organization share board members, we could just state that (with specifics and citation), which would also indicate factually the closeness of a relationship. Or even if we had some information on numbers of campaigns or lawsuits where the two organizations are joint organizers/plaintiffs, that would also indicate the degree of connection... not as much the donations, for example: e.g. ACLU and EFF are frequent co-plaintiffs, but completely independent (even probably in competition for donations, to some extent). LotLE×talk 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

So what you read in the New York Times is not just "false", it is "obviously false"? I'm just too dim a bulb to see the obvious, I suppose. Again, if you want to go out and find sources that emphasize the organizations separation, there's nothing stopping you. Find em and cite em. But you cannot delete "arm" in the absence of a source that says "not arm" when "arm" is reliably sourced.Bdell555 (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It is clear from this last comment that any sort of reasonable discourse with Bdell555 about this matter is pointless. Clearly the "arm" terminology is inappropriate, and the sources that Bdell555 is fond of citing have factual inaccuracies. The argument that this terminology should be excluded only if a "not arm" source can be found is ludicrous, when the evidence of this contradiction is staring everyone in the face. I offered an alternative strategy which would have allowed Bdell555 to "safely" link the two organizations, but this did not adequately satisfy the clear agenda. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm citing the New York Times and TIME magazine. Where are the "factual inaccuracies"in the sources I am "fond of citing"? I might note that my edits of yesterday apparently didn't satisfy someone's "agenda" either.Bdell555 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Do I really have to spell it out for you again? NYT and TIME state that PV is an "arm" of ACORN. PV is a separate entity to ACORN, as evidenced by PV's 501(c)(3) status. Therefore, NYT and TIME are in error. Q.E.D. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And Ford Canada is "a separate entity" from Ford Inc. That doesn't mean it can't still be an arm. You said "factual inaccuracies" exist. Now you are saying that the "inaccuracy" follows from logical necessity. I could dump 5 million sources for "arm" in your lap including God himself and you'd reject it given the 501 status, in other words. To use an analogy, you've been in the field and observed some yellow birds. You've then concluded that all birds are yellow. I've come along and shown you a blue bird, and you insist it must be yellow because all birds are yellow QED. Fact is, you have to believe the same eyes you believed the first time. Bottom line is that the NY Times and TIME are reliable and so are the sources saying other things. Do you see me saying that it can't be a 501 by logical inference from the fact it is an arm? Birds can be both yellow and blue. Open your mind, my friend, to the possibility that an organization can "partner"/"coordinate"/etc with its "nonpartisan" arm to work on nonpartisan projects.Bdell555 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

While you are out there battling the "error" of the NYT article, ACORN is out there disseminating it: "The voter registration campaigns of ACORN and Project Vote have been so effective that they have gained national attention – including a front-page article in this Sunday’s New York Times, included below." ACORN could have just had a footnote reference to the NY Times article instead of repeating "arm" on their own website, but that wouldn't have satisfied the "clear agenda", I suppose.Bdell555 (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

And how has Michael Slater, Project Vote's current Executive Director, described himself?:

Mike Slater

Election Administration

Program Director

Project Vote/ACORN

This is where we cue the magicians who will saw Mike Slater in half.Bdell555 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But before we start the show, let's first let the victim speak. On the website of an organization that says "AlterNet's aim is to inspire action and advocacy on the environment, human rights and civil liberties, social justice, media, health care issues, and more" we find an article titled "Project Vote Report Accuses GOP of Decades of Voter Suppression" and we read "Project Vote Deputy Director Michael Slater said GOP criticism of his group's ties to ACORN was fair, ..." Quite the admission, given the title of the article!Bdell555 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember the King County fraud allegations? From the Seattle Times 21 Oct 2006: "The voter-registration drive, funded by Project Vote, was conducted by Washington ACORN". I know you said, below, "That ACORN provided funding for Project Vote is also irrelevant...", but funding going both ways? That's not the only time the paper mentions this direction of money flow.Bdell555 (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying they are not allied organizations that often work together, simply that they aren't the same organization (which "arm of" distinctly implies). Here are some NY Times sources that make no mention of "arm of" and mention both Project Vote and ACORN:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Note that these are all from 2008. Also on the nytimes.com site are the following which do use "arm of" wording

• [4]
• [5]

Note that these are both from 2004 (as is the Time Magazine "arm of" reference). One might conclude the NY Times used to describe Project Vote as an arm of ACORN, but has stopped doing so for some reason.

Slater started working for Project Vote in 2004 (per this bio [pdf] posted on the web site of the United States House Committee on House Administration - clearly for this committee meeting held in 2008). Note that this bio makes no mention of ACORN. Why does the earlier Demos reference identify him as both Project Vote and ACORN - who knows? Maybe he worked for ACORN before he worked for Project Vote, so had worked for both during the time the report posted on the Demos site was prepared. Whatever the reason, old references do not trump current references.

Given the NY Times has apparently dropped the "arm of" language, if you want to amplify the connection between Project Vote and ACORN about the best I think we could do is something like (in the 2nd paragraph):

Project Vote has coordinated efforts with ACORN, to the point that the NY Times and Time Magazine formerly (in 2004) described Project Vote as "the charitable arm of Acorn" (cite: a 2004 NY Times article and the Time Magazine source). They are, however, separate but allied organizations (cite: any of the numerous sources that say this). Project Vote has also worked with numerous other organizations such as ...

This acknowledges that the "arm of" terminology has been used, but is no longer used and clarifies that Project Vote and ACORN are separate. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1. if

a) Slater has worked for Project Vote since 2004

b) He signed a report that speaks of June 2005 in the past tense as representing "Project Vote/ACORN"

then

c) Slater described himself as representing "Project Vote/ACORN" while working for Project Vote

no?

2. "no longer used" is most certainly not correct. In just the last two months Michelle Malkin referred to ACORN's "501(c)(3) arm Project Vote" and the National Review said, "Supposedly, Acorn’s political arm is segregated from its 'non-partisan' registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, but after reading Foulkes’ case study, this non-partisanship is exceedingly difficult to discern".

3. if the Separation Event you hypothesize actually occured, wouldn't Slater have mentioned it in that article dated September 27, 2007 instead of just conceding that "GOP criticism of his group's ties to ACORN was fair"?

4. The date of the source is already given, such that the reader can discount it accordingly if such discounting is on order. I don't see anything in WP:RS that says that sources from 2004 are unreliable.Bdell555 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

5. To quote from WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." This proposal of yours that we get the article to create a Separation Event is a case study in original research.

6. Finally, and most importantly, What you're presenting here is one big argument from ignorance, trying to say that a LACK of evidence that a Separation Event did NOT occur suggests that it DID occur.

if

a) some sources say "Barack Hussein Obama"

b) most sources, and all sources from the last hour, say "Barack Obama"

does

c) Barack Obama's middle name is no longer Hussein

necessarily follow?Bdell555 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I clearly identified the wording I suggested above as "the best we could do" if we wanted to amplify the connection. I didn't say it but I think there was also a fairly clear implication the intent of this suggestion is to find a way to include the "arm of" wording.

1. We don't know why Slater was identified in the report on the Demos site as Project Vote/ACORN. As far as I can tell, this is the ONLY source on the entire web that uses this attribution (per Google search). For whatever reason this seems to be an anomaly and should clearly be ignored.

2. No longer used by the NY Times (Time Magazine online has no reference to Project Vote since the 2004 reference). Yes, this particular phrasing is commonly used by conservative sources. These sources, and the older NY Times and Time Magazine sources, do not trump the current description used by neutral, reliable sources and the organizations themselves.

3. I believe you're misreading the source you're citing. Republicans like Heidelbaugh say mass registration drives intended to bring in new Democratic voters often are rife with errors ... Project Vote organizes voter registration drives among low-income voters and in 2004 worked with ACORN, another low-income advocacy group, to register 2.3 million people across the country. The criticism of Project Vote's ties to ACORN are "worked with", not "arm of" or "subsidiary of" or "same organization as".

4. The NY Times used the "arm of" phrasing twice in 2004 (both times it came up) and has not used it all in 2008 (in 3 times Project Vote has come up). In conjunction with the apparent fact that other, current, reliable sources do not use this wording, I think we can conclude that this wording has been abandoned by neutral, reliable sources. My suggested wording makes note of this. I'm not saying the 2004 sources are not reliable.

5. No "separation event" is invented or implied. The wording used by reliable sources to describe the relationship between these organizations has changed. That's what my suggested wording says. You're the one insisting on inserting "arm of" wording. As far as I can tell, the only reasonable way to do it is to describe its use.

6. Like I say, there's no argument of a separation event. There's a labored insertion of "arm of" wording in as NPOV a manner as I can think of.

Is there anyone supporting your inclusion of "arm of" wording? If you don't like my suggested compromise that's fine with me (frankly, I don't like it much either), but I don't think you'll then get what you want. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the "arm" wording. It is perfectly plausible that PV is a legally seperate "arm" of ACORN for legal purposes, and to attribute PV to ACORN is reasonable. From what I have seen there is evidence that says they are closely related, there is also evidence that doesnt' make a distinct link, but there is no evidence that says they are unrelated. Arzel (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I am related to my mother, but I'm not an "arm" of my mother. Clearly the two organizations work closely together, but that does not change the fact they are separate entities. This "arm" terminology is being pushed to falsely imply the two organizations are one, so that Project Vote (and by circuitous extension, Barack Obama) can be linked to cases of fraud, etc. Let's not candy coat this by claiming this is anything other than another guilt-by-association attempt. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you delete those sources that are "pushing" the "arm terminology" then? Why are they still appearing in the footnotes? Is it OK to have citations to unreliable, obsolete, POV sources, just so long as they aren't featured prominently? Any reader that clicks on those sources is going to read "arm" and thereby be invited into drawing a "false implication" even more surely than if the reader had just read "arm" in Wikipedia, since the reader will see that "arm" isn't just some Wiki editor's POV paraphrase. Why doesn't that bother you? If you, in fact, have no problem with the sources per se but rather just want the reader to consider what other sources (that don't use the "arm" terminology) say as well, why not just ADD text to that effect instead of deleting text that says "arm"?Bdell555 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Editorial opinion of ACORN relationship

I am concerned that an editor is using partial and contentious sources to construct a WP:SYNTH opinon of a closer relationship between two political organizations than actually exists, or is show in sources. LotLE×talk 23:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

At issue is whether material cited to the New York Times, TIME magazine, and an article published by the organization's current Executive Director better support an account which describes the organization as currently an arm of another organization or as was an arm of the other organization.Bdell555 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I commented on the issue at the above section, "Project Vote founded as an arm vs currently an arm". Essentially, having seen the sources, I'm most comfortable with saying "has been described", which leaves it open. I think it's a very hard thing to prove if the organization itself isn't saying outright that it's controlled by another organization or is part of another organization. I would be uncomfortable saying that it either is or is not a part of ACORN. Let's say the thing that isn't challengable. Noroton (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You are suggesting that Wikipedia editorialize on what the New York Times and TIME magazine say. Neither of these sources say that Project Vote "has been described" as an arm. They say it IS an arm.Bdell555 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources exist that say that Project Vote was founded by Sandy Newman, but I have been unable to find a single source that says he was employed by (or even affiliated with) ACORN. It is clear that the two organizations have a relationship (umpteen sources, court cases, shared events, etc.) but it is not clear that this relationship is direct or formalized. That ACORN provided funding for Project Vote is also irrelevant, because funding for Project Vote comes from a variety of sources. For this reason, I am deeply concerned with the amount of synthesis going on here. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, your point about Sandy Newman supports my version and not Lulu's, since Lulu's version claims that Project Vote was FOUNDED as an "arm" of ACORN. My version makes no such contention. I'm equally concerned about the amount of synthesis going on here to argue against a plain reading of the New York Times, TIME magazine, and Project Vote's Executive Director!Bdell555 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your version is even worse. I have rewritten the article to indicate ACORN's support, but remove the contested details. Please stop edit warring. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Editorializing is reaching new heights here. "Arm" is struck out to be replaced with "support". By the way, if you feel compelled to admonish someone who has reverted 3 times, why did it arise with respect to me and not first arise when Lulu reverted 3 times?Bdell555 (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Bdell555 is correct that my version was flawed in it's non-cited assertion of "founded as". The way Scjessey has restructured this is much better. LotLE×talk 01:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) OK, I haven't seen in the sources that it was "founded as" an arm of Acorn either, so let's not say that (I think that was an idea/phrase that originated with me). If we just go as far as what the sources say, we can show the close connection (which everybody agrees with). Say in the article:

"Project Vote and ACORN have worked closely together. Both The New York Times and TIME magazine described Project Vote as an "arm of" ACORN in 2004, although the websites of the organizations don't specify whether or not ACORN controls Project Vote."

Writing it this way simply reports what we know and takes into account the lack of a statement from either group. Bdell's thinking that the NYT and TIME confirm the relationship is a reasonable one, but I think it's more reasonable to recognize that the groups haven't acknowledged some kind of control over PV. That really should introduce some caution on our part. On the other hand, this means that it's worth space, even in this stub of an article, to discuss the connections between PV and ACORN. I'd throw in what quotes we have in the text of the article, such as the description of the author of the magazine piece that PV "works with" ACORN, and isn't there a number of lawsuits where both are named? I think these organizations will have IRS Form 990s, and I think those public records show membership of boards of directors and top officials as well as top contributors. If those overlap, that would further clarify the relationship. I know some websites post that information. It would surprise me if Sandy Newman didn't have some kind of insider role at ACORN. Noroton (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, you can't call it WP:SYNTHESIS if Bdell555 is talking about simply taking what NYT and TIME clearly state -- that's actually the danger that LotLE, Scjessey and I could be said to be courting -- if we were saying something definite. I think my proposed language (or something like it) avoids a WP:SYNTH problem by just being cautious and attributing statements to sources. Noroton (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to write a "cautionary" editorial every time the New York Times or TIME is cited? "Control" has nothing to do with this since never has this article claimed that ACORN "controls" Project Vote and no one is proposing such language. I suggest everyone here read what WP:SYNTHESIS actually says before striking out "arm" and replacing it with "support" or "worked closely together".Bdell555 (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) What else does "arm of" mean, other than "control"? I "control" my arm. That's what I meant. Do you mean something different? I'm not proposing an "editorial". I'm proposing wording that takes relevant facts into account. No editorializing involved, and certainly not within my proposed language. Noroton (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do we have to speculate about what "arm" means? Why can't we just say what the source says instead of trying to change it?Bdell555 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't strike out "arm of", I moved it into a quote; "worked closely together" doesn't contradict "arm of". Noroton (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You struck it out of what is claimed without editorialization in order to give it the status of an allegation. If there isn't any editorializing going on here, then why can't the plain language of the sources be allowed to stand on its own without a bunch of qualifying verbiage?Bdell555 (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Because the plain language of some sources (NYT, TIME, Salon) needs to be taken with caution when the groups themselves don't make the connection clear. That's a good justification for qualifying verbiage. Noroton (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 3 cited sources here for "a voter mobilization arm of ACORN". The third one is the Executive Director of Project Vote! He doen't represent "the group itself"? If the New York Times AND TIME magazine say that Org A is an "arm" of Orb B, unless that is repeated on the websites of Org A and/or Org B you are going to use "caution" with respect to whether we can consider the NY Times and TIME reliable sources? Wikidemo thought the New York Times source was presumptively reliable, yet you don't. re what the organizations DON'T say about themselves, please see argument from ignorance. What part of "A is an arm of B" fails to make the "connection clear" for you?Bdell555 (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What sources actually say

I am again happy with Noroton's longer, neutral characterization. The Time and NYT sources use "arm of", but that does not have any obvious and unambiguous meaning, but rather is a metaphor for their relationship. Moreover, I am almost certain that the similarity in phrasing during the same article time-frames means that the sources, in fact, both borrow from the same origin (it's not given, but probably some common background source that is utilized but not directly quoted). Since the groups themselves do not state anything about the precise relationship, it is improper to insinuate something like a "wholly owned subsidiary" or whatever Bell555 is looking for (I reckon he wants "front" in the old Red-scare anti-communist sense).

Apart from the lack of non-metaphorical statement, there's the counter-evidence in most other sources where no such relationship is stated, despite the mention of both PV and ACORN in the same article. In the majority of sources, the two organizations are simply discussed as separate organizations (that perhaps are joint plaintiffs in a suit, or that work on a voter drive together, etc). In many other sources, of course, one organization is mentioned without mention of the other. I am not even opposed to quoting the metaphor, as Noroton's recent proposal does; it just doesn't make sense to quote a metaphor used in two sources (maybe with common origin) and pretend that we are merely citing neutrally, especially while ignoring all the conflicting sources. LotLE×talk 02:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Bdell555 actually gives a good example above of a more common kind of description of PV/ACORN (http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/1214-09.htm):

Today, Project Vote congratulated the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) on the dismissal of the third and final voter registration fraud lawsuit brought against the group in 2004. ACORN, in partnership with Project Vote, ran the largest non-partisan voter outreach program in the 2004 election cycle, registering 1.15 million low-income and minority citizens in 26 states and contacting 2.3 million through Get-Out-the-Vote efforts. In 2004, several politically motivated law firms brought baseless charges of voter registration fraud against ACORN in an effort to inhibit its work to register low-income and minority voters.

Common Dreams is certainly a source that is inclined to be favorable to ACORN and PV, but the point is that the friends of the two organizations recognize them as separate, and describe their relationship as peers. A friendly source would be the most likely to identify a literal "subsidiary" relationship, if such actually existed; it doesn't do so because that's not the nature of the relationship. LotLE×talk 02:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

---

From the other side, the Capital Research Center source also refutes the "is an arm of" relationship. According to them (http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/OT0406.pdf):

Project Vote is another get-out-the-vote group. It was created by the radical group ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and it is set up as a 501(c)(3) charity.

That is "was created by"... in the past. So we have two sources using a metaphorical shorthand, and other sources (including both PV itself and the only provided conservative critic) explicitly denying the "subsidiary" type relationship. LotLE×talk 03:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Continuing, here's yet another source (Baltimore Sun) that also contradicts Bdell555's construction of an imaginary "subsidiary" relationship between PV and ACORN. This one was also located by Bdell555 himself, but struck out once he realized what it actually said (http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/798793/aclu_sues_over_vote_drives/index.html):

The suit was filed on behalf of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, also known as ACORN, Project Vote/Voting for America and a current director and former activist with ACORN.

As with almost all sources, PV and ACORN are described as two separate organizations (co-plaintiffs in the reported instance). It takes a lot of cherry-picking to construct the phantasm of "subsidiary". LotLE×talk 03:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Bdell555's latest source (http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12047) contains yet another refutation that PV is a subsidiary of ACORN:

On September 27, ACORN, working frequently in partnership with Project Vote, recorded our one millionth voter registered since our non-partisan voter registration campaign began in July 2003!

LotLE×talk 06:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

---

1. If "Time and NYT ... both borrow from the same origin" isn't a classic example of original research, I don't know what is. If they are borrowing from a common source, why does TIME say "an arm" while the NY Times is more specific and says "the arm"? You'll note that my word choice of "an arm" was compatible with both.

2. I'm not insinuating "a "wholly owned subsidiary". I'm insinuating "arm"! Please give the date and time of my edit to this article from which you are drawing that quote.

3. re "conflicting sources", please name a source that conflicts with the claims of TIME and the NY Times.

4. So commondreams.org and capitalresearch.org are both more reliable than TIME or the NY Times? Your flip flop on capitalresearch.org's reliabilty came so fast you are making my head spin!Bdell555 (talk) 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

5. A "friendly" source is more likely to MINIMIZE the relationship, because if Project Vote is too close to ACORN its "non-partisan" status could be questioned such that its tax privileged charity status would be endangered. Why do you think Project Vote was split off in the first place?Bdell555 (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

6: The Baltimore Sun does not say that Project Vote is not an "arm". As an aside, I'd note that it doesn't "separate" Project Vote from ACORN any more than it separates a current ACORN director from ACORN.Bdell555 (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

7: The New York Times article appears in its entirety on acorn.org! It also appears on the website of America Votes, a coalition ACORN is a part of.Bdell555 (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FWIW, I work for a non-profit org. That non-profit created a for-profit "arm" to sell certain items that would violate the non-profit status of the parent organization. For legal purposes the for-profit and non-profit are considered seperate entities. Yet the for-profit was created by the non-profit, even if they are considered seperate. I suspect this is a similar situation. PV was likely created as a seperate organiztion from ACORN, so while they are most likely technially seperate, it is probably also true that PV was created by ACORN as the sources indicate. Arzel (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

My argument was that ACORN and Project Vote didn't say one was the arm of the other, as shown on their websites. Bdell555 found it on ACORN's website, proving that ACORN doesn't have a problem with Project Vote being called an "arm" of ACORN. If they don't have that problem, we shouldn't. I'd go with their language, although I'm still more comfortable quoting others saying it (and maybe noting in a footnote that ACORN reprinted the article on their website). Noroton (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I definately think they are related, and that PV is an "Arm" of Acorn. I think that other editors are thinking too literally and getting stuck on semantics. It is quite common for non-profits to have for-profits "arms" in the real world, even though they are legally seperate organizations. Arzel (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

By semantics you mean "using words according to their actual meaning", right? In that case, yep, I'm stuck on that. Let's state actual facts rather than things that are metaphorical shorthand for something that, while not true, has a ring of truthiness. LotLE×talk 18:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly, LotLE, you're opposed to using the New York Times and TIME magazine wording, identifying Project Vote as an "arm of" ACORN even though ACORN apparently is not opposed to that wording (because it reprints one of those articles on its own website). If I'm wrong, please correct me; if right, please think about it. Noroton (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would not support the "arm of" text either, because it is inaccurate. Reprinting of an article does not mean that ACORN agrees with every detail within it. I am sure many organizations like ACORN routinely aggregate press coverage related to their activities on their websites. I think people need to get past this and accept that these two sources simply don't have their facts right on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

---

I have made a change to the article because of information found on the personal blog of ACORN founder Wade Rathke. Apparently, my change may create a bit of a stir. BAlfson (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Slater

An editor changed the date on Slater's executive directorship. Reading the source again, it does not really say when Slater became ED. 2008 is possible, but does not seem to be given in the source. However, the PV website does explicitly say Slater has worked for PV in some role since 2004, so I think my wording change constrains the meaning to what we actually know. If I'm missing something, I'm happy to have the text be more specific. LotLE×talk 04:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

He became ex. dir. just recently, but has worked for PV since 2004. Why not email him and ask him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threepillars (talk • contribs) 11:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR rather than WP:RS. I have no idea if he'd respond, but even if he did, citing "personal correspondence" would not be a usable source. The PV website description indeed is suggestive of the "just recently" since it describes earlier postitions, but I can't tell whether it was 2006, 2007 or 2008 that he took the ED job (most likely not 2006 since he had another position in that year, but it's not our place to speculate and use "common sense"). If you know some other source, I'm happy to mention 2008 (I hardly have agenda about job title dates, I just don't want to state what he can't cite). LotLE×talk 17:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

More on ACORN connections

I might add then even if it were appropriate to e-mail an inquiry, the only e-mail address provided as part of Project Vote's legal or official registration is a @acorn.org address (see http://www.guidestar.org/pqShowGsReport.do?npoId=296316&partner=justgive).Bdell555 (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

So what? Maybe ACORN is donating web and email services to Project Vote. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. It seems to me that the main objections to the connection being mentioned is a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT Arzel (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The connection is mentioned (in the current version of the article, first line second paragraph) just not using the "arm of" terminology. I see two problems with "arm of". It doesn't actually mean anything (see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Words that can imply facts which may be unsupported), and it is the exact terminology used by obviously right-wing sources (such as [6]) to denigrate the organization. Parroting this phrase here is not neutral. -- Rick Block (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Some obviously racist organizations use the "exact terminology" that Obama has used, namely, that he is either "black" or "African American", to "denigrate" him. According to your logic, describing Obama as either "black" or "African American" in Wiki would therefore "parrot" the racists and any mention of "black" or "African American" in connection with Obama must be deleted as "not neutral". Is that right?Bdell555 (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I am not saying it has to be the word "arm", but to say "has recieved support from Acorn, and..." is a little misleading. ACORNS connection to PV is stronger than that. I understand the concern that some have about a "guilt by association" play that they feel is being made. However, that doesn't mean we should provide an article that isn't correct just because of that fear. It feels like censorship in order to ultimately protect Obama from something that ultimately means very little to him directly. Arzel (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not misleading at all. ACORN does indeed provide support to Project Vote, so what is misleading about that? One thing we could say, since various sources are available that support it, is that ACORN and Project Vote frequently collaborate on voter registration-related projects. And this is not about "censorship" or anything like that - it's about not putting stuff in the article that is just plain wrong (the "arm" thing). -- Scjessey (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say in the particular sources that are cited here that ACORN supports Project Vote? Just how is "support" any more "precise" than "arm"? According to you, "support" and "arm" are mutually exclusive, since it is the fact of "support" (or some such thing) that proves "arm" is "just plain wrong". But if those other sources of yours thereby prove the NY Times and TIME wrong, by your mutual exclusivity, the NY Times and TIME equally prove those other sources "just plain wrong".Bdell555 (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother addressing your tortured logic directly. One can use "support" because we have sources that say ACORN has provided major funding to Project Vote. The NYT and TIME articles get their facts wrong, and have been superseded by more recent sources that show the two organizations are separate. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the source for that funding claim and how is that source superior to the NY Times and TIME? Why doesn't the article cite that superior source of yours instead of the supposedly inferior sources?Bdell555 (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I recommend to you, Arzel, as I have done to Bdell555, that rather than insisting on false phrases that "show the symbolic truth" of the connection, you locate actually facts we can put in the article: N% of PV funding comes from ACORN; So-and-so is on both boards; In M lawsuits they are co-plaintiffs; etc. No one wants to keep out citable, factual connections, it is simply not permissible to lean on metaphors to try to insinuate connections as a lazy substitute for research. "Arm" doesn't mean anything precise: PV isn't a "limb" and ACORN isn't an tetrapod. LotLE×talk 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A fact has been located and it is citable: PV is an arm of ACORN. The objections to including this fact keep shifting (the latest being that "arm" "doesn't mean anything") which is why it is pointless to argue the matter. For argument to solve anything, the objectors would have to recognize a cap or limit to the objections besides their ability to invent an objection, and I'm sure their creativity in that respect is limitless. Rick Block cites "words to avoid". Is "linked, associated, or affiliated" being used here? No. Is "relationship" being used here? No. "Arm" is being used here and "arm" is not described by the policy as a "word to avoid". Therefore, there is no policy-based objection. Even if it were so enumerated as a word to avoid, the policy is clear here that the objective is to avoid implying unsupported facts, and this particular fact is clearly supported. Are the objectors willing to restrict themselves to policy-based objections and, most importantly, universalize their interpretation such that everything else in Wiki with the same level of sourcing (e.g. from 2004) must be likewise deleted? If not, further discussion here is a waste of everyone's time.Bdell555 (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth

Sanford (Sandy) Newman writes in the Wall Street Journal (July 22, 2008):

John Fund's "Obama's Liberal Shock Troops" (op-ed, July 12) has some facts wrong. The historic nonpartisan drive to increase voter participation that Barack Obama led in 1992 wasn't for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, but for Project Vote -- of which I was the national director in 1992.

Instead of accepting far more prestigious and better paying offers, Mr. Obama accepted a grueling job with Project Vote for a meager salary. He believed so much in the democratic process that he even gave up the contract for publication of his book, not knowing whether he would ever find another publisher. He brought a broad spectrum of community organizations into that effort, conducting what remains the most successful nonpartisan voter drive in Illinois history.

Project Vote remains a separate organization today. Indeed, it wasn't until after Mr. Obama's tenure had ended that it began to conduct projects more frequently with Acorn than with other community-based organizations.

Both Project Vote and Acorn should be proud that their efforts have increased voting. Acorn should also be proud of its other work, including winning minimum-wage increases and helping lead the fight against predatory lending and unfair foreclosures.

Mr. Obama's willingness to sacrifice because of his deep commitment to strengthening the democratic process is something that all Americans should applaud regardless of their party or politics.

Sanford A. Newman

Takoma Park, Md.

Obviously this is a primary source, so secondary sources are still desired (and required) to guarantee accuracy; nevertheless, I think we can safely say that the "arm" nonsense can be dropped for good. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing more than Newman coming to the defense of Obama and provide damage control, when this isn't even about Obama and there isn't even any damage to control. I particularly like how he praises ACORN and PV, yet only writes in to say that Obama has no connection to ACORN. I swear, the more people try to say there is no connection, the more clear it is that there is a connection. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which part of "Project Vote remains a separate organization today" do you not understand? -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What part of "Project Vote is an arm of ACORN" don't YOU understand? You dismiss sources like the National Review as partisan, yet don't consider this source as similarly tainted by partisanship? I noticed that in today's NY Times, the paper felt it necessary to print a correction that "Can’t Take My Eyes Off of You” should not have included an "of" before "You". Such is the attention to accuracy in details. In any case, I have no objection to the article stating that although Project Vote is an arm of ACORN, former national director Newman insists that Project Vote is a separate organization. You could even have "separate organization" as being of the same status as what's cited to the NY Times and TIME (i.e. not an allegation), so long as the cited sources for "separate" say "separate" and are not merely interpreted as saying "separate". Again, there is no mutual exclusivity here.Bdell555 (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I think you are being intentionally disruptive. PV is not an arm of ACORN, and the two mainstream sources you are citing are demonstrably wrong. The former director of the organization has publicly stated they are separate, and PV's 501(c)(3) status requires it to be a separate organization. TIME and NYT aren't going to be printing any corrections four years after the fact. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You are intentionally ignoring reliable evidence showing the connection...I think it is you that is being intentionally disruptive. As I said earlier, one organization can be an "arm" and be seperate from the other. Newman, above, is quite cleaver in crafting his words to make the point that Obama didn't work for ACORN, but not make the statement that PV and ACORN are not closely related. He also doesn't say that PV is not an arm of ACORN, and as I clearly stated earlier, it is common for one organization to be an arm of another yet be seperate entities. The fear of any link between Obama and ACORN is so strong as to have clouded the judgement of many here. It is time for this craziness to end. We have reliable source stating that PV is an "arm" of ACORN, unless it can be proven that this is a lie there is no reason to continue to stonewall. Arzel (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"We have reliable source stating that PV is an "arm" of ACORN, unless it can be proven that this is a lie"

Sorry, but the burden of proof always lies with the person wishing to add information to the article, so the contentious "arm" phrasing cannot be added until there is a consensus that agrees with its use. The reliability of the sources has been called into question because of more recent evidence and sources (as opposed to four-year-old inaccurate sources) indicating separation. It is our duty to exclude contentious details when their veracity is suspect. The continued push to use "arm" is strong evidence of agenda-driven editing, and this is simply not acceptable in Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The proof has been clearly shown. The New York Times and TIME believe that the sources like Michelle Malkin which refer to PV as a "503 arm" are clearly accurate. ACORN evidently agrees, reprinting the terminology on its website, despite the fact it is in ACORN's interest to play up the separation. Even a blind squirrel like Malkin can find an acorn sometimes. Project Vote's current director has styled himself as working for "Project Vote/ACORN". Your own agenda has apparently caused you to reject the proof by imagining that an entity cannot possibly be an "arm" and be "separate" to an extent at the same time. This "all birds must be yellow" argument of yours was refuted days ago.Bdell555 (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you have a problem with the RS then take it to WP:RS for clarrification. You cannot simply decide when a reliable source is deemed unreliable. The NYT and TIME are both WP:RS, if you start treading down the path of judging when their reporting is reliable you have completely run off the path of good judgement. You don't even have a RS which contradicts either the NYT or TIME. The onus has been shown. WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS have all been satisfied, there is no other reason for dismissal other than that you don't believe it. I see only one agenda being driven here. The agenda to obscure as much as possible the relationship between the two, which is most ironic when ACORN clearly identifies itself with PV in a very substantial manner. Arzel (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Completely wrong. The NYT and TIME articles are inaccurate, but neither will print a retraction four years after the articles were written. And who cares what Michelle Malkin says? She is a conservative pundit, and it is not Wikipedia's job to regurgitate punditry and pretend it is the truth. Remember that it was Malkin who practically urged people to boycott Dunkin' Donuts because of a scarf that Rachel Ray was wearing. Certainly there is no consensus for "arm" in any case, and I doubt this will change anytime soon. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why should we care what Sanford Newman says, in that case? Is he any less in the bag for Obama than Malkin is out of it? Rick Block's absence of sources don't trump real sources, and your partisan sources don't trump partisan sources on the other side anymore than they are themselves trumped. Fact is, I don't necessarily have a problem with your partisan sources (there being no necessary link between partisanship and reliability when it comes to claims of fact as opposed to conclusions and opinions) as I've encouraged you to add them if you think "arm" needs to be nuanced somehow.Bdell555 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that the NYT and TIME artilces are inaccurate about PV being created as an arm of ACORN? Your strawman arguements carry no weight. Unless you can prove that the NYT and TIME articles are inaccurate then you have no basis for rejection. Arzel (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What straw man arguments? We have a cast-iron primary source, and we have supplemental primary sources in the form of court documents and tax status. Secondary sources are also available, though less specific. I haven't done a search yet, but I will. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Strawman 1... Malkin, Strawman 2... that the NYT or the TIMES won't print a retraction after 4 years. Your "cast-iron" source doesn't make the claim that they are not born of each other, only that Obama worked for PV and not ACORN. Arzel (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

According to Simon, the League of Women Voters Education Fund cannot be an "arm" of the League of Women Voters. Why? Because this "Education Fund" is a 501(c)(3) and, as Simon argues, "NYT and TIME state that PV is an "arm" of ACORN. PV is a separate entity to ACORN, as evidenced by PV's 501(c)(3) status. Therefore, NYT and TIME are in error. Q.E.D.". All those sources that describe this Education Fund an an "arm"? All necessarily "in error", by Simon's logic. Same with all those sources that describe the NRA Foundation as an "arm" of the NRA. The United States Student Association Foundation? "Separate" from the United States Student Association in Simon's world. Is the ACLU even a reliable source about itself? Not according to Simon, because it says on aclu.org that "[t]he ACLU Foundation (ACLUF) is the national tax-deductible, 501(c)(3) arm of the ACLU."Bdell555 (talk) 21:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why it's so important to include the precise phrase "arm of" in this article given that there are other more precise, more meaningful, and (at least in some editors' opinion) more accurate ways of describing the relationship between these two organizations? You're heard the arguments against and apparently reject them. What's the argument for choosing to use this specific terminology among all other possible ways to describe these two organizations? Because the NY Times and TIME Magazine said it means we might consider using it, but given there are reasons not to use these words (albeit reasons you reject), why these words rather than any others? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you've been following me, you'd note that I've never advocated "these words rather than any others". I have no objections to other descriptions appearing as well, so long as they are equally well sourced and reflect what the sources directly say as opposed to someone's subjective interpretation. I'm not the one lobbying for an incomplete or partial description.Bdell555 (talk) 05:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Arm" is not a requirement, only that the proper origination of PV be identified. It is clear from the RS available that ACORN is the originator, there have been no RS that have denied this connection. In fact the only reason I have seen to reject this connection is because of a belief that there is an agenda to associate Obama with the transgressions of ACORN. Since there is no attempt to make this connection here, there should be no reason to cloud the truth which is verifiable. Arzel (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Curious. You don't care that it says "arm" specifically, yet you edit war to make it so. How about "affiliated with", like it says on the ACORN website? The point several people are making is that being a 501c(3) organization that is simply an "arm" of another, non-501c(3) organization, is arguably illegal (depending, of course, on what the ill-defined phrase "arm of" means). They must be legally separate. By using "arm of" the article is now strongly implying these organizations are not separate. Project Vote is unquestionably a 501c(3) organization. It is unquestionably affiliated with ACORN. Why say "is an arm of" when "is a 501c(3) organization, affiliated with" is more accurate and less contentious? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Legal Name: ACORN"

Could it be any plainer? Go to http://future5000.com/organizations/view/434 and click on "See Full Profile" for this. I suppose this source is another right wing attack site?Bdell555 (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but what's their source? It seems unlikely that it is their "legal name" and it's not clear what that means on that page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.250.250 (talk • contribs)

Not a reliable source, of course. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop POV edits

Please, Bdell555, stop inserting material that you know perfectly well to be unsupported by facts, solely to push a political agenda. This "arm" language that you are trying to spin into the article is not supported by the bulk of sources, and directly contradicted by most (yes, two old sources from the same time frame use the term, but none since). In any case, however you might wish to WP:SYNTHesize sources into supporting an unnecessary and contentious claim, the large majority of editors clearly oppose introducing this false and partisan claim. LotLE×talk 05:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is NOTHING that indicates that the New York Times or TIME introduced a "false and partisan claim". The fact Project Vote's executive director has described himself as representing "Project Vote/ACORN" and the fact multiple sources connect Project Vote's legal registration or origination to ACORN and no other organization certainly don't indicate that. The fact ACORN reprints on its website what the NY Times says about its relationship to Project Vote doesn't indicate that the NY Times' claim is "false and partisan", either. The fact that both the NY Times and TIME make, according to you, a "false and partisan claim" about Project Vote yet remain as cited sources (for what they say less directly) in your preferred version of the article proves that you don't truly believe yourself what you are telling me about them. Your "bulk of sources" are a bunch of NON-sources as far as this dispute is concerned, since they don't use "arm" terminology and instead use terminology that is entirely compatible with "arm". I've never rejected those sources as unreliable, since just because they say nothing with respect to whether Project Vote is an "arm" or not does not mean they are not reliable with respect to what they DO say. If instead of compatibility there is a "direct contradiction" then the ACLU "directly contradicts" itself by claiming that "the ACLU Foundation (ACLUF) is the national tax-deductible, 501(c)(3) arm of the ACLU". There is no point in continuing this discussion if you are just going to ignore the evidence and argument other users present here and instead start a new section demanding that those other users simply do what you tell them to do (ie. stop editing unless it serves your POV). I've already challenged you to take an allegation of yours to arbitration and you didn't respond.

So I give up. If the world remains ignorant of what reliable sources say about Project Vote's relationship to ACORN it will continue to turn. I'm not even a US resident so what difference would it make to me? My concern is rather that you and Simon will evidently be reverting duly sourced material elsewhere in Wikipedia whenever you imagine an inference that might retard a favoured person's political ambitions if you insist on doing it here. And Rick Block as well, apparently, although the argument from ignorance he presented and his ironic appeal to WP:OR at least acknowledged the need to provide an argument.Bdell555 (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed this discussion closely but I see my name coming up. Some time in the middle of July, after I had opposed mention of ACORN on the Obama article as being undue / irrelevant / not sourced, I was convinced by Bdell555's argument and sourcing, particularly the New York Times. It's pretty clear to me that the two are affiliated in the common-sense way in which people understand two organizations to be related. Some common history, working on things together, managers in common, allied interests, perhaps unwritten agreements to work together, etc. The problem is that project Vote is a 501(c)(3), and ACORN is a nonprofit that is ineligible for 501(c)(3) status because of the nature of its political activities. Therefore, they cannot by law be formally related - and if they are, that would be quite a different issue. So in a legal, financial, management, etc., they are two distinct entities. But in the common understanding (which is good enough for the New York times) they are related. I have no opinion on whether arm of (as per the New York Times) is the best way to describe it. Perhaps there is no best way to describe it. This issue comes up quite a lot. Is Ronald McDonald House affiliated with McDonald's? Or the Craigslist Foundation with Craigslist? Take away the current events politics, and it's a comparable technical question. Wikidemo (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your logical necessity argument ("therefore") does not follow. It is entirely possible that they are "formally related". The only thing that follows from ACORN being "ineligible for 501(c)3 status" is that ACORN is ineligible for 501(c)3 status (I might add that ACORN may be entirely eligible: it just has to create a "nonpartisan" arm that is eligible!). Not that that has any relevance anyway when "formally related by law" is not what the reverted edits are claiming. Do you go around reverting material cited to the New York Times, Wikidemo, whenever you "have no opinion" on whether the material cited to the NY Times is "the best way to describe it"? With respect to exploring this "technical question" of yours, see WP:OR. Whether a New York Times article reprinted on ACORN's website is a reliable source or not for what it says directly is not a "technical question". Go ahead and try to insert "the current events politics", and it's still not a "technical question".Bdell555 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo's analogous cases look pretty good. I think ACORN/PV isn't quite as closely related as McDonald's/Ronald McDonald House, but it's a generally similar type of relationship. The naming gives you a little sense of the somewhat greater independence of PV, it wasn't founded with the name "ACORN Foundation" (it could have been if the founders wanted it to be that, but they didn't).

As I've said throughout the discussion, I would be more than happy to include more actually facts about the connection. If we can find a citation that says X% of PV budget is donated by ACORN, great! Let's use that. Or likewise, if we can find out that So-and-so and Whatshisname are directors on both boards, seems perfectly relevant to mention. Facts are great, vague insinuations and "white lie" short-hands aren't... not for WP. LotLE×talk 23:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have pointed out - I wasn't trying to make a logical argument, so my use of "therefore" was not logically correct. I'm trying to explain how this happens in real life sometimes. A nonprofit or for-profit organization wants to engage in some tax-free nonprofit work. It can't. So ("so" being a wishy-washy word, in place of "therefore") the people who run the first organization set up a brand new 501(c)(3), then jump through whatever hoops they believe are necessary... creating a new organization that's linked to the first, but not formally. I haven't seen the cites to say that's what happened, and we're not reporting it as such. That's just a plausible explanation as to why reliable sources like the New York Times are reporting a relationship ("arm of...") when that does not seem to be true in a legal sense. The legal connection is relevant, in that calling one organization an "arm of" another may tend to imply something that isn't there. I'm not reverting anything. I really don't have a strong opinion on it. However, this is a place where we use reasoning and background knowledge, not sources. NYT's choice of the phrase "arm of" is not binding on us here, and it seems to be a little misleading. Facts are sourced; word choice is not. As an interesting aside, substitute "wing" for "arm" and you don't get the same implication. Wikidemo (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"we use reasoning and background knowledge, not sources". So says every original researcher and synthesizer in Wikipedia! When the NY Times says it is an "arm" it implies whatever it implies, and it's not our concern what it implies. What would you say if I went around reverting everything you cite, Wikidemo, using your argument "that's not a fact, that's a word choice!"Bdell555 (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I'm trying to agree with you. But no, style and language usage on Wikipedia are governed by WP:MOS and plain editorial discretion about how to write in English. Facts are governed by WP:V and WP:RS, plus a bunch of other content policies and guidelines. Reading the sources can give some insight into usage but it's not dispositive. Newspapers are written to a different tone, and for a different purpose than encyclopedias. They contain their own stylistic and explanatory choices. The New York Times editor using the phrase "X is an arm of Y" is generally not going to contain a detailed explanation on the usage and implications of the word "arm." It's legitimate to ask, when a reliable source uses a particular noun, verb, or adjective, whether that is a clear, unambiguous way to explain that to our readers. An example you cited somewhere, that ACLU (which is not tax-exempt) has an tax exempt "arm", is a good one that I find fairly convincing, even though by the argument you make above it would be WP:SYNTH to pay heed to it. The word "arm" is used to describe these situations. If we can satisfy ourselves that the word will generally be understood correctly I'm all for it. Again, I'm not reverting you. I'm just sharing my thoughts on the talk page here. Wikidemo (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) I'm not arguing that we ought to be paying any heed to it. I'm saying that if, with no small indulgence, we indulge your own SYNTH argument that Project Vote cannot be an "arm" here by virtue of its 501(c)3 status, then it may be noted that that elsewhere it can. But we shouldn't be "paying any heed" to such synth/OR contentions in the first place.

Should we not mention Obama went to Harvard without saying "and he is not a snob" because readers might otherwise "misunderstand" that Obama is a snob because of the fact we just mentioned? We report the facts, not how they should be "understood correctly".

If you are not disputing that "arm" is a fact, then this dispute is over. You say you grant that the New York Times is reliable for some sort of fact but not for its description of that fact as if commonly recognized facts can somehow exist for us apart from a description of them. You are employing a Wittgensteinian "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent" argument where a source cannot speak of any facts without using "style and language", hence, there is no fact whose use cannot be disputed on the grounds of "editorial discretion". Again, if you truly believe that, then you shouldn't object if I revert anything you cite saying, "I grant there is some sort of fact there, but your word choice is disputed". You then come back with a different "word choice" and I revert you again, saying that word choice is also disputed. By your own argument, you can never come up with something that is "dispositive". As Wittgenstein notes, there is no difference in the end between the claim that a fact cannot be "dispositively" described and the claim that there is no "dispositive" fact at all.Bdell555 (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is this still being debated? The four-year old terminology of your two sources has long since been superseded by a variety of new sources that disprove the "arm" categorization. Even if no source exists that explicitly states that Project Vote is not an "arm" of ACORN, it can be easily surmised from the overwhelming availability of data. No source explicitly states that I am not an Irken invader, but it can easily surmised from the overwhelming availability of other data that I am just a normal human worm baby. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

All this arguing about the association of Project Vote and ACORN is ridiculous. ACORN is the "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now". A simple address lookup for ACORN, Project Vote and Citizen Services Inc. reveals that all three organizations share the same office at 2101 Main Street in Little Rock AR. ACORN and Project Vote share offices at 739 8th Street SE in Washington DC. It’s obvious that these organizations are associated. Trying to keep this information out of the article clearly shows bias. 15.235.249.70 (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Vote and Sandy Newman

• Shapiro, Margaret (May 20, 1981). Hoyer wins 5th district House seat. The Washington Post, p. A1:

  Democrat Steny H. Hoyer was elected to Congress yesterday by voters in an overwhelmingly Democratic Maryland suburb who rejected the nation's conservative trend and a Republican strongly backed by the Reagan administration.
  
  The special election held yesterday to replace former Rep. Gladys Spellman, who has been hospitalized in a semicoma since last October, drew over 45 percent of the district's registered voters despite the soggy and cold spring weather.

• Mann, Judy (May 23, 1984). New voters. The Washington Post, p. D1:

  One organization heading a voter registration drive among the poor is Project Vote, which is headquartered in Washington and did its first test drive in 1981 for a special election held in Prince George's County. Workers registered 2,000 people in food stamp lines in two days. In a larger experiment funded by unions, Project Vote then registered 11,500 people at food stamp sites in New Jersey.
  
  "Then came the key question," says Sanford A. Newman , Project Vote's executive director. "Were we just producing pieces of paper or voters?" The names of those registered were computerized. One group got a follow-up letter from Coretta Scott King, and Project Vote found by sampling election returns that this group voted at a 29 per cent rate. Another group got the letter and a persuasive phone call: 59 per cent of them voted. A third group got the letter, the persuasive phone call and a reminder phone call: that group had a 66 percent turnout--in a nonpresidential election year.
  
  "We decided we had something that works," says Newman. A national project was put together with board members that included the presidents of the National Organization for Women, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Council of Churches, numerous advocacy groups and major unions.
  
  In August 1982, Project Vote set up field operations in nine states and registered 102,000 people in two months. It also ran into the first of four legal challenges from Republican governors who barred registrations in unemployment offices. Project Vote filed suit on First Amendment grounds and judges have ruled in its favor in all four cases.
  
  Project Vote also is registering people in cheese lines, emergency food operations and day care centers for the poor. "What's equally exciting," says Newman, "is that we've been able to spread the gospel of the strategies we've developed so they're being used by hundreds of other groups around the country. We expect to register about three-quarters of a million people ourselves. It's safe to project there will be about 2 million registered, using the strategies we've developed."

• Levy, Claudia (June 24, 1994). Labor and civil rights lawyer Winn Newman dies at age 70. The Washington Post, p. C4:

  Winn Newman, 70, a labor and civil rights lawyer whose work on pay-equity cases helped make salary discrimination based on sex and race a national issue, died of a stroke June 24 at Sibley Memorial Hospital.
  
  In addition to his wife of 47 years, of Washington, survivors include three sons, Harry Joel Newman of Franklin, Mich., Michael Newman of Chicago and Sanford Newman of Takoma Park; two brothers, Albert Newman of Glendale, Calif., and Bernard Newman of Lake Worth, Fla.; and four grandchildren.

Newross (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the point in posting all that personal information? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.250.250 (talk • contribs)

I guess this was a "dump" of Project Vote-related info for later inclusion (or potential inclusion) in the article itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully we'll be able to integrate some of this info, as Scjessey mentions. Unfortunately, when I clicked, the Washington Post obit had the title indicated for Winn Newman, but the text was an obit of someone entirely different. Busted Post website, I reckon. LotLE×talk 17:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Note how Simon and Lulu can perceive how sources "contradict" the use of "arm" but not "non-partisan". Republicans challenge "non-partisan" and it's in the article. Republicans don't challenge "arm" and it's out! Pure coincidence, I suppose!Bdell555 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinion

I've read half this page, and noticed several references establishing a link between ACORN and project vote. However, there is fundamental flaws in each source that keep them from being considered a 'great' source (e.g. primary source, questionable reliability, etc). Given as such, it's difficult to establish what is a campaign talking point, and what is fact. Given the election is tomorrow, I don't think that we can purely blame political motivation on User:Bdell555, however, his edit history has a disturbing pattern of POV pushing.

Looking at the situation from the outside, if Bdell555 wants to write a couple sentences, choosing his words carefully to prevent anything coatracky, POVy, or SYNTHy, I think it would be worth considering it. There is an aweful lot out there that is scrutinizing the association between Project Vote and ACORN. I would say that the "scrutinizing" itself if notable, and that's more of the point I'm getting at. Out of respect for those who created and maintain this article, this is as involved as I'm getting. There's my 2cents :) Digital^Ninja 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That is all well and good, but all the "scrutinizing" has been prompted by McCain campaign and Republican surrogates. Almost all recent sources agree that there is no direct link between the two organizations, and talking about this fact as if it is "disputed" is a synthesis. It is similar, in fact, to the claims by Creationists that their brand of nonsense should be taught in schools because evolution is just a theory and it has been "disputed" by some people. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

lol -- "evolution is just a theory, so lets switch to creationism". I agree with you on all points. However, Republicans count as a huge chunk of the population. That being said, saying they are just "republican" points is similar to saying, "well, those are only the points of 128 million people". I personally think the argument should be added in a neutral way. Ultimately, I'm not very concerned about it. I was simply giving an outside opinion. Cheers, Digital^Ninja 16:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and just an FYI, a protein cannot form without a pre-existing protein. That's just a biological principle. So, where did the first protein come from? :-D Digital^Ninja 16:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Central dogma of molecular biology. (Is this "preexisting" thing some weird religious argument?) LotLE×talk 17:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but this is exactly what I was referring to: transcription. RNA & DNA are both integrated, organized, and carried by protein, which in turn, transcribes this information to form new proteins (or enzyme by way or RNA). Without the original "copy", how do you form a new copy? You'd just have a pile of ammo acids with no organization or function. It's the biological version of the chicken and egg paradox; which came first, or perhaps more importantly, "how or why" did one come first? This is a little off topic, but I consider this relevant to the conversation of Project Vote vs. ACORN simply because an argumentative analogy was based on this concept :) Digital^Ninja 17:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Since 1994"

On October 24, the article was edited in order to restrict any claim of even "coordination" between ACORN and Project Vote to "since 1994". This is disputed, since other sources suggest Project Vote was founded as an affiliate (or "arm"/"offshoot"/etc.)Bdell555 (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The information is reliably-sourced here, but in your rush to be a disruptive and tendentious editor you deleted it and dismissed it in your edit summary. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not delete it. I edited the page to indicate that that claim is DISPUTED. Anyway, I might add that according to a New York Times story dated 22 October 2008, "Ms. Kingsley ["lawyer for ... Acorn"] found that the tight relationship between Project Vote and Acorn made it impossible to document that Project Vote’s money had been used in a strictly nonpartisan manner. Until the embezzlement scandal broke last summer, Project Vote’s board was made up entirely of Acorn staff members and Acorn members"Bdell555 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

What I get out of this NYT source is for the most their struggle in trying to proof close legal ties between ACORN and PV, thus leaving it an "open challenge" and not much more than a fringe theory (at least at the time I'm writing this). Their is no clear indication whatsoever. Whenever there is on there is a contradiction following it. The last few paragraphs are raising questions but they're just left open and unanswered.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The two organizations are separate. This is an indisputable fact, corroborated by multiple reliable sources (including, due to their tax status, the US government). Any attempt to state otherwise, with hazy synthesis about some sort of "dispute" is a clear example of agenda-based editing. Self-revert or find yourself reported to WP:ANI for your obvious POV-pushing. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Amongst the various sources, may I direct your attention to Barack Obama, who seems to dispute the contention that there was no cooperation between Project Vote and ACORN prior to 1994: "when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it".Bdell555 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a blog, and that does not confer "legal affiliate" or "offshoot" status on the organization. The fact remains that the two organizations are legally separate, and suggesting otherwise is, to put it bluntly, lying. If you can find reliable sources that say otherwise, propose new text and seek consensus for including it. Don't edit war lies into the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bdell555, you might as well just give up. Until the election is over there is no way the owners are going to allow anything that makes this connection. We all know the truth and there are many sources which make the connection, but there are simply too many partisan editors here to get past the false understanding of concensus. Facts be damned when so many are actively trying to hide anything negative regarding Obama. Arzel (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The most remarkable thing about this latest NYT story is its description of an ACORN person who was listed as a Project Vote Director on PV's tax filings year after year and she didn't even know Project Vote existed at all, never mind as a "separate" organization.Bdell555 (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Side note: The last time I checked this article wasn't about Obama.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Yet I can't help but notice some parallels between Scjessey's various threats, charges of bad faith editing, and give-no-quarter tactics and what's chronicled here. Perhaps some think it IS all about Obama!Bdell555 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of all of the theories above, the NYT source, which merely discusses the need for ACORN to have better governance accounting - which the source says they implemented, does not back up your edit, which is synthesis/OR. Saying that the accounting doesn't make it easy for them to verify that the funds were used in a non-partisan manner does not in fact mean that the funds were actually used in a non-partisan manner. Also, "offshoot/legal affiliate" is not at all established by the source. --guyzero | talk 18:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It describes Project Vote as an "affiliate". The other NYT article (from 2004) unequivocally "backs up" the edit, since it describes PV as an "arm" (but, of course, has been rejected by Scjessey on the ground that articles from 2004 are not reliable, even in the New York Times). Calling the connection "disputed" was simply a concession on my part, in line with what Noroton suggested some time ago, something I rejected because of synthesis/OR problems. Now the "arm" sources are not just being hidden, however, but a "not arm" source is being featured (a source that is explicitly interested in the Obama-McCain contest, unlike the TIME and NYT sources) in order to suggest to the reader that the extent of the relationship prior to 1994 is not just unknown but positively non-existent. There ought to be some acknowledgement that that is at least disputed, if it is going to be used (I might add that the source does not directly say that, either: there is an OR/synth element to "since 1994...") The article should, in fact, just state plainly that PV is an ACORN affiliate, offshoot or arm, to which any minimizing commentary by PV or ACORN staff can be duly added if duly sourced. Alternatively, simply state that until last summer, Project Vote’s board was made up entirely of ACORN members, cited to the NYT article of ten days ago.Bdell555 (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking the word "affiliate" .. the sentence that follows this word in the NYT source describes that affiliation, saying, "Project Vote hires Acorn to do voter registration work on its behalf, and the two groups say they have registered 1.3 million voters this year." This is already well documented in the article. --guyzero | talk 18:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Cherry-picking" out of an article whose general message is that these two organizations are so "tightly" related, some ACORN people supposedly overseeing/running Project Vote did not know Project Vote even existed?Bdell555 (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(<---) Hmmm. Affiliate to me means a company with a similar mission. More so, affiliate means a company with common "ownership". To describe it as Project Vote "hires" ACORN, that seems more like a contractual monetary agreement between two separate agencies not associated in any other way. This is false according to the actual sources used. The source mentions that the companies are "affiliated" meaning common ownership/stock/corporate officers etc. and to claim "hired" discredits the reality of the situation and indirectly attests POV in my opinion. Digital^Ninja 20:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

...or just working (at least in certain parts) close together. It is not necessarily a term binding organizations (in general) in a legally manner by law but sure it's open to interpretation and that's my point: The source does NOT state "legally affiliated", as is what I think a way to use that term without getting in "trouble" regarding potential lawsuits. Gosh, we need sources that are more clear about this if we want to include such.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see you're point there. Although I have to say, I've never heard "legally affiliated" before. That would be like saying a news source claming, "The Big Foot corporation filed record profits", and writing it as "A company called Big Foot claimed record profits" and then arguing on the articles talk page that company is used instead of corporation because the source didn't mention if it was a S-type corporation or not. Thats just my opinion. Why don't we just compromise and say, "Project Votes' red-headed step sister of a company in which it hates, ACORN, did....." or something along those lines :-D Digital^Ninja 23:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"legally affiliated" is of course not an official legal term. It just an attempt to simplify the term "affiliation" by any kind of law, (Federal law, state law, tax law, and so on). Does this make my point clear? Sorry, I'm not replying to the last part of your comment. I'd honestly find it somehow strange and don't know where to put it in my small big brain. Either I don't get it or I don't like it. Maybe if you put it more in context like in a proposed sentence "affiliated" ( :) ) with the articles paragraph/section in question?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why can't PV be called the 503 "arm" of ACORN when the other NY Times article and TIME Magazine clearly call PV ACORN's (supposedly) non-partisan "arm"? I might add that there are many other sources for that; some of them of campaign related, and if no one objects to Scjessey citing a campaign related source to contend the organizations do not work together, comparable sources may be cited to contend that they do, no? In any case, does anyone dispute that until last summer, Project Vote's board consisted ENTIRELY of ACORN people? The first thing to be settled is just what the facts are.Bdell555 (talk) 03:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, "arm" is deleted from the article... coincidentally? - some Democrats question it. Never mind that reliable sources are unequivocal. "non-partisan" is NOT deleted, or its place in the article even questioned, never mind that Republicans have questioned that, and even the New York Times has run a story within the last few days questioning it. And politics has nothing to do with this dispute?Bdell555 (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That ACORN people populate the board of Project Vote is completely irrelevant. People can be involved in two organizations at once without them being related. I was a college instructor at the same time as running a web design business, yet the business and the college were not "affiliated" or "arms" of one another. ACORN and PV have worked together on several get-out-the-vote drives, but Project Vote is independent of ACORN (as multiple reliable sources have confirmed). -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Both legally and practically, control of the board means control of the organization.Bdell555 (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Being on the board of two separate organizations does not make the two organizations connected. Your continued attempts to link these organizations is becoming tendentious. The overwhelming evidence from reliable sources says they are not linked beyond occasionally working together on voter drives and having some common staff. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It should be left to the reader as to what to make of the information, if anything. How would you describe your continued attempts to separate these organizations, despite the overwhelming evidence that links them?Bdell555 (talk)

Now you are being intentionally disruptive and antagonistic. The "overwhelming evidence" you claim is just plain old fiction, and your argument about leaving it to the reader is silly - Wikipedia should not imply a relationship that doesn't exist or there is a risk of misleading the reader. The majority of reliable sources, and the 501c status of Project Vote, clearly indicate that the organizations are separate. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times, TIME, etc are all just "plain old fiction"? And that's just a fraction of the evidence. I note that your ally here, LotLE, more than once said that re "boards of directors" "If those overlap, that would further clarify the relationship" and you never challenged that. We subsequently learn that "Project Vote’s board was made up entirely of Acorn staff members and Acorn members" and you want that suppressed. It's now 2014, but it's time this is corrected.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)