Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

• Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archives/2008/November
• Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archives/2008/December

Embezzlement Charge

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

I have reverted the addition. The exact same material appears in the same level of detail, in the section above. Please assume good faith about other editors' motivations, and do not use article talk pages to make accusations to the contrary. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do like this edit[1] though. I've added back the quote marks and mentioned that the quote comes from the Times. Would it be better to paraphrase rather than quote the news source? That might be hard given the loaded words like "enemies" and "strident".Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting an article that quotes a person who speaks in words that further require emphasis quotes is a cumbersome business. Your edit was a definite improvement. I'm not sure converting the paragraph into prose would convey the same meaning, as we would be paraphrasing the NYT reporter, and she is already paraphrasing much of what Rathke said. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

2010 census

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

Rep. Michele Bachmann seems to hold a large number of beliefs which can most generously be described as "bat-shit insane" (the cited source even says as much). The fact she seems to have some fantasy about ACORN and the census is pretty much automatically irrelevant (though possibly germane to her article). Do you have a source for information on ACORNs actual involvement with the US census. It is conceivably relevant--but definitely not at the level of a whole major section--if we find out what the story is actually about. LotLE×talk 08:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I came across one reliable source about congress not limiting their involvement, but I'd prefer to come across more than one before flat out saying that they are involved, especially as more coverage will probably be available soon. Can you please take back the bat... label for BLP reasons? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I look forward to reading solid sources on ACORNs connection to the US census.

The WP:BLP concern isn't as you suggest; my opinion of Bachmann is clearly that, my personal opinion, and my summarization may be colorful, but is is not anything close to libelous. Moreover, this is obviously a discussion where I suggest context, on a talk page. An opinion like mine, even well cited to published sources, might raise a concern in article space, but it doesn't in talk space.

On a similar line, in the archive of this talk page, you will find many examples of editors stating their negative opinions of ACORN or of individuals connected with the organization. While few of those merit any consideration within the article itself, I would not dream of suggesting they were BLP concerns sitting in the talk page (merely that they were unhelpful to writing the article). LotLE×talk 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From The Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 26, 2009:

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

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

ACORN to Play Role in 2010 Census

The U.S. Census Bureau is working with several national organizations to help recruit 1.4 million workers to produce the country's 2010 census, including one with a history of voter fraud charges: ACORN.[2]

We have two sources with differing numbers as to just how many "organizations" will be involved in the census unless one is able to meld "several" with "40,000", to say nothing of the voter fraud charge and multiple convictions [3][4]Eyesockett (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

So, you've got a link to an opinion column in the WSJ, a link to "conservative politicians attack ACORN again, and here at FAUX News we take them seriously", and a link to the old voter fraud story, where the guy actually convicted says, ""When I did it, when my team did it, it wasn't to steal any election". And this all proves what? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Wall Street Journal opinion piece is based upon a nonfactual assertion? One would think that a reliable source such as the Journal would not permit that. When someone is convicted of fraud, fraud is the crime not to mitigated by rationalizations/excuses . But I will now search for newsworthy source to support the facts posited by Mr.Fund. I do think we need to remember that facts exist in their own right and should not be subject to political skewness.Eyesockett (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I a very new at this so bear with me. Would the follow source from the Seattle Times fulfill[5] the requirement of supporting some of Mr. Fund's factual claims? If so then let us use it to support Mr. Fund and perhaps answer: "And this all proves what?" Eyesockett (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also at a loss as to what you are asserting here. ACORN has been convicted of fraud? Never. ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud? Never. The Seattle Times article you cited mentions charges of registration fraud, not voter fraud, and says nothing about convictions (although I believe a few workers eventually pled guilty to certain charges). Every two years during the election cycles, like clockwork, ACORN deals with routine registration fraud accusations. With thousands of temporary paid workers dealing with millions of registrations, there are typically a few bad apples that ACORN and the authorities weed out; just as described in the article. As for the other sources you mentioned above, yes, it appears ACORN will be among the hundreds of organizations enlisted to help with the 2010 census. When that happens, I'm sure that, too, will become part of the article. What, exactly, was your concern? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"I am also at a loss as to what you are asserting here. ACORN has been convicted of fraud? Never. ACORN employees have been convicted of voter fraud? Never." I do not remember stating such. That would be editorialize (POVing) would it not? what i prefer to do is to let the news do the talking. I believe this statement is self annihilating: "The Seattle Times article you cited mentions charges of registration fraud, not voter fraud, and says nothing about convictions (although I believe a few workers eventually pled guilty to certain charges." I do believe a plea of guilt serves as a self conviction!

two quotes from the article will suffice:

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

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

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

It means that the speaker says he was guilty. The articles make it clear that this was a pattern of greed and desperation by lowest-level workers for ACORN; ACORN as an organization was not charged, much less convicted, except in the kangaroo courts of the far-right blogosphere. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

orange mike's point of view is pejorative to the collaborative spirit espoused by wiki and i find that sad. I have not formed conclusions about Acorn. Indeed when challenged on the neutrality of a WSJ opinion piece, i produced a neutral news article in supporting of Mr. Fund's factual claims.

Don't be silly; Orange Mike didn't express a point of view. He reiterated the fact that ACORN is always under frivolous accusation by the far-right fringe, and he said nothing about your conclusions or opinions. The sad act doesn't fly. I noticed that this was the one fact from my comment above that you also declined to respond to. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Please specifically state what this "problem worthy of note" is. It isn't clear to me from the above conversation. Could you also clearly state what "factual claims" of Mr. Fund are supported by the article you cited? Thanks, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Please specifically state what this "problem worthy of note" is." Charges of fraud will diminish the public's trust in ACORN whatever its etiology; systemic or individual, regardless of the causative agent, incompetence/criminal. When one read this:

"....During the 2008 election season, ACORN gathered over 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states. Many of these registration forms were flagged by ACORN's internal auditors for election official review, with approximately 400,000 being ultimately rejected as incomplete, duplicated or fraudulent." from the article page under voter registration..." from the article page under the subtitle 'voter registration' coupled with reliable sources reporting convictions and ongoing national investigations in many states there can be no doubt the egregious effect, rightly or wrongly, upon the public's trust of ACORN. Thus it is a "problem worthy of note".Eyesockett (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"Diminish the public's trust in ACORN?" Incorrect. Charges of registration fraud by ACORN workers will diminish ACORN's trust in it's employees. It is ACORN that is being defrauded (as it says in your sources), not the public. I ask you again to reiterate what this "problem worthy of note" is. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

WSJ's Fund: "Elsewhere, Washington state prosecutors fined Acorn $25,000 after several employees were convicted of voter registration fraud in 2007. The group signed a consent decree with King County (Seattle), requiring it to beef up its oversight or face criminal prosecution......" Seattle Times: "ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again.

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

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

So you are saying that Mr. Fund is looking out for the best interest of ACORN? ACORN was defrauded by it's own workers, and suffered for it. The only harm to the public was the wasted time needed to investigate the trouble caused by the few problem employees, and ACORN paid that $25,000 in investigation fees. It appears you are confusing the work ACORN does for the public with the work employees do for ACORN. What "other claims" of Fund's need to be noted? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is well sourced that there have been incidents and convictions of voter registration fraud by ACORN employees, and in a few cases accusations against the organization itself or its managers. The Nevada case involved their registration incentive pay system being illegal per state law. What we have are a small chorus of Republican operatives and commentators complaining that ACORN is a bad seed (pun intended), and because they can't be trusted they should not have a hand in the census counts. The more paranoid and conspiracy-oriented would take that farther and say ACORN is trying to steal elections to favor the Democrats, whether by election fraud or census fraud. Republicans have for decades been very vocal on the questions of fraud in elections and in census counts. The more cynical would say that this is a purely instrumental concern, because an undue restriction ends up undercounting legitimate homeless, poor, transient, foreign-language-speaking, college student, immigrant, etc., residents, who are more likely to vote Democratic. If enough people make that accusation against ACORN, it will lead to reliable independent coverage in mainstream sources about the accusation being made, and if that rises to a certain level I think it is notable and worth including, as an accusation. Something like: "Conservative [or choose some other adjective] commentators raised objections to ACORN's participation as [what is their role?] in the 2010 census, citing earlier accusations and incidents relating to voter registration fraud in the 2008 [and 2006?] elections." However, we do not need to repeat those anti-ACORN arguments as if they're valid, just report that they exist. Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"What we have are a small chorus of Republican operatives and commentators complaining that ACORN is a bad seed (pun intended), and because they can't be trusted they should not have a hand in the census counts." or perhaps alternately, ACORN is a seedy operation manifest in metastasized malfeasance that has grown from a one state dog and pony show to a full fledged circus involving 14 or more states and indeed it involved the then to be president of these united states, B.H.Obama! Yes to this: "If enough people make that accusation against ACORN, it will lead to reliable independent coverage in mainstream sources about the accusation being made, and if that rises to a certain level I think it is notable and worth including, as an accusation." But I would add that if enough little acorns are rotten then perhaps one should look to the oak tree for a causative agent. Surely, it might be said "The nuts do not fall far from the oak".Eyesockett (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

So based on your response to my last 3 questions, I guess we can agree that (1) Fund's allegations are frivolous; (2) It is ACORN, and not the public, that is being defrauded by the illegal activities of a few bad ACORN workers, and (3) there are no new claims or issues that aren't already covered in the present Wikipedia article. It's been an interesting conversation, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your summary of my response is simplistic and diversionary. I have alluded to a "culture of corruption" that seems to permeate ACORN. Then I argued that the agent of this proven malfeasance could be one of ACORN the organization's incompetence or ACORN's the organization's corruption. The shadow that darkens the public's perception of ACORN consists of the umbra, the darkest shadow of proven illegality with the parse-able results attributed to either the ACORN the organization or the worker drones (with a few cases, plausible denial is plausible) or the semi-lit/semi-dark penumbra world of the unresolved world of indictment that now caste its darkness in many states. ACORN is now well enveloped in this darkened world and to expect the public's trust to be placed behind the excuse of "plausible deniability" regardless of the competence or criminality is a burden of doubt the public trust should not have to bear. Thus is noteworthy. This topic is not an ACORN promotional unless proven to be otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. The indictments and alleged criminal activity need status in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyesockett (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So once again, based on your response to my last 3 questions, I guess we can agree that (1) Fund's allegations are frivolous; (2) It is ACORN, and not the public, that is being defrauded by the illegal activities of a few bad ACORN workers, and (3) there are no new claims or issues that aren't already covered in the present Wikipedia article? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to perseverative on the theme of whether or not we have a Fund-amentally frivolous allegation in the WSJ opinion piece or one built upon credible evidence perhaps we need to review this:

Fund: "Acorn spokesman Scott Levenson calls the Nevada criminal complaint "political grandstanding" and says that any problems were the actions of an unnamed "bad employee." But Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada's Democratic Attorney General, told the Las Vegas Sun that Acorn itself is named in the criminal complaint. She says that Acorn's training manuals "clearly detail, condone and . . . require illegal acts," such as requiring its workers to meet strict voter-registration targets to keep their jobs."[[8]]

and juxtapose it to this reliable source: "Criminal charges filed against ACORN,two employees from" article from the Las Vegas Sun from which this: "Catherine Cortez Masto, Nevada's Democratic Attorney General, told the Las Vegas Sun that Acorn itself is named in the criminal complaint. She says that Acorn's training manuals "clearly detail, condone and . . . require illegal acts," such as requiring its workers to meet strict voter-registration targets to keep their jobs...."Nevada will not tolerate violations of the law by individuals nor will it allow corporations to hide behind or place blame on their employees when training manuals clearly detail, condone and, indeed, require illegal acts in performing the job for the corporation, Masto said during a media conference today."[[9]]. Both Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto and Secretary of State Ross Miller are Democrats and both "announced Monday that voter registration fraud charges have been filed against an organization that works with low-income people and two of its employees in its Las Vegas office."[[10]].

in summary your claim of Fund's frivolity is specious, your "bad apple" metaphor is rotten and you third point on adequacy of coverage by article page is not borne out by the apologist nature of the article. Further the claims of partisan attacks is disproven by the fact it was democrats who brought the charges in Nevada. Eyesockett (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you lost me. What were your specific answers to my last three questions again? As near as I can tell based on your responses to my last 3 questions, I guess we do indeed agree that (1) Fund's allegations are frivolous; (2) It is ACORN, and not the public, that is being defrauded by the illegal activities of a few bad ACORN workers, and (3) there are no new claims or issues that aren't already covered in the present Wikipedia article? And a correction: I've not made a claim, nor have I mentioned apples, nor have I put forth any points. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That's alright, i shall keep trying. Fund's article used Nevada's democratic A.G. in establishing ACORN's activity in Nevada and that the fraud was institutional, IE, ACORN as an entity and not the employees. Both she and the Nevadan Democrat Secretary of State, Ross Miller made the charge against the ACORN institution as opposed to your POV that it was errant employees, thus contending with your, Xeonphrenic claim, "The only harm to the public was the wasted time needed to investigate the trouble caused by the few problem employees" which you, Xeonphrenic, claims not to have made with "nor have I put forth any points." The "observation" that the attacks on ACORN were the work of republicans/right wing hacks dot this discussion like fly droppings. Noticing them i decide to do a cursory exams of a couple of the states charges against ACORN. A statistical sinking of the shaft, testing the theory of republican attacks against ACORN. I found that three out of my first four sallies involved democrats!

Incorrect. Lomax, a republican, filed the charges. The two democrats you keep mentioning are the people with whom he filed the charges, and are the people that will be handling the case as required by their position, but they didn't instigate it. I'm still waiting for you to reiterate your answers to my three questions. I should take your four instances of avoiding responding as my answer, but I'll push on and ask once again. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

for economy sake i present two:

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

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

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

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

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

Common Pleas Judge Richard A. Frye is a democrat.

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

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

(Couple those with the Nevada republican responsible for filing the Nevada charges and you have 2 cases instigated by republicans, and 1 misrepresented case totally unrelated to ACORN, which comes as no surprise. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC))

I'll be brief because when you start to accuse people of editing out of POV the discussion is more or less over. Viewing legal matters through the lense of the political party of a judge and prosecutor is usually not a fruitful way to analyze events. If reliable sources say it's relevant we can consider it, but chatting about that here based on partisan sources is WP:FORUM-ish. The criminal complaints are that ACORN's quota system is itself a violation of the election law. That is not a fraud claim, nor do I see any claim that in doing so ACORN as an organization was doing anything surreptitious. I don't see what any of this has to do with the discussion about the census. Some Republicans are clearly upset about ACORN, and this fits in with their expressed concern about voter registration and census issues, where in both cases their power is threatened should the counts change to reveal a higher proportion of Democrats. Wikidemon (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with much of your response, Wikidemon, I'd take issue with the wording of your assessment that, "The criminal complaints are that ACORN's quota system is itself a violation..." when I've read that they don't have a quota system. ACORN claims they do have employee productivity standards that are expected and enforced, just as any employer does, and they claim these standards don't come near to being a "quota system", and are being misrepresented as such. Until it clears the courts, it's just more of the same: allegations with intent to besmirch the organization, not protect the voting public. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: "First, you appear to have the misconception that these are "emerging ACORN legal problems" when accusations like these have been routine since at least the 1992 election season"

These 'accusations' may have been routine, but have the charges fraud and the convictions that have been successfully pursued as in the case in Nevada and Penn and that "Voter registration fraud complaints like these continue to mount for the group, already under scrutiny in 11 states where hundreds, if not thousands, of new registrations are being questioned [[11]] or to quote the national review "As of Monday, ACORN was under investigation in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin" [[12]]changed that? Permit me a question: Is there a tipping point at which mere accusation transmogrify into a legal problem for ACORN? And I don't simply mean at the entity ACORN wrong doing, but I mean for ACORN by means of successful prosecution of its members.Do you hold that ACORN is free of the legal shadow beyond all reasonable doubt, what one might refer to as the umbra, or is there another standard, preponderance of the evidence, as in civil cases where the semidarkness of a penumbra would serve? Much has been made that the ACORN's legal problems are partisan at the core yet when mention of democrats involved in pursuing ACORN you talk as if the prosecutors and secretaries of state are mere pawns of some detective and cannot judge for themselves the merit of the fraud cases.this quote from you: "Which is irrelevant, because the actual charges were filed by Allegheny County Detective Robert F. Keenan, a republican, but it is Zappala's job to prosecute all such cases." are you telling me that Allengheny County Detective Keenan, a detective, initiated the prosecution and Zappala followed his lead? I would like to have an answer to that also. Also in pursuing the legal avenue at what point does some success sully ACORN's reputation and fracture the public trust? Eyesockett (talk) 02:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Your questions are unclear to me. If you are asking if the routine accusations of this past election cycle are any different from the routine accusations of previous election cycles, the answer is no, they are the same. If you are asking if the temporary employees of ACORN should be punished for wrong-doing when they are guilty of such, the answer is yes, of course, and ACORN will continue to push to have them prosecuted. Does the quantity of accusations against ACORN workers equate to "a legal problem for ACORN?" It hasn't, and it shouldn't; considering there have been fewer than three-dozen problem workers out of many thousands of workers over the decades, it isn't likely. As for your question about Keenan and Zappala, the answer is no. As for pursuing legal action in order to sully the reputation of, and trust in, an organization — it's interesting that you should mention that. I would agree with you, that is no doubt the motivation behind much of it. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

McCain criticism rebuttal

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

That's the funny thing about facts. Regardless of where you find them, or who repeats them, a fact is a fact is a fact. If you look more closely at the Newsweek article, you'll see it contains a verbatim report from Factcheck.org. Perhaps you don't trust Factcheck.org either? If you look more closely at the Factcheck.org investigation, you'll see they reference each of their findings to sources including the Inspector General with the U.S. Department of Justice; official statements from the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign; the Office of the Secretary of State, Nevada; the New York Times; the Bloomberg News; CNN; and the Associated Press. Wikipedia has rules regarding where we can get our facts, and Newsweek qualifies. You can disparage Newsweek all you want, but they didn't create the facts — they just report them. Instead of shooting the messenger, how about you show us some facts to the contrary? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The anon reminds me of Stephen Colbert's statement (in character) that he doesn't like facts because facts have a well-known liberal bias. LotLE×talk 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if I can get that on a bumper-sticker ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you can. Here's the video of Colbert at WH correspondence dinner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A&feature=related (or Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner)

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

Recent addition to Housing section

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

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

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

Recent Edits

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

I would like thank Xenophrenic for his input into my immersion into the wiki article page. It is good. I will now pursue to remedy my errors. one has to start somewhere. At some point with the emerging ACORN legal problems expanding amongst the states will necessarily be considered noteworthy. I have one article from the National Review Online [[13]] dated October 14, 2008 8:45 AM stating that "As of Monday, ACORN was under investigation in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin." and another article from the New York Post dated October 12, 2008 saying [[14]] "Voter registration fraud complaints like these continue to mount for the group, already under scrutiny in 11 states where hundreds, if not thousands, of new registrations are being questioned." perhaps xeonphrenic would explain the worthiness or lack there of of these sources thus making this a collaborative effort of a contentious issue.

now to xeonphrenic's justified observation "when inserting "democrats are involved", as if it pertains to the content" I would answer, let's get rid of the insertion. Would the removal of those onerous words not make the rest acceptable? If not let us collaborate on what would. Eyesockett (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In principal I am not opposed to expanding and bringing up to date the treatment of the employee fraud claims and investigations, and other legal problems having to do with the voter registration campaigns. However, I would not consider National Review a reliable source on the subject. They play politics far too much and are often believed to mischaracterize things. This one in particular is an editorial column. Best go with a more standard and more clearly unbiased source. Further, I don't think we should devote a separate section to it. Per WP:CRIT, it's best to add that material thematically into the section on voter registration, where it now is, and perhaps into the presidential campaign section (which does serve as a place to describe how the issue became a controversy). Wikidemon (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

First, you appear to have the misconception that these are "emerging ACORN legal problems" when accusations like these have been routine since at least the 1992 election season. Are you suggesting that we itemize each accusation that has been made against every temporary employee for decaades, along with resulting convictions and/or dismissals? If so, please explain how this would help the article. The Voter Registration section already indicates that these do occur and are handled appropriately.

Second, you need to be careful about interchanging "voter fraud" and "registration fraud" as if they were the same. They are not even related, but the incidence of carelessly confusing the two tends increase in direct proportion to the partisanship of the source reporting on them.

Third, unlike Wikidemon, I am opposed to having an itemized list of each individual worker that tried to scam ACORN, and their resulting punishment. I don't see it adding to the quality of the article. Sourced content indicating that it does happen; is routinely inflated in importance and severity every election cycle by opponents of ACORN; and has resulted in ACORN having to tighten their procedures as a result, seems sufficient. The most recent (See Nevada and Pittsburgh) charges involving quotas, and ACORN's counter suit involving the same issues, are too recent for the article based on WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. The result of those cases may provide interesting content for this article, but trying to insert every play-by-play while it progresses isn't practical. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Undercover Prostitute

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

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

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

Videos

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

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