Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

No fraud found in the Minnosota Senate Race

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

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

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

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

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

It wasn't hard to find a link for a Fox News article on the subject. You can see one here:

"Felons Voting Illegally May Have Put Franken Over the Top in Minnesota, Study Finds"

However, it is not clear that this implicates ACORN. The conservative group that did the research points out that they are not making any assertions and that headlines like that from Fox News are "not conclusively provable" and that "isn't the point of the report." You can read more about their methodology, and what it is they are saying, on their own website here:

"Setting the Record Straight on Felon Voters"

Essentially, what they are saying is that there is evidence that some convicted felons registered to vote in Minnesota’s 2008 Senate election. They used a computerized list of names of possible ineligible felon voters by comparing publicly available databases and found matches for 2,803 persons using first, middle, and last names and year of birth. Of those, they found 341 court records which indicated a possible match that the voter in voter in question may have been convicted of a felony. If those ineligible voters cast ballots that were counted, however, 1) there is no way to know who they voted for, and 2) there is no verifiable evidence that ACORN had anything to do with this. --AzureCitizen (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks shoddy on the part of Fox News. The piece is not reliable as to any analysis or conclusions it draws, and I would be careful about using it to support factual claims. Anyway, this has nothing to do with ACORN so it's not pertinent. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yes, absolutely. I would edit in a lot of changes right now if I were better at Wikipedia.

The simple fact is, this wiki article as it currently stands is completely misleading, by omitting the crucial detail that the videos that took down ACORN were found to be completely phony. This fact was evidenced by the *unedited* versions that were released and subsequently reported on in various sources.

Somebody who knows how PLEASE edit in these changes ASAP.

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

Acorn Housing

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

The article says:

ACORN was composed of a number of legally distinct non-profit entities including ... the ACORN Housing Corporation.

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

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

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

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

The source you provided is not a GAO report. It is a letter, with a footnote, that indicates a preliminary report was issued in June of 2010, and that a final report was being worked on. The link you provided does not indicate the findings of the preliminary report. Furthermore, the source you provided does not support, and specifically avoids addresssing your assertion that "AHC was separate from ACORN and had been since it was created." From your source:

In the past, after AHCOA received grant funds, it contracted with various offices of ACORN to provide outreach services for AHCOA. AHCOA Certifications, at No. 24. AHCOA and ACORN also used the same entity—CCI—for financial, accounting, legal, and human resources services. AHCOA Certifications, at No. 15. In fact, ACORN itself listed AHCOA as an "allied organization” on an earlier iteration of its Web site. ACORN, Allied Organizations, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20080822090025/www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12375 (archived on Aug. 22, 2009). However, for purposes of the question at issue in this opinion, it is not necessary to determine whether AHCOA, when formerly operating as ACORN Housing, may have been financially or organizationally related to ACORN. At issue here is whether AHCOA is presently an allied organization of ACORN.

So contrary to your assertions, the source you provided basically says, "Yes, they were connected before, and even shared human resources, but we're only concerned with their status at this very moment ... so that's all that we'll speak to."

Would it be possible for you to provide a source reflecting the conclusions of the final report (or even the preliminary report)? Preferably from a secondary reliable source reporting on the matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Good idea or not?

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

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

New book needed in Bibliography

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

Research is done in WP:Reliable sources. The title alone would seem to guarantee that this isn't one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to add a non-notable, unreliable and clearly biased book in order to make sure there's a book that's critical of ACORN in that section. Reviews on Amazon and endorsements by people that share the views expressed in the book do not constitute notability.Kate (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several hundred books that cover ACORN in whole or in part, and the fact that we don't list most of them in no way hinders a Wikipedia user's ability to "research ACORN on their own". I'm sure there are many entertaining conspiracy theories in Vadum's work published by World Net Daily, but we should limit ourselves to including only those works that give the subject matter encyclopedic treatment. (By the way, there is quite a bit of criticism of ACORN in the three books presently listed.) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Fine idea. Maybe the book can be even mentioned if RS's discussed it. Could make an IP happy :) TMCk (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

I already filed a report.TMCk (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple of years ago there was a concern that this IP was also user:Syntacticus, who in turn may have been someone with a clear conflict of interest. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Syntacticus and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive498#Neutrality_dispute_at_ACORN. These latest edits are consistent with that hypothesis.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the "capital research center" should be blocked if there is further editwarring coming from their IP range.TMCk (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

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

Nevada convictions

I am not much for writing these entries, so I will leave it to someone else, but I assume someone is going to add something about ACORN's conviction in Las Vegas, with the maximum fine handed down by the judge. According to the judge, ACORN made a "mockery" of the electoral system. Also, two ACORN executives were convicted. http://www.lvrj.com/news/judge-fines-acorn-5-000-for-voter-registration-scheme-127467598.html Seems we can finally put to bed the bullshit myth peddled by ACORN's defenders, individuals who would deny the existence of the moon even if it landed in their front yard, that the organization has never been involved in voter-related fraud. And since a judge handed down the fine, no more "independent investigations" conducted by individuals who supported ACORN in the past can ludicrously claim that ACORN isn't a criminal organization. And since James O'Keefe isn't involved, you can't make bogus charges of "selective editing" even though the editing he permormed resulted in no substantive changes, at all, to the conversations he had with the various individuals advising him how to engage in criminal activity. Nope, ACORN's defenders can't pull any more of that bullsh*t with this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)