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

Stan

Just to say i support the liebowitz stuff going now. The actual article is about the 2007 mortgage downturn, not the full blown explosion of this year, it's a fringe opinion of no apparent wide-spread acceptance that, apparently makes a causal link between housing advocacy for the poor and bad loans to buy multiple condos on florida swampland, this economist isn't a big deal such that every opinion of his would be notable, kooky or not, etc... I had argued against the inclusion of this material when it was first placed here and support its removal now.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the main reasons ACORN has been so vilified by its critics is because of its (alleged) connection to the subprime crisis via its CRA advocacy. To omit Liebowitz's work is to leave a gaping hole in the article that would leave readers confused about why ACORN is so disliked by its critics. It is completely relevant and leaving it out is a whitewash of sorts. Readers are free to decide for themselves how to treat his views. You are splitting hairs (WP:WIKILAWYERING perhaps) about the 2007 downturn and the subsequent further downturn in 2008. It is a continuum, not separate events. Syntacticus (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's vilified on the right because it signs up a demographic of voters who tend to vote democratic and supports (generally) democratic causes, not because it supported the passage of a law (which has nothing to do with 95% of the bad debt currently in the US system) 30 years ago. There is no "gaping hole" and no reason to include a fairly incoherent opinion piece by a non-notable economist to make some strained point or other via the 2007 mortgage downturn.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. ACORN is no doubt disliked by rightists for the voter sign up efforts you cite but it is also disliked intensely because it supported CRA which encouraged a general loosening of underwriting standards across the whole lending industry, which is one of the points Liebowitz makes. It is a completely coherent, well written opinion piece, your academic snobbery notwithstanding (notability of the economist's view is relevant, not his supposed lack of academic stardom). The mere fact that the media repeated the CRA/ACORN allegations again and again and again during the 2008 election campaign establishes notability of the argument and supports inclusion in the ACORN article. Excluding the info might lead readers to believe ACORN critics are kooks and ACORN activists misunderstood saints. Maybe that's what you want. Syntacticus (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The tone of the piece is a lowbrow election cycle editoria - it is not written academically. There is no sourcing to suggest that this particular opinion is widespread or influential. During the election cycle almost everything Obama was involved in (or that people could try to attach to him) was criticized for every possible angle. All that stuff is not encyclopedic, and not relevant to the various people and organizations that became objects of the partisan campaigns. Wikidemon (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon that the "ACORN helped cause the economy to collapse" stuff is not a common belief or one that was even picked up by the media. Even the McCain campaign didn't push it hard. It's trivial and should be removed entirely. If included, we should revert to the links to ACORN's dismissal of it or to the wiki page on this issue (assuming that is stable). BTW: I moved the last footnote to the correct place and took out the phrase after McCain's quote as we don't need to finish his thought for him (i.e., we don't know that he meant voter reg fraud, their camp seemed to be geering up for election stealing accusations...bizarre as that sounds).Threepillars (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Some (sourced) content into what McCain was talking about would be useful. Standing alone his claim seems very out of place. Wikidemon (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Endorsement of Obama

I added a little bit about Bertha Lewis endorsing Obama via YouTube. It is relevant because ACORN goes to tremendous pains to note that it is strictly nonpartisan yet the endorsement of Obama seems to undermine that claim. Nonpartisan groups don't normally endorse candidates for office. Syntacticus (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, ever more craptastic digressions! Lewis was making a personal endorsement, not stating one by the organization. Few, if any, non-partisan organizations prohibit their employees (or even officers) from having personal political opinions, or even stating them publicly. However, trying to twist this into some sort of hypocrisy is farther still from any reality: ACORN can and has endorsed candidates, and never made claims not to; they merely did not endorse Obama specifically, for whatever reason. An endorsement wouldn't be particularly notable, but this particular endorsement didn't happen. LotLE×talk 07:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, upon consideration, I was wrong. ACORN gave the endorsement, not Lewis. It is an official video from ACORN affiliate Working Families Party. I regret the error and have fixed it. Thanks. Syntacticus (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Lotle, actually it was on behalf of a political party she's affiliated with. It aint "on behalf of acorn." Syntacticus has mischaracterized that youtube video. (is a trivial endorsement by a member of an org in her capacity as a member of a different political party sourced only to youtube worth including here? Have to wonder...)Bali ultimate (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

this edit [[1]] syntacticus is quite frankly wrong. They are not officially affiliated in any way (at the very least this would be something that would need proving). I'll note that you had originally written this video said "Lewis on behalf of acorn endorsed" which was astonishingly misleading. I'll now leave it to someone else for now to correct this (and invite them to watch the youtube video for themselves.)Bali ultimate (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bali, maybe you have a problem with comprehension. Her wording certainly suggested it was from ACORN. She said so outright on the video, so you have it wrong. Also, you evidently don't know the history of the Working_Families_Party which was co-founded by ACORN and remains its affiliate to this day. Perhaps you should not edit unless you know what you're talking about, hmm? You seem to keep reverting my edits because of some personal animus. Syntacticus (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I watched. It was for this party, which i'd never heard of before. As for "affiliate;" do you have a citation from a reliable source proving this, or something from the WFP web-page at least? I presume by "affiliate" you mean some sort of formal relationship. By the way, your hotlinking to dailykos in the text of the article got me to wondering -- are you and the occasional dailykos diarist "syntacticus," who shares precisely your interests, the same guy?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly do love to speculate about stuff. The Working Families Party was founded by ACORN says the WP entry for the party here:

[[2]] Corroborated by DTN [[3]]. Syntacticus (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that the facts don't speak for themselves, interpreting her speech is a question of WP:OR. You would have to find reliable secondary sourcing for accuracy and weight. Wikidemon (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is no other possible interpretation. Syntacticus (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that the material was reverted back in, and I have removed it again. Please do not add marginal material like this. The edit warring is unseemly, and no way to edit an encyclopedia. The burden is on anyone who wants to include information like this to show that it is both accurate, and that it is relevant to the article. Given that we already say that ACORN endorsed Obama in the primary, I cannot see how the fact of an ACORN official personally endorsing OBAMA on behalf of some other organization is relevant to ACORN. No sources have been provided to support that it is. Hence, the material should stay out until and unless this is established and consensus built around it. Wikidemon (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I watched the Lewis video again. Completely irrelevant to any article, but I really like her! What a charming demeanor. Whether Lewis is speaking for anyone other than herself is entirely unclear from the video, and asking readers to interpret the meaning of any Youtube video is definitely WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Lewis gives a "shout out" to a large number of organizations she is sympathetic with, but presumably she isn't speaking for all of them. This seems to be the status of ACORN in her video. She is endorsing Working Families Party by suggesting that you should vote Obama on that line[*], but this looks more like an endorsement of WFP than by WFP to me.

[*] In NY and a few other states, candidates can be affiliated with multiple parties. During a tally, not only the candidate, but the voted affiliation is counted. So while a vote for either, e.g. "Obama/Democrat" or "Obama/WFP" is counted towards the same candidate, the number of party voters is used for stuff like matching funds and ballot access for parties. Lewis, in her statement, more-or-less presumes that her listeners will vote Obama, but wishes that vote to also help WFP. LotLE×talk 20:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you're going to like Lewis because she is a communist just like you -- your radicalism seems to infect all your edits. But I digress, your spin is utterly convincing. ACORN is not supposed to be a partisan outfit and whenever they take heat during an election cycle they invariably respond that their get out the vote/registration efforts are strictly nonpartisan. Earlier in the year ACORN's PAC endorsed Obama, not ACORN itself. The Lewis video is different. In it she, the acting CEO of the group, urges people to vote for Obama. No reasonable person could interpret that as anything other than ACORN, the purportedly nonpartisan group, endorsing Obama. My larger point is that ACORN's claim that it is nonpartisan is bullshit. Syntacticus (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why youtube videos are not a reliable source. They're open to interpretation (besides other like tampering possibilities). Edits should be backed up by a WP:RS and youtube isn't one unless accomplished by one.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Nonsense. Watch the video [[4]] again. She says "I want to thank everyone out there for defending ACORN against the scurrilous right-wing attacks and smears. That’ll teach 'em to attack a community organizer! [skip ahead] And if you live in New York there’s one more simple thing you can all do to help ACORN: vote for the community organizer Barack Obama on the Working Families Party ballot line!" Let us recap. ACORN's interim CEO issued ACORN's endorsement of Obama in the general election. If the matter goes to the Federal Elections Commission and or the IRS, they will agree with me because there is no other possible way of interpreting her words. ACORN may very well lose its tax exempt status because they screwed up. Syntacticus (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't nonpartisanship a legal status for tax and election purposes? As long as they meet it, as determined by the relevant controlling institutions (not you), and until they are shown otherwise to have not met it, again not by you, that's the way it stands. No? Threepillars (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • Did you read what I wrote? Yes, they have to be nonpartisan. That's what I said again and again. The IRS uses a facts and circumstances test. The head of ACORN endorsing Obama weeks before the election on YouTube might very well meet the test for sanctions against ACORN. My point was that her statement put ACORN in jeopardy because it got ACORN involved in the election in a partisan way. I'm not sure what your "not by you" comment is getting at. The authorities and any reasonable person would interpret her statement to be ACORN's endorsement of Obama because she is who she is (that is, head of ACORN). If it was meant to be a personal endorsement, she would have said so but there she was on the video with a WFP banner or sign right behind her (and as shown above WFP is affiliated with ACORN). Even if the endorsement doesn't cause legal ramifications for ACORN it still undermines ACORN's claim that it is strictly nonpartisan. At a minimum she has shown that ACORN's claim to be nonpartisan is a sham. Syntacticus (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what you wrote? Their status is what it is and will only change if they or the proper authorities change it. I didn't ask if they have to be nonpartisan. I asked, as a way of trying to politely point out (but manners seem lost on you), that their status is a legal determination by legal institutions, not by you. Stated more plainly: Your opinion doesn't matter. You're not a judge nor are you a tax official. File complaints or do whatever, just don't place your opinions into Wikipedia articles. This is not the place for op-eds or pretend lawyering.Threepillars (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For such statements there are plenty of forums and blogs. If you want to be taken serious on WP you might want to consider reading the guidelines and rules. What might fit into a blog doesn't mean it belongs into an encyclopedia, even if it is an online one. Till you get this straitened out in your mind you should hold your personal effort till you can improve this enziclopedia within the rules, which are or should be non-partisan and always sourced reliable.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus on a Bicycle! (to quote some charming editor I saw comment on something else recently). This strained reasoning of our friend from CRC is getting crazier by the minute. Lewis is not, of course, the CEO of ACORN, but she apparently is "chief organizer", whatever that title means. Someone who does something for an organization really isn't transparently identical with that organization! This is the sort of thing one normally learns in grade school, if that grade school isn't run by a right-wing "think tank". I could record a Youtube video asking viewers to "vote Communist" (to pick up on Syntacticus' trope; minus the insanity of calling Lewis a Communist for endorsing Obama)... and y'know what, even if I did so it wouldn't say anything about the OVC, or the ACM, or the LA Libraries, or MCF, or any other organization I happen to be a member of. Not even if it were freely uploaded to a popular video blog site. LotLE×talk 08:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

To summarize for Syntacticus: "What's your point, Walter?"Bali ultimate (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

What? Speak plainly. Threepillars (talk) 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Bali's just goofing around, being flippant as usual and quoting "The Big Lebowski." In any event, I never tried to insert my opinion in the article and recommend that you take a valium, Threepillars. (And what is an "enziclopedia"?) ACORN always claims to be nonpartisan and in so doing it is lying and hypocritical. If you don't agree, fine, but that was my point. As for Red Lulu's thoughtless rambling above, the "chief organizer" of ACORN is the group's chief executive officer. I didn't create the title. Chief organizer is top job (effectively CEO) at ACORN, or so reports NPR. [[5]] Maybe Lulu should read up on ACORN before making unsupported, incorrect assertions about the group. I see the ACORN article is going to continue to be a PR blowjob for some time to come. Syntacticus (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to drop the insults and goofing around yourself, I think. It is fine for you to believe ACORN lies, but this is not a personal essay website. There are such websites, this is not one. Your judgement that the YouTube video violates tax law is not a reliable source. It's that simple. (FYI: continued personal insults will just lead to my ignoring you. You may not care, but just letting you know).12:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Threepillars (talk • contribs)

• Threepillars: You continue to obfuscate and throw out red herrings. Surely you're not as clueless as you're pretending to be. I NEVER EVER wrote in the article about tax law. I was explaining in this talk page to you why it was relevant. If you lack the ability to understand this distinction you have no business editing articles. I don't give a sh** about tax law and I don't give a sh** about what you think about tax law and I don't give a sh** if you ignore me. The only point you and Wikidemon below make that is relevant is whether anyone who is a reliable source has raised the issue of ACORN pretending to be nonpartisan. Fair enough. I know lots of people have and I'll see what I can find that comports with WP policy. Syntacticus (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The point, clearly, has been that the only people that would be important enough to report on in this article regarding what they think are those that determine tax status. Anybody else is speculating about a problem that doesn't exist. If the IRS isn't bothered by it, anybody else is blowing smoking.Threepillars (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, setting aside the jibs and the jabs, if you think the political endorsements of their "chief organier" are notable to the group, you're welcome to show that through reliable sources indicating the truth and importance of the matter. If not, the article remains a "blow job", as you say. That is not a matter of PR, it is a matter of WP:RS. We go on what the sources say, not anyone's arguments or opinions on the matter. Wikidemon (talk) 09:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty amazing that Syntacticus hasn't the foggiest idea what the words "non-partisan", "tax exempt", "non-profit", or "endorsement" mean. I thought they taught those sort of things to the members of conservative "think tanks"... I guess standards are slipping noways. Oh well, I am amused by the "Red Lulu" phrase, although I'm pretty sure our friend from CRC is unaware of its allusions. In any case, Wikidemon is right, as almost always: if it's supposed to be notable that an officer of ACORN made a personal endorsement of a party (not really of a candidate), find a source that says so (no, an obscure interpretation of a blogged video isn't a source, let alone a WP:RS). LotLE×talk 17:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Lulu --> Pinko Lulu --> Pink Tutu. It's all logial. Threepillars (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I note that Lulu continues straddling the line of WP:OUTING by implying ("our friend from CRC") he knows my off-WP identity and holding out the fact that he does not use a pseudonym as some kind of badge of honor. It is as if he feels this somehow makes him better than me and the rest of the anonymous WP editors who comprise an overwhelming majority of all registered WP editors. Whatever. Moving along, there are some reliable sources such as Dan Cantor, executive director of the ACORN affiliate Working Families Party in New York, who says ACORN endorsed Obama. "We admit a little pride that ACORN's endorsement seems so threatening to Fox," Cantor wrote at Alternet on Nov. 1, 2008 in a post about the Bertha Lewis YouTube video. [[6]] Syntacticus (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Cantor presumably is referring to ACORN's related org which can legally make endorsements.Threepillars (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And PRESUMABLY you are a mindreader so you know exactly what he meant when he said it. I can only go on the text. Syntacticus (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ACORN 8

WP:BRD

I created a new section after learning that a breakaway group has formed. I'll put more info in later as needed. Syntacticus (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would bet dollars-to-donuts that our friend from CRC was personally involved in setting up this doubtful organization, as some sort of agent provocateur. It's the usual pattern of his self-aggrandizement of his own outside efforts, which he then recycles onto WP and other websites as "important news". Frankly, it's about damn time that this user, and all associated IP addresses, is permanently blocked! (or actually, far overdue) LotLE×talk 09:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Only an interested party with a COI would revert the totally relevant factual addition to this article. I think it is time that you be blocked not only for your prohibited speculation about identity contrary to WP:OUTING but also for this flagrant act of vandalism. I am growing sick of your conspiracy theories (as if I'm in league with ACORN ex-board members who formed ACORN 8--give me a break) and related shit and I'm going to do something about it. I also don't see why you personally merit an article on WP given your virtually worthless contributions to learning that seem to spring out of your presumably diploma mill issued PhD in a useless subject (it must suck to be stuck in a dead end job after spending so many years in university); however, because I have a personal dislike for you based on your conduct here I will refrain from nominating it for deletion. Syntacticus (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt anyone else would support his contentious edit, but procedurally it is pretty unambiguous that having been reverted, the proper action isn't to edit war and spew insults, but rather to try to reach consensus for an addition. Please read WP:BRD, Syntacticus. LotLE×talk 06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

So far you are the only editor objecting to the edit. I am happy to discuss the addition I made to the article but I think the change should stay in there for the time being, especially because only one person (you) objects to it. One objecting editor isn't exactly impressive. As far as the insults, may I remind you that you have been accusing me of COI and speculating about my identity for weeks now contrary to WP:OUTING. Tell me: What exactly is so contentious or hard to believe about the fact that a faction within ACORN differs from management and broke away in an effort to draw attention to the dissidents' concerns? Is the Pittsburgh Tribune Review article I cited somehow not a reliable source? How about the website the ACORN 8 set up? Are the newspaper and the ACORN 8 members lying? Is this somehow all just a conspiracy I am orchestrating in order to prevail in a WP editing dispute? Listen to how crazy that sounds, Lulu. It sounds like you are desperately grasping at straws in order to keep true but negative info about ACORN out of the article. I am reaching out to you now. The burden is on you to explain why the edit should be disallowed. As I see it, it is clearly relevant to the ACORN story. I'm not saying the ACORN 8 section should be huge but it should be there. For the time being I am putting it back in. Syntacticus (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And so Lulu takes it out again thus confirming he is engaged in an edit war. You, Lulu, are losing your marbles. You seem like you need professional help. Syntacticus (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, Syntacticus, I know you are loathe to read WP:BRD or other WP policy. But we have rules here. If you can find any other editor who actually supports your contentious addition of material, we can discuss that at such time. The way WP works is that it is the burden of an editor seeking broad change in an article to win consensus, not the burden of an editor to prove prior consensus every time a problem editor, like yourself, introduces new nonsense. LotLE×talk 22:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have read it. It says to be bold. Have you read it? Besides it is not a major change and you cannot by your lonesome block it. You are a problem editor (your talk page contains more warnings and complaints than mine) who consistently flaunts WP:OUTING and other rules and froths at the mouth with conspiracy theories. It is a factual statement relevant and important to the ACORN article. If you are frustrated with your loser life and shitty job (if that's where this inner rage comes from) you shouldn't take out your frustrations on other editors. In any event, I have reached out to you. You refuse to explain what is wrong with the addition. All you say is that I'm a "problem editor" and somehow "contentious" therefore it gets deleted. That will not stand. WP has rules and you don't give a shit about them obviously. Syntacticus (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to hear a case made as to why this material should be inserted. It's not clear to me that A. It should be inserted and B. What weight it should be given. Could someone make an argument for its inclusion? Bali ultimate (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On the face of it the material as presented seems to be of undue weight and has some issues with encyclopedic tone and editorializing. It looks like a management fight / splinter group, which may or may not be notable. If it is, it needs some stronger sourcing - the New York Times piece does not support all the statements and it does not use the term "ACORN 8"; the group's own website is a fairly weak primary source. If it is worth including it should probably be trimmed back and stated in a more factual tone, giving some context. Wikidemon (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The source provided doesn't reflect the text as written? I'm shocked, shocked! I tell you. My vote is to wait and see if this develops/turns out to be a major problem/or is just a minor, irrelevant intramural squabble. I'm more interested to see how those FBI "investigations" are developing.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Lulu's wholesale deletion was inappropriate, and the use of the term "vandalism" in the edit summary was incivil as well. I've restored the text for now, and urge all parties concerned to discuss here before any further edits on this matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving civility punishments aside, why would you reinsert information into an article that doesn't reflect the citation it's connected to? That is, false, misleading information? I'll go over this myself, and if it as it's been characterized by other editors, will remove it.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have substantially edited the material for tone, relevance, weight, fidelity to sources, and WP:NOT#NEWS. Newspapers often chronicle allegations made in press releases, public statements, and lawsuits by simply repeating them. That is not very encyclopedic. Unless they're proven in court or some other way, it is not our job to repeat allegations. However, if the making of the allegation is notable, then it may be worth including. Boiling it all down, what we have is a fight by a dissident minority group on the board that leads them to file a lawsuit, then they get ousted, then they make a website and issue a press release to state their case. All of this is fairly garden variety organization infighting - it does not happen to every group but it is pretty common. I'm still not convinced that two board members issuing a press release to claim they were wrongly fired, and disparaging their former board, is significant, reliable, or meaningful enough to be mentioned. The press coverage is only slightly about the fact that they set up the press release, website, and name "ACORN 8" - it mentions that in passing, mainly as a way of attributing their claims. Putting it in simple English, is "two former board members publicly called for a criminal investigation, which never happened, and nothing ever came of it" a significant event in the life of a national organization? I think it's fair to mention this, lightly, as context for the larger issue of Rathke's embezzlement and the process of rooting out him and his influence. Wikidemon (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, Wikidemon. I'm not sure what Bali ultimate is talking about. One citation I put in linked to a NYT article and the other to the ACORN 8 website, so both citations supported the material I included (which has subsequently been condensed by Wikidemon). I am gratified that Orangemike agrees with me that Lulu's edits were entirely inappropriate. Syntacticus (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Source for minimum wage case

I agree that the Times source is flimsy because it doesn't cite its own sources. I found someone quoting the case here, who cited it as follows:

Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now vs. State of California, Department of Industrial Relations, Divison fo Labor Standards Enforcement, Case No. AO 69744, Appellant’s Opening Brief, in the Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Five, August, 1995, cited in Employment Policies Institute, Q & A: Minimum Wage Employee Profile, May 1997.

Unfortunately, I don't know my way around California's court records system; this looks to be the means of searching for cases; I was having trouble with it but will try again later. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We have to be very careful about sourcing content to court records. A formal written opinion by a judge can sometimes be a reliable source for the court's ruling, and potentially for some of the facts recited in the ruling. The parties' briefs, claims, and other filings are reliable for little more than the fact that the party filed a paper with the court - even using them to summarize what the parties are contending is rather iffy. Plus as primary sources they do not establish their own significance / relevance or the significance of the matters they discuss. Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about that paragraph until someone else removed it, and someone restored it. But once I read the paragraph and the source, it started to seem dubious to me. The paragraph in the article does match what the Washington Times editorial says, but that highly partisan source seems to be making an unlikely claim. My hunch is that there was an actual case, but that it can only be read as "ACORN wants to pay its workers less than minimum wage" if you squint just right, and put on specially tinted anti-ACORN glasses.

Purely speculating, on my part, I wonder if it might actually have to do with ACORN requesting a partially commissioned pay structure with a base less than minimum wage. That wouldn't necessarily be a good thing, or something I would approve of ACORN doing. However, restaurant workers, for example, typically are permitted to be paid a base under minimum wage under the notion that tips bring their actual income above the minimum. If it were something like that, I can imagine sources like the Times putting a hard spin on it to get at what they claim. LotLE×talk 18:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Argh... it wasn't searching by case number when I told it to. I found it; here is the case record: [7] An interesting argument: "ACORN contends that California's minimum wage laws, while facially constitutional as supported by the compelling state interest of ensuring wages adequate to maintain a decent standard of living, are unconstitutional as applied to ACORN because they restrict ACORN's ability to engage in political advocacy." It seems to me to be a pretty clear argument, but the amount of anti-ACORN press it created is what would make it either notable or undue weight. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Without Lexis / Nexis available I cannot read the case. But a party's legal theory on why it should win a case is not a reliable source for the party's official position on policy matters or reason for doing things. News agencies often report it as such (an obvious example, parties nearly always include the boilerplate, "so-and-so's claims are utterly without merit", in press releases and responsive pleadings. Newspapers reprint these statements all the time but reprinting an unreliable statement does not make it reliable. The fair and level-headed thing to do would be to ask for a reliable source that establishes verifiability and weight to the notion that ACORN wanted to pay its workers less than minimum wage, and that it was a bona fide controversy (partisan editorials don't count), and if none is forthcoming after a few days, remove the statement again with explanation. Poorly sourced disputed content can be removed at any time, of course, but best not to perpetuate any edit wars except in the most clear-cut of cases, e.g. copyright and BLP vios. Wikidemon (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, looks like I can't direct-link it. You'd have to go here and search for "Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now"; it's coming up first in the results for me ("Ass'n of Cmty. Orgs. for Reform Now v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, No. A069744"). I think it is pretty clear what the reason was, as they were pretty explicit. Here is the first paragraph of the discussion:

ACORN contends that California's minimum wage laws, while facially constitutional as supported by the compelling state interest of ensuring wages adequate to maintain a decent standard of living (see Industrial Welfare Com. v. Superior Court (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 690, 701 [166 Cal. Rptr. 331, 613 P.2d 579]), are unconstitutional as applied to ACORN because they restrict ACORN's ability to engage in political advocacy. According to ACORN, this adverse impact will be manifested in two ways: first, ACORN will be forced to hire fewer workers; second, its workers, if paid the minimum wage, will be less empathetic with ACORN's low and moderate income constituency and will therefore be less effective advocates.

I'm not convinced, however, that this is really a notable controversy. There are plenty of bloggers talking about it, but even editorials are few, and I can't find any news-oriented pieces mentioning it. This doesn't seem to be something that drew much attention, either at the time or since. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 12:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it could be notable if the context of the court case is understood. The reason I think a context is needed is stated similarly by Wikidemon, what gets stated in court is always tailored to argue a legal matter, and does not always reflect the motive of the legal matter. If I got a speeding ticket while driving my sick kid to the hospital and I went and argued in court on a technicality to do with the spelling of my name, I would be judge as a spelling Nazi by the editorials (instead of maybe a reckless driver).124.171.51.189 (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Malkin

I see the problem editor Lulu of the Lotus Eaters is up to his old tricks again. Michelle Malkin is not a fringe source. Lyndon LaRouche, Paul Craig Roberts, and a chorus of HuffPo writers are fringe sources but she is not. She routinely provides verifiable sources. Accordingly, I have reverted this disruptive edit from an editor whose history of trouble making is exhaustively documented. Syntacticus (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The WP:NPOV violation is not even remotely plausible. The proposal is to add material that Michelle Malkin writes, but with not reliable source that she wrote it, only her own words. She is clearly throwing incendiary (and rather lowbrow) accusations out there. It goes downhill from there. Don't edit war, and don't try to add this this kind of partisan nonsense to the encyclopedia, please. Wikidemon (talk) 08:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the routine POV issues with Syntacticus' "contributions", this one was randomly inserted in a section of the article having nothing to do with the ideas it discusses (which are already far better covered in relevant sections). On top of that, it is, to all appearances, a WP:COPYVIO in just dumping material written by Malkin randomly into the article. There's really nothing even remotely plausible in this disruptive insertion (I assume the earlier anon edit was Syntacticus under another guise, which probably makes it 3RR on top of the rest). LotLE×talk 09:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon: I didn't "add" the Malkin material. I reverted it because the arguments made in removing it were unsatisfactory and were made by a problem editor (Lulu) who has been warned about this kind of thing time and time again. Surely you understand the difference and will make an effort to be more accurate in the future.

And now Lulu, true to form, is making untrue and unprovable assertions of sockpuppetry. Why Lulu has not been banned from WP is beyond me. Syntacticus (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Home Defender

I am a bit concerned that this new section is too WP:RECENTist. The only sources are from ACORN itself, and only within the last couple weeks. Whether or not this is appropriate WP:WEIGHT to the organizations overall history is not clear. I think, also, that the editor who added it intends it to be something self-evidently bad, especially given the (slight) negative spin given in the original phrasing. However, that's just an editor, not about the content.

Apart from the relevance of the content, it's driving me crazy that ACORN's URLs seem to break the citation templates. I think the square brackets throw off MediaWiki software. Does anyone know how to fix this:

{cite web|
 title=Refusing to Leave: ACORN Members Step up Fight to Stay in Homes|
 date=February 13, 2009|
 url=http://acorn.org/index.php?id=12439&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=22521&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12387&cHash=5ef36d5092}

It's rendering horribly right now in the footnote. LotLE×talk 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In the course of improving a number of sections I've tried to clean this up - there is at least one reliable secondary source, which I am adding. I've turned that particular one into a non-active link.Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I found a better, but still hack-ish fix. I used an "alturl.com" redirect that doesn't have the characters that upset MediaWiki software. I don't love this approach, but at least it makes the citation render and link correctly. LotLE×talk 19:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral POV - Reads like an advertisement or marketing piece

This article should be scrapped and re-written ASAP. 74.202.96.5 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything you just said was informative and made sense. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

this is sadly typical of what you find on wikipedia. Anything left wing is scrubbed clean by the same ideologues who are constantly insisting that there needs to be a section in an article about someone or something conservative, highlighting the people who have written books critical of that person. This reads like a publicity pamphlet put out by ACORN, and you know what, they probably did write it. Welcome to Wikipedia. 69.8.247.231 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I find that hard to believe. From personal experience, I can assure you that in all my time on Wikipedia, I have never heard this sentiment shared on any discussion page for any article in any way. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)