Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Political connections and Corporate structure?

I would very much like to have a record of the current and historical organizational chart of ACORN and its subsidiaries as it is today as well as a clearly document what political connections can be verified as of right now. I'm tossing this out for discussion rather than throw it straight into the main page because I'd really prefer to see some solid due diligence and a neutral position that captures clearly the vast number of layers of this organization and get that clearly represented in the document. Disclaimer - I am not a fan nor supporter of this group, however given their significant influence on the political arena an unbiased look at their structure may be called for. Dell dud (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Much of the information that you would like to see is included in a report issued on July 23, 2009, by the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It is 88 pages long and can be found at the following link: http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090723ACORNReport.pdf Missouri Citizen

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)

Factcheck.org is an organization tied to the Annenberg Foundation and Bill Ayers, not to mention Barack Obama. Therefore, a rebuttal using that as a source to back up a statement in Newsweek will carry very little weight with conservatives or other critics. 64.85.229.248 (talk) 03:26, 16 September 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.

Here is some proof of ACORN voter fraud, http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-complete-guide-to-acorn-voter-fraud/I suggest that the factcheck org be removed and either left blank on criticsm or put this as an alternate response on the voter fraud proof.Tannim1 (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Here is a second one from the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.htmlTannim1 (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's noteworthy that McCain made a campaign issue out of ACORN, and it's noteworthy that McCain's claims that the voter registration fraud was going to rig the election were untrue to the point of implausibility. There really isn't another side here. The first link is dead, and the second is neither on the subject of McCain's claims, nor does it support them even considering the inaccurate headline. Wikidemon (talk) 15:55, 19 September 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 [[1]] 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 [[2]] "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

• I agree, someone needs to put in something about this. This is very big and damaging to ACORN. It comes from a realiable source in my opinion. Their will probably be objections because the big network news programs (those on NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN) are not covering it. Jzxpertguitarist (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC).

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

• • Fox News is generally a reliable source for news items. Less so their political maneuvers. If other sources pick this up and report on it, we can see if it meets relevancy and weight tests and if so figure out how and where to work it into the article. For now, if it's just Fox News and nowhere else, that's a good sign that this is not considered noteworthy by anyone other than Fox, which has a vested interest in tooting its own horn as far as undercover investigations. This is so new, it's probably too early to judge it either way. There's no rush here, let's take a few days and see what the sources say. It doesn't have to be NBC, CNN, etc. If Wall Street Journal, the Baltimore Sun, the Washington Post, Time Magazine, NPR, other local papers, news magazines, etc., start carrying this outside of "breaking news" or editorial mode, then we know there's something to it. Further, if the transcript is what it seems to be, plenty of other people will be interested in this - politicians, law enforcement, organizations that deal with ACORN. If they make a stink, the newspapers will surely cover that, and then we have the sources we need. If nothing comes of it, then we have our answer that way too. Wikidemon (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The two employees have now been fired.[3] John Asfukzenski (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Have started the basic article using an AP source. Please expand on it as information comes in! DMBradbury 00:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems you were faster. The important thing here is that an AP article came out discussing this which can serve as a basis for writing about the case. AP article Hobartimus (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The google news link to the story about prostitution will expire, as all google news links do. The same article can be found here on the website for the San Francisco Chronicle. I would replace it myself, if I was not topic banned from political articles. I am allowed to make suggestions on the talk pages for political articles, so if anyone else agrees with me that this change would improve the article, please make it. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Please notice that in the actual article I do not use a Google source. I used the source the AP links to themselves. DMBradbury 01:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Never-mind, you're not talking to me, hah. DMBradbury 01:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Grundle. I'll put in the Chronicle link! - Wikidemon (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to stray from the topic at hand, but why is CNN considered more reliable, and unbiased than foxnews? Foxnews is to the right, ok.... but CNN is to the left. no better, no worse... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.215.230 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

this is just silly66.134.170.155 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully with all this video proof proving what for long has been suspected this dispicable group will fade away and die

Disputed edits

Could someone please restore this version[4] or something like it but keeping the New York Times link? We have an IP editor who keeps making bad edits that have the effect of removing citations and adding personal opinion and commentary about what they think they saw in the video.[5] Also, per the heading there is no sourcing as yet that there is a "controversy". That may be coming but for now the single reliable source does not state that there was a controversy, that ACORN denounced the couple that appears, that they were "working" undercover, etc. We should be very literal and faithful to the sources here because obviously people are trying to spin this. Also, there have been a lot of IP editors and SPAs edit warring, adding unsourced or poorly sourced material, etc. If this continues I think we should seek semi protection for the page. I think I'm at 1RR or 2RR right now, and don't want to edit war, even to do housekeeping in the face of some bad edits. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you.[6] I've given the IP editor a WP:3RR warning so let's see if the article can evolve constructively from here. There are sure to be more stories and more fallout from this, so let's keep an eye out for the good sources. Wikidemon (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you include the FOX sources, the AP, and ACORN's response looks controversial to me, not to mention the subject matter. I fixed a claim that FOX news released the video, as they merely presented it. BigGovernment.com did the investigation. Fox was simply the first to cover it in mainstream media. DMBradbury 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what comes up. But if you're going to claim a controversy you need third party sourcing. Saying that something is "controversial" is a judgment call, and asserting a "controversy" is a factual claim that there is some kind of widespread disagreement over whether something actually happened, or whether something that happened is right or wrong, or who did it, etc. By analogy, if you're going to claim there's a storm at sea you should find an article that says so, not just look at the waves and make your own call. I'm guessing that it will probably become a controversy very quickly, and that word will slip into the news accounts within a day, so there's no big deal waiting a day to put that in, or leaving it in for a day until the sourcing arrives. Either way we're not reaching out on a limb. But there's a small chance it will blow over without much happening. Who knows? Maybe nobody is interested. Maybe there's another side to the story we don't know yet. Fox News trumpeting an issue is not guaranteed to make it a controversy outside of the circle of people who watch Fox news. Wikidemon (talk) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to any other Network, like ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, any liberal network, trumpeting an issue to make it a controversy outside of the circle of the people who watch those networks? Careful, your bias is showing. 64.53.136.29 (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I removed Fox due to their minor role in this, if you wish to rename it go right ahead. I assert controversy because the issues involved are controversial. If it blows over, it still is worth reporting for now. I guess we'll find out! DMBradbury 02:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, also - Another article - The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574404962227305566.html DMBradbury 02:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Look, CNN baby! It's hit the big time.[7] At the moment it's the lead story on (my version of) their main web page. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is CNN "the big time", and Fox News is not? Didn't CNN just today make up a story about an attack on the Potomac River, only to later blame their incompetence on someone else? Why does Fox News continually destroy every other cable news network in the ratings? Bias. Bias. Bias. 64.53.136.29 (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Baltimore Sun.[8] Did I call this or what? At present it looks like a fair discussion of this incident would describe it as a project of a couple young citizen journalist / activists... Covering this without the context would be like reporting the content of a Michael Moore film without saying it was one of his films. Wikidemon (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Fox? They were the first and for a while Beck was complaining Fox was the only exclusive organization that even covered this Bachcell (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI, there is a second ACORN office that tried to help the same couple set up a brothel... in D.C. Sorry to butt-in, but you guys outta know... so you can... you know... be neutral and informative. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.34.96 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Added information about the Washington D.C. incident. Removed Baltimore from the title. Bachcell, like I said, it is great that they are reporting this information, but it doesn't really affect the story. If you wish to include it, go ahead - Remember WP:Bold !- I personally don't really think it matters though. DMBradbury 19:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

DMB, do you have a link to an unedited video? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have placed a link to a transcript of the incident at the bottom of the page, surely if you would like to see the video, the transcript would also be of interest. Unfortunately my link has been undone several times by vandals who then had the gall to accuse me of spamming. Please realize that these facts will come out one way or the other, sending my link down the memory hole does nothing to protect Acorn.Methusedalot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC).

To whom is the transcript sourced, and who produced it? Those are a couple things I would need to know before determining if the transcript would be of interest. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The external link I provided was from a web site called Big Government, it is I believe the original source of the story. If you have deep epistemological doubts about sources pulled from the web, which by the way have been cited by both Fox and CNN, than perhaps you should not hazard your delicate soul on Wikipedia. The answers to you questions not that I think you don't know already are James O'Keefe and Big Government respectively --Methusedalot (talk) 00:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The accusations against other editors and their motives are most unhelpful. Note that calling other editors vandals is a violation fo editing policy. So please cut it out. The problem with the link, per WP:EL, is that we don't use that section for lists of pieces about the subject of the article. The transcript would be most appropriate as a citation link with respect to verifying the content of what was actually in the tape. Wikidemon (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The link now exists a citation as per WP:EL and I am satisfied. It was only my intention that a link to this interesting information be made available on this site. It is my belief that Wikipedia should be a source of information collected from a broad selection of sources. I will in future be more regarding in my use of the term 'vandal', but would you be so kind as to note that I referred to no one particular editor as a 'vandal'. --Methusedalot (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being patient. All's well that ends well, no? Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

New section

I think its about time for a Legal troubles / Controversies section or the like.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we already have something close to that, the bottom section on "ACORN in political discourse". There are two controversies described outside of that section, the embezzlement scandal and subsequent management fight, and then the part on the voter registration fraud (as a larger matter beyond its being raised as a 2008 presidential campaign matter). I think it's best to keep those where they are because they fit by subject matter and chronologically. Taking all the controversies an organization has and putting them all in a single section tends to make the article harder to follow, and also encourages more editing disputes as it focuses people on point-of-view questions. If all these scandals and legal troubles have some effect (e.g. contracts and donations dry up, staff quits, etc) I think we can say so directly in the existing "political discourse" section, and possibly expand the title to be something like "public perception of ACORN"... Speaking of separate sections, a WP:SPA editor has twice added a rather mangled new section out of place at the top regarding the pimp-n-ho video[9][10] that is entirely redundant with the section near the bottom. I've already removed it once and do not wish to edit war, so if anyone would kindly look at it to see if they share my view that we don't need to say it twice? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough and well put.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point Wikidemon about article readability, but I also think listing Acorn's legal troubles under "political discourse" is a misrepresentation, the implication being that all of Acorn's legal difficulties are the product of political attacks. We could use a legal issue section that is followed by a section on how those legal issues are used by their political opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Methusedalot (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN doesn't have legal troubles (although there is a case pending regarding compensation of registration workers). Like any organization with many thousands of workers, there are going to be a few bad apples; they get fired and life goes on. There is only a "story" when the politicos try to paint the whole organization in a bad light because of these incidents. People don't stop shopping at Wal-Mart just because they had the highest incidence of shoplifting by their employees (caught by their own security); people don't stop calling the police just because a few of them were also thieves, or citizen-beaters; people don't stop using the post office just because some of them went ... postal. Which "legal difficulties" of ACORN's, and not those of a few of their employees, are you speaking of? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN does indeed have legal troubles. ACORN (or, more specifically, a regional office of ACORN) is under indictment and awaiting trial in Nevada for voter registration fraud, and one of its executives has accepted a plea agreement to testify against ACORN at ACORN's trial. This is very serious legal trouble. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link. [11] 71.57.8.103 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. You are mentioning the very same pending case I mentioned above. They are not indicted for "voter registration fraud" as you claim, but for an alleged incentive plan used to compensate registration workers, which is not legal. The prosecuting attorneys toss the "fraud" phrase around a lot, but it isn't part of the actual charges. While this one case could have significant ramifications, it doesn't justify the creation of a "legal troubles section" for "all of Acorn's legal difficulties..." suggested above. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

An indictment is an indictment. It is a felony charge against the entire organization. I'm sorry that I misidentified the precise charge applied, but "ACORN doesn't have legal troubles" is much farther from being accurate. I agree that at this time, a separate "legal troubles" section may not be the way to go. But efforts to expunge any mention of it from the article lead are POV pushing. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 12:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

An indictment is an indictment and not a conviction, correct. It is a felony charge against a regional ACORN official, and they hope to prove the national office was complicit. Your apology for misidentifying the charge is accepted. "ACORN doesn't have legal troubles" outside what is normal for an organization its size, and that is very accurate. There is nothing extraordinary about the legal issues it tends to that requires a special section in the article. The story you linked is already mentioned in the article, and as for putting unproven accusations (that's what an indictment is, you know) in the lead of any article: that is POV pushing. Come back after there are actual guilty convictions against the organization before trying to make a case that it is important enough for the lede. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

An indictment against an organization is very frequently enough to destroy the organization, without ever reaching a conviction. When you say there is nothing extraordinary about the charges .... having an entire organization indicted -is- extraordinary. Drexel Burnham Lambert and Andersen are two examples where the firm was eradicated by an indictment, just about immediately ... no further proceedings really needed. So to not mention an enterprise indictment would be a colossal omission.

First, an indictment against an organization is very rarely enough to destroy an organization. Indictments of organizations are commonplace, especially so when politics is involved. Your two examples compare apples to oranges; ACORN is not being indicted for wrongdoing at the core of its operations, but for simply paying it's employees incentives to work. Even a conviction is only going to result in an insignificant fine, and we aren't close to that point yet. There is no colossal omission here; the article already states what has transpired so far, and we'll see if there is more to add after the Sept. 29th hearing. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservative activists

Attempting to hide the fact they are conservative activists violates NPOV. They are a part of the story. Telling the story honestly includes mentioning who they are to the extent it's relevant. The fact they are conservative activists is relevant to understanding why they were doing what they were doing in the first place. Trying to hide or obscure that aspect of it is clearly POV. Mystylplx (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the reliable sources to this point call them conservatives and/or activists, although I don't think they explain the basis for that so I'm not sure how informative that is for the reader. Is it drawn from this one act or do they have a track record or public statements about their political beliefs? Whether you support Republicans or Democrats as a political affiliation, posing as a pimp and a prostitute is not exactly a conservative thing to do on a personal level. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, doing a web search at this point. Hannah Giles is daughter of Doug Giles, a regular Townhall.com columnist. Hannah is a 20-year-old college student, and apparently does some columns of her own there. In early summer she pitched the idea to James O'Keefe, who had done some other anti-ACORN films in the past (filming ACORN people breaking into foreclosed properties in Baltimore), as well as other undercover style things. They both do seem to be allied with conservative beliefs and causes, if you really have to divide the world into conservatives and liberals. In the few statements they've made they alternately say this was a very calculated, deliberate attempt to expose/exploit ACORN's institutional weaknesses, but also the most outlandish thing they could think of doing. It's a shame we don't have more sources on that, or a profile in a reliable source of them or how the film got made - there's a reasonable chance they may individually become notable at some point. Although exposing corruption is not a conservative / liberal issue, where the corruption is an organization allied with the Democrats and current administration in the US, things can fall along that line. It's true that the film is being championed by the conservative press and blogosphere, and the apologists and defenders for ACORN are non-conservatives. However, there are liberal groups like the "ACORN 8" who are also publicizing claims of institutional corruption at ACORN. I guess the bottom line is that calling them conservatives and activists serves both a helpful and an unhelpful purpose. As part of understanding who they are, their history, and why this film happened, it's useful to know that background. On the other hand, labeling them as conservatives and activists is also part of ACORN's way to defend itself, casting aspersions on them by making them seem like part of the fringe of the conservative discontent in America. I don't think any of this can be sourced reliably enough to put in the article, at this point it is just background regarding why the reliable sources choose to use those two words, conservative and activist, in their coverage. Wikidemon (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

James O'Keefe has done lots of these 'gotcha' type films. Stuff like getting Planned Parenthood to accept a donation from him with the proviso the money only be used to abort a black baby, and getting the UCLA health center to give him lots of free condoms so he could have an orgy on his boat (all caught on hidden camera.) He's a part of Live Action Films, which is a pro-life group of filmmakers who do exactly this kind of stuff. Another example is he's involved in trying to get MA to sanction the marriage of two straight men, each of whom has a girlfriend. I'd say they are part of the story (wouldn't have happened without them) and it would be helpful for readers to know where this is coming from, the context and motivation of those who made the film. Simply describing them as "conservative activists" is quite mild. To remove even the word "conservative" from that mild description is violates NPOV since it's an obvious attempt to hide the history and motivations of the filmmakers.Mystylplx (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know of any reliable, neutral sources that describe his background and his films? We'd need third party sourcing, not his own websites, to establish notability. All that sounds like interesting stuff to know. Maybe the best thing to do is to create an article about him so we don't have to decide how much or little background to add - people can just read it in his article. Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

CNN[12]Reliefappearance (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any sources right off hand, but then I'm not saying all that stuff should be included in the article. I'm just saying it should be noted that he's a conservative activist, which fact is already supported by most of the sources already listed.

I suspect a separate article about him, though ideal, will have to wait for a reliable neutral source to do a story on him... unless Jill Stanek could be considered such a source. She's a blogger, but a big name blogger. I doubt she could be considered "neutral," but since her bias would be in his favor I'd think it might be OK to use her as a source for his past activities. Personally I have mixed feelings about using a blogger as a source. Some bloggers are quite reliable, and every bit as good as MSM journalists. Most, however, ...not so much.

But again, this is all beside the point of this particular discussion. Most of the sources already cited refer to them as "conservatives" or "conservative activists." To remove the word "conservative" from this article seems to me to be an attempt to obscure a relevant part of the story. It doesn't change what the ACORN employees said or did, but it does help the reader understand the motivations of the filmmakers in the same way that understanding where Michael Moore is coming from politically helps to inform the meaning of his documentaries without necessarily changing the meaning of the facts presented in those documentaries. Mystylplx (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

As a source Stanek might pass BLP concerns but not be considered a major or neutral enough source for establishing vulnerability. My main concern here is finding enough material to do a good story, and also avoiding deletion. Without enough sourcing people would think that the very presence of the article is a POV matter, on one side or the other. Yes, I guess it's a bit beside the point. The reason I went down that whole path is to question whether the two words, conservative and activist, are really meaningful in the reliable sources that repeat them or whether they're throw-aways. I'm fine either way and leaning towards including them because that's what the sources say, and they seem to do so deliberately and accurately. And like you said, if interpreted literally instead of as a denigration of the filmmakers' efforts, it helps the reader understand the event by noting that they are conservative and activists. They didn't do it as journalists in a strict sense (e.g. 60 minutes, which would open them to the charges being made that they are not acting as responsible journalists), and they didn't do it strictly for edu/advo-tainment (as with Sasha Cohen or a more typical documentary filmmaker). Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If the term "conservative activists" has an inherently negative or "fringe" connotation I'm not aware of it. I suppose some people might equate "conservative activists" with "birthers" or "teabaggers," which terms do have fringe connotations, but then we can't go around worrying about all the possible connotations some people might apply to factual descriptions. "Conservative activists" is how they are described in the cited sources, so by default the word should be included unless there's some valid reason to remove it. I'd say the burden is on those who want to conceal the political stance of the filmmakers to show good cause for doing so, rather than on those who merely want them accurately described with a very mild, unoffensive term that is supported by most of the cited sources, and which is relevant to understanding the context and motivation of those who made the videos in the same way that, if they were a more typical edutainment filmmaker (such as Sasha Cohen) it would be relevant to describe them as "documentary filmmakers," or if they were investigative journalists it would be relevant to describe them as such. Mystylplx (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

LotLE, if you'd stop chopping out other editors' references, you wouldn't need to add tags. This is a very very noteworthy event and satisfies concerns raised in WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BLP. Consensus for adding the paragraph in the lead was established on Wikidemon's Talk page by at least three editors. Before you revert, let's talk about it. Please explain why you insist on removing all of this material, and all of these references, and then adding tags. Thanks. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 12:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the location of the new video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.132.89 (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting the lead

Wikidemon, another editor and I agreed that the following paragraph should be added to the article lead.

ACORN has been the subject of public controversy involving embezzlement, management fights, voter registration fraud committed by its workers, and an undercover exposé on employee misconduct that led to the loss of its contract with the United States Census Bureau.

This single sentence concisely describes the controversies ACORN has encountered. Without it, the lead could have been written by ACORN's public relations director. The loss of the Census Bureau contract is an enormous blow to ACORN, in terms of both money and reputation. It makes the lead WP:NPOV. Without it, the lead is no longer WP:NPOV. LotLE has been unilaterally deleting this new paragraph, with offensive edit summaries each time. I ask my fellow editors to express their opinions about this new paragraph for the lead, and about LotLE's uncooperative behavior. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you - that sentence should be added to the introduction. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes your statement should be included in the lead. Currently the lead gives no mention of controversy surrounding this organization which is absurd and biased, but unfortunately that's what is expected on wiki when it comes to hot-button topics. --71.107.78.149 (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

added that senate voted to not fund them anymore to the above written lead lines Solarguy17 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the current state of that added paragraph:

ACORN has been the subject of public controversy involving embezzlement, management fights, voter registration fraud committed by its workers, and an undercover exposé on employee misconduct.

It currently has three footnotes, to ref= cbs/, cnnvideo/, foxnewscensus/, and "nyt"/. The sentence about the census dropping ACORN has been left out. I think there was some dispute about whether the census officially stated why it was dropping ACORN, but clearly it announced that it was dropping ACORN, and that seems important enough to include in the lead, so I think we should add it back in some form. --Noroton (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Census Bureau, their position was not a public announcement (as far as I know), but rather a letter addressed directly to Maude Hurd president of ACORN. However the full text of that letter, which describes their rationale, has been obtained and is reproduced in full at several sources:

• US Census Bureau Severs Ties with ACORN for 2010 Census, Fears Group’s Bad Reputation Could Undermine Count, Major Garrett, Fox News, September 11, 2009;
• U.S. Census Bureau Director Robert Groves’ Letter Announcing Decision to Sever ACORN Ties, Publis, BigGovernment.com, September 11, 2009.
• (excerpts only) Census bureau terminates relationship with ACORN; cites 'worsening negative perceptions', Byron York, The Washington Examiner, September 11, 2009.
• (excerpts only) Census Bureau severs ties with ACORN in 2010 count, Hope Yen, Associated Press, September 11, 2009.

--Dmeranda (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

although i added the info about the senate withdrawing the budget I think the result of all controveries should be in contrveries section. If it turns out they have done or promoted other illegal things they should be added to the above sentace and the full story including resutl be below in the appropriate section. I think the sentance it is now is good.Solarguy17 (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes given the controversial nature of this group there should be criticism in the lede. Richard (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be unanimous, with the sole exception of LotLE, who believes the sentence is a "puerile" "rant." Read his edit summaries, most of them are inappropriate to say the least. He also describes "criminal activity by tapers" in violation of WP:BLP. The "tapers" (the activists who created the videotapes) haven't even been charged with any crime. You've avoided offering an opinion on LotLE's behavior. How do you feel about a topic ban for LotLE? 71.57.8.103 (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Add on the list of "accusations" on the lead "facilitating child prostitution". 94.101.5.97 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the main part of the lead sentence:

• a community-based organization in the USA that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues

1. I thought ACORN was a national organization, so what does "community-based" mean? That it is active in multiple communities, or what?
2. What does "advocates for" mean? Does ACORN assert that its activities are intended to benefit low- and moderate-income families? Or that its activities have actually benefited those families? Or what?

• Should we have more about ACORN's living-wage campaign? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Senate votes 83-7 to end federal funding to ACORN.

Source: Washington Post. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Offical text is Senate Amendment 2355 to H.R.3288 (and record) — the bill which is generally about funding the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies through September 30, 2010. In particular admendment SA 2355 adds the funding exclusion:

Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available under this Act may be directly or indirectly distributed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).

also another potentially related amendment (proposed by the same senator around the same time, but not yet voted on) is SA 2356:

[from SA 2356]

Sec. 4__. None of the funds made available under this Act shall be distributed to--
(1) an organization which has a pending indictment for or has been convicted of a violation under Federal or State law relating to fraudulent voting in any Federal or State election; or

(2) an organization which employs an individual who has a pending indictment for or has been convicted of a violation under Federal or State law relating to fraudulent voting in any Federal or State election.

Note that the amendment SA 2355 passed the Senate 83 to 7 (with 9 not voting) see vote record, but the bill to which it is attached is still in-progress. --Dmeranda (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Certainly more significant then the census participation denial, should be switched out/added. Hobartimus (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 12 hours

I have semi-protected the page for 1 day12 hours. During this time, I encourage all users to stop editing on the article and discuss changes and proposals for additions on this talk page. We cannot continue to go back-and-forth removing each others' additions. Thank you, MuZemike 03:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't notice this earlier. If it's generally agreed upon, would it be appropriate to move this to the top of the page? Thmazing (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Content of Controversial videos

I believe that the 2009 disputed video claims section should include the verbatim dialogue, or a non-biased summary of the dialogue between the young couple and the ACORN associates. This is important information in the description of ACORN as a company and a political organization, and even though it has not been proven in court yet, the video taken leaves the recent news about ACORN undeniably factual and encyclopedic in nature. Bullercruz1 (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are right and the corrupt nature of ACORN and these illegal practices should be mentioned very carefully as this is not a forum for breaking news but for encyclopedic information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.82.215.197 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There have been a total of a four videos and the article here sounds slanted by only mentioning one. Also Bertha Lewis (the CEO) has said she is outraged by the behavior of staff, which is a total turnaround from her earlier lawsuit-stance against the filmmaker. I believe this article needs to list the facts and let readers decide from themselves. Unfortunately there are a LOT of facts missing. Does anyone want to tackle this? MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"San Bernadino" typo

Within a few days, additional videos were released which showed similarly unethical advice offered by ACORN loan advisers in Washington DC, New York City, and San Bernadino.

Should be San Bernardino. 64.85.229.248 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

History/Timeline

The article is written around a History/Timeline. Two of the biggest events, ever, in its entire history are its rise to fame and prominence during the 2008 election - and the controversies that engulfed it in 2009. We even have a section for each of these. As such, this edit:[13], which tears apart the History/Timeline and disjoints the article should be reverted and the timeline restored.99.142.9.33 (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the claim about "biggest" it is hard to say. Those are two big events in popular culture / mainstream news coverage. I think it makes sense to have at least two different sections about their current troubles, one about how they became an issue in the 2008 campaign, and another, how in the long term their voter recruitment efforts involved voter registration fraud. The latest flap, the undercover video, might merit a third secion, or else some sway to tie it into an existing section. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The events are of notable significance and loom large in the history of the organization. Certainly, and without doubt, 2008 was all about the election. And 2009 is controversy.

In showing a timeline history we can have no logical reason to ignore these facts. 99.142.9.33 (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Schwarzenegger

Hey looks like Arnold wants the state AG to investigate ACORN.[14] Richard (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah....I put that in and now it's gone.... Thmazing (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed that we're discussing everything before adding right now.

Check this out.

It's the governor's tweet announcing that he's having Jerry Brown look into Acorn's activities in California.

I think this should be added alongside the similar notices about NY etc.

Thmazing (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Has ANYONE here bothered to read WP:NOTNEWS?! Just having happened this week doesn't automatically (or in fact, ever) make something encyclopedic for a long-term view. The fact that Schwarzenegger wrote something yesterday on Twitter kinda obviously fails as "deep history". Maybe if Brown actually investigates, and if that unfolds to something actual, it reaches notability... just being true gossip doesn't do it. LotLE×talk 06:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I don't think it's gossip if it's not hearsay. What if his office had put out a press release? Or a letter to the public on his website? Or entered something into the state record? At what point does an officially sanctioned communication to the public cease being "gossip"? (And you don't have to yell. Sheesh.) Thmazing (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight of Section Heading, "Under Cover Video"

Why the undue weight being placed upon the Video?

There are dozens of major events from Senate action in the legislative branch to Census action in the executive branch to reports of investigations in the judicial branch. And then dozens more actions in the states and at the local level - not to mention major political figure commentary from the President's spokesman on down criticizing, distancing or realigning relationships and alliances.

This is a major event in the history of an organization, the encyclopedia should record its significance and notability without POV. Many of the current manipulations are so convoluted that they bear little, if any, relationship to the actual events we seek to neutrally record.99.142.9.33 (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. If and when these investigations materialize they may be more appropriate to expand upon, but right now a governor or AG's statement is of little importance on the grand scale of things. Grsz¹¹ 14:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

But this is the news [:::This should go in : [15]--128.186.84.243 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)]--128.186.84.243 (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The sentence applicable to events (rather than people) is, "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." That also means that breaking news shouldn't be discounted just because it is news. While it's difficult to judge the long-term impact from soon, it's clear this is a major event (judging by the actions of the federal, state, and local governments) and should thus be described without leaving out anything crucial that would violate NPOV. Calbaer (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit long, but it's reasonably well written and balanced. It's an emerging story and too early to tell what the lasting impact is. I don't think there's much harm in letting it sit for now, then reviewing it in another week or two, or however long it takes the dust to settle. I can't imagine that a year from now the article will still say that ACORN plans to sue Fox - either it will, in which case we can report that it did (assuming the suit goes somewhere), or it won't, in which case the fact that they said they would but didn't will be utterly non-noteworthy. Similarly, the defensive claims ACORN made in the days after the first video (audio was dubbed, filmmakers tried but failed elsewhere, hidden video is a violation of local laws) will either pan out and they can remain, or they are incorrect in which case they're not really worth repeating. Even if this passes it's significant enough to be worth a mention. But if it dies down and ACORN picks up the pieces and continues without much change, it's probably worth a sentence or two at most. However, this could be the beginning of the end, or the beginning of some major changes, at the organization. If that happens it will in hindsight be a significant part of the organization's history. So, too early to tell. Whether we crunch it down, or keep it long, the section will probably have to be rewritten in a few weeks. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The way it is now, there are no undue concerns. The section has been raised by secondary sources as important issues. Maybe I jumped the gun with Arnold but the section is appropriate now. Richard (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As A Criminal Enterprise?

There is an interesting report on ACORN as a criminal enterprise from Congressman Issa, a minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Released on 23 July it cannot be found on the Websight for the full committee. The entire document can be found at the following link http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/media/pdfs/20090723ACORNReport.pdf A summary; The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud. Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate. • First, ACORN has evaded taxes, obstructed justice, engaged in self dealing, and aided and abetted a cover-up of embezzlement • Second, ACORN has committed investment fraud, deprived the public of its right to honest services, and engaged in a racketeering enterprise affecting interstate commerce • Third, ACORN has committed a conspiracy to defraud the United States by using taxpayer funds for partisan political activities • Fourth, ACORN has submitted false filings to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Labor, in addition to violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) • Fifth, ACORN falsified and concealed facts concerning an illegal transaction between related parties in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

It will be interesting to see if anyone will attempt to incorporate this information in the article as I can't find any mention of it. Bachcell (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the news, it doesn't make news. If many reliable, major, neutral, third party sources describe the report and it seems to have some significant relation to ACORN itself, then we can cover it. If those charges are borne out, either with criminal convictions, serious journalism, etc., we can report on their substance. It's already clear that a founder was embezzling, and that there have been numerous voter registration fraud problems. You could call that systematic or not, and the problem may run deeper, but that's for the sources to analyze. For now, we don't dig deep into websites to reprint what minority politicians might have to say to disparage something. It may well be true, based on the current news. But that's not for us to decide. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Many articles have links to official government reports at the end. Would it work to add it to the end of the article without comment since it is an official report, an important one, and certainly notable?Bachcell (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In this case and looking at that document, it would be considered a primary reference. We would need many tertiary sources (I.E. the neutral RS's) to back that up before it could be put into the article. Brothejr (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This should go in : [16]--128.186.84.243 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN has not been accused of embezzlement

The article currently reads (last paragraph opening section) as if ACORN has being accused of embezzlement. It was the brother of the founder who embezzled from ACORN, though ACORN management's handling was criticized. I can't edit, somebody correct please. The facts should be written clearly. 68.175.101.2 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what you think is wrong. The full matter of the embezzlement is covered in the later section on its history from 1998–2004 (and also duplicated on the Wade Rathke article). And according to the cited NYT article, Dale Rathke was an employee of ACORN during the period of the embezzlement. Could you suggest perhaps a better wording, and/or more specifics on what facts you think are in question? - Dmeranda (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has been changed so it's OK now, but at that time the article said that ACORN had been accused of embezzlement when in fact, legally speaking, ACORN was the victim of the embezzlement. Yes, unholy appearance because it was the founder's brother, but still, just the facts. 68.175.101.2 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

H R 3221 Motion to recommit (the Defund ACORN Act)

Today, the House of Representatives voted on the "Defund ACORN Act" 345-75 to terminate all Federal funding of ACORN. A new paragraph, with linkage to appropriate news articles, is warranted.

The "Defund ACORN Act" is I think just the name for an amendment, not a bill on it's own. But this is just-breaking news and we need to wait until the secondary sources (news agencies) start reporting on it. Even the House Congressional record has not yet been updated with the vote and final action information at this time. FYI, HR 3221 is a bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, which includes some provisions for funding, etc. I'm not sure which amendment yet references ACORN until the Congressional Record gets updated. Also remember, bills are not laws yet until it goes through both houses and then signed. - Dmeranda (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

[17]--68.35.239.206 (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sonny had somming to say too:[18]--68.35.239.206 (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an executive order by Governor Sonny Perdue of the state of Georgia. Although perhaps interesting, it is unrelated to the Federal actions by the House. Also, the official text of the executive order is a [19] - Dmeranda (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The amendment in question appears to be H.AMDT.447 (removed dead link) by George Miller (CA) with a summary title "to prohibit federal funds from certain indicted organizations". Note that this particular amendment was agreed to by voice, not by roll call. It was the entire bill itself (including all the agreed amendments) that was voted on with the indicated counts. We are still waiting on the congressional record to be updated with the text of the amendment, so until then this Fox story is one of the better secondary sources so far describing it. And none of this is law yet. - Dmeranda (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Update... The amendment introduced a new section: Title VI Section 601-602 titled "Defund ACORN Act". It is more complicated than the Senate action (approx. 25 paragraphs); but it does specifically call out ACORN by name. A electronic vote was taken on the motion to recommit with instructions (effectively approving this amendment) with 345 for, 75 against, and 3 other. Still waiting for the official texts to be logged, bill to become law, and more analysis and reporting from secondary news sources to see how noteworthy this will be. - Dmeranda (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Update 2... The official text of the Defund ACORN Act as passed by the House has finally been published in the Congressional Record and is available for inspection. As part of the HR 3221 EH (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House); this amendment is subpart Title VI; and consists of sections 601 and 602. It limits Federal funding, contracts, promotion and referrals, agreements, and acquisitions to/from so-called covered organizations; of which it specifically, by name, includes ACORN or its related affiliates. It still may or may not be noteworthy until or if it becomes law. - Dmeranda (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Partisan or non-partisan

Was ACORN a non-partisan organization, or one which leaned more toward pursuing partisan goals, such as electing President Obama? If it was indeed non-partisan, how much weight should we give to conservative claims (as in the National Review) that it's really partisan? (Maybe these claims are themselves partisan?

If it was partisan, what it did it do to advance party goals (and for which party or parties)? I've heard it described as "radical" and "socialist", and that it helped elect Obama. Are these partisan goals, or non-partisan goals?

Its avowed aims of "advocating for" the lower and middle classes: is there anything partisan in the specific ways and means ACORN has chosen? The living wage campaign would seem more socialist and thus related to the Democratic Party than, say, a campaign to reduce or eliminate wage controls (generally seen as more conservative and thus related to the Republican Party). --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Except "[t]he ACORN political action committee endorsed Barack Obama in February 2008." - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/19/AR2009091902550.html

Partisan. Clearly. 116.14.27.77 (talk) 12:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any satisfactory way to answer that question, partly because the legal definition of partisanship and the common layperson meanings can be quite different. See the article on Nonpartisan. I think technically ACORN is nonpartisan because it doesn't have any official policies directly supporting a particular political party; but on the other hand it is obviously apparent that they are much more openly aligned with left-wing politics than right; and also have past interactions with Obama (direct or indirect). However that's all a matter of opinion, viewpoint, or original research, and not probably suitable for discussion in the article. - Dmeranda (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The organization is technically nonpartisan, which means it is not formally affiliated with a political party. That is a specific structural issue with respect to American nonprofit organizations. Classifying it as a different kind of organization would be mistaken. It is, however, left-leaning in various ways. Partisanship does not really mean conservative versus liberal, although the word has taken on that informal meaning. This issue has been discussed several times on the talk page. It seems we have to describe it as nonpartisan. I would favor a parenthetical comment or a footnote to make clear that this is a structural distinction and not a claim that the organization is unbiased, but others don't seem to agree with me here. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As has been discussed numerous times before, many nonpartisan organizations (both left and right) are described neutrally and factually so in their WP articles. This is as it should be. Just because some reader might fail to know or understand the, rather commonplace, word doesn't mean we should not use it... it just means we should wikilink it, as we do. There's nothing "technical" about this status, or at least certainly nothing more technical than, e.g. "non-profit" which we also use in the lead (accurately and relevantly). In point of fact, almost every nonpartisan organization has a distinct political tilt, since it is only political organizations that are subject to classification as nonpartisan or partisan. LotLE×talk 20:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How about saying, "It is not formally affiliated with any political party," per Wikidemon above? We could add a link: "(compare Nonpartisan)". The definition I moved down there (from Merriam-Webster) include the idea of being free from "bias", which hardly applies to any left-leaning or right-leaning organization. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

How about if we clarify the exact situation by including: ACORN is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that typically champions liberal and labor-oriented causes. That should cover all the ground we need to. LotLE×talk 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Based on the above, I've boldly done a few edits to try to clear this up in a neutral way.[20] First, I've created a new article, Nonpartisan (American organizations), that is specifically about the distinction between partisan and nonpartisan political activity by nonprofit US groups. In my opinion that's a better link than the general non-partisan article, which treats both the common meaning and the US legal distinction. Although partisanship is, historically and technically, a matter of supporting or opposing a party, rather than supporting or opposing causes that are seen as political, there is some overlap, and some dictionary definitions suggest that political bias is a form of partisanship. Our goal here is to inform the reader, not to expect the reader to come to the article with a correct technical understanding of the word, so I think it's important to link to this specific issue, not the broader concept. I hope that article can grow, in order to cover some of the legislation, debate, issues, and controversies over what it means to be a partisan organization, and organizations (like ACORN and many others) that are accused by some of overstepping the bounds. One can be classified as a non-partisan organization and break those rules, just like one can be classified as a nonprofit, and actually make a profit - at the penalty of an investigation and IRS action. Second, I've made the fact a little more prominent that ACORN is not a single legal entity, but rather several. The state-level orgs are 501(c)(3)s, which means they are required by law to be nonpartisan. Rather than getting into a debate over whether they follow the law or not, I hope we can be more direct: the entities are organized as 501(c)(3)s, which by definition means they're classified as nonpartisan. Any argument that they are in fact partisan is a claim that they are violating the rules, which is a different issue, and can be treated somewhere in the article if sourced. The national lobbying organization is a 501(c)(4), which by definition is not nonpartisan. I hope that makes it a little clearer. Wikidemon (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I've surveyed some other organizations to see how they deal with it, in the course of linking to my new article. It's all over the map. Some are simply listed as nonprofit nonprofit 501(c)(3) organizations. Others couch it in words like "officially" or "self-described". Many omit the designation entirely. A few, such as the American Enterprise Institute have had some disagreement over the term on par with this one, and go into a section describing claims of bias. It looks like the editors removed the term from the Heritage Foundation article. Anyway, I think my solution is the cleanest. Keep the term but link to a page that gives the word full treatment. And if necessary or there is some objection, say that it is "organized as" or "classified as" a nonpartisan organization under US tax code. Hope that helps. And if you want to work on the new article, I invite you, please help. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your expansion is excellent. Providing more full links and description of tax laws is helpful, and you have made it sufficiently concise not to disrupt the lead (I wouldn't mind finding a way to trim a few words though). I had done a similar survey of many other "political-but-nonpartisan" organizations back in the archives, back when this was raised only for the 10th time, not this 20th time. Basically, what I found then was like what you found: different articles take different approaches, and some are subject to argument. Many or most seem to use "nonpartisan" in its actual IRS meaning though. There is probably no reason to find my old archive comment, since presumably all those article I noted a year ago (or whenever it was) have been edited since then. LotLE×talk 17:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Liberal?

FWIW, there had been a recent flurry of back-and-forth variation between "liberal" and "left-leaning". I do not care greatly about this difference, but a little part of me winces about the (commonplace) misuse of the term "liberal" (Locke, Mill, and Ricardo are rolling in their graves). Inasmuch as I have a slight preference, "left-leaning" looks better. Actually "progressive" has also come and gone, and that also looks more accurate. LotLE×talk 20:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Progressive" seems more accurate to me as well: in the current political climate it's more meaningful than "liberal", which has largely drifted towards a synonym for "poo poo head". It stood for a long time; did we have a reference? PhGustaf (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, kind of like "right wing" drifting towards a synonym for genocidal maniac (see Hitler). But seriously, folks, what does the left and right political spectrum article say? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean Left-Right Politics, and there doesn't seem to be much there we can use -- it would be OR based on uncited paragraphs. Don't forget that Wikipedia has tougher standards than that other place you've been hanging around; we can't just make shit up. PhGustaf (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"the other place" (sounds like how C.S. Lewis described hell ;-) is not a source in any sense, for WP articles. I added two links to Left-right politics, because they seemed to have accurate position lists, based on my extensive experience in US politics. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting lists of no particular value. You and I could have made a couple up, too, and they'd likely most agree, but be of no help here. Fun test, though: It's nice to know I'm a "Reality-Based Intellectualist". PhGustaf (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your edit summary changing "left-leaning" to "liberal." The sense you mean it in has a connotation that is used only in US political discourse, often as an epithet. As the article indicates, ACORN is active in several countries - another reason to not use the US-only term. I feel the phrase "left-leaning" isn't confusing at all, and that it is fair enough and broad enough to describe the nature of the group. The use of the term in a Washington Post article doesn't really change that, it only reflects the writing style of the authors. Twalls (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

By the standards of much of the world, including most of western Europe, ACORN isn't left-leaning at all. "Liberal" at least fits with the link to US liberalism. I agree that there's no really good word to use; maybe we just shouldn't use any. Allow the reader to assign his own label based on the outline of the group's political stances. Pretty much any such label is an epithet to somebody. PhGustaf (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN is a partisan organization. It's simply innacurate to state otherwise. They have parts that are non-partisan so as to be compliant with funding requirements, but other segments are very active politically and in endorsing and campaigning for Democratic candidates. Sources were supplied refuting the absurd characterization that they are non-partisan, but those wanting to portray the group in the best possible light (even if innaccurate) insisted we refer to them as non-partisan. I'm sure the public relations workers at ACORN are tickled pink we've played along. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN is a nonpartisan organization. It's simply innacurate to state otherwise. They have parts that are partisan so as to enable them to lobby and endorse candidates, but other segments are distinctly and legally separate, and registered as 501(c)(3)s which must remain nonpartisan compliant. Sources were supplied confirming that ACORN is still listed in government records as nonpartisan, but those wanting to portray the group in the worst possible light (even if innaccurate) keep insisting that we refer to them by the uneducated, layman-slang partisan. I'm sure the critics of ACORN are tickled pink that their attempts at distorting the accurate meaning and application of the description, nonpartisan, is taking hold. (You can see the previous arguments on this matter here under the "nonpartisan" section heading.) Xenophrenic (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with leaving the word partisan out all together. But calling them partisan is far more accurate than calling them non-partisan. Speaking of which, what happened to the mentions of the voter registration issues, embezzlement and other notable issues that the organization has been in the news for and that are discussed in the article body (though scrubbed regularly to a large extent)? I understand modifying the statement to give it appropriate weight, but eliminating it all together looks like spin doctoring. Xeno, you're not trying to make Wikipedia look bad by promoting ignorance and a one sided promotional depiction of this organization that ignores the more controversial aspects are you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Xeno, you're not trying to make Wikipedia look bad by ... yada yada yada ..."; cite the diffs of my specific edits to which you refer, CoM - or you can just retract now, and save yourself the embarrassment.  ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to violate a topic ban on articles related to Barack Obama, are you? 70.91.155.242 (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is about B.O.? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Related to" Obama. Obama is mentioned in this article, and this article (and it's subject) have been frequently employed as tools with which to attack our President. Looks like a violation. Just sayin'. 70.91.155.242 (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Am I allowed to work on subjects related to the U.S.? That's where he's president. What about articles about food he eats? Can you provide a list please of subjects that cannot in some way be connected to him by abusive POV pushers who want to promote bias and censorship on Wikipedia? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does appear that CoM is skirting his topic ban, if not outright crossing it.... while yelling "Nah, nah, can't catch me" and thumbing is nose with his toes bumping that line. LotLE×talk 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Here's an idea, how about we focus on content and sourcing issues instead of trying to tar a competent and good faith editor? Or would that interfere with the POV pushing efforts of those whose arguments in favor of innaccuracies like "ACORN is non-partisan", when parts of the organization are explicitly partisan, and other disruptive and policy violating pushes for censorship and bias have been thoroughly debunked? Lulu I thought you'd be somewhat more careful after your false statements and distortions about Barney Frank's mafia connections were exposed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  Here's an idea, how about we avoid referring to the efforts of other editors as "POV pushing" just after you have described yourself as a "good faith editor"? Your stunning hypocrisy rivals that of the formerly Czar-loving Republicans. 70.91.155.242 (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What do the POV pushing policy violations and disruptive personal attacks of other editors have to do with my desire to focus on article content and sourcing issues? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Since we have a conflict that is getting more and more entrenched and more and more off-topic, I will be blunt and to the point. The issue of the topic ban should be discussed in the relevant forum, not here. If editors persist in insulting other editors, accusing them of various things, and dragging in unrelated conflicts from other pages, I will consider entirely new "topic bans" in the form of editing blocks. Gamaliel (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"The liberal political organizing group ACORN" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/19/AR2009091902550.html 116.14.27.77 (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And on that same note: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164200/output/print, http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/03/23/acorn_judge/print.html, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/16/MNHN13HGJL.DTL&hw=voter&sn=010&sc=561, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9981606, http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/32432124.html, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_081015.htm, http://www.ajc.com/services/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2008/10/20/, http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/06/missouri_attorney_a_focus_in_firings/, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/05/AR2006110501260_pf.html Soxwon (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

New AP article

I haven't had a chance to go through it in detail but this long-ish Associated Press article presents a comprehensive overview of ACORN's history, operations, and current scandals. I think it's useful as a source for expanding the article's discussion of the organization overall, and as a reference / example vis-a-vis the weight to attribute to various allegations made and attempts to stymie ACORN, and the various misdeeds on ACORN's side that drew the allegations.

Sharon Theimer and Pete Yost (2009-09-19). "Did ACORN get too big for its own good?". Associated Press.

- Wikidemon (talk) 02:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm here I do support this edit, even if the exact language is not set in stone.[21] As the AP article makes clear, the controversies / scandals have mounted to the point where most discussion of ACORN and its history address them upfront. This is an emerging story and things could change, but for now and the foreseeable future, any capsule description of ACORN would reasonably devote one sentence out of several to its current troubles. I might have said differently a month ago but that's what I feel the sources are saying these days. Wikidemon (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. We follow sources. But we also keep in mind WP:NOTNEWS, so we don't only focus on this week's sources. Just because a source was published a year ago, or ten years ago, doesn't make it any less weighty to the "long view" of the article. LotLE×talk 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, yes and no. I considered that. This has been brewing for five years, a front rank political fight for more than a year, and the latest scandal for a month. It's not exactly an ephemeral story. We don't exactly use 10-year-old sources to describe the state of e-commerce or American political parties, either. Wikipedia describes both the current state of things and their history. The current state of ACORN is clearly that they are beset by scandal, with some wondering if they can even survive. That view can only come from current sources. I would say that if you look at most any article written about ACORN in the past month, and then you look at this article, you would find that Wikipedia is a lot less sensationalistic with less attention to these problems. That may be okay because we do take the long view. The AP story is reported as an analysis piece that also takes the long view, going over the organization's entire history and operations, albeit on the occasion of trying to explain what got ACORN to this. It's noteworthy, as I said, that a neutrally reported piece like this considers the scandals so important. Wikidemon (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course we use 10-year old sources to describe e-commerce and political parties... when they are described in relevant historical frame. If we want to understand "the impact of Bill Clinton on the direction of the Democratic Party" (something that might be discussed in various articles), a 10 year old source is just as good--perhaps better--than one published this week. Or likewise, if we want to discuss "the creation of Amazon.com" (what year was that? you see what I mean, in any case).

I'm not opposed to the AP source, nor to any particular source that might be suggested (subject to WP:RS, etc). But I do see a minor pernicious trend to give great deference to the very latest source when discussing topics with much longer histories. I really don't believe that AP in 2009 is a better source for the activity of ACORN during the Reagan administration than is AP in 1988... in fact, the more recent one is more likely to be biased by trying to retroactively cast all the meaning in terms of current politics. LotLE×talk 19:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Tapes Controversy, Philadelphia Office and Police Report

Someone who cares enough should include the part of the story (generally) not being told on major networks. The fact that ACORN actually called the police on O'Keefe after he began asking suspicious questions. See link: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200909180055

That's an interesting read so thanks for finding it. However, Media Matters is a liberal media watchdog and that piece is clearly an editorial / opinion, and hence not a reliable source that would stand the test here. If the major media are not covering the mechanations of the conservative media against ACORN, most likely it is just not considered noteworthy enough for the readers' edification, and hence would also fail the WP:WEIGHT test as well. Perhaps there are some neutral, reliable, third party sources describing coverage by the partisan media, and if so (and subject to other concerns like NPOV, relevance, article length and organization, faithfulness to the sources and WP:BLP) we could consider an addition to the article. Wikipedia lives and dies by the reliable source, they form the basis of the factual statements in all the articles. Wikidemon (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

They mentioned it on CNN http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/11/ldt.01.html Mystylplx (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it, Fox News are also reporting that Juan Carlos Vera contacted his cousin, a police office, 2 days after the incident in question. The police office then contacted the human trafficking task force, then it was revealed to be a hoax. --Diamonddavej (talk) 12:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

IRS and Louisiana government punish ACORN for not paying its taxes

The New York Post just reported, "ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis told Fox News' Chris Wallace on Sunday that her group 'absolutely pays its taxes.' Not true: The IRS and Louisiana's taxmen have imposed nearly $2 million in liens against ACORN for failing to fork over taxes at its New Orleans national headquarters. The IRS recently filed a $548,000 lien against the group, and Louisiana state tax officials have slapped $334,000 in liens on ACORN since last October." Grundle2600 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

Hello. I came to this article to read more about what I was hearing on NPR. I amconfused as to why the current controversy is tucked away in the "political" section. It seems to me that the controversy is notable enough to be it's own section. I mean, it's the only thing I and some others have ever heard about them. Please consider allowing that section to stand alone rather than trying to insinuate that the current internal issues are just a part of politics. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It is in its own section. Titled "2009 controversy: undercover videos". Grsz¹¹ 02:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I made the same mistake, I thought I'd see what the fuss was about. I'd even read a newspaper article over the weekend that talked at length about the ongoing turmoil of a big embezzlement and coverup by leadership at the very top. Does the article on Catholicism also read like it was written by the Catholic Church? It's amazing how you can stand things on their head or flatten them paper thin and turn them on their side to obscure anything. Call me when you guys actually decide to write an encyclopedia and not a political prism for viewing events.

That wasn't very helpful. I don't know what you guys are expecting. An organization with a 20-year history and thousands of employees gets caught up in the rugby scrimmage politics of the moment. There are clearly internal issues that may undo the organization, or they may not, but the fact that this arose now publicly is clearly a matter of party politics. You can read all about that in the articles cited in the footnotes; the Associated Press piece is an especially good overview. This is an encyclopedia, no a scandal sheet. So in our article about Catholicism, for example, we start with the pope and the holy ghost, and maybe a footnote over the priests and the little boys, not the other way around. Wikidemon (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

By in large, I agree with this, although I think calling it "party politics" makes it sound like it was the Republican Party who went after them, not independent but ideological conservatives opposed to the organization's tactics and influence. Also, it might be worthwhile to have a blurb in the introduction about the scandal, e.g., "ACORN rose to public prominence during to the candidacy and Presidency of Barack Obama, due to his earlier involvement in the group, their involvement in his campaign, and later due to an undercover investigation involving the willingness of branches to support various illegal activities," or "Public awareness of ACORN grew in the 2000s due to their connections with Barack Obama and scandals within the organization." Calbaer (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say that a more accurate characterization would be "ACORN rose to political prominence in the early 1980s, during the Reagan administration"... of course, there are certainly some politically uninformed readers/editors who first learned of ACORN through some Fox News hate editorial more recently, but that's hardly anything to do with the organization itself... the latter being the actual topic of this article. LotLE×talk 17:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, okay. The fact is that ACORN hasn't been discussed much in national mainstream media until recently. I doubt most politically aware folks knew about it in the 80s or 90s, and that doesn't make them ignorant hate speech fans, just people who didn't have an infinite amount of time to learn the details of every sizable NGO in the U.S. It is not very useful to say "Fox News!" any time you want to discredit something without resorting to facts. There are plenty of other sources for recent coverage, as a brief skim of the references to this article will reveal. Anyway, this is sort of like the beginning of an article on any group: It might have formed at one point, gotten some level of success shortly thereafter, then everyone become well known. That third point is worth saying in an introduction, e.g., "After the departure of one bandmate, the replacement of their lead singer, and a slight change in their repertoire, the Dixie Chicks achieved massive country music and pop success, beginning in 1998...." I'm not going to fight for this, but just propose that it's worth saying. I suppose, in such a contentious article, if no one fights for it, it's not going to be said. Calbaer (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting and common question with a number of Wikipedia articles and I wonder if there's a good essay or guideline about that. A person or thing is notable for a long time within a small or specialized community, with a long encyclopedic history, then gains much wider exposure through some events that are collectively just a small part of that history. A professor or artist wins an award, a career politician is part of a controversy, an old factory has a fire, a small town has a natural disaster. How to balance that out? Wikipedia is not news, but it is a compendium of notable things, including as in this case organizational missteps and the controversies that ensue. If we're going to blame the employees, not the organization I think it would be more accurate not to say that Fox News whipped up the scandal, but certain employees of Fox :) But more seriously, except in the case of the embezzlement and leadership infighting, I don't think it's complete to say either that the underlying actions caused the controversy or that political operatives caused the controversy. A more complete view, which I think the mainstream sources confirm, is that the voter registration fraud and undercover videos gave the political operatives and conservative press an opportunity to discredit ACORN, and they took the opportunity to raise the issue which eventually reached mainstream awareness. Fox & company often agitate against liberal institutions but most of their issues don't make the leap outside of conservative circles. This one, for a combination of reasons, caught everyone's attention. Wikidemon (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, this investigation was, to anyone's knowledge, totally independent of Fox and its employees. After the first video was released, Fox (and its employees) gladly publicized the story, putting pressure on the government and the rest of the mainstream media. So there were actually two leaps made: One from the web to Fox and one (presumably from Fox) to government and media outside of Fox. Calbaer (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with limiting the controversy to the political section, demonstrates the opinion that the actual controversy was only political. I think that presenting this opinion without demonstrating notable citation that the incident was purely political is both OR and POV. It should be presented more nuetrally than a "political controversy" --68.41.80.161 (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The controversy over the videotapes is arguably a political matter. It's mainly covered in politics-related mass media. Being tricked into giving tax advice to someone pretending to be a pimp is not sourced as being a significant part of the company's history or operations. What is covered is the scandal over the incident, which is entirely political. That may change. As more and more federal agencies stop doing business with them, it reaches a point where despite the political / mass media origin, the scandal has a substantial effect on the organization. Anyway, it's in a nice tidy section by itself so it would be very easy to just move the whole section to a different header, if that's people want to do. Also note that two other issues, the founder's embezzlement and the voter registration fraud, are in separate sections outside of the politics area. Wikidemon (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ACORN Sues Filmmakers - IRS severs ties with ACORN

ACORN Sues Filmmakers

IRS severs ties with ACORN

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Notice that the second link is to the fringe source that issued and produced the videos. Not anything close to WP:RS. Moreover, even there, the headline does not match the story. The content seems to be that IRS no longer includes ACORN on a list of "recommended tax advisors." That might be interesting, though not article-level, but it's not "severing ties"... the headline claim is pretty weird an incoherent, actually: would it mean that IRS no longer "wants the money of ACORN"?! (if not, there are still "ties"). LotLE×talk 22:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The first link is worth adding, and changing our wording from "intends to file" to "filed". LotLE×talk 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press is now a fringe source? This is like watching a cheap hot dog get made.

Meh - LotLE didn't bother to actually read it and just saw the URL. Here's Google News' copy: [22] (and here's a shorter Google News AP version of the other one: [23]). Calbaer (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting us, Grundle. I guess pimps will have to find a new source for free tax advice :) I think both are noteworthy and can be included, although my prediction is that in short order the lawsuit will fail legally, backfire in terms of PR, and only generate more awareness of the videos and galvanize people who wish the organization ill. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, you're welcome. I agree with you that this lawsuit will hurt ACORN. In the article, it says that Andrew Breitbart said he is looking forward to the lawsuit, because the legal process known as "discovery" will give him access to ACORN's private files and information, which could end up embarrassing them even more. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

LotLE, why do you say that Associated Press is a "fringe source"? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, if I am reading correctly, I believe the "fringe source" comment was directed at Breitbart's site. If that was the case, I don't know if I'd agree with the exact terminology, but it may be worth weighing whether or not to take direct sourced stories from either ACORN or Breitbart/Giles/O'Keefe unless they're being used as quotes. If I misread LotLE's comments though, just ignore this ;P 68.44.212.4 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, it's Breitbart not AP that I described as a fringe source. Grundle2600's bad joke or personal attack didn't seem worth addressing... but thanks for doing so, anon. LotLE×talk 22:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Breitbart is a reliable source - they're the one who broke this story in the first place. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But surely Breitbart would face a COI when reporting on a lawsuit filed against it. Best to use an independent source, of which I'm sure there are many by this point. Ronnotel (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Treasury Begins Investigation of Acorn: Status as Non-Profit Under Review

Regrettably though, the story was reported by Fox[24]. Therefore it never happened, it's just another devious editing trick by conservative activists.

Actually, the story is starting to spread: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27547.html, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/60193-treasury-to-probe-oversight-of-acorn-similar-groups. Soxwon (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a little preliminary. They're reporting a letter from the commissioner to the politicians promising to conduct an investigation. There will probably be a more formal announcement soon, and most likely it will get picked up. Per the research I did for Nonpartisan (American organizations) the IRS does 50+ investigations per year into impermissible political activities out of approximately 1 million nonprofits. A majority do, or do not, find a violation depending on the year, and in most cases the outcome is a clarification or reprimand. The fact of an IRS investigation in response to a referral is not big news by itself, but may be seen as so in light of the circumstances of ACORN. ACORN may be a special case of course. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Barney Frank Critical of Acorn: "they have forfeited their right to get federal funds"

Regrettably he spoke on Fox and was quoted by the WSJ. No doubt he was misquoted as saying, "I think they have forfeited their right to get [federal] funds.". Frank also stated, "People have said, 'Well, the sting [against Acorn] is terrible.' I will tell people there is a great defense against being stung. Don't do the kind of things that put you on television."

Defund ACORN Act

Rachel Maddow has a really brilliant editorial about the Act. See: Maddow Puts ACORN Scandal In Perspective!. She points out a rather interesting point that the Act is facially unconstitutional as a Bill of Attainder. She goes on to point out many other organizations that receive far, far more government money, and who have committed far, far worse fraudulent acts. Which seems like an interesting comparison. LotLE×talk 08:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In terms of non-editorial sources that could potentially be used in the article (about the unconstitutionality):

• Congressional Research Service, No. 7-5700, The Proposed 'Defund ACORN Act:' Is it a 'Bill of Attainder?' (Sept. 22, 2009)
• Rep. Scott Statement on the Defund ACORN Act
• Whoops: Anti-ACORN Bill Ropes In Defense Contractors, Others Charged With Fraud
• Congressional Research Service on Whether the "Defund ACORN Act" Is an Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder
• Nadler: ‘Defund’ ACORN Bill ‘Blatantly Unconstitutional’

LotLE×talk 08:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That was my first thought on hearing of the bill, and the constitutional prohibition gets to the very thing Congress is doing here, making a show of punishing specific companies for political purposes rather than legislating on policy matters. ACCORN is not primarily funded by Congress in the first place, although I suspect that the withdrawal of all the federal agencies will have both a direct and an indirect effect. The provision seems like one of those pieces of symbolic legislation, where they praise something or express concern about something. This is part of a related category, laws of questionable validity passed in response to public outcry, which legislators cannot oppose for fear of seeming unsympathetic. I'm not sure if we need to report anything about the bill other than that it was passed, and remove it if it doesn't, and then note that it was stricken by the courts, if it is. But if we do have to characterize it, and the sources support this, I would add a few words to suggest that the bill was a political response. Wikidemon (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we include an equally lengthy discussion in the article highlighting (through third parties naturally) the editorial voices of its opponents? I'm sure we could find several things equivalent (although not as you pointed out earlier the Associated Press or "AP") to the Huffington Post, Pubrecord blog[25] subsidiary of IH[26] or "The Volokh Conspiracy" - all of whom you which you list, with a seemingly straight face, under the title of: "non-editorial sources that could potentially be used in the article". Perhaps we should just retitle the section, "Acorn's Perfect Being". Maybe also add an entry on the Wiki home page News section, "Wikipedia Finds Bill Unconstitutional! Acorn Funds Restored."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.151.169.79 (talk • contribs)

Huh? That was random. Anyway, the constitutionality of the act is under some question. We'll see if that becomes an issue. Wikidemon (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a little hard to find the meaning in the anon's rant above. There is one minor point where the anon is sort-of right: Volokh's blog is an editorial, despite me listing it in non-editorial sources. I haven't added anything to the article yet, in any case, so was just suggesting background sources editors might be interested in reviewing. Volokh, although a blogger, is a well known conservative law professor, and the blog I link to above primarily just quotes the non-editorial CRS report (which is really why I linked it). However, it indeed probably isn't usable as an actual article source (assuming we ever do use any of this stuff around the constitutionality matter). LotLE×talk 18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

That women´s opinions are really not notable.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is D4D channeling Bill Clinton now (that woman)?! I'm not sure what opinion Monica Lewinsky has expressed about all this. :-)... or maybe it's just what was actually written, and D4D doesn't think that women's opinions are notable. LotLE×talk 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Monica agrees! Completely unconstitutional :) Anyway, I agree with Die4Dixie. More broadly that speculating, opining, and grousing over the supposed unconstitutionality of a proposed measure rarely matters unless it gets to the point where the measure passes and a serious constitutional challenge is raised. And even there, unless the challenge is successful it's barely worth mentioning in an article about the challenged legislation (e.g. "measure x was challenged as unconstitutional shortly after passage but a federal district court dismissed the challengers as lacking standing, and the issue never again arose"). Big yawn, notability-wise. Wikidemon (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The opinion pieces are definitely non-notable in themselves. However, the CRS is plausibly more relevant. It's pretty darn unusual for CRS to make such an straightforward "ruling" on pending legislation. LotLE×talk 22:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I of course meant "woman" (ahem, one day I will take a keyboarding class). If we want to look at opinions Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have litterally thousands of utterances about the question at hand (and most are not particualry notable either).--Die4Dixie (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Budget figure

I couldn't find any source to confirm or deny the $100 million+ budget claim. I wouldn't doubt that it's pretty close, but I wonder how the number was arrived at. - dtfinch (talk) 01:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)