Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

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

Malkin

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

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

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

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

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

Home Defender

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

Closed this discussion due to WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Brothejr (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article should be scrapped and re-written ASAP. 74.202.96.5 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Everything you just said was informative and made sense. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC) this is sadly typical of what you find on wikipedia. Anything left wing is scrubbed clean by the same ideologues who are constantly insisting that there needs to be a section in an article about someone or something conservative, highlighting the people who have written books critical of that person. This reads like a publicity pamphlet put out by ACORN, and you know what, they probably did write it. Welcome to Wikipedia. 69.8.247.231 (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC) I find that hard to believe. From personal experience, I can assure you that in all my time on Wikipedia, I have never heard this sentiment shared on any discussion page for any article in any way. 24.228.54.78 (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) Discussion closed. What a surprise. The powers that be on Wikipedia are so tolerant of dissenting views. 69.8.247.231 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sox?

Five similar edits in two days, each from an WP:SPA. What gives?[1][2][3][4][5] - Wikidemon (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously it's the same person, or at least collaborating people. Unfortunately, all but one are from some are IP addresses, so it's hard to do any effective blocks. Nice job rolling back the vandalism quickly, Wikidemon. LotLE×talk 00:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC) (oops, hadn't actually checked your diffs: there are more accounts there; but I think there are also some additional IP diffs not listed).

Investigations

I've moved the following sentence from the article to this location for review:

Also in October 2008, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began investigating voter registration fraud claims against ACORN.

My first inclination is to just delete this sentence, as it is redundant to the information already in the Voter Registration section that states fraudulent registrations are investigated at federal levels. It is also an inaccurate sentence, as the FBI didn't begin investigating in October, nor does the source say it did. The feds have been investigating complaints of vote registrars every 2 year election cycle for a long time now. The source cited here says two anonymous guys confirm the FBI is investigating voter registration problems, and two ACORN guys confirm that no one has contacted them about it. What do we take away from this source to add to the article? Xenophrenic (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote of WSJ article re" partisan /non-partisan

I placed a "" tag after the initial edit[6] and the tag was removed and the sentence wording changed. Unfortunately, the quoted article does not say either that ACORN is non-partisan or that its voter registration drives are non-partisan. The article uses the term "technically non-partisan" and references a particular voter registration drive that was held prior to the 2008 elections. I will replace the tag and hope that someone can find and appropriate cite. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The source states specifically:

Its voter mobilization arm is co-managing a $15.9 million campaign with the group Project Vote to register 1.2 million low-income Hispanics and African-Americans, who are among those most likely to vote Democratic. Technically nonpartisan, the effort is one of the largest such voter-registration drives on record.

The source notes that the "voter mobilization arm" (yes, they do their voter registration drives, as described in the article) is technically nonpartisan (which it must be to keep its tax-exempt status). The word "technically" does not mean they are partisan, but it does support the article's further explanation that ACORN tends to focus its efforts in "poor and minority" areas, and voters in those areas are reported to lean democratic. The description of ACORN's voter registration project as nonpartisan is correct, and is cited in a reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The source is about a specific voter registration drive that occurred in mid 2008; that specific instance is what is described as "technically non-partisan". You cannot simply use a description of one registration drive to cover all of them. You say "The description of ACORN's voter registration project as nonpartisan is correct, and is cited in a reliable source." That is correct as a description of a singular instance but cannot be made to apply generally. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically seems to mean "not" in this case. Or rather, it is non-partisan in a technical sense as it is required to be no doubt by some laws and regulations. However, as everyone knows the group is operating to the benefit of Democrats, and draws support for that reason. It would be more encyclopedic to present the whole picture there about the organization as a whole and/or its voter drives (assuming, of course, it is true and can be verified properly to reliable sources). Wikidemon (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

To clarify some misconceptions, 1) the source is refering to a joint effort voter registration drive that has been in full swing throughout 2007 and 2008, not "mid-2008", which is an assumption not even mentioned in the article; 2) "technically nonpartisan" does not equal "not nonpartisan" no matter how you try to twist and skew it. The voter registration arm is non-partisan by law; they can't selectively register only democrats. The "technically" adjective is only there to remind the reader that while the project is non-partisan, the results favor the democrats because of the "poor and minority" demographic they target. Just as faith-based organizations registering voters in church, also non-partisan for tax-exempt reasons, produce results that tend to favor republicans.

The article presently states: ACORN is a self described "Non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization", but has worked with Democratic groups and endorsed candidates.

The source mentions the endorsement of Obama by ACORN's political action arm, but doesn't specifically state they "work with Democratic groups". Should that part be removed? While it is true that ACORN's campaigns frequently mesh well with democrat policies and agenda, what "groups" have they worked with, and where is the source? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

How about getting some more sources so we don't have to squeeze the WSJ one dry? I think we all pretty much agree. It's clearly a left (or at least Democratic) leaning group. "Non-partisan" in this context has a technical meaning that differs from the common usage, and seems to follow a legal requirement applicable to all comparable voter drives. I think all that can be said in a very straightforward way and sourced - surely there are other solid neutral sources that describe this. If not, maybe we're wrong. Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely a disconnect between the technical and precise meaning of "nonpartisan" that tax and lobbying laws use, and the informal sense that some popular editorials use. Unfortunately, it is really easy to find about eleventy-billion right-wing blogs that exclaim their indignation that ACORN isn't really "nonpartisan" (but exactly what these bloggers mean by nonpartisan is completely individual and subjective). ACORN is by all means a left-leaning organization, perhaps even leftist, and as such finds itself in sympathy with the Democratic party a lot more than with the Republicans. No one ever claimed otherwise. It is also a legally nonpartisan organization, which is something worth nothing about an organization that does things like voter drives and anti-foreclosure direct action.

I am really shy to try to twist the legal and precise meaning of nonpartisan under the grounds that someone who doesn't understand the word won't... well, understand the word. Maybe we can find a relevant footnote or wikilink to clarify the word for those great unwashed masses. But the accurate description really should stay, given we are writing an encyclopedia article. LotLE×talk 00:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a source that says, bluntly:

ACORN is a nonpartisan organization, but it has a liberal political agenda and ties to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. The low-income people it seeks to enfranchise are a group that tends to vote Democratic. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Obama campaign worked with ACORN on the voter drive.

We're getting unnecessarily worked up over the word "technically". It's just another way of putting scare quotes around the word nonpartisan. ACORN describes itself as non-partisan; many sources state ACORN is non-partisan; the government apparently agrees, because they are still listed as a non-profit that receives some government funding — can't do that if you are not legally non-partisan. I'm sure conservatives are incredulous when they see ACORN pushing for higher minimum wages, tighter regulations against predatory loans and other bastions of liberal policy -- but ACORN isn't controlled by any political party, and keeps solid monetary walls between its community organizing entities and its political action entities. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the Democratic Party has no monopoly in supporting higher minimum wages, tighter regulations against predatory loans, etc. In fact, many activists feel that the Democratic Party is only marginally better than the Republicans as far as preventing such legislation from passing; and argue that if one really wants such policies enacted, one should be voting for the Socialist Party, Greens, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is NOT NEWS

As my edit comments indicate, and the history of this article shows even more clearly, we should not attempt to turn this article into a breaking news broadsheet. We shouldn't do so even if some editors who dislike ACORN find tidbits of information critical of the organization in today's headlines. The story on charges in Nevada are a lot like all the previous allegations and charges that have circulated through this article over time. Anyone remember the "anonymous FBI sources" who sat in the article for a long time, basically as an election-year stunt?! In the 35 year history of the organization, some charges that may or may not result in any trial, let alone conviction, don't come anywhere close to encyclopedic significance. There's no deadline for including information; if these charges later see convictions, that would be a good time to consider the matter again. For example, the actual fine agreed to in King County seems notable enough to retain as brief mention, and that's been in the article for a good while. LotLE×talk 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Generally agreed. However, we've already established / agreed that the lawsuits, criminal complaints, plea agreements, etc., in connection with voter registration fraud by field workers working on quota, is worth some kind of mention. It's important both to describe the organization itself, and also how the organization became an election-year political issue -- the article treats both. That has long-lasting notability, a couple years now at least. The Nevada claims are the latest wrinkle, not an isolated thing. The unique thing about the Nevada case is that it claims that the practice of using quotas is itself illegal in that state, as opposed to other states where the violation was what workers did to fulfill the quota, not the quota itself. We shouldn't ignore that because it's a non-trivial part of the history and structure of the organization. But nor can we have a laundry list of every claim, or a tabloid-ish delving into the details of a particular scandal. No doubt many large organizations would have a long list of employees who've been charged or convicted with something. For an interesting comparison that's hopefully not political or controversial, take a look at Domino's Pizza#30 Minute guarantee. Imagine all the Domino's drivers convicted of reckless driving. That article chooses two of the most notorious / well known cases and describes the outcome and company response. It could be better written but that's not a bad approach. Anyway, although consensus is unclear on the point I do not object to the one-sentence mention of the Nevada case. Whether that will stay in the article or not long-term really depends on how the case unfolds. If the case is quickly dropped or dismissed, not important. If it leads to criminal convictions, resignations, changes in how Acorn does business, then it's worth keeping and probably expanding. In the meanwhile, there shouldn't be any rush - either to put it in or take it out. What's the big deal? Wikidemon (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the article should not be documenting allegations that may or may not pan out. It is customary for us to wait until the case has been resolved, and even then I would have undue weight worries. One thing that concerns me in particular is that the AP article uses the term "voter fraud" instead of "voter registration fraud". The former is much more serious, so it is probably not a good idea to use a source that appears to confuse the two. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, we don't know. This wouldn't be the first article that tries to be current with a notable subject. As I said I don't see the harm either way because we can always take a look later. Incidentally, the Nevada case isn't really even voter registration fraud... the claims as I read them are that the quota system is illegal, whether or not it lead the workers on quota to make fraudulent registrations. Wikidemon (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes it all the more important to leave this information out for the time being, because we aren't even sure what section it belongs in (assuming it belongs anywhere). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the content that's being scrubbed: In 2009, the Nevada Attorney General and Secretary of State filed a criminal complaint against ACORN and two employees over its use of a quota system for voter registrations by employees<ref>[http://www.lasvegasnow.com/global/story.asp?s=10299051 ACORN Facing Criminal Charges], CBS News Las Vegas channel 8, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/may/04/criminal-charges-filed-against-acorn-two-employees/ Criminal charges filed against ACORN, two employees], Las Vegas Sun, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30567548/ ACORN charged in Nevada voter-fraud case], MSNBC, May 4, 2009</ref> ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of dumping it here is. We all have access to the article history. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, and because it's better that I put it on the talk page instead of in the article, 7 ACORN employees in Pittsbiurgh have just had criminal charges filed against them. source Grundle2600 (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a better source, if it ever becomes article-worthy content. Grundle could have said, "7 employees fired by ACORN and turned over to the authorities for illegal registration practices, are now facing criminal charges in Pittsburgh," with equal accuracy, depending on sources, of course. I'm looking at some sources (of questionable reliability) that even claim some of the fired employees are now getting their revenge by making up stories to implicate the supervisors that caught and fired them. Could make for interesting content either way, after it makes its way through the washer & ringer, and ends up printed in a reliable source as certainty, not speculation. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As this unfolds, I think it makes some sense to expand the section on the criminal charges, convictions, and settlements. I wonder how that could be done in summary style without making a litany... probably 1/2 to 1 new sentence pointing to one or more reliable major press neutral sources that describe the entire problem rather than individual reports of specific charges. A few months ago, amidst great hand wringing, the consensus seemed to be that we would not try to list each one individually - that effort brought up a lot of sourcing issues, and questions about contradictory numbers of convictions. No rush, it's an ongoing news item. Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Before anything makes its way into this article, three criteria should be satisfied:

1. Actual convictions
2. Direct involvement of ACORN (with ACORN's complicity, sanction or knowledge - not guilt by association)
3. Covered by high quality reliable sources

It is vitally important the reliable sources state that convictions were made and that ACORN was directly involved before adding anything, because otherwise there are potential libel concerns. The accused individuals may be exonerated, or they may be convicted but found to be acting independently of ACORN. Details like these would prevent coverage in this article. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In general for BLP reasons I wouldn't want to report allegations, dropped charges, unresolved cases, etc., where it concerns specific individuals. However, I wouldn't make an absolute rule that ongoing cases against companies should be excluded until the cases are resolved, something that can take years. There seems to be a widespread issue that ACORN's quota system and supervision of its field workers has lead to abuse. I definitely wouldn't require a "direct connection" to be shown in court. That becomes a technical legal issue that is quite different than the public conception. For example, police brutality, racial profiling, sexual discrimination, workplace safety issues, health violations can be prevalent within an organization but the organization may escape legal culpability on theory that the employees who committed the abuses were acting outside the scope of their authority. That was a big issue in the Domino's 30 minute guarantee cases (Dominoes claimed that any employee who was driving recklessly was doing so on their own, not as company policy), and of course the new nasty food videos (Dominoes justifiably claims that the employees were acting outside the scope of their employment). Yet employee misbehavior can be an issue of note to the employer, even if they are rogue employees. It affected the task that the employer was supposed to be doing, in this case conducting legitimate voter registration efforts. Wikidemon (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then reliable sources would need to frame it that way as well. They would need to talk about ACORN's "widespread issue" with their quota system before we could use those sorts of terms. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My comment that it seems to be widespread is just an impression, and would have to be confirmed by a source that suggests it is actually a significant issue. Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy that notable events are only notable if there's a conviction. What a bunch of illogical silliness. Clinton was never convicted of anything nor Bush. So perhaps we should start removing all the issues and problems they've had from their articles? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A legal finding or result is a lot more notable than a legal case. For BLP purposes, unproven allegations against individuals are problematic. Please do not use article talk pages to complain about other editors. Do you have a specific proposal here? Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, if you want to rein in the personal attacks and grandstanding you should start with yourself and broaden out from there. The abuse of policies and censorship is obscene.wp:NOTNEWS doesn't say we don't use content from reliable news sources does it? What would we use? If legal cases are reported in reliable sources they are notable and we include them. We don't play games with what we like and what we don't like. This is vandalism. There are vandals who come and replace content with silly words like "poop" and there are vandals who remove sources without discussion, who censor notable content and who refuse to engage in good faith compromise to include notable perspectives as our guidelines require. So as soon as you want to start playing by the rules you let me know. But don't play games and accuse me of acting in bad faith when i've had to put up with your harassment and the personal attacks and harassment by Scjessey, Tarc, Grsz, and others time after time. I'm not going to stand by and pretend it's okay that Wikipedia is being censored and vandalised by POV pushing partisans. End of story. In this particular case we have reliable sources noting an investigation. It should be mentioned and the sources included, obviously. That's what the guidelines indicate and to do otherwise would violate our rules to serve political ends. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Note - I won't respond to that here, but I have filed an AN/I report here after warning the editor over this. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) - Clinton and Bush are well known individuals with a multitude of reliable sources. It is a very different matter when you are talking about non-notable individuals who may or may not have committed crimes that may or may not have anything to do with ACORN. Read WP:BLP and WP:HARM for reasons why caution is necessary in this case. Oh, and Bush hasn't been convicted of anything yet.  ;) -- Scjessey (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How does WP:BLP apply? Individuals are neither the subject of this WP article, nor are they named (either in the Wikipedia article or the news sources). The fact that the organization is named in a criminal complaint—regardless of how the complaint is handled or the ultimate outcome—is clearly relevant. This has nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS, which states that articles about single events that have received news coverage may not constitute appropriate topics for Wikipedia articles. However, nowhere does any policy or guideline suggest that significant news about a topic already covered in Wikipedia is not appropriate for inclusion because it is news. Bongomatic 02:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP does not apply to this particular situation, so I disagree with Scjessey there. One fundamental thing about BLP is that it is about living persons not organizations. There is a BLP concern (not necessarily a violation, just an issue that may need checking out) when a particular individual is identified as being the subject of an investigation, allegation, charge, or criminal complaint. Many editors feel that because of BLP Wikipedia should be very cautious about reporting these things, even where the making of the accusation is reliably sourced. That's not the case here, as far as I know - the identity of the workers named in the complaint weren't mentioned. I've also argued that WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't really apply so that's not the way to look at this, although that's a fair argument. In fact, for the very reason that this is not just an isolated event that happened one news day, it seems to be worth going into in more detail. To my mind it's really a weight, tone, sourcing, and summary style question. There have been dozens of complaints and allegations, and I think we should expand the coverage of those but as a general statement about the organization as a whole if that can be found in the sources, rather than a laundry list of the individual cases. Wikidemon (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is a new article from Pittsburgh's biggest newspaper. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And here are 646 (at the moment, on my computer) from New York City's biggest, dating back at least 4 1/2 years.[7] So the broader issue of allegations and finding of fraud in connection with Acorn's voter registration efforts it's obviously not just the topic of the day. Have we had an WP:RfC on this? Or mediation? I'm wondering if that might be the best approach. I think everyone agrees that the topic should be covered, and there's a reasonable question of how to do it. Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But Pittsburgh is the city where those people live, and a local paper would tend to offer more information. In this example, that local article has the names of the people involved, which the other sources don't. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

True, and thanks for spotting the article. I was just kind of agreeing that there are a lot of sources. Wikidemon (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevada complaint material

This addition[8] looks fine by me. I'm fine with it being in, or fine with it not being in. It is an emerging story and there is no rush so in due course we can see what happens, and whether it's worth expanding or removing. In the longer run, as I mentioned before it would be nice to see if we can get to a comprehensive summary of the whole voter registration fraud issue, based on solid sources that do the same, rather than a list of data points. But in the meanwhile, the Nevada charges are clearly getting some significant press and the added content sticks to the facts, so I see no problem with verifiability, neutrality, weight, etc. Any arguments or objections either way? Wikidemon (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My observations on the new Nevada & Pittsburgh charges, and the voter registration fraud issues in general:

• Both Grundle and Bongomatic have mistakenly claimed that the Nevada story sources don't name individuals. They not only fully name them, they also provide their cities of residence. Their names are not in the Wikipedia article, so I am unsure if this constitutes a BLP violation, but let's not claim there is no mention of defendants.

One of the three stories omits the name. If (which I don't believe) the mention of the names in a link from an article not about the is considered a BLP violation, the two other articles can be de-linked. Bongomatic 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• The recent entry to this Wikipedia article adds content that describes a complaint that was filed against ACORN, while completely failing to mention any of the responses given to those charges by ACORN representatives. It is also worded to present the charges as factual rather than alleged; and fails to mention that of dozens of similar charges across the states, this is the only one to implicate ACORN. If we are going to eagerly insert unresolved charges, allegations and indictments into the article before they even see the inside of a courtroom, we should at least include the defendant's response and position on the charges also.

Sounds reasonable. Please add, not subtract. Bongomatic 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonble, except that prepared statements by defendants, their PR people or lawyers in response to being sued or indicted, are all unencyclopedic, even if repeated by the press. Saying "through a spokesperson, XXX said that all charges are utterly without basis and that it looks forward to the opportunity to exonerate itself in a fair judicial process" or something, doesn't mean anything. We should only report a criminal complaint if the complaint is secondarily sourced; similarly, any description of the company's response would have to be from a secondary source. That's not specific to this article, it's the best way to deal with any court case. Wikidemon (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Every two year election cycle for decades has seen the same song and dance played out, to lesser or greater degrees, by the two dominant political parties: One side points to voter registration drives and screams fraud, while the other side points to tightening of voter eligibility requirements and screams criminal voter supression. The charges rarely withstand examination, and fewer than 5% ever arrive in court; fewer still resulting in convictions. But convictions aren't the goal; the point is to make as much media noise as possible in the run-up to the election, so as to place the opposing camp in a dust-cloud of alleged criminal conspiracy. Interesting read here.
• "Breaking News" stories are often inaccurate, and frequently reflect bias due to the preponderance of allegations and scarcity of hard facts. Voter registration crimes will be deceptively reported as "Voter Fraud." ACORN will catch problem registration forms, mark them as such, and turn them over to authorities as required by law, but the headlines will misleadingly read, "Authorities notice irregularities in registration forms submitted by ACORN." ACORN will discover an employee forging registration forms, fire him and turn him over to authorities, and the reporter will deceptively write, "Police arrest ACORN employee for voter fraud."

Is your claim that there is any chance of the main fact (the lodging of a criminal complaint) cited in these "breaking news" stories is not accurately reported?

No, my claim is exactly what I stated. See my second point regarding accuracy of what was reported versus what was introduced to the article here. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The article already notes that ACORN audits the registration forms and its employees, and works with authorities when criminal activity is discovered. Since they have been doing this for many years, with tens of thousands of employees and volunteers, mostly from poor and minority neighborhoods, I have no doubt you can find 646 related stories about relatively few individuals. As the sources indicate, and I believe you will find this to be true in all 646 related stories, the cases involved "registration fraud, not voter fraud," and "no voters were paid for votes and no unqualified voters were allowed to cast ballots" and "no evidence of widespread criminal activity was discovered." To what extent should we list each charge, if at all? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

When someone finds reliable sources about those 646 (I thought it was 464, but who's counting) charges, your question may become relevant. Bongomatic 22:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are 646 stories, or article hits as listed by Wikidemon's Google search -- not "charges." And they are all from the New York Times; generally considered a reliable source. I don't think I get the meaning of your response here. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Google hit counts are extremely unreliable... even for the actual number of web hits, much less notability. But still, after you've been googling you start to get a feel for what's well-covered in the news and what is not. I can't be certain either way -- right now it's at the gut feel level. If the reliability, relevance, POV, etc., is challenged and I know it is, one would need to carefully put together the sources. But from looking around at the articles, sources, etc., I'm pretty sure that the allegations and cases involving Acorn go beyond the news of the day and the usual 2-year election chatter. Or think of it this way. Maybe both sides accuse each other of fraud every two years, so the accusation itself isn't surprising. But this accusation seems to be sticking to an unusual degree. Politicians making accusations is one thing. District attorneys filing charges is quite another. Xenophrenic is right - the serious allegations have all been registration fraud (or that publicly acknowledged methods are in fact illegal, which is something other than fraud). The claims that this would threaten the integrity of the election were made by politicians and other partisans, I think, not by neutral commentators, prosecutors, etc. Wikidemon (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that I haven't specifically suggested burying the Nevada charges. The charges against the 2 ACORN workers are nothing new, and not article-worthy in my opinion, but... the third charge, against the ACORN organization itself, is unique and noteworthy. The charge is that ACORN officially used quotas and incentives with their employees that were registering voters. Proving the fault lies with ACORN instead of a rogue employee will be difficult, but the attorneys say they have ACORN manuals and documentation to support their case. ACORN, as expected, denies the charge, and says the "work standards" described in their manuals are being misrepresented as enforceable quotas when they are nothing of the sort. I'm guessing ACORN will push to have this end up in court, even if their accusers do not. Like you, Wikidemon, I don't feel strongly either way about including it now or waiting (although I still say it's inclusion should represent both positions, if any). Xenophrenic (talk) 23:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Innocent or guilty, whether the charges against ACORN in Nevada are included in the article should be based somewhat on the criteria Scjessey articulated, but with greater weight given to the interests of disclosure and inclusion. If there is a jury trial, whether the defendants are exonorated or convicted, it would probably be notable regardless of the disposition, but if the charges are spurious and do not survive to trial, then the informational value is somewhat more questionable. It is understood that this is not a news article, but this article is still intended to be a current document, with at least some small status report on the current state of the subject of the article. We should not freeze the information simply because ACORN's relevance to the national political landscape has been reduced as a result of McCain's loss and the cessation of a negative advertising campaign regarding the organization. It is still a group, it still does work, and readers should be allowed to know how it is doing. I think the information should come in, but it should be cleaned up. Just because someone is innocent does not mean they were not accused, and if they were accused and found not guilty, then wikipedia should say that, because proof of innocence should always be shouted from mountaintops and nailed to every door.Pink-thunderbolt (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

in reading countless entries about other organizations, it has always been made clear in section headings when there are controversies involved with a subject. this entry does not have anything like that, and the controversial aspects are buried in the text which has minimal and very poorly-constructed paragraphs. both of these elements allow the controversies to be easily skipped over by those who skim the entry quickly for the most important info. in addition, factcheck.org is inappropriately cited at least once (#51), partially because it is an appeal to (supposed) authority. the casual reader will see the citation as coming from "factcheck.org" and assume by virtue of its name alone that it is a reliable, non-partisan, and un-biased source. even if this were not the case, the citation attributed to factcheck is in itself not legitimate simply because it states its own opinion of the situation, and is hardly hard fact. i would edit this entry myself to make it able to stand up to scrutiny for intellectual honesty, but from reading this discussion page, it seems that would be an effort in futility. Agent Ohm (talk) 09:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, factcheck.org is a reliable source and it does nonpartisan analysis, not opinion. Its conclusions are open to question of course, and I'm aware of the concern that the name implies more objectivity than it really has. However, citations to sources are all we have here, and as a source it is as good as any. Although the quote here, that McCain's claim was "breathtakingly inaccurate", is colorful evocative speech, the substance of the statement is clearly true, that McCain's claim of potential widespread election fraud was completely untrue.If there's a concern we can make sure the citation links to the Wikipedia article about the organization, and readers can make their own decision. The voter registration controversy is mentioned twice, first in the section on voter registration and again in the "ACORN in political discourse" section that has a full subsection about the controversy as it played out in the 2008 election. Actually Wikipedia disfavors "controversies and criticisms" sections in articles project-wide. Like lists and trivia sections, they are often allowed to remain rather than simply deleted, in hopes that they will be worked into the fabric of articles as they mature. A section on its overall political presence is more encyclopedic than polarizing things by dividing them into "criticism" and "praise". I think Pink-thunderbolt is right, but it is not a given that a single criminal prosecution against an organization's employees or even the organization itself is really noteworthy to that organization. It all depends on how much interest that generates, and how relevant that is to telling the story of the organization. One can probably find many examples of companies accused of crimes where the event was simply not that important compared to the overall importance of the organization. On the other hand, it seems likely that Acorn being charged with criminal voter law violations, over one of its very reasons for existence (voter registration) would generate plenty of interest, and it seems already has. One caveat is that there have been lots of allegations, claims, and prosecutions, so it may be that the overall phenomenon of Acorn and its employees facing scrutiny is more important than any specific incident. Agreed that the article needs some writing quality work, expansion, and general clean up. Wikidemon (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-partisan

The statement that the group is non-partisan needs to be removed. It's self-proclaimed and is disputed by the fact that the group has entities that engage in political activities and endorsements. It's also contradicted by reliable sources here [9] noting an internal report found that " Project Vote and Acorn made it impossible to document that Project Vote’s money had been used in a strictly nonpartisan manner" here [10] "Acorn, the nation’s largest network, which represents 400,000 families in 110 cities, is quite clearly allied with issues and constituencies that are embraced more often by Democrats than Republicans. Unlike other groups that are strictly nonpartisan, its political action committee has endorsed Barack Obama." And here[11] where it's noted that: The group has been criticized by Republicans as being highly partisan, receives money from Democratic groups, and has been investigated repeatedly for voter registration fraud. "ACORN says it's non-partisan. But the first page of its minimum wage plan says the campaign 'will help defeat George W. Bush and other Republicans by increasing Democratic turnout in a close election.'" And here [12] where the New York Times refers to them as a "liberal community organizing group". ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonpartisan is a technical status having to do with the group's nonprofit status. They are still in that status so they are presumably nonpartisan. There seem to be two counterclaims here, first that despite the technical distinction the group is in fact liberal. That's worth fleshing out so that we don't confuse the reader. It's apples and oranges really. Many nonpartisan organizations have a political bent. That is not worth doing in a claim / counterclaim style. It's well sourced and not reasonably disputable that the organization does have this technical status. People reacting against that and claiming "but they're liberal" are missing the point, and we don't owe it to the readers to repeat opinions that are clearly based on a misunderstanding, whether made by political opponents or Fox News in politicking mode. So there has got to be a more straightforward way to describe it. As to the second part, if there is any internal doubt or external criticism that they are breaking the tax law let's see it. The NY Times source here is indirect - it does not find that the group in fact has violated its status, but itself cites an internal audit of some kind. If there are serious claims or any action on the subject they deserve some note, but not int he lead - it does not seem to be that central an issue. Finally, some time back there were proposals that never gained consensus to mention voter registration fraud and Republican election tactics in the lead. I continue to think that highlighting them in the lead unduly politicizes the article, and is of undue weight. They already have a healthy paragraph each in the body of the article. Wikidemon (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The only sources for the non-partisan designation is the group's claim and a couple mention in articles about voter registration fraud (which you won't allow to be included in the lead). We have numerous descriptions conflicting with this designation. We know the group endorses democrats, receives money from Democratic groups, is described as being liberal by the New York Times (you can't be liberal, a political designation and non-partisan which means you aren't involved in politics). So we have this utterly non-notable bit that's disputed in numerous sources and yet you're trying to keep it in the lead. Where is the substantial coverage of it? We know that some divisions of ACORN have to be non-partisan to do voter registration efforts, but other parts are engaged in political activities as is made clear in the reliable sources I've provided. We need to stop misleading and confusing our readers and to remove this innaccurate statement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)