Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Acorn Housing

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

The article says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good idea or not?

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

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

New book needed in Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevada case

Why did someone remove the fact that on August 10, 2011 ACORN was slapped with a fine by a Las Vegas District Court judge? And please, don't even try and make the absurd claim that it has been in the entry since April, because it hasn't. The judge just handed it down three days ago. Is someone honestly trying to argue that being fined by a district court judge doesn't belong in the entry? I think the more likely explanation is that this entry is being edited by obvious ACORN partisans who don't like what the judge had to say about their beloved organization. Seems that same person also tried to whitewash everything by even removing the talk section that discussed what happened in Las Vegas. Sorry, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and in that regard what happens in Vegas doesn't stay in Vegas. If the information is not replaced, I will be adding it back every single day until it stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.152.197 (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The fine is already included in the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead trimming

I'm going to trim the lead which is quite long. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully it is more readable now. There shouldn't have been anything deleted from the lead that isn't in the body of the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Six paragraphs down to two in the lede; sounds like an improvement to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Acorn behind the Occupy Wall Street Protests

I have added a reference from a media source (Hey, Fox is a media source, even if you disagree.. I don't always agree with them either) showing that Acorn is behind the Occupy Wall-street Protests, and is funding them. Any information on this should be collected and added to flesh out the page as I'm at work and cant do it atm. Belgarath TS (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Fox is probably not a reliable source here, as it is in full politics mode on this so-called exclusive story. If other less partisan sources were to confirm the truth (verifiability), relevance, and weight of the possibility that the apparently defunct ACORN is now lending its support to Occupy Wall Street then it is conceivably pertinent here in the ACORN article. However, if you strip away the hyperbole, what Fox actually sources is not what they conclude, that ACORN is "behind" OWS, but rather that former ACORN individuals are now supporting it. As these people are not banned from politics, it seems utterly unremarkable that associates once involved in an a now-defunct organization are now supporting a new political movement. What is perhaps more interesting and better sourced is the fact that Fox set out to do an expose on the topic (there is some reliable coverage on Fox's methods here), and that these claims about OWS are percolating through the conservative blosophere and press. For that we need some perspective. First, statements about what Fox is doing need to be verified by third party sources, not Fox. Second, there are a lot of disparaging claims about Occupy Wall Street being made by a lot of conservative groups, they would have to be put in context and probably not in this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ACORN Did Not Disqualify The Votes, Election Officials Did

It was clearly written in that New York Times article that election officials disqualified some of the votes.75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

True. But the material you removed said that ACORN just flagged some forms forms for further attention. Once ACORN, or anyone else, gets a filled-out registration form, they can't disqualify it themselves. Else they might just throw away a lot of applications for the "wrong" party. Did you actually read what you reverted? PhGustaf (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)