Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rewriting History

The realm of Big Brother. Here it's done regularly. The pro-Obama people controlling this site have now begun removing protests put in this talk page. Yet look how they attacked Sarah Palin's page and talk page.

Wikipedia is twisted. 15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)~ This entry impunes the Wikitegrity —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZapDuff (talk • contribs) 15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect characterization of citation; should example and citation be removed?

In the section titled "FALSE REGISTRATION BY EMPLOYEES," the final example is: "On September 17 2008, the Bernalillo County clerk in New Mexico notified prosecutors that the office had received fraudulent registration cards.[29]" In the Associated Press article that [29] links to at http://www.lcsun-news.com/ci_10489323 the only reference to ACORN is this: "In 2004, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, ACORN, came under scrutiny for paying workers to sign up voters and offering bonuses for turning in more than 24 registrations a day." The AP article also states, referring to "some 1,100 possibly fraudulent voter registration cards [that] have been turned in to her office," that "[Bernalillo County Clerk] Toulouse Oliver said she has not done any analysis on who turned in suspect cards." Thus the AP story offers no allegation that connects ACORN to false registration by ACORN employees in 2008 or earlier (beyond suggesting an appearance of impropriety in 2004). This New Mexico example and citation present a false and misleading claim, and they should be removed. HalSF (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)HalSF — HalSF (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Housing crisis

An anonymous editor who made one definitely harmful edit also added the below material. This stuff is about 1/2 WP:OR, and the other half is a footnote to a blog that doesn't meet WP:RS. However, I think there might be something salvageable in it if it had better wording and better sources:

In October 2008 many politicians and citizens began to blame each other on the causes of the financial meltdown. Some critics blame organizations like ACORN and the Carter administrations Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for laying down the background that Wall Street exploited in attempts to increase profits. ACORN organizer MAdeline Talbott insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting, by overlooking bad credit histories. In September 1992, The Chicago Tribune described Talbott’s program as ‘affirmative-action lending” and ACORN was issuing fact sheets bragging about relaxations of credit standards that it had won. Talbott continued her effort to, as she put it, drag banks ‘kicking and screaming’ into high-risk loans. A September 1993 story in The Chicago Sun-Times presents her as the leader of an initiative in which five (Chicago) area financial institutions were ‘participating in a $55 million national pilot program with affordable-housing group ACORN to make mortgages for low and moderate income people with troubled credit histories. What made this program different from others, the paper added, was the participation of Fannie Mae - which had agreed to buy up the loans. ‘If this pilot program works,’ announced Talbott, ‘it will send a message to the lending community that it’s OK to make these kind of loans.’

What do other editors thing? LotLE×talk 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First: The blockquote above is ignorant and incoherent. Fellow who wrote it is not even familiar with the actual case that is made on this issue (it's telling that the only number in the above is a $55 million pilot program of some sort -- that's not even chump change). But as to the case itself....

Tough one. One can argue that this issue has been made notable (by talk radio or whatever) and therefore should be addressed. The problem is, it makes little sense on its face. What is the argument?

It's complicated enough that it needs lots of words and footnotes to explain. And it's demonstrably false -- though demonstrating its falsensess is a long and complicated process that will require lots of footnotes.

Having to go though all that reminds me of a rather fooloish Borges character who, (paraphrasing): "Wrote a 30 page monograph suggesting an improvement to the game of chess by removing one of Bishop's pawns. He advocates, reconsiders, then ultimately discards this change as impractical."

Anyhow, ACORN advocated for the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in 1977). The right-wing arguement goes that 30 years on the CRA is responsible for our current credit crisis (because it advocated lending to poor folks) and that, therefore, Acorn is largely responsible for the current credit crisis.

The problem is, Every economist i'm aware of that looked at the CRA prior to this september (which basically forced banks that took deposits from a neighborhood to lend money in that neighborhood) found that its impact has been either A. Neutral, or B. A net positive.

Since the current credit crisis, people haven't devoted much thought to the CRA.

Why? Lending encouraged by its provisions only acount for about 10% of the US mortgage market (and a roughly equivalent percentage of the bad debt as the other 90%) and at most 20% of the subprime market. But since CRA-provision subprime lending carries low interest rates and is highly regulated by the government, it has performed much better than the 80% of subprime lending made by unregulated mortgage service companies, banks and thrifts.

Also the CRA itself has been weakened under the bush administration, even as the government refused to regulate the credit default swap market and allowed wall street firms to increase their leverage (short term borrowing) to 30x their capital. That is, the backdrop to the current debacle (which depending on what economist you talk to has been the last 8-5 years) has been one in which the CRA has become less of a factor in US lending than at any time in the previous 30 years and when unregulated, subprime lending was taking off AND when restrictions on wall street borrowing to invest (or gamble, your pick) were eased.

The upshoot of this long comment? There already is a CRA page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act) which looks to be in pretty good shape at the moment, though there appear to be running battles over this issue there. That is at least the appropriate place for long consideration of the Community Reinvestment Act, not a page on ACORN which, while it advocated the passage of that law 30 years ago, isn't really a player.

What's more, straight mortgages are far from the whole problem -- with the massive (and still not fully enumerated) credit default swap market contributing to our financial problems. Quite simply, the CRA couldn't be responsible for our crisis because lending connected to it accounts for, at most, about 5% of the current bad debt in the market (this is a purely back of the envelope number since no one on earth can actually determine how large or small the CDS and other derivative-related losses will be). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ex-ACORN Workers

I've reinstated the paragraph about the "Ex-ACORN workers". According to the source, they were, in fact, ACORN workers at the time the false voter registrations were submitted. They were "ex-ACORN workers" at the time of the news story, obviously because ACORN had fired them by then. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 11:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with apparently all of the "voting fraud" stuff is that it does not really have much to do with ACORN. What seems to have happened a number of times is that ACORN pays workers (minimum wage, it seems, or not much better) to get registrations. A small percentage of those workers fill out registration forms fraudulently rather than do the presumably greater amount of work of actually finding unregistered voters. Some of those people who commit this fraud get busted, rightfully so.

One could make a case that ACORN should supervise its staff more carefully, or provide better training, or something else to eliminate this illegal behavior by its employees. But what the article seems carefully constructed to try to insinuate is that this fraud was done per instructions and plans of ACORN itself. That just hasn't been shown with any evidence or citation in this article (nor should it be our goal to construct an argument to such effect).

By analogy, I'm certain there are a fair number of employees of Walmart who have committed crimes. Some of those are even fairly directly related to their employment (hypothetically): Walmart employees deliberately shortchange customers and pocket the money; or steal the purses or break into the cars of customers, taking advantage of their knowledge of customer location; or steal items from trucks and warehouses; etc. Would it be appropriate to catalog crimes like this in the Walmart article, even if we limited the list to crimes committed by employees who were on-the-clock, and committing crimes that were enabled by the circumstances of their employment? And especially, would it be appropriate to try to construct an insinuation that Walmart cultivated a culture for such criminal activity? LotLE×talk 18:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

But see this CBS News story:

Even groups supporting the organization's efforts question why fraud allegations keep cropping up.

"They're sort of their own worst enemy," said Bill Faith, who directs Ohio's largest homeless advocacy group and shares many of ACORN's goals.

"They want low-income people to register to vote but because of the kind of problems that come from their program, it provokes a reaction from the Legislature that actually makes it harder to run such programs," Faith said.Bdell555 (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid your example is faulty because WalMart only stands to lose by promoting an environment where their customers' cars are not safe; whereas ACORN, which is a recipient of public money, would stand to gain by stuffing the ballot box in behalf of candidates they may deem likely to vote for bills that provide money to the organization. One gains; one loses. There is a substantive difference.Alcuin of York (talk) 05:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I tend to want groups like ACORN vindicated, because I believe in what they're doing, but I don't want them given a free pass. If a person or group does something illegal which benefits them "on accident", I'm okay with "insinuating culpability," as long as that just means listing these breaches, rather than actually using value-judgement language. -Fredgoat (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article claims ACORN receives no public funding and is not tax exempt. Is this correct or incorrect. The previous comment claims it does receive public funds; these seems pretty easy to settle.(68.110.239.56 (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC))

Should this be removed?

At the end of the external links section the following statement appears "Please see the article history for further links to reliable news sources from the mainstream media that are being systematically removed by representatives of ACORN and Obama for America." I think it should because the statement is not neutral.--Red1530 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also because self-reference in a WP article is always impermissible. The anons are welcome to rail and rant here on the talk page (within some limits), but that sort of meta-commentary is always out of place in article space. LotLE×talk 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed. It's editorial and way out of bounds for a wiki article. If anyone wants to make accusations of bias, propaganda, etc..., the talk page is the place for it. But in the article itself, even if you agree with the opinion of the poster, it's just an immediate delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.109.109 (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also the repeated deletion by the IP of the cited Huffington post characterization of "political perceptions" with an entirely WP:OR soapbox re-titled "controversy". That is, IP=86.201.30.228 (you might consider getting an account Mr/Ms.66.108--; good edits are easier to remember by name). Well, plus the silly ranting that claims to have "reported me" (under my birth name and username to "Michelle Malkin and other news desks"). That sort of thing (discussing editor identities, especially accompanied by threats, even silly ones) is generally a "block for life" sort of thing; however, given its an anon who would evade a block, I'm not sure I see too much point in doing administravia. LotLE×talk 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose tried the same self-referencing in the article on Clarence Thomas, so it may well be him. He had added a sentence complaining about article "protectors" who wouldn't let him decimate the section on Anita Hill. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but my edits are added by me, and in good faith. I don't have to hide behind anonymous edits like you do sicko. Sorry for this trash stalking me onto this board. Unfortunately the anonymity of the internet allows perverts to carry on with their fantasies. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Actually, I'm using my real name. You're the anonymous one.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Front organization

Mark Levin has called ACORN a Marxist front organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.58.102.163 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't know who Mark Levin was, so I looked him up on Wikipedia:

"Mark Reed Levin (born 21 September 1957) is an American conservative political commentator, radio host, lawyer, and bestselling author. His nationally-syndicated talk show, The Mark Levin Show, airs throughout the United States on ABC Radio Networks."

I'm guessing he isn't the only conservative commentator to have said things about this group. - Matthew238 (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Funding in housing bill and controversy

I added this edit to the introduction. I am sure the partisans will hack it to shreds, but please make sure the appropriate bits are kept in the article and in the introduction as appropriate. I tried to be fair. Clearly the funding issues and voter fraud problems are notable issues with regard to ACORN. So I think my addition is fair. "ACORN is a nonpartisan organization, but it is affiliated with a political action committee that has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential election. The prospect of ACORN getting millions of dollars from the Federal Housing Bailout has also stirred controversy. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/27/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4483168.shtml The group has had repeated scandals involving voter registration fraud. Las Vegas News-Review Oct. 8, 2008 http://www.lvrj.com/news/30613864.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallamoose (talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, i edited the section to accurately reflect the information in the two cited articles from Politico and the Wall Street Journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources say that the Republican concern was speculation and that the bill did not directly fund ACORN. The dispute obviously happened and on balance I think it's worth discussing. Not in the lead, however. It is not one of the primary facts people need to know - it's just a current event that will soon pass. Nevertheless, what is worth mentioning and seems oddly absent from the lead without the paragraph is that ACORN is perceived with some basis as being associated with Democratic causes and politicians, and that the voter election fraud cases among its employees caused a scandal. I just made an edit that tries to put this in perspective but on balance should not make the article any more or less favorable - just organizing better. Incidentally, stuff shouldn't be in the lead unless it's a summary of a longer treatment or at least a repeat of a key detail in the article body. That's why I thought it's best to describe the detail in the body. Often that means that the lead shouldn't be cited or at least does not have to be. However, a startling claim like political partisanship or fraud is useful to cite in the lead, even if it's cited again in the body. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please stop edit warring, everyone. If this goes on any longer I'm going to ask for some form of article protection. One editor just got reported for a 3RR violation. Slow down, folks. Wikidemon (talk) 02:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Going in good direction

With Wikidemon's edits, and with some positive ones by Bali ultimate, I think this article is getting some additional material that is balanced, cited and informative.

There still seems to be a bit too much on the "bailout money to ACORN"; this was a speculation of something that never happened and was never actually proposed, but it occurs at three separate locations in the article. I think that point is fine to mention, but we should combine the several occurrences somehow.

Nonetheless, in general I want to congratulate the editors, and encourage the spirit of cooperation. I apologize if I failed to make sufficient efforts at this. For better or worse, I have been quite frustrated by some obviously bad, probably libelous, definitely unencyclopedic, edits that have plagued this page recently. But I probably also painted with too broad a brush some edits that could have been improved rather than deleted (as has now been done very well by other editors). LotLE×talk 02:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. This "bailout money for acorn" issue frustrates me. On the one hand, it's a matter of fact that there was never any direct money for acorn or groups like them in any of the drafts of the bill, including the one that passed. On the other hand, there were a ton of claims by people, or insinuations, that there was direct money for them. A lot of people came to believe this, or wonder if its true. But what's the utility of writing "Speculation that acorn would get money was untrue"? I mean, a. that statement begs a lot of questions (and a lot of writing and explanation), and, b. what's the "notability" bar for speculation? i.e. "Speculation that politician x had sex with goats was untrue." That clearly doesn't belong in an article.

But on the other, other hand... it was in fact possible that some money could have wended its way to acorn eventually (the treasury funds give money to local governments, who in turn give the money to local groups like acorn affiliates) and this possibility did in fact upset some republican senators and congressmen.... but it just seems a red herring. Better to say "Senator x said Acorn blows chunks because of x, y, and z" without backing into it with all of this irrelevant stuff about the bailout. nice work lotus.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth here's my addition after some edits were made to it (and before it was summarily deleted):

ACORN is a nonpartisan organization, but it is affiliated with a political action committee that is closely associated with Democrats and has endorsed Barack Obama in the presidential election. The prospect of ACORN getting millions of dollars from the Federal economic bailout has also stirred controversy among Republicans, along with other earmarks in the bill. The group has also had scandals involving voter registration fraud among some of its employees.

I think it's pretty reasonable, but welcome further good faith edits and additions. I think it's important to address the issues or partisanship, funding and voter registration activities in the lead. I have no problem with a NPOV way to do this, but there are extensive sections in the article about this and it's a big part of what ACORN does and why it's become well known and controversial. The reason citations may be needed is because otherwise people just take stuff out saying it's biased or made up. (Wallamoose (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

The is no need, and no reason to add, a lead paragraph that says almost exactly the same thing as the paragraph already in there (the existing one is much better worded, but in any case, two adjacent paras saying same thing is redundant and has redundancy in its repetition :-)). On a small point, the one specific presidential (primary) endorsement is not worth the lead: democratic associated, fine; endorsement list, put it later in article. LotLE×talk 15:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry. I didn't see that some of the information was already added back into the intro. I did make a change to take out the "perceived" and replace it with sourced statements of association. It has been widely reported, and I didn't think there was any question that the ACORN PAC is affiliated with Democrats and has endorsed Barack. So I didn't think it was appropriate to say it was perceived. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Your recent wording change to the lead, Wallamoose, puts the Democratic association in much more encyclopedic language. Thanks for that change. I quite agree that general concept is worth keeping in the lead. However, the specific endorsement of one political candidate in the 2008 presidential race is not worthwhile lead material. I think it's fine to mention later in the body, but the organization has existed since 1970 and has endorsed a large number of candidates during that time. One recent endorsement that makes it to news stories this month is far undue weight for the overall history of the organization (at least, as I say, for the lead summary). LotLE×talk 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. That seems like a good compromise. I found this on an ACORN site and thought it made a good addition to the introduction. Some of the information there seems kind of general so the reader doesn't really get and idea what the group does. I tried to add some content with some specifics: so instead of just saying "housing" it says housing for first time homebuyers and tenants. Maybe this makes it redundant, but I thought it was helpful. It's from ACORN so I think it's pretty favorable to them as far as any kind of POV issue. I just prefer the specifics because I know that many people don't know what community organizers or community organizations actually do, and so I find this helps me to see specifics which are then dealt with more fully in the article.

ACORN's priorities have included: better housing for first time homebuyers and tenants, living wages for low-wage workers, more community development investment from banks and governments, and better public schools. http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=1139&L=0%3Fid%3D8144 ACORN pursues these goals through by developing community organizations around the country and then effecting change through direct action, negotiation, legislation, and voter participation. http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=1139&L=0%3Fid%3D8144

My only other desire would be to have more about the group's structure and funding. It seems to be complex and I'd like to know what the different "arms" are and how they operate. This would be good in the article and in the intro. I'm still not clear on exaclty what ACORN is. Does that make sense? (Wallamoose (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Okay sorry one other change. I added: "The group does advocate for Government programs and spending to meet its objectives." It seemed confusing regarding the issue of government funding. So I wanted to make it clear that the group works to get government funding for its projects, even if it doesn't get government funding for its community organizing. In other words ACORN does its own community organizing, but the government funds many of the projects it then pushes. Right?(Wallamoose (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Thanks. Your several changes in the last few hours all seem to be adding valuable material and improving the language of the article. The description of first-time home buyers and government supported housing programs makes much more clear the context of claims of ACORN-supported loans being tied to the current mortgage crisis as well. LotLE×talk 20:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're happy with the changes. I agree on the housing issue making more sense in the context of making loans to people who don't meet traditional criteria, and why some would take issue with that and whether it contributed to the housing crisis. Obviously there are two sides to the issue, and they're fighting it out as we speak. I'm just trying to get (and share) a little of both sides and a clearer understanding of what ACORN is and how it operates.

On a more contentious note... I reverted a couple of your edits removing allegations of voting fraud. These seem to have been good faith additions. And I'm not clear on why some are okay to include and others aren't. Clearly this is a dicey and hot political issue so I think it needs to be covered. At some point consolidation makes sense, but I'm having a hard time with "pruning" that takes out some of the instances where problems have occured and leaving others. What do you think? This issue is going to continue to make news as we head into Nov. 4. I would suggest consolidating it sometime after that, and allowing sourced additions where instances of allegations and investigations are ongoing or initiated for the time being. I don't have any problem with sourced material supporting the voter drives led by ACORN.

I see you took the information back out (at least one of the notes) saying "This is why it's marginal: the article says the Secretary of State is (rightly) investigating duplicate/fraudulent registrations; but all evidence in article says ACORN is working with clerks to correct records." I would suggest adding to the mention that ACORN says it is cooperating rather than deleting the mention completely.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

The edits in question are:

• As of October 9, 2008 the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has subpoenaed several individuals as part of a larger investigation into possible voter fraud by ACORN in Ohio. http://www.nypost.com/seven/10092008/news/politics/nuts__132771.htm NUTS!

I read some of this and it talks about pressures to register people who were already registered, and one of the people interviewed saying he's registered "10-15" times. I think it needs to be included.

• In 2008, the Michigan Secretary of State office told the Detroit Free Press that ACORN had been submitting a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications to vote. Bad voter applications found, September 14, 2008

This one looks like it's been added back in with a little modification? (Wallamoose (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Additions

I added this to the Predatory lending section. I didn't see a housing section, but maybe one is there...

A report from the free-market Consumers Rights League charges that ACORN misuses housing funds and encouraged banks through the Community Reinvestment Act to make some of the risky loans now at the center of the housing mess. ref Consumer Rights League - http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/ -

I believe this is the report that this free market group made on ACORN http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/uploadedfiles/Latest%20Million%20Dollar%20ACORN%20Scandal.pdf

I think it's fair to include criticisms of some of the group's practices. Most of this article reads like a PR piece from ACORN and is taken directly from their website. So I'm trying to add a more balanced view of the concerns some have raised. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

What is ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) and should there be a section on ACORN's support for low-income housing? I didn't see a section on this.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I am, personally, happy with this addition. It's nicely sourced and neutrally enough phrased. I don't think I'd agree myself with the CRL's conclusions, but it's circumscribed as their claim. Still, let's keep WP:WEIGHT in mind; not every sourceable criticism automatically needs to get thrown in (though some clearly can be included). LotLE×talk 18:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I did too much, but I added this:

ACORN and its affiliates advocate for affordable housing by urging the development, rehabilitation and establishment of housing trust funds at the local, state, and federal levels. The group also pushes for enforcement of affordable-housing requirements for developers and promotes programs to help homeowners repair their homes and organize tenant demands.

ACORN has been criticized by free market groups and some Republicans for its role in advocating lending practices to borrowers without traditional qualifications (large down payments and proven income sources), and for encouraging government based housing trusts rather than a market oriented approach to expand public housing.A report from the free-market Consumers Rights League charges that ACORN misuses housing funds and encouraged banks through the Community Reinvestment Act to make some of the risky loans now at the center of the housing mess.

Trying to give a better NPOV idea of how group operates, what it does, and why it's controversial. There wasn't much about their Housing activities that I could find.

(Wallamoose (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Controversial Edits

Maybe we can put some of the contested edits here instead of just deleting them? I realize there are some partisan attackers of ACORN, but at least we note any legitimate information that may be included in their misguided edits. Am I being too generous?(Wallamoose (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Someone is trying to post this after the Obama endorsement mention:

This political endorsement coincided with graft paid to ACORN. Presidential candidate, Barack Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (These secret payments were deliberately disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=308358130652174&secure=1&show=1&rss=1

I haven't read the refernce yet, and it looks like an editorial. But I put it here in case anyone is interested in investigating whether there is anything to it that's worth including in the article. I'm not ready to dismiss every allegation out of hand...(Wallamoose (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

IMO unless there is an active dispute or discussion about an edit, there is no need to record it here. The above example ties together voter fraud, deliberate presidential campaign finance manipulation and concealment, and grafts paid -- totally unacceptable to place that into an article with only a single source as backup. The removal of that content isn't dismissing allegations out of hand, its a straight up no-brainer :-) regards, --guyzero | talk 21:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read the article, and I think there is a lot of information that needs to be followed up on. Investors Business Daily is a pretty legitimate source. I wouldn't support additions solely based on this editorial, but is it true that:

"Obama paid ACORN, which has endorsed him for president, $800,000 to register new voters, payments his campaign failed to accurately report. (They were disguised in his FEC disclosure as payments to a front group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work.")"

"Obama worked as executive director of ACORN's voter-registration arm, Project Vote, in 1992. Joined by two other community organizers on Chicago's South Side, Obama conducted the voter-registration drive that helped elect Carol Moseley-Braun to the Senate that year."

"The next year, 1993, Obama joined the civil-rights law firm Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, where he sued the state of Illinois on behalf of ACORN to implement the federal "Motor Voter" law, which the GOP governor at the time refused to do. Then-Gov. Jim Edgar argued, presciently, that the Clinton law would invite voter fraud."

"Obama downplays his ties to ACORN, and his campaign denies coordinating with ACORN to register voters."

Mentions North Carolina investigations (not mentioned in Wiki article).

"Nevada, along with several other key battleground states, requires no ID to vote."

"In Kansas City, 15,000 registrations have been questioned, and last year four ACORN employees were indicted for fraud."

"In addition, ACORN officials have also been indicted in Wisconsin and Colorado. Investigations against others are active in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Tennessee."

"Some ACORN execs allegedly are involved in a $1 million embezzlement cover-up at their headquarters. Representing them in the case is none other than Michelle Obama's old law firm in Chicago."

(Wallamoose (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

Redundancy

The line "is affiliated with a political action committee that is closely associated with Democrats" is in the intro with one source, and is exactly repeated in the last paragraph of the article with a different source. If I try to edit this, I'm convinced I'll mess it up, so I'll leave it to someone else to decide which one to remove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.238.21 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

ACORN is a very political organization. So the question of partisanship is substantial. There has been a lot of coverage about this issue, and I believe that's why there has been an attempt made to make some reference to ACORNs connections with the Democrats in the Intro as well as in the article. There could be a whole section devoted to partisan disputes over ACORN's activities, and there is already some information in the article about Republican opposition to some of the group's activities. I don't think it's unreasonable in an Intro that is largely taken from ACORNs website to include some mention of the groups alliance and association with Democrats, as well as to note the controversy over voting and housing issues related to ACORN.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I think we need a RS that specifies that Acorn is a PAC or is affiliated with a PAC, as the article states. I could not find mention of the PAC-affiliation at the reference provided. thanks, --guyzero | talk 22:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As requested here are a few citations noting they have a PAC:

http://www.donnaedwardsforcongress.com/node/50

http://www.mncampaignreport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1080

http://forums.e-::democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/post/32Su4z8UQx1ItYvYI1esXw

As far as being non-partisan, maybe someone can find support for :Republican candidates? I'm not going to hold my breath.  :)

(Wallamoose (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for checking. None of those RS look clean enough for direct inclusion, but the Donna Edwards bit makes it look that ACORN does have a PAC. I inserted a citation needed tag for the time being. thanks again, --guyzero | talk 00:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the links and while they're not perfect, I think press releases from politicians announcing their endorsement by a PAC is pretty solid. We are talking about political contributions from a "non-partisan" group, so it's a secretive biz. That's the whole idea of having a PAC as I understand. You can seperate it from your core operation and then give money with some impugnity. Whether you are an oil company or a liberal organization wanting money for inner-city housing etc. (You can thank McCain Feingold campaign finance reform, how's that for bipartisanship!!!).

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10082008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_pro_barack_vote_fraud_drive_132618.htm?page=0

Here's a NYPost article that notes the group has a PAC about 2/3 down in talking about ties to Obama (see second quote below).

"What's wrong with that? For starters, these two groups are militantly partisan outfits purporting to engage in nonpartisan activity. And their campaign comes amid an avalanche of fresh voter-fraud allegations involving ACORN in many of those same states."

"As I've noted previously ("ACORN: O's Ugly Ally," June 26), Obama trained ACORN members in Chicago. In turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his Illinois campaigns and ACORN's PAC endorsed him in this year's Democratic primaries back in February."

This article seems to describe the group's organizational structure (and uses the word non-partisan), but then describing how another ACORN arm lobbies (I assume this is the PAC): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745181676698197.html?mod=hps_us_pageone

I'm okay with saying "lobbying arm" or something. But clearly there is a PAC. Maybe people don't know what a PAC is. What's the best term? Fundraising arm?(Wallamoose (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

(Wallamoose (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Misleading statement

The current text says:

A nonpartisan organization, ACORN is affiliated with a political action committee that is closely associated with Democrats.

If ACORN is not directly associated with Democrats, why is this affiliation being mentioned? Are they associated with Kevin Bacon as well? Either they are partisan (affiliated with a party) or nonpartisan. This sentence is trying to have it both ways, presumably to push some kind of POV. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, see my note above. I made an adjustment [1] to the paragraph as the source provided didn't specify a political action committee. Review and copyedit of my edit is most welcome. thanks, --guyzero | talk 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's cool, but I was referring to the sentence in the introduction (penultimate sentence of third paragraph). -- Scjessey (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, my reading comprehension is horrible. I propose using the same wording (drop non-partisan as unsourced) from my edit above, and then reducing the similar sentence in the political perceptions section to just mentioning their endorsement for Obama, and moving it to later in that section. --guyzero | talk 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the word non-partisan is taken from their website. At one point I believe there were two citations. But I think one got removed. People don't seem to like multiple citations, but sometimes it's hard to consolidate without doing it that way. Otherwise the sentence gets changed because the supporting citation is gone. (Same with words being put in quotes. They're done that way to indicate that's how the source describes it, but people take them out. And then the wording gets changed and doesn't reflect the source any more. So then sometimes the whole sentence gets deleted). I think it's a stretch to say they are non-partisan, but that's what they claim. So that's why the statement in the article is sort of self-contradictory. This has also been an issue with their not taking Government funding, because much of their work is done with government funding. But I guess they don't take it directly. It's kind of complicated like that... This issue is also discussed in the "Redundancy" section.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

This article seems to describe the group's organizational structure (and uses the word non-partisan) then describing how another ACORN arm lobbies (I assume this is the PAC): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745181676698197.html?mod=hps_us_pageone(Wallamoose (talk) 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Copyedits needed

There are some criticisms of ACORN's implementations in the Issues and Actions section -- I think that is appropriate and good copy. Some of these same criticisms are repeated in the Political Perceptions section. I think, apart from the redundancy, that section doesn't do a good job of conveying its information because it is disconnected from the specific programs they criticize. I think it would be good to integrate all of the information from the Political Perceptions section into the Issues and Actions section. By describing the issue, the implementation, any criticism, and any response to criticism would make for a much improved article. I also think care should be taken for the new voter fraud allegation bullets to make sure that any responses from ACORN are mentioned per weight and balance (NPOV). regards, --guyzero | talk 07:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems like you want this article to be only about ACORN in isolation. But ACORN is at the center of a big partisan controversy. So I think it's fair to have a section that focuses on the conflict. I don't think readers should have to hunt for this information in lots of sections of the article. ACORN has been in the news because of the issues in the Political Perceptions section (I'm not in love with that title but it's okay). I think the Obama issue is sort of similar. You may not think it's a big deal, but the news media and the campaigns and politicians are making it a big deal. Obama and ACORN are tied together in many people's minds and I think it's important to address that. Whether this is sensational or not I don't know, but I don't think it sensationalizes the issue any more than it already has been. Have you read Boehner's comments? They are pretty sensational. So it seems reasonable to answer the question that readers looking for this information want. What is the connection? What is ACORN? How is it funded? Our challenge is to do so in a fair and informative way. (Wallamoose (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Not at all. Please WP:AGF about my intention for article -- I want to make it easier for the reader to find what they are looking for, including better access and context for the juicy controversial bits. As it is, the reader has to hunt. I also agree that the voter fraud stuff should be in it's own section (for table of contents access), and probably immediately following the Issues and Actions section on ACORNS voter registration component -- that will at least give it a little more Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance. Really the other issue is that the Political Perceptions section is kind of a mess, with several unrelated (because they are about different components of ACORNS functions) sections. It is hard for the reader to find anything in that section, or to know it's contents, without actually reading all of it. Unfortunately, I don't have a great proposal about how to clean up that section, thus I created this thread. Again, please assume good faith. --guyzero | talk 07:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply bad faith. I'm just trying to emphasize the importance of providing the information and answers that people are coming to this encyclopedia entry to get. So I think you will find people will keep adding Obama to the intro, because when it's not there it seems like it's being hidden. It would be like not finding Anita Hill on the Clarence Thomas page. I use that as an example only because I'm involved in a steel cage match over there to try and get some balance.  :) Thanks for your efforts and insights. Now I'm going to go look to see if Anita Hill is in the Intro to Clarence Thomas, but I can tell you there is a MASSIVE section with every kind of sexual allegation anyone has ever made against him. Gulp. Maybe you're right... (Wallamoose (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Lucky for me, Anita Hill is not in Clarence Thomas' article lead, but Judge Thomas is in Anita Hill's lead, heh! Anyhow, to put it to you another way, if Obama was an important person with regards to the actual operation, the history (i.e. if he was a founding member or a president), or the mission of ACORN, he'd go in the lead. But he's not. He hired them during the primaries, was president of an organization that worked with them in 1992, and they endorsed him February this year. The fact that the media is tying Obama and ACORN together currently appears to be just innuendo. Putting him in the lead is not NPOV - he is not notable with relation to the article subject. cheers, --guyzero | talk 08:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha. It's a short lead on that article! You've convinced me that Obama doesn't have to be mentioned in the lead as long as it's featured prominently in the article. A small section? You may be interested to note that a user stalking me is now recommending adding mention of Anita Hill to the Clarence Thomas article introduction.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Americorps grant

Hi, I placed the Americorps grant information that was removed from the lead (where it doesn't belong) into the 1988-1998 History section [2], where it also may not belong and could use a checkout. It was also just inserted into the voter fraud section [3] where it DEFINITELY doesn't belong. :-) Wallamoose, can you please self-revert that redundant infos? thank you, --guyzero | talk 22:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a spot for that bit. I wasn't sure where to put it, so I just dumped it...

Redundant info? Uh oh... Can you point out where it is in the article? Let me go take a look.(Wallamoose (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Check the two links I provided, or control-F "Americorps" =) cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. I thought you were referring to another addition I made in the Partisan conflict or whatever I called it section. It's about ACORN's role in past conventions and such. I'm thrilled that you fixed my blind drop of the grant issue. Thank you. I will try to slow down and read more carefully so I don't waste your time again... Thanks. You're welcome to check out the new information I added and see if you think it belongs in its own section or appropriate adjusting. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

On second thought I guess I'm confused about this: "can you please self-revert that redundant infos". Can you clarify? (Wallamoose (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I went ahead and removed the redundant mention. I'm totally open to the americorps info going into another appropriate section. It is currently located here: Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now#1988-1998:_Focus_on_housing kind regards, --guyzero | talk 22:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for fitting that piece of the puzzle where it belongs. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Barack Obama mention in Intro?

This seems to be a point of contention. I think it's a big issue with people and a notable, verifiable NPOV statement. Obama has a history with the group that's discussed in the article and community organizing has been a campaign issue. So I'd like to see the endorsement or mention of his connections to the group mentioned prominently. They have come up repeatedly in relation to one another. But a wiser editor has convinced me it doesn't belong in the lead. What do others think? (Wallamoose (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

This is the article about ACORN. Obama might be big news today, but their endorsement of him last February and his involvement with them years ago are actually pretty minor details with regards to the mission and history of ACORN itself. We give Obama plenty of mileage in this article, IMO. My comparison would be adding Sarah Palin to the lead of Bush Doctrine due to her "memory issue" on that topic -- I felt it was NPOV to not include her in that topic as well -- her flub there isn't notable against the history and information around that topic.

Anyway, I'm cool with mentioning that there is ongoing partisan and voter registration controversy in the lead, but painting Obama into that paragraph is not NPOV as he is not a current or past major influence or component of ACORN, the article subject. --guyzero | talk 06:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that specifically mentioning Obama in the lead-in paragraph isn't necessary since ACORN has endorsed many candidates over several election seasons. Lead-in paragraphs are supposed to be general and only mentioned extremely notable information, regardless of current events. However, I do think mentioning Obama connections to ACORN in detail in a section or subsection is perfectly appropriate since his connections with the organization, particularly in this election, are definitely notable. --Amwestover (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section titled "ACORN and Obama association" below political perceptions. I didn't see mention in the article of Obama's history working for and with the group. Has someone scrubbed this from the article or am I imagining things? I was going to consolidate it in the new section. Maybe it was only posted on the discussion page, but I could've sworn I saw it in the article at one point.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

There was an unsourced addition that I removed, yep. --guyzero | talk 16:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Did Obama work with Acorn in the past? I thought this was pretty well established. Why delete it and not ? Is there a dispute over this history or it's appropriateness to be included in this article or that section? I'm not meaning to be beligerent, just trying to make sure that section covers the appropriate ground (albeit briefly as has been agreed to).(Wallamoose (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Obama's work as an ACORN trainer should be citable. I've seen that discussed in WP:RS sources before (but I have to run, so can't find it right now). However, it's feeling like the whole Obama section is veering heavily into WP:UNDUE weight territory because of WP:RECENTism. Yeah, that one association is in the news this month, but in the 38 year history of the organization, Obama just isn't very important. It looks like a way to indirectly write an Obama article while keeping the pretence of writing one about ACORN. I don't think it is so overlong right now, but it seems like a place where everyone wants to throw in everything they can find about the connection, and is growing far too rapidly. LotLE×talk 20:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no good reason for barack obama to be mentioned in the intro. (Please see my comment about the ridiculousness of the intro at the top of this page). It's an intro to an "encyclpedia entry, which should be at most 150 words. If you want to get into Obama it should be somwhere below the table of contents, probably well below given his tenous ties to a large organization that has been around for 40 years or so-- but that's a battle i don't really care to fight. A battle i really do care to fight is all of this partisan, childish stuff in the introduction, from both sides.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I guess I shouldn't have put my comment under this section. I wasn't asking about the Intro. I was asking about the removal of Obama's past work with ACORN from the section about Obama and ACORN at the very bottom of the article. Did they work together in teh 1990s? Maybe it was badly sourced or untrue. Sorry for causing confusion. I'm happy with the Intro.  :) I haven't looked to see if there is mention of Obama working with ACORN in the past in the Obama section now, and I don't remember what the sources were, but it seemed notable if it were verifiable.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Housing Section

What happened to the bit about free-market groups opposing ACORN's housing policies and blaming them for encouraging risky loans? I thought this was agreed to as being okay? The same cite is used for noting opposition in the political section, but it seemed appropriate to include different information from the same source in the housing section.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

New York Post ref

Is the New York Post a bad reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.156.127 (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Uhm, it's a paper that wears its biases on its sleeve but can certainly be used for reported fact, at least.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Is there a reason that someone keeps deleting the new york post story about the guy who claims ACORN bribed him to register to vote 72 times? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.156.127 (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC) Absolutely. It's being consolidated with the already existing bullet point on the matter. Stop with the redundancies already.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I just want to be sure that the truth about ACORN, or any other political lobbyist groups for that matter, is available. I am not a democrat or a republican, so I have no agenda either way other than to expose the truth about fraud in politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.156.127 (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Should this be added

I was astonished to see that the political corruption of ACORN members was not a section, or anything even remotely similar. In April 2008 they had multiple workers plea guilty in St. Louis to election fraud, they had the entire Dallas Cowboys starting lineup on a voter registration in Nevada, and they have had other various allegations. Most recenlty a story broke on Oct 8, 2008 about voter fraud in Missouri. It is very obvious that this organization has a clear history of fraudulant activities. At the very least they have a clear history of having fraudulant workers. Clearly the organization IS dropping the ball. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbfolsom122 (talk • contribs) 02:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a section, it's practically the whole article, which, incidentally, you may want to read before you comment. If you have something new, put it in the appropriate time period unless it's someone talking about ACORN, in which case it goes under ACORN in Political Discourse.

What about a separate Issues and Actions section for Voter Registration? We could put some voter registration good/bad stuff there, which could include cases of fraud, as long as it's not repeated in History. -Fredgoat (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, also when you add a new section, put it at the end of the talk page, and if you do end up putting up any of the election fraud stuff you've mentioned, that isn't already under History, then please remember to WP:CITE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredgoat (talk • contribs) 22:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Vigorous editing

Thanks everyone for your cooperation in editing the ACORN article. It's been a lot to keep up with, but I think the article does a much better job of explaining the organization, covering why some of its activities are controversial, and addressing why it's been in the media a lot (including with regard to Obama).

I understand the concerns expressed about subjecting ACORN to partisan attack, but I think a better balance has been achieved in addressing the controversy and including ingormation on it, without diluting the strength of the encyclopedic coverage of the group's history and activities. I think we're achieving a fairly reasonable compromise.

I would support removing the neutrality disputed tag at the top if the article's quality can be maintained in that regard. I would also support a separate article for the voting controversy and partisan conflict portions, which could then be summarized and consolidated (as Lulu and others seem to want since they delete a lot of the new additions going in there...). That way the coverage could be expanded on somewhere else and no one has to feel that the coverage here is grotesquely one-sided and leaves out information they want included (or includes too much information they don't feel belongs or is too extensive). (Wallamoose (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I generally favor more articles, but I think we can squeeze in voting controversy and partisan conflict here. I do believe anything mentioned along those lines should be more visible - lots of people reading this article will be looking for information on those topics, and right now they're kindof mixed in with History (I do think the ACORN in Political Discourse section was a good addition, even if it's messy). I also think that we're about ready to lose the neutrality disputed tag. -Fredgoat (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How is ACORN funded?

The article does not answer one of the main questions readers want answered: How is ACORN funded? Do they apply for government grants for their programs? Do they ask for contributions from local businesses and neighbors? Do they sell products for a profit, like Red Cross? 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking at their website, it appears they do not take government funding. Here is the paragraph I found:

ACORN is a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization with national headquarters in New York, New Orleans and Washington, D.C. To maintain independence, ACORN does not accept government funding and is not tax exempt. [4]

It seems to me this should be part of the article - reworded, of course. RonCram (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a falsehood that his organization does not take government funding, even in the most recent bailout bill, ACRON is earmarked for government funding. The Wikipedia article says they are not a non-profit organization and does not take government funding, yet their web site state they are a non-profit organization. I contend this is an socialist organization that hides funds and expenses through "allied organizations". This is not a neutral article because it is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.14.127.182 (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, do you have any links to parts of the bill that show this earmark? By all means, an interesting fact if it is indeed a fact. And what does non-profit have to do with the price of tea in china? you seem to have a political point to make, not a case that the article isn't neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that most, if not all, of the recipients of bailout money are not organizations that normally receive government funding. If ACORN does indeed do loans (as their website suggests - see above), they may have received a part of the bailout as a lending organization, just like any bank. (Except more pinko, of course, and I'm sure they'll sell us all to the Ruskies) -Fredgoat (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is some information on how ACORN is funded: "Most of these programs are conducted locally, by state-level ACORN organizations — which are often set up as 501(c)3 nonprofit entities distinct from the national ACORN umbrella, a 501(c)4 lobbying organization. Sounds benign enough — except that, according to Bob Huberty, executive vice president of the Capital Research Center, these tax-exempt 501(c)3s "have no reason for existence other than to get grants from the government and foundations." They are, essentially, an ACORN front for asking Uncle Sam to subsidize political activity". http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/clyne200410311142.asp (Wallamoose (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

• You mean, according to an employee of a conservative think tank writing in a right-wing magazine, they are essentially an ACORN front for asking Uncle Sam to subsidize political activity. - Matthew238 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding: ACORN & the Money Tree, "Taxpayer money helps fund voter fraud" by Meghan Clyne: The article is in a conservative newspaper, but that doesn't mean it's any less true than if it were in the liberal NYTimes. I made a mistake not adding quotation marks so I hope people did't think the statement describing the group was mine. Obviously it takes a POV, but the description of the organizational structure seems pretty reasonable. Do you have a better source on how ACORN is structured and funded? (Wallamoose (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

The quote from National Review about 501c3's is very odd. I am referring to the statement that "these tax-exempt 501(c)3s have no reason for existence other than to get grants from the government and foundations." Actually, another reason is that the organization is a church. Churches automatically get 501c3 status. This raises some doubts in my mind as to whether the cited article was carefully researched. Ngriffeth (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yet, ACORN is not a church, and therefore the article implies its sole purpose of being set up this way is for funding. There's nothing wrong with the article's suggestion here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.135.242 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad refs

There's an overabundance of refs to sites like DailyKos and to primary sources such as ACORN's site itself. As this is becoming a high-profile article, I think it's time for a systematic ref cleanup. I'm turning in for the night, but tomorrow I'll start going through them one by one and root out the blogs and primary sources. Initially, I plan to avoid making changes to the text itself unless the only reference for a piece of text is a bad one. Anyone else up for this task? --GoodDamon 04:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is starting to look like it's unnecessary. Work has already started cleaning up the refs. Good job, folks. --GoodDamon 18:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is ACORN's site wrong to use? It seems like they would be a good source for some information about what they are doing. No? I did follow your link to see that secondary sources are preferred... but for basic info it seems okay maybe?(Wallamoose (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

ACORN's site is fine for statements about what ACORN thinks. But it isn't good for statements of fact. Statements of fact should generally rely on neutral, verifiable, reliable secondary sources. --GoodDamon 00:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The ever expanding Obama section

First thing, it is vastly WP:UNDUE weight to have a whole section about one political endorsement that happened this year. This desperately needs to be integrated into the actual article flow instead.

Second thing, this section keeps growing and growing, each new point having virtually nothing to do with ACORN, but only to do with Obama. While not completely inappropriate to mention very concisely, the association between the organization and the politician merits no more than a sentence. Try to remember that we're not running some sort of pro- or anti-Obama campaign here, but writing an article about an organization that has existed since Obama was a child. LotLE×talk 01:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason to do a fuller article stub or whatever on the voter fraud issue?

The consolidation looks good, but I do wonder if I've been spending so much time on this article that I know where to look for the information I want to find... I hope visitors coming to the page to learn about the Obama connection and what all the controversy is about have an easy enough time finding it. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

If we can find a citation that supports Obama's previous training for ACORN, I think that might be a relevant addition. Not to paint any connection that readers might think is positive or negative, but only because it is plausible that their endorsement relates to ACORN's greater familiarity with that candidate (versus other Democratic contenders for the party nomination). Still, the thing to keep in mind is that every sentence should be about ACORN, not about Obama firstly... lots of groups endorsed Obama, and moreover, campaign statements about organizations are not automatically (or most likely) notable to the organizations... i.e. just because Obama said something positive or negative about ACORN, that doesn't have any special importance to understanding ACORN itself. LotLE×talk 06:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're on to something. Why not talk about why ACORN endorsed Obama? This is their article. So that seems pretty notable. I like it. (Wallamoose (talk) 07:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Sure. We just need to find some actual evidence/citation about the reasons for the endorsement. You or I can speculate about the reasons, but only WP:RS can help us write the article :-). LotLE×talk 17:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Should be easy to find. I remember seeing it searching for that sort of news. It was on ACORN's website I believe, about why they endorsed him and how "he shared their values"... etc. etc. etc. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

Let's not add anything quite so mealy mouthed as "ACORN endorsed Obama because they felt he 'shared their values'" (even if there's a citation to that). That sort of language is completely generic to every organization that ever endorsed any politician, and is of essentially zero information value. On the other hand, if there is evidence that the endorsement follows from specific organization interaction with the candidate, or candidate support for some specific bill/issue that other Democrats did not also favor, or something like that, that seems like a notable and significant motive for the endorsement. LotLE×talk 00:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just stating what I remembered reading about the endorsement from an ACORN site and the tenor of the sentiment. I agree that any information added should meet the appropriate standards. I believe they do mention his work with the group... but honestly, I don't remember the details... (Wallamoose (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

Need for an article on Voter Fraud Issue?

I was okay with the consolidation of this section, but only on the condition that a new article covering the material was created. There is a lot of interest and media coverage about this issue. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC))

A couple of things. First off, it's not a "voter fraud" issue, it's a "voter registration fraud" issue. It's my understanding that none of these fraudulent registrations has resulted in anyone actually showing up at the polls claiming to be Mickey Mouse or John Q. Public. We need to make it clear that we're not talking about bad votes, we're talking about bad registrations. Secondly, Wikipedia is not news (that's official policy, by the way). That there's current media play about ACORN and bad registrations does not mean an article about it would be of encyclopedic value. No one's going to Wikipedia for the latest and greatest news about anything, and unless the current media cycle regarding ACORN and Barack Obama results in lasting effects on either, I question whether the whole thing merits more than a footnote, let alone an entire article devoted to the subject. Once this blows over, who's going to want to maintain an article about the brief period of time when ACORN was the focus of a negative political campaign against a peripherally-related figure? In six... no, in three... no, in one month, no one is going to care about the hubbub, and the notable facets of ACORN itself which qualify it for a Wikipedia article will remain essentially unchanged. --GoodDamon 18:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there needs to be a whole article, but I believe that there absolutely needs to be a section in the ACORN article on voter registration fraud. ACORN has a long history of these deviant practices. Voter registration fraud is a serious crime, not just a footnote. I have been monitoring this article for two weeks and I believe that there are people with political agendas editing this article. And I'm glad neutrality dispute is open. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanjoe1776 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "deviant practices" you are referring to. Handing in voter registration forms they're given? They're legally required to do that -- or would you rather they picked and chose whose registration forms to hand in and whose not to? It sounds like you have a point to make about the WP:TRUTH... but this isn't a forum, so it's not the appropriate place for that. --GoodDamon 20:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is lots of information on voter fraud/alleged voter fraud/suspected voter fraud in the article now. The various investigations noted, when there have been convictions, noted likewise, with citations. Criticism by pols/commentators on these issues? ditto -- with cites that interested readers can pursue if interested.

So what do you think is missing, exactly? And save the allegations of political bias. They don't help.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now there's not even a section on Voter Registration under Issues and Actions. Should that be added first? That is something they do. Fraud can be mentioned there (it could even have its own sub-subsection), with links to the same citations that are linked to by the various examples of fraud currently in the History section. -Fredgoat (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No need. discussion of voter fraud is extensive, and in the right time context.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Political lobbyist groups on both sides are guilty of registration fraud by registering one person more than once, registering dead people, etc. And these organizations should be exposed for it. GoodDamon is right, I do have a point to make and even an agenda. My agenda is to be sure that the whole story is told. In this election I hope Obama wins. But I do not want him to win unfairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.240.195 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's good of you to state your POV, but you must understand, Wikipedia is the wrong place for it. You want to "be sure that the whole story is told." This is not the place for that. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a site for investigative journalism. Turning this article into an investigative journalism piece would actually be a gross violation of Wikipedia policies. And Wikipedia is not part of the Obama campaign, the McCain campaign, or any other campaign. It should not be treated, in any way, as an extension of the campaign processes of any candidate. Recent news events covering campaign tactics do not belong here. Articles should cover their topics, not become coatracks for attacks by people who do not like the topic in question. Basically, what I'm saying is that the fact you want him to win, and you want him to win fairly, is entirely moot in regards to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't want him to win, and it doesn't want him to lose. Wikipedia wants on-topic, well-written, neutral-POV encyclopedic entries. --GoodDamon 00:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's not going to be a seperate article then the coverage here should be fairly thorough. Voter Registration Fraud is a serious issue and a concern. The fraud investigations and convictions have been widespread are not only recent.(Wallamoose (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

It's certainly worth a section of the article, but it ought to summarize the issue instead of going in-depth with a bullet-point list of every voter registration fraud allegation, and it ought to make clear that no one is accusing ACORN of aiding in fraudulent voting, which is a felony. I'm concerned that with over-emphasis on the most recent events, the extensive history of this organization will fade into the background as the article becomes a coatrack for criticism of the article's subject.

As of this writing it is not a section. I added it to the 2004-present header, so at least people could find it. I'm not sure whether a bullet system listing all the incidents is better, or the present VERY consolidated version is superior. I suspect something in inbetween might be the best approach. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

I could see it being somewhat expanded from its current form in the 2004-present section, but we might want to take a wait-and-see approach. There's no deadline for inclusion of material, and there's no way to know how these fraud issues will play out. If it goes the way ACORN's management seems to think, the investigation will show that there were unscrupulous employees who handed in fraudulent registrations and were fired over them, but the law required those registrations be submitted anyway. If it goes against them, then it becomes a much bigger deal (and hence a bigger part of this article), because it will mean there was culpability at the managerial levels. --GoodDamon 03:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The issues Voter (registration) fraud goes back years now. And it's my recollection that their have been convictions. Part of the problem is that this information is no longer in this article, or any other. It's also become a major campaign issue as this add demonstrates: http://www.johnmccain.com/videolanding/acorn1.htm(Wallamoose (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

Um... have you read the article?! It discusses and cites the convictions, and has in every edit for the last 4 months at least. LotLE×talk 17:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. I concede some of your point, but to my eyes the information is scant and without much detail. What about the guy saying he registered 15 times? And what about mentioning examples of the type of fraud and its extent? It's a question of details, and I'm just trying to get it right as far as what goes in, and what's left out. I think the section needs to give a better accounting of the types and extent of the fraud, not just include citations. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

There has been a lot of talk about dumping the list of voter fraud allegations into another article. Until that talk materializes into action, and the other article has been created and linked here, the list of voter fraud allegations should stay in this article. It has been part of the article since July and a detailed listing of these charges has been part of the article since 2004. It should not be abbreviated simply because Republicans have started using it as a talking point against Barack Obama. Such activities suggest political motives on the part of editors who are seeking to make this material invisible. 300wackerdrive (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that true? Have most of the current fraud allegations been in the article for four years? Maybe now that there are more allegations posted on the article than a few months ago, we should condense those into a bulleted list or something? They kinda sprinkle the middles of a few different sections as is. -Fredgoat (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC) OOPS next time I read down. -Fredgoat (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTNEWS

Wikipedia is really not a newspaper. The endless, and endlessly expanding, list of bullet items on every newspaper story on every voter registration investigation is gross WP:UNDUE weight, and even grosser WP:RECENTism. A general summary of the pattern of investigations, and sometimes charges/convictions, against ACORN employees is perfectly appropriate. An effort to find "scandalous" sounding but ultimately irrelevant titillating details of each investigation is just plain bad, unencyclopedic writing. We've gone through this over and over here: some editor want to list every fanciful fake name that some minimum wage worker in Podunk came up with; each silly and colorful sounding detail of an allegedly improper conversation or action; etc. None of that belongs here, and most edits inserting them are plain bad faith (usually by anon editors or WP:SPAs). LotLE×talk 20:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has again deleted 90% of this material, obviously displaying a partisan political motive with his edits, but until now refused to discuss it on the talk page. I thought it was obvious that when the Republicans started talking about ACORN, suddenly a group of editors appeared here from the Barack Obama articles and started trying to eliminate this material. I wan't born yesterday. Fortunately, another editor has stepped up to restore this well-sourced and long-standing part of this article. It has been part of this article since 2004. It has been a bullet pointed list since July 2008. This attempt to remove it by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters is obviously politically motivated, and in direct response to the McCain campaign starting to use ACORN voter registration fraud investigations in their campaign advertising. I am grateful to the editor who has restored this long-standing part of the article. This article should not become another propaganda vehicle for editors who want to see Obama win. 300wackerdrive (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 300wackerdrive on this point. I prefer the bullet style with more complete information. I just don't think the summary went into enough detail. And the bullets seem a fair organizational method for the numerous incidents, many of them notable. The details of the allegations are what they are, so I don't think it's unreasonable to include some of them, however "scandalous".(Wallamoose (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

It is important to remember that a detailed listing of these investigations has been a part of this article since 2004, when the investigations started. It isn't recentism and it is not undue weight, since paid staff members of ACORN have been convicted and sent to prison, which reasonably deserves a little bit of weight. Claims to the contrary are dishonest, Lulu. 300wackerdrive (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, 300wackerdrive, your account was created today... and using an IP address as a sockpuppet for the same destructive edit doesn't show good faith. This same partisan agenda you are pushing isn't new... look through the history of the article over the last six months or so, it's the same thing over and over (perhaps you know that, if you are some of those IP drive-by partisans). LotLE×talk 20:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet? Do you have any proof of that, or are you just making accusations because you've failed in your edit war? 300wackerdrive (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not a game you want to play: You and I both know perfectly well that you created this WP:SPA today to hide your identity as a user who has been blocked and warned in the past. If you really want to push this contention to checkuser, you are welcome to earn yourself (and your IP range) a permanent block. LotLE×talk 21:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus here is to summarize the allegations of fraud, but to not use the blow-by-blow bullet point list per MOS, UNDUE, etc. We can't hope to give each of those bullets the balanced coverage required by NPOV while maintaining UNDUE, which goes to the discussion above about a separate page regarding the allegations. (I have no opinion about a separate page, just noting.) It would be just as UNDUE to list all of ACORN's non-controversial voter drives, by the way. Tweaks to the information are welcome of course. Reverting back dozens of good, balanced edits to get to your preferred version is WP:POINT and not cool. Discuss your proposed changes here rather than edit war back to an old version. --guyzero | talk 21:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no such consensus, guyzero. This was part of the article for four years and it was removed in the past 24 hours. You are the one who must prove you have consensus and I see Wallamoose, 300wackerdrive, an IP editor and me lined up against you. No consensus for your change, therefore the change doesn't get made. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not sure about your definition of consensus, but I can assure you that it is not "take a handcount of the folks who replied in the past few minutes." See above for discussion regarding on why the bullets are unacceptable. "It's been that way since 2004!!" is not persuasive per WP:CCC. cheers, --guyzero | talk 21:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering what kind of voting machines we're using and what the rules are on recounts. Is there a compromise position? I had suggested a separate article. Would peeps be willing to save the bullets (for the time being) and work to that end?(Wallamoose (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

We're using whatever voting machines we want, but voting is no substitute for consensus discussions. Let me see if I can summarize the issues pro and con bullet list, and we can discuss those issues and, yes, vote if necessary.

Pro

• Bullet lists are easy ways to concisely express a lot of information (like this one, fr'instance)
• Excluding current news coverage of accusations against ACORN would be POV pushing. The article is currently lop-sided towards the positive.
• Wallamoose, WorkerBee74, and 300wackerdrive (and probable IP sock) dispute consensus to remove it.
• Recentism is no excuse for excluding material that belongs in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not censored.

Con

• Bullet lists are frowned on in the Manual of Style.
• Official Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not news. There is no deadline for incorporating this material.
• A wait-and-see approach may be best for determining whether the investigation of ACORN amounts to anything encyclopedic. There may be no long-term notability to them.
• The article should not become a coatrack for attacks on Barack Obama... or John McCain, for that matter.

Does that about cover it? --GoodDamon 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is also fair to note that ACORN has been around since 1970, so having the article lopsided toward recent allegations would be an example of undue weight. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling all Patriots! This means YOU!!!

(sorry I meant to put this at the bottom...)

With all due respect, I would ask that we drop the accusations, as well the statements along the lines of "this is nothing" or "there's no story here" or whatever. Voting issues are always a big deal to the side that feels they're taking the hit, whether it's Dems in Florida with the butterfly ballots and the deletions from the voter rolls, or Republicans in FL trying to include absentee ballots from troops and to stop a selective recount. There's no clear cut right or wrong, everyone means well and everyone is trying to make sure the vote count is fair, they just don't agree on what fair is. And of course both sides want to win. So whether it's Dems in OH wondering about the machines, or Republicans feeling slighted by the lack of oversight performed in SOME (that's for you Lulu) ACORN voter drives as is the case here, I ask that everyone try to take the issue seriously and respect the concerns by including as much legitimate information as you can.

I haven't seen any arguments against giving weight to ACORN's explanation of the problems. This is an article about them so they should be heard, but I don't think it's right (even for GoodDamon, whose bullet point summary I liked thanks (see how wonderful bullet points are!)) or anyone else to seem to dismiss the concerns and interest of any editors whatever their motivation or party affiliation. We're all partisans, we all have biases, let's try to see the world through the other side's eyes and move forward from there. Don't bring bad karma to your party by minimizing or attacking the concerns of the other side.  :) My feeling has always been to let the best arguments of both sides be heard, and let the reader make an informed choice. Censoring (or severely crimping) an area of concern to either side isn't the right way to go. So let's restore the good will, and assume everyone means well.

I suggest we include more of the details and a few of the more salacious details for the sake of accuracy and example, and err on the side of inclusiveness. Voter fraud is a real issue, and let's try to stick to the facts and the events rather than try to hash out who is using more sock puppets or trying to move the scales of WikiWeight in their favor.

Or is this all just one big veiled attempt to get my way?  :) Seriously, let the facts speak for themselves. Let's all try to include as much as we can stomach from the other side. You never know, it may be your side that needs the same consideration next time. Thanks.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

I disagree with most of the above, most importantly this approach: "Let's all try to include as much as we can stomach from the other side." It's not a question about sides, but about due weight in an Encyclopedia Article. Let me say that again. Encyclopedia Art-ic-Le (thank you, joe biden). Salacious detail? Always a bad idea. I think a total of about 50 more words on whatever crimes its been convicted of would be appropriate. "In 200x, y workers in z were sentenced to j for having committed the offense b." And, as suggested before, a little more detail on one or two of the investigations currently being pursued. For instance: "The allegation is that they were paying people to register multiple times." But any more than that is not giving due weight. The controversy itself is not a good reason for lots of information in an encyclopedia article. Gonna say it again. Ency-clo-pedia article. Mention, sure. Little back and forth, ok. As the version stands now every single investigation from the past 10 years gets a mention and a citation.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"A mention and a citation." No, four words per investigation, such as "and Cuyahoga County, Ohio", just doesn't do it. This needs the same level of detail that it had before LotLE started editing on October 12. Fif-teen Fel-o-nee Con-vic-tions. Proven Be-yond a Rea-son-able Doubt. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, write a paragraph or so on the 15 felony convictions with the sources here. If that checks out, I could live with something like. "over the past x years, 15 ACORN employees have been convicted of felonies related to false/multiple/forged/whatever voter registrations." You might even convince others. I just read the relevant sources in the article on those cases. Lots on charges, little on convictions.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we restore the section to the way it was before LotLE started editing on October 12, but without the asterisks that make bullet points. If you think it's bad writing or sloppy writing, improve it rather than chopping it out. If you think sourcing could be improved, then improve sourcing rather than chopping it out. That level of detail needs to stay in the article. WorkerBee74 (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A proposal to put the article back "the way it was" when it was filled with Truth and before it was ruined by people who don't know the Truth isn't going to get us far. There was a lot of awful writing, allegations without sourcing, or allegations with sources that didn't hold up the allegations. A lot of stuff was cut or changed after a lot of reading and hunting around for sources. A lot of discussion took place here. We were creeping towards consensus (a mythical state and getting there makes the USS Iowa look like it turns on a dime). If you have specific factual matters that you want back in, write it up, make it good, source it, and bring it here for a lookylou. I suggest you start with bite-sized stuff -- long sections are almost certainly going to have multiple disagreements, making it slower and harder to get any new content into (or back into) the article. As i said above, 15 felony convictions is a lot and some words might need to be devoted to that. I looked for half an hour and couldn't find anything on this claim (didn'nt knock myself out, though). Doesn't say the facts aren't out there. It sounds like you know where they are. Those facts are good facts. Go get em. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 04:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Exchange

An aside to workerbee... I can't find you involved in editing this article at any point in the past. Did you perhaps do it under a different login?Bali ultimate (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I edited here for years, including this article, as an IP address. No, I don't use that IP address any more. No, I'm not telling you what it was. But this article was doing just fine until LotLE heard that the GOP was talking about ACORN. Then, all of a sudden, the same people who have been blocking criticism of Obama are now swarming in here trying to make any criticism of ACORN vanish into an ocean of gray text. Very suspicious timing for your sudden concern about ACORN. Take out the asterisks that make the bullet points, but keep all the words and all the sources that were here before LotLE showed up. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though your account first started editing this article yesterday, and LotLE has been editing here since July, we're supposed to just WP:AGF and believe you when you say that the article was "fine" before LotLE started editing here several months ago? Thanks, no. Alleging a vast liberal conspiracy, headed up by Lulu, isn't going to fly when the article is way better in every measure since last July, including a 7-8 whole new paragraphs with more information detailing the controversies and criticisms of ACORN --guyzero | talk 04:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You're omitting an important point here, guyzero. LotLE may have done a few minor edits since July, but his attention was focused elsewhere, on Obama articles. It was only after the Republicans started talking about ACORN in relation to Obama that he hurried over here a couple of days ago, and started doing major amputations on any material that cast ACORN in a negative light. That's what is evidently being described here by Workerbee as "suspicious." There is no good reason to remove all that material. This amount of detail for the older cases (2004 and 2005) has been here for three or four years. In fact, previous editors have shown restraint in keeping most of the more salacious details out. I believe we should restore the details that Workerbee has proposed. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop this. Lulu contributed 34 out of 90 (38%) of the article edits from July 13 until Sept 17 (when the Michigan allegation surfaced) - fairly evenly spaced over that time period, few or none marked minor. Calling his contributions as "suspicious" is misleading, to put it generously (and sweetly ironic considering you showed up yesterday). Now, please steer this conversation away from Lulu's contributions. --guyzero | talk 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wacker: You have every appearance of being a special purpose account. Created a few days ago, only a participant on this talk page ever since, yet you display a high familiarity with the history of this article and various editors involved, going back for years. Your comments are filled with accusations of bad intent, etc, so it appears you have worked here before under a different username. I urge you to come back in your "known" guise if you want to be taken seriously. If you are indeed a brand new wiki user, some advice. While there's nothing wrong with someone new editing or joining in a discussion, you're accusations, inorrect characterizations of other editors work, and flaming are working against getting this article unblocked, not in favor of it.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC) I'll take your word for your past involvement. But dropping in as an unknown and calling a bunch of good faith editors interlopers with agendas isn't very helpful.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break to refocus on consensus

As I look up this page, I see that this is actually a relatively controversy-free operation for being a topic that has made so much news recently. A good bunch of people on both sides of "the issues" have been working together for weeks to improve this article, and it is definitely more succinct, accurate, and readable than what it was Oct 1. There is now more information about the voter fraud controversy overall, and a new summary of that controversy and other criticisms in the lead that were not there before. Diff of Oct 3 til Oct 13 of the article, last 500 edits. Good work, everyone involved.

The replacement of the bullet points with a summary paragraph was an excellent set of edits, and of course the information around the controversies can certainly be improved on. But the "edit-war" today was not about whether or not new information about the controversies be included in general, it was about chucking NPOV and yes, consensus, developed by many editors in favor of reverting back to unbalanced detail on a new account's first edit[5]. The bullets had allegations, but little follow-up, almost no responses from ACORN or others, and was becoming a coatrack. I've got no clue looking at some of those bullets which of the accusations actually led to fines, arrests, etc. Just the accusations and maybe some text like "We basically had the starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys." How is that encyclopedically (i.e. completely/fairly) informing the reader? To give each of these events their full NPOV due - which is policy, each of those bullets would need to be fleshed out into a few sentences or a paragraph: a ton of weight. Folks have been supportive or at least haven't shown immediate dissent of Wallamoose's idea for a separate article where each of these events can be fully, fairly documented, with the full knowledge that it will need to be watched as possible WP:COATRACK magnet.

Anyway, the "edit-war" today was started [6] by a user whose total contribution to the project thus far has been to revert back this information and request full page protection[7]. IMO it's a real testament to WP:AGF that this article is locked over a "Content Dispute" when it is in fact WP:Disruption. I'm sure we would have even been happy to discuss going back to bullets rather than see an edit war. Again, look at the edit history and this talkpage. Good folks are working together here and improving the article. Everyone here supports making the information around the controversies better. regards, --guyzero | talk 04:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, positively, 100% correct. I have to say, you've demonstrated pretty thoroughly why the so-called perfect prior version is a myth and that the idea LotLE just recently started updating the article is somewhat less than true. --GoodDamon 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain was the keynote speaker at an ACORN-sponsored Immigration Rally in Miami, 2006

Should this be mentioned?

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12439&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=22386&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12387&cHash=5706e23a2f Not unless you can track down a citation on who provided the catering for that event. (that is to say, it's irrelevant).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. FYI I added the bit about ACORN lobbying at the Republican convention... I'm not sure why Democrats are so concerned with showing ACORN connections (however tenuous) with Republicans. Here you are writing all these great things about ACORN, but now you don't want to be too closely associated with them or to make the group seem partisan? Kinda makes me go hmmmmmm.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Not sure if you're addressing me, but my concern is that John McCain having once spoken at an acorn convention is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article on acorn, and opens the door to other irrelevant additions that will almost certainly prove contentious. I'm sure lots of well-known people have spoken at acorn conventions. Should we include a list of all of them? Of course not.

It's only interesting as fodder in part of a partisan political debate surrounding a current US election, and will be completely irrelevant the day after the election, whoever wins. The appropriate place for that is the blogs, the newspapers, the TV stations, where people will no doubt seek to make this or that partisan point about McCain being a hypocrite/straight talker/great patriot/weasel/etc on the basis of having once spoken at an acorn convention. There is already too much irrelevant info in the article from an encyclopedic perspective (don't want to relegislate/fight those battles again, so am not advocating removal of any existing info). I am interested in avoiding the accretion of more irrelevancies.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well if you and/ or others thought it was notable I was okay with it being included. It could always be cut out later. This section is just a prank? I seem to get in trouble for far lesser crimes, so be careful.  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Walla: Just looked at this again and I see whoever created this section didn't sign his post. It may look as if I created this section, since i was the first to respond (I said no, shouldn't be included). I think i understand your wry last comment better now. For the record -- I have no interest in McCain speaking at the Acorn rally, it doesn't belong in the article, and I wouldn't have brought it up here.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Political Perceptions

I just deleted a graph from that section of the article that asserted that the group either has received or will receive a $140 billion budget earmark from congress. Congressional earmarks across 100s of organizations and projects amount to less than $20 billion a year, so this is a demonstrably false assertion. I also deleted some reference to uncited "financial experts." I also deleted a claim that the american financial meltdown that came to a boil in September 2008 has somehow put this group in the hotseat. I never heard of ACORN before, but follow the world of finance and economics very closely. ACORN is not being seen by any regulator, banker or economist that i'm aware of as a key conributor to the problem, and it's hard to imagine how it could be: It was neither an underwriter or purchaser of credit default swaps or the underlying mortgages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.109.109 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They are part of this, regardless if you know of them or not. I have a home loan, pushed through by ACORN. What a joke! Yes, it is a GREAT loan, but I should not have been eligable for it. I was 4 months out of college, and had only 3 months of pay stubs. I was approved for $230,000 for a home. B of A followed their recomendations blindly. I was smart enough to buy a house at just over 1/2 was I was approved for, so I still have a home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.199.190.150 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC

Please explain how Acorn "pushed through" your $230,000 loan from Bank of America. If I recall correctly B of A et al are responsible for their lending decisions. I'm willing to be conviced -- but i have as yet seen no evidence that a not-for-profit housing-advocacy group is a major player in a liquidity crisis brought on by lax lending standards at commercial banks, undue confidence that property prices would never fal and the reckless creation of CDS' by various market players (none of them ACORN). Congratulations on your own wise borrowing decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.109.109 (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

"pushed through" was ment to carry a bit of conotation. I was amazed by how little B of A looked in to my credit, after they got the "recomendation" from ACORN. I knew it wasn't right, and didn't care because it gave me the means to buy a house. I am/was confident in my choices, and knew I could handle the expences. Unfortunately, my gut feeling told me most of the people in that (overflowing) room of people attending the ACORN "class", would not be able to. I hope they didn't get their loans, but I am sure a large number of them did. I have no doubt that a large number of them have lost or are losing their houses. I have no proof, which is why this is not on the article page.

The BOTTOM LINE is ACORN is assisting Subprime borrowers in getting loans they ultimately can not afford. They may not be the cause, but they are part of the problem.

To imply that Acorn is responsible for the trillion dollar financial crisis because they provided loan and credit counseling surpasses ridiculous and is squarely in the domain of ludicrous. It is the worse type of right wing talk radio blither —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be on the article page because it makes no sense. B of A was responsible for lending you money. B of A is responsible for doing its credit analysis. If your mortgage blew up, B of A would have been responsible -- I'm not clear how ACORN came to be advising B of A on your loan, but it's of little import: B of A is under no obligation to take anyones advice on individual loans but its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.109.109 (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Have just deleted the following from this entry. "Many ACORN policy proposals, such as their their opposition to free trade, their support for price controls or for the Community Reinvestment Act, are widely considered to be in line with the left wing of the Democratic Party." I've also reduced the section down to saying simply that ACORN supports Obama's candidacy (that's cited) and that a Huffpo editorial says the group has many right wing enemies (without the gratuitous quotes). I could live with a balancing of that with a sentence that says "(publication) says the group is hostile to capitalism (or whatever)." Full stop. citation. Take Mark Twain's advice; if you can find an adjective, kill it.

Phrases like "widely considered" without numerous citations (at least) to back them have no place in a wiki article. As for the stuff about "opposition to free trade" or "support for price controls." If these things are in fact true and aren't already mentioned in the article a sentence like "ACORN supports government price controls on (whatever it is they support controlling the price of)" followed by a citation proving the assertion. A just the facts approach is always best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.2.63 (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Have edited out a lot of editorial content from this section again, much of which was cut and pasted from the earlier deletion. Still polemical, but with a few citations added. I've allowed the citations to stand with a sentence like "Acorn has been criticized by a number on the right" but it is completely innapropriate to lift opinion from, well, opinion articles, and spin them as fact. (I was earlier user 66.108 etc...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.2.63 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Acorn DOES do home loans. http://acornloans.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.99 (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

acornloans.org doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. If I'm wrong please show me how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.82.131 (talk) 20:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

On two occasions user 12.44.252.196 has deleted sourced information from this section. Wondering if this constitutes vandalism?Am unsure, but at least want to flag it here. (He basically takes out the sources leaning towards "Acorn is ok" and leaves in the comments leaning towards "Acorn is very bad.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department. Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003

other info But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department. Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003 investigation finds massive fraudulent bookkeeping at Fannie Mae False numbers triggered executive bonuses every year Congress holds NO hearings, NO one goes to jail, or is punished WHY NOT? 1995 - 2005

Fannie Mae gives millions to Democratis causes, examples: Jesse Jackson & ACORN. Fannie Mae pays millions to 354 congressman and senators, from both parties. Who got the most money? Top 4 Recipients

1. 1 Senator Christopher Dodd, (D-CT). Chairman of the Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee
2. 2 Senator Barack Obama, (D-IL) Federal Financial Management Committee
3. 3 Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Chairman of the Finance Committee
4. 4 Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivaperro (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This is some fascinating information, more power to digging up dirt on politicians and Fannie Mae and the political process etc. 1) Back it up with citations. 2) Put it somewhere appropriate (like the articles or associated discussions on Fannie Mae or Obama or the Community Reinvestment Act or your personal blog). 3) Pay attention when you're copying and pasting someone else's ranting so you don't have huge repetitions and start with the word "But" and such, it's annoying to read. -Fredgoat (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"Anyhow, ACORN advocated for the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in 1977). The right-wing arguement goes that 30 years on the CRA is responsible for our current credit crisis (because it advocated lending to poor folks) and that, therefore, Acorn is largely responsible for the current credit crisis." No, that is not the arguement at all. The argument is that ACORN has used the threat of the CRA to threaten banks and lending institutions with to get them to lower their credit standards to lend to more lower income applicants. Also their intimidation of lending institutions has been alleged to have lowered credit standards around the country. THAT'S the argument.66.63.200.51 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new version

Following Workerbee's proposal, here is the same material without the bullet points. I haven't invested a lot of time cleaning it up, but there were some obvious grammatical errors and use of the term "etc." which did not seem encyclopedic to me. All the sources are good, reliable sources and I'm sure more are available. The one that says "freep" is from the Detroit Free Press, not Free Republic. 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

2004-present: Voter registration fraud investigations

In some locations, ACORN employees have submitted false voter registration forms rather than obtaining registrations from actual eligible voters.

In Ohio in 2004, four ACORN employees were indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms. [Note: more details needed, such as resolution of the criminal charges.]

In January 2005 two Colorado ACORN workers were sentenced to community service for submitting false voter registrations. ACORN's regional director said, "we find it abhorrent and do everything we can to prevent it from happening."

On November 1, 2006, four part-time ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City, Missouri for voter registration fraud. Prosecutors said the indictments are part of a national investigation. [Note: more details needed, such as resolution of the criminal charges.] ACORN said in a press release that it is in part responsible in these individuals being caught, has fired them, and has cooperated and publicly supported efforts to look into the validity of the allegations. ACORN was also investigated in 2006 for submitting false voter registrations in St. Louis, Missouri. 1,492 fraudulent voter registrations were identified.

In 2007, five Washington state ACORN workers were sentenced to jail time. ACORN agreed to pay King County $25 000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections."

In 2008, the Michigan Secretary of State office told the Detroit Free Press that ACORN had been submitting a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications to vote. Oak Park town clerk Sandra Gadd said they have been seeing "lots of duplication from ACORN in recent months [...] They've been very cooperative [...] and they're willing to go door-to-door to do whatever they have to do to take care of this."

State authorities in Nevada raided ACORN's offices in Las Vegas in 2008, alleging that its canvassers produced forms with false names, fictional addresses, or famous personalities. Neither ACORN nor any employees, however, have been charged with fraud or other crimes.

On October 8, 2008, Missouri officials announced an investigation into alleged voter fraud concerning some ACORN registered names. Some names were listed multiple times, had fake or missing addresses, no driver's licenses, or bad Social Security numbers.

As of October 9, 2008 the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections has subpoenaed several individuals as part of a larger investigation into possible voter fraud by ACORN in Ohio.

In Lake County, Indiana, ACORN submitted over 7,000 voter registration forms before the October 6 deadline. All of the first 2,100 forms processed were frauds and the remaining 5,000 have been placed aside for later processing to sort out the bogus forms from the legitimate ones. Sally LaSota, a Democratic member of the Election Board, said that whoever filed the forms broke the law. 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a serious WP:WEIGHT problem, and a seeming WP:COATRACK given that it's the issue of the day at the far edges of the campaign trail. A 1-3 sentence summary that there have been allegations and investigations of submitting false registraiton applications, and that it was raised as a campaign issue in the current presidential election, should suffice. We also ought to put this in context with other registration efforts. All registrations have bad applications. How does this compare to the norm? Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the prose above isn't NPOV -- each of the recent cases have responses from ACORN and others, and additional followup. Some of it may be influenced by WP:RECENTISM as well. Additional detail would be needed on each bullet-converted-to-paragraph in order to achieve NPOV for inclusion, which is yet more weight. Despite fears of coatracking, I'm supportive of Wallamoose's proposal for a separate article to capture balanced, npov, complete/encyclopedic information on each of these events so we can re-stabalize this article and move forward. --guyzero | talk 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A separate list article would be fine IMO, and addresses weight concerns about overwhelming the overall description of the organiation here. However, it would have to be done carefully, as it is susceptible to all kinds of editing problems, particularly if it is not watched by many editors. But fear of a bad article is no reason not to start. Wikidemon (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose most of this being put in at anywhere approaching this kind of length. Much of its inaccurate and/or poorly sourced. And since it's so important to you, you really should have done the extra research required rather than propose it get stuffed into a disputed article with "others" to do the research later. Much else is simply irrelevant. I mean "in 2005 two acorn workers got community service." In an encyclopedia article? Quotes to the extent that "whoever submitted fake forms broke the law" (the simple sense of such a sentence is "whoever broke the law broke the law.") In missouri, a bunch of poorly filled out forms were handed in? In an excyclopedia article?

There is some stuff that might be worth saving from your above cut and paste job, since factual detail as to size and scale might be a helpful to a reader. The inclination should be to give more weight to convictions, less weight to specific charges, least weigh to allegations and ongoing investigations. Let's give your stuff a good fisking:

In Ohio in 2004, four ACORN employees were indicted by a federal grand jury for submitting false voter registration forms. The only link for this indictment was a WSJ opinion article, that has no information of NO INFORMATION FROM THE WSJ EDITORIAL LINK OR THE NYT LINK THAT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT ACORN INDICTMENTS IN OHIO. I AM UNAWARE THERE EVER WERE ANY. DEFINITELY SHOULDN'T GET ANY MENTION IN ARTICLE AS IS.

In January 2005 two Colorado ACORN workers were sentenced to community service... IF EVER AN INCIDENT CRIED OUT TO BE MENTIONED ONLY IN PASSING, AS THE CURRENT ARTICLE NOW DOES, IT'S THIS ONE. VOTE NO ADDITIONAL INFO ON THIS ONE.

On November 1, 2006, four part-time ACORN employees were indicted in Kansas City, Missouri for voter registration fraud AFTER BEING TURNED IN BY ACORN. THIS DOESN'T SEEM NOTABLE TO ME. I'M ALSO UNCERTAIN ABOUT WIKI POLICY ON REPORTING INDICTMENTS WHEN IT APPEARS THE CASES WERE PLED OUT/DISMISSED/WHATEVER. I CAN FIND NO EVIDENCE THAT A TRIAL OR PLEA WAS EVER REACHED. ITS QUITE POSSIBLE THIS WAS DROPPED. I GUESS LEAVE ARTICLE AS IS -- ACORN TURNING IN BAD APPLES ISN'T INTERESTING OR NOTABLE.

ACORN was investigated in 2006 for submitting false voter registrations in St. Louis, Missouri. 1,492 fraudulent voter registrations were identified. THIS LOOKS OK WITH THE WORD "ALSO" DROPPED. COULD LIVE WITH THIS PUT IN.

In 2007, five Washington state ACORN workers were sentenced to jail time. ACORN agreed to pay King County $25 000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections." COULD LIVE WITH THIS ONE BACK IN. AT LEAST IT INVOLVES ACTUAL JAIL SENTENCES AND GOOD CITES. In 2008, the Michigan Secretary of State office told BASICALLY UNPROVEN, VERY RECENT ALLEGATIONS MADE BY A POLITICIAN AS PART OF A PARTISAN PRE-ELECTION SHIT-FIGHT? DEFINITELY DOESN'T BELONG.

State authorities in Nevada raided ACORN's offices in Las Vegas in 2008, alleging THE SUBMISSION OF FALSE REGISTRATION FORMS. HMM... SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD GO AS IT IS NOW, IN A SENTENCE ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF FALSE REGISTRATION IN CITIES X, Y AND Z. THERE'S NOTHING DIFFERENT HERE, THERE ARE NO CONVICTIONS OR CHARGES. NOTHING TO MAKE THIS STAND OUT. IF THERE ARE EVENTUALLY CHARGES, AND AFTER THAT CONVICTIONS, OBVIOUSLY MOVES HIGHER UP THE NOTABILITY RANKINGS.

In Lake County, Indiana, ACORN submitted over 7,000 voter registration forms before the October 6 deadline. All of the first 2,100 forms processed were frauds and the remaining 5,000 have been placed aside... GOODNESS SOME FORMS WERE "PLACED ASIDE?. LET ME REWRITE THIS FOR YOU (I HAVE REWIRTTEN THIS BEFORE). "In Lake County.... 2,100 voter registration forms submitted by Acorn were found to be fraudulent." I COULD LIVE WITH THIS ADDES AS I SAID BEFORE, BECAUSE IT DOES GIVE A SENSE OF SCALE.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a follow-up story on the four ACORN workers in Kansas City who were indicted in 2006. Three of them admitted their guilt, and the fourth was awaiting trial at the time of the story. There were felony charges. [8] Claiming that you couldn't find any evidence of a resolution of these charges is a little weak, since it took me about five minutes to find that. The Wikipedia policy is to report what happened if it is notable and well-sourced, including two ACORN workers in Colorado who also admitted their guilt on felony charges, whether they were sentenced to community service or the maximum prison sentenced allowed by law. As you were previously admonished, if you feel the writing is substandard, improve it rather than chopping it out; if you feel the sourcing is substandard, improve it rather than chopping it out. In response to the charge of "coatracking," this material was in the article long before the Republicans started using ACORN as a campaign issue, so that motive does not exist. A motive for whitewashing the article to protect Obama may exist, however. Also, you start by claiming "most of it is inaccurate or poorly sourced" but I don't see any specific examples of inaccuracy or poor sourcing.

Please show me the inaccuracies and the poor sourcing, Bali.300wackerdrive (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You said there were 4 indictments in ohio and provided two sources. I read the two sources provided. Neither said anything about four indictments in Ohio. What would be helpful would be to revert to whatever identity you used when working here in the past. That will help cool the temperature and make it easier to work towards consensus.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The name of the Ohio ACORN volunteer who was paid in crack cocaine was Chad Staton. The name of the paid ACORN employee who gave him crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent voter registrations, bearing names like Mary Poppins, Jive Turkey and Dick Tracy, was Georgianne Pitts. Staton was indicted and Pitts died before she could be charged. There was a story in the Columbus Dispatch dated December 12, 2004 but it's been removed from their website. If you're looking for reliable sources, I hope that helps. 300wackerdrive (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It was helpful. Did a search. It turns out that Chad Statton was involved in something like this, as was Georgianne Pitts. But, as it happens, she was working for an NAACP voter outreach program according to this : http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041019/NEWS09/410190343 . Acorn was not involved. Why you would bring up a case that has nothing to do with Acorn and say it had something to do with Acorn? Not helpful, and makes me very leery of supporting an unblock.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"NAACP National Voter Fund is closely aligned with ACT, SEIU and ACORN/Project Vote through the America Votes Coalition and was a co-litigant with these groups in efforts to remove state laws protecting against vote fraud." [9] NAACP National Voter Fund and ACORN are sister organizations in the America Votes Coalition. 300wackerdrive (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is why you're not a productive voice. First it's "acorn paid for illegal voter registrations with cocaine." Then when investigated it turns out Acorn had nothing to do with that story. This is pointed out to you. How do you respond? With a link that shows the NAACP and Acorn are both in the America Votes coalition. Well, so what? (you do understand that there are 50 groups in that coalition, among them a bunch of big national unions like the AFL-CIO. Shall we start blaming ACORN for union racketeering charges?)

The joint membership of ACORN and the NAACP in a 50-member coalition does not change the fact that you presented something that was manifestly untrue here as fact and argued for its inclusion in the article -- and defended the untrue assertion in a manner that implies you will seek to place such false information in the article if given the chance to. Your consistent advocacy for untrue information being placed in the article (as well as the fact that you are a special purpose account) is a good reason to keep the bloc on.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears that he was fooled by a WSJ editorial, just as I was. The WSJ editorial did not identify Pitts and Staton by name, but it did say they were ACORN workers, and it did say crack cocaine was paid for fraudulent voter registrations. It didn't appear in the article mainspace for one second, so no harm no foul. This does not in any way diminish the notability of the ACORN workers who pled guilty. You, Bali, claimed that you couldn't find any resolution of the charges against the four ACORN workers in Kansas City, but 300wacker found it it five minutes. Evidently you like making accusations when there's a good faith explanation (the inaccurate WSJ editorial) so perhaps we should infer that you didn't find the KC guilty pleas because you didn't want them to be found. You were "arguing in favor of something that was manifestly untrue": that the charges hadn't been resolved. These people, with the exception of Chad Staton and Georgianne Pitts, were ACORN employees and they are guilty of fraudulent voter registration. These are felonies. This needs to be explained to the readers. Readers deserve to know how many ACORN members have been guilty of these felonies, and in how many different cities and states. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is true... but again, we don't have any idea if it's due to a systemic problem at ACORN, or due to the fact that all voter registration organizations, from the N.R.A. to the N.O.W., have to put up with the occasional employee who doesn't want to go through the hard work of finding new people to help fill out registration forms. Is it truly so very terrible to wait until we know the answer before deciding this is ultrasuperextra pertinent to ACORN as an organization? I'll say it again: There's no deadline. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We're not trying to scoop anyone. --GoodDamon 02:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we don't have any idea whether it's a systemic problem or not, claiming that it is or that it isn't would be a WP:OR violation. It is our duty to get the facts out there, let the facts speak for themselves, and let the reader decide. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean, "get the applicable facts out there," don't you? I'm not claiming that it is or is not a systemic problem. I'm specifically claiming it's not sorted out yet. If we overemphasize the fraudulent voter registrations before we know whether ACORN itself had anything to do with them, then we're not even indulging in recentism, we're indulging in futurism. Oh, and our duty? It's not to "get the facts out there," it's to write a good encyclopedia. We are not arbiters of truth. --GoodDamon 13:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus and request for unblock

A consensus of sorts seems to have been reached. While all sides don't agree, I think the following seems to be in the general area of agreement: no bullets, no full restoration, but reasonable additions to add some details as well as some new information on the investigations and voter (registration) fraud issues. I suggest we maintain semi-protect to block anonymous editors. Agreed? (Wallamoose (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

I would like to, but I can't agree to it. Not yet. Right now, editing should be restricted to administrators. If a change can be agreed upon by consensus, we can ask an administrator to make that change. But I'd rather the edit-warring not start again -- and if that means the article has to be edited that way until November, so be it. --GoodDamon 16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As most (all?) of your conditions have been agreed to in this consensus proposal, it doesn't seem right to continue to block good faith edits meeting the above criteria. Otherwise every controversial article would be blocked and edited only by administrators. It seems like you are now using the protection to block any and all edits, which I disagree with strongly. Using a full protect to block potential edit warring isn't appropriate. Let's deal with problems as they arise.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

(edit conflict)It's not that I don't agree with your proposed consensus. In fact, I agree with it quite strongly. I just don't think it will actually play out as you propose. I think the moment the lock is lifted,WP:SPA accounts will pour in and smother it with recentism, opinion pieces as sources, and undue weight granted the current cycle of news stories. In other words, while I agree with your consensus, I don't think it has enough backing yet. That could change, and if it does, I'll be happy to support unlocking the article as well. --GoodDamon 17:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagreed. I don't feel any consensus has been reached. I keep asking for written proposals for adds back in to be placed here for review. All we've gotten so far is a bad cut and paste job that represented 0 progress to consensus. Strongly urge against unblock. I've witnessed very little progress. Let's make the edits via an admin. Again, still waiting to see a consensue proposal on additions to take to an admin. urge the block remain.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay here's one, can we get the word "alleged" removed from the last sentence of the Intro. ACORN is not being investigated for "alleged fraud". If your willingness to have reasonable changes made through administrators is valid, I trust this will be remedied and soon as a show of good faith. :) (Wallamoose (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Reminder, here's the headline of the citation: "Alleging fraud, authorities raid voter group". --Floridianed (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't care about the use of the word "alleged" or not in that context... but it's generally best to bend over backwards to describe alleged crimes as, well, "alleged," until proven. In this context, the fact that they're being "investigated" should indicate to most readers that the allegation remains unproven, but other's might disagree. In what way do you think use of the word "alleged" is misleading?

At any rate, not sure how changing that word or not helps us with the block problem. You've proven yourself reasonable again and again. There are other people still participating in this discussion who have given every indication of being unreasonable and it's those folks, not you, who stand in the way of a resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 18:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My point is how difficult it is to get even reasonable changes made through this process and why the article needs to go back to semi-protect. I don't want to have to spend 3 hours discussing a one word change that is fairly self-evident. The cited article headline doesn't say authorities are "investigating alleged fraud". If Bali can't see the redundancy, I'm wondering if the whole world has turned upside down. They are investigating voter registration fraud. You investigate robbery, not alleged robbery. Alleged robbery is not a crime. It's redundant redundant. And using alleged is against Wiki policies which seem to be nearer and dearer to people's hearts when it serves their argument's purpose and not so much when they do not. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Actually, on this i disagree. "The police are investigating a robbery at 13 Elm Street." Looks good, but "Mr. Johnson is being investigated for allegedly robbing 13 Elm Street" is also good, and much better than "Mr. Johnson is being investigated for having robbed 13 Elm Street." At any rate, is this really the one issue you care about here? I don't think the use of the word "alleged" is what got us to this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Grrrrrr. So now we're disputing whether Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys were on voter registration forms? I thought we could all agree that happened and it was voter registration fraud, but that ACORN said it was doing its best to cooperate with the investigations and only submitting the forms because it was required to do so. Now we're disputing whether canvassers are using made up names and whether any crime was even committed? "They seized voter registration forms and computer databases to determine how many fake forms were submitted and identify employees who were responsible".

I'm going to go investigate alleged blocking to stop good faith edits.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

This controversial group is being investigated and raided all over the place. They even registered "Mickey Mouse" and the Dallas Cowboys' players. Time to unlock it and reword lead sentence to "being investigated" not just in the past tense. --Don1962 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would be happy for the following to replace that part of the intro: "Some ACORN employees have been convicted of voter registration fraud in the past and some ACORN units are being investigated for alleged fraud." That seems about right, and flags issues discussed at greater length in the body of the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I love it except for the alleged.  :) How about take out the alleged and make it "some ACORN units are being investigated over canvassers committing voter registration fraud"? It's getting a little wordy, but I don't know how else to keep it straight. And without ivestigating allegations, instead of investigating fraud.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

That's as far as I'll go on that one. Alleged is alleged until a conviction however clear and obvious it is to us that someone is guilty. (As to substance and what i believe: Some of those allegations are clearly going to stick. Others appear spurious so far and probably won't. Sorting out which is which is not our job.) I would think the gist isn't harmed by the use of the word "alleged" and it goes a long way to addressing your and don1962's concerns.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well your proposed changes were generous and in good faith. I don't like alleged, but with that notation in the record, I support your revision as proposed. Is anyone else going to weigh in? Who asks the Admin for the change? GoodDamon can you here me? Neo?(Wallamoose (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

We should not include tabloid-style vignettes of fake voters, or any original analysis (or reporting other people's analysis as fact). The subject is best mentioned in the body of the article in 1-3 sentences, where we mention that a number of investigations have been launched into various local organizers, including some findings of fraudulent and/or mistaken voter registrations. If the number is out of the ordinary given an organization of its size and nature we should say so, cited to a reliable sources, and mention any mainstream explanations of why this is so. We should be careful to avoid using buzzwords like "voter fraud" to imply that any actual vote is stacked - trying to register "Mickey Mouse" does not result in Mickey Mouse getting on the voter rolls. Finally we should say that Obama opponents have made this a minor issue in the current election cycle due to Obama's having worked for a related organization, and paying the national organization for a voter drive effort. If the irregularities are truly out of the ordinary rather than par for the course (but not if this is just much ado about nothing) we should have a few words in the intro mentioning that there has been such a scandal over voter registrations. Anything beyond that is undue weight.Wikidemon (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I can do without individual fake voters' names such as Mary Poppins, but there needs to be a significant amount of detail to illustrate the scope of the fraud involved here. Proving that "the irregularities are truly out of the ordinary rather than par for the course" would be a violation of WP:OR. Report the facts, and let the facts speak for themselves. This section should have just as much detail as it had before the Obama editors arrived. 300wackerdrive (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus query straw poll

Which is better for this article, summary style or bullets?

-- SUMMARY STYLE, bullets are coatracky and ugly. --guyzero | talk 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- BULLETS, lots of dates and locations lends itself to bullets as an effective organizational tool. At least until seperate article is ready. Or if we just use the bullets on the secondary article that would be okay with me.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

-- THE LEVEL OF DETAIL THAT EXISTED ON OCTOBER 11. Presenting the two options, "summary style or bullets," as if there are no other options is a false dichotomy. 300wackerdrive (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- SUMMARY STYLE, I don't fundamentally detest bullets, but it sounds like they're unwik, and I think it could be done well without. -Fredgoat (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that the summary/bullet style would benefit from additional relevant details with an eye towards NPOV and weight and with all of us respecting the "D" in WP:BRD, or establishing consensus before making the edits?

-- SUPPORT, I still contend this was the consensus and process prior to yesterday's edit-war. --guyzero | talk 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- SUPPORT, End the war PEACE NOW!!!(Wallamoose (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

-- SUPPORT. Yes, additional relevant details are needed. Readers need to know how many people were indicted in each investigation, or if people have been convicted, how many. Readers need to know how many voter registrations have been found to be fraudulent in each investigation. This is intended to show the scoep of the fraud. If we can find those details in reliable sources, we should include them in the article. We should also include a few relevant statements from ACORN officials, such as "we have cooperated fully" or "we're the ones who turned these people in," if they are well sourced. 300wackerdrive (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- SUPPORT FREE ADDITION, I strongly agree that we're ready to move forward. Semi-protect! -Fredgoat (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we start the editing with the current version[10], or the version proposed by 300wackerdrive, above Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now#Proposed_new_version?

-- CURRENT. Nobody here has denied that more detail is needed, but reverting from an WP:NPOV version to a version that is not NPOV is in violation of that policy. --guyzero | talk 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- CURRENT. Let's move forward.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

-- OLD VERSION from October 11. Chopping it out and trying to grow a new one would be extremely time-consuming. The October 11 version is NPOV. 300wackerdrive (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- CURRENT, It's good. Let's go. -Fredgoat (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you support a child article chronicling the voter registration allegations more fully if the information in this article begins to exceed WP:WEIGHT?

-- SUPPORT, this is the standard for notable information that begins to exceed the weight of the parent article. It will need to be NPOV and watched carefully for COATRACKING. --guyzero | talk 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Support guyzero's positions above.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bali, can you clarify your input on each of the questions above? I don't want to presume that you agree with me wholesale. --guyzero | talk 20:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Zero: In the interests of getting somewhere, i vote in complete concert with your votes (in reality, i think a separate article is a bad idea, at least in part because it will become a link farm and at minimum lead to endless efforts to put links to said link farm in the main article -- someone is going to have to babysit the new one, too, otherwise falsehoods like "acorn buys votes with cocaine" will proliferate).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- SUPPORT, This issue is NOT going to go away after the election and desrves to be covered fully by interested editors acting in good faith.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

-- OPPOSE. I really don't see any need for a child article. It isn't as though this one suddenly becomes too long by including sufficient info about the investigations. 300wackerdrive (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

-- OPPOSE, I don't like the feel of it, but I could be convinced, particularly if it's the way of the wiki. -Fredgoat (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I've been following the discussion and hoping for consensus so article protection can be reduced or eliminated. However, it seems even the smallest of suggestions—dropping use of "alleged"—can't be agreed upon. Several thoughtful and creative ideas for resolving the dispute were floated and quickly sunk. Does anyone think this will be resolved? Are there any points which will be agreed upon? —EncMstr (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're going to wait until everything is agreed to? Why not block every other controversial page too then? I didn't think that was how Wikipedia operated. Doesn't the fact that even a one word change can't be agreed to prove that the block and endless discussion are a fruitless (and perhaps self-serving by those who don't want any changes) enterprise that only acts to block the collaborations of good faith editors?(Wallamoose (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Controversial pages are sometimes protected until consensus is reached, so this is par for the course. Eventually someone figures out the root issue(s) and gets everyone on board, usually with just one or two dissenters.

I don't see anything being agreed to, do you? Clearly there will always be disagreements, but 15 reverts out of 40 edits in 24 hours? —EncMstr (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see agreement on the Sarah Palin, Israel, and Barack Obama articles. Maybe we should full-protect them until there is consensus.

Your argument strikes me as being a bit contrived and I don't know whether I should take it seriously. Are you being serious? You want to block this page until everyone comes to a consensus on what should be included in the article? That doesn't seem realistic at all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallamoose (talk • contribs)

Many of those reverts were totally non-controversial (replacing the acorn EL with discoverthenetworks, for example). Many "controversial" articles see much worse ratios of reverts vs. contributions than this: [11] [12] and are only semi-protected. It's a frustrating resource drain to police, and I suspect that many folks would just as soon see this page locked until after the election so we have one fewer page to constantly be watching. Just to clarify, the "edit-war/content dispute" was started by what appears to be a SPA on his very first edit [13] - he also requested FPP on his 5th edit [14]. If the article was semi-protected, I doubt the edit-war would have occurred. We also have a number of good faith editors who have been contributing on all sides of these debates, and that has been the case for months: Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now#Arbitrary_Break_to_refocus_on_consensus. Please take a close look at this page and the edit history prior to the edit-war from a couple days ago. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose, those other pages are heavily watched and therefore can stand considerable vandalism and edit warring before protection is needed. This page is not nearly as well known or watched. I wasn't joking, however, I've reduced to semi-protection and will watch to see what happens. Good luck. —EncMstr (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Sorry if my comments were a bit inflammatory. It's just a little frustrating (far fetched?) to try to reach consensus about any and every change for the article. Indeed we'll see what happens. And this article has garnered a lot of interest and seems to be patrolled pretty heavily, and with the interest of many editors we can hopefully keep it clean. Clearly, I'm not as experienced in such matters as you, and I thank you for your consideration and interest. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

ACORN and its relationship with its workers

I just learned ACORN filed suit in California to exempt itself from the minimum wage law. It also fired two workers who wanted to organize a union. [15] RonCram (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should we care what you "just learned?" That's a very old story that people who have been working on acorn know a lot about. In fact, here's a good resource for information on that issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_NowBali ultimate (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I found the paragraph on the lawsuit, but I still do not see anything about ACORN's firing workers for attempting to form a union. Did I miss that as well? RonCram (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the minimum wage bit is already in the article. --guyzero | talk 17:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see that now. But firing workers for attempting to unionize is not. RonCram (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's under the Focus on Housing section. When in doubt, ctrl-f. -Fredgoat (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be re-added. I came back to look for it and it was gone. No matter what you political position, its not right for ACORN to be hypocrites --Dudeman5685 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole paragraph in the history section of the article about it (subsection "1998-2004: Building capacity"). -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

5 bullets- equal weight

The article makes it appears as if Gun control is as large a portion of Acorn's mission/efforts as their drive for affordable housing or living wages. 1.1 Predatory lending and affordable housing 1.2 Living wages 1.3 Katrina relief 1.4 Education 1.5 Gun control

As far as I can see on the gun control front Acorn was involved in one case on behalf of one community that wanted it. Yet that is given a bullet at the same level as Katrina relief, etc. Why are the actions of one local chapter in one case even included in the article? There are a lot of other things Acorn has dabbled in as well- are all of those going to be listed? Why not stick to 1.1-1.4 – things a lot of Acorn chapters have worked on and that have been a primary focus for the organization over a significant period of time? 199.197.20.239 (talk) 13:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)JP

This may actually be a good way to incorporate other activities ACORN has been involved in. How about keeping 1.1-1.4, and turning 1.5 into an "Other interests" (or similar) section, where some of the things they've done with less focus/regularity can be grouped together? --GoodDamon 14:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Still in the NEWS

This is still in the news. I have Satellite TV. Powerzilla (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

....placed here:

• 1st source: From the New York Post

There is more. Google: ACORN/Scandals for more. You can help. Powerzilla (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just got word that the FBI either has or is raiding ACORN centers all accross the US right now. I am watching this on the news right now. Stand by on this......Powerzilla (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Raids are CONFIRMED. Google: FBI RAIDS ACORN. I have seen things there that are a real shocker. So far, only Nevada has been hit, and now some guy said that ACORN registered him as a voter 73 times, so far. He reported this on the news just now. You all have to see this, BEFORE I place anything from that here. You can help here as well. Powerzilla (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The current 2004-present section already mentions the ongoing investigations. I'm not sure what you're suggesting needs to be placed there. Of course they're confirmed. They're all over the news right now. --GoodDamon 00:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. Just got word that 11 other states' ACORN orgs have also been hit by the FBI for voter fraud, other crimes. Powerzilla (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Got a source for that? As far as I'm aware, the allegations are of voter registration fraud, and I can't find any instances of actual voter fraud in Google news. --GoodDamon 01:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Been on FOX News about this matter. Was on other news sites. Powerzilla (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you need to produce reliable sources (preferably not the asshats at FOX News). -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vote FRAUD INC. ACORN STEAL THE RIGHTS OF US CITIZENS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.61.39 (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FOX News is a reliable source and far more even-handed than MSNBC. There is no shortage of RS on this scandal. RonCram (talk) 05:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no new reports on AP or Reuters or anywhere else of new raids/other legal action in the past few days. If it were in fact true that the "FBI either has or is raiding ACORN centers all across the country" I agree that would be extremely noteworthy and worth more than a bare mention in the article. But the only raid i'm aware of is a single event in New Mexico, which is refered to in the article (i think the NV raid wasn't FBI but am unsure and don't really care who carried out the raid).

What's more, where does the madness stop? A whole bunch of detail goes in about the Nevada raid and the allegations. Then a whole bunch of detail goes in with Acorn and friends calling it BS, a stunt, etc... Then cue a whole bunch of information from "analysts" about how evil acorn is and why it's clearly guilty, and anyway, i know a brother of a guy who was promised a lifetime supply of snowcones if he promised to subvert the entire US political system for Acorn. Cue a whole bunch more information from "analysts" saying Acorn is purer than the undriven snow and is obviously innocent and I once saw them save 30 kittens from a burning pet store. No really, i saw it. Well, my buddy did but it's A FACT. Pinko! Fascist! etc. etc.

I would be in favor of unlocking if it were possible to believe that all that would be added would be a little more detail on the most important cases. (i.e. on October xx the FBI raided Nevada Acorn alleging y.") But it's not possible to believe that at all. I much prefer it to remain locked since swami says the accretion of endless partisan detail and further warring is inevitable at this point, making encyclopedic work impossible. The personal flavor of some of the comments provides a good argument as to why the swami is right. In the meantime might i recommend dailykos.com, freerepublic.com, etc. etc. pick your poison.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Are people even reading what they are linking to? Is there a way to clean up these discussion boards? They, like the article itself until blocked, are becoming impossible to follow. (No offense to people having legit disagreements, but these postings by Powerzilla are clearly just litter and untrue. The FBI is not even involved in the NV raid!) Threepillars (talk) 02:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You say the FBI is not involved in the NV raid, but the NY Daily News reported they were. [16] Authorities from the state of NV were also involved in the raid, but it is not uncommon for joint operations. Do you have some evidence the Daily News erred and that the FBI were not involved? RonCram (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You link to a columnist, not a journalist. The local news made it clear that the FBI was part of the task force formed in general to look at election fraud, BUT that the FBI was not involved in the raid. It appears, however, that the FBI is involved in looking at the files as part of the task force. People may say that is splitting hairs, but I think we all know that saying local police did X versus saying the FBI did X carries a very different meaning. Morever, the difference carries weight as I would not be surprised if the FBI comes to different conclusions than local police. They may not, but they are different institutions, and we should strive for accuracy. I await your mea culpa on using an uninformed source in NY about an issue in NV. Threepillars (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Additions in addition to Bali's Intro modification

I would like to see some mention of the specifics of voters registering 15 or so times. Here's another story from your favorite newspaper regarding this.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/news/politics/bogus_voter_booted_amid_probe_of_acorn_133540.htm

"Investigators probing ACORN have learned that an Ohio man registered to vote several times and cast a bogus ballot with a fake address, officials said yesterday, as they revealed that nearly 4,000 registration applications supplied by the left-leaning activist group were suspect."

"It's the latest issue in the probe of ACORN's registering voters in Ohio, one of at least nine states where officials are investigating similar reports of phony sign-ups by the group.

"At the same time, officials said, some 5 percent, or 3,650, of the 73,000 total registration cards turned in by ACORN in the Cleveland area from its Project Vote initiative to sign up low-income voters were "questionable," Platten said."

These are the types of details I would like to see included instead of just summarily paraphrasing content. Four thousand bogus registrations strikes me as a lot, but 5% faulty rate isn't so bad, and I understand many may never have voted. Proposal for concise but detail oriented inclusion? It's related to the Cayuhoga (sp?) bit already in the article.

Here's another, but this one (same area) from the Plains dealer.

"Teenager Freddie Johnson said he was offered smokes and dollar bills to fill out voter registration cards." There are 73 voter registration cards with his name on them.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1223973289273860.xml&coll=2

Maybe something about the problems with canvassers? The pay for registration system?

And finally, for all you Disney fans:

"Mickey Mouse tried to register to vote in Florida this summer, but Orange County elections officials rejected his application, which had an ACORN stamp on it".

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/elections/article852295.ece

I understand the unwillingness to have Mickey or the Cowboys included, but I think it's notable as a fact however salacious and illustrates the extent of the problem.

I am asking for suggestions on how to phrase the material included in these articles that we CAN include to add some detail to the voter registration fraud section of the ACORN article. THANKS.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

One other change I would like to see is the addition of a pointer in the housing section of the article to let the reader know that concerns over ACORN housing programs have been raised and are discussed in another section. GRACIAS. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

So as not to be accused of asking for others to do the work instead of me (which is of course my preference) here's my suggestion, based on LuLu's comments (modified by me) from somewhere up there in the great abyss of discussion:

ACORN pays workers per signature and at or near minimum wage to get registrations. A percentage of these workers get the registration forms filled fraudulently rather than do the greater amount of work of actually finding unregistered voters. Some of the people who commit this fraud get busted, rightfully so. Opponents argue ACORN should supervise its staff more carefully, or provide better training and supervision to eliminate this illegal behavior by its employees. In some cases a voter seems to have registered 15 or even dozens of times. And some of the registrations include obviously false names such Mickey Mouse or famous sports figures that would never be allowed to vote and are flagged by ACORN and weeded out by officials, but concerns have been raised over less obvious fakes, particularly in areas allowing absentee voting and less stringent authentification.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

ACORN does NOT pay by signature nor by registration gathered. People are confusing this with petition signature gathering firms. That ACORN does not pay by registration gathered has been well covered (and is illegal in many places). Come on people, stick to the basic facts. Threepillars (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, looking at previous discussions (which I am reviewing for insights into material people wanted included... "ACORN's firing workers for attempting to form a union" was discussed as something missing from that section... GoodDamon may need to bullet point my suggested changes.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

I vote against your bolded section above. It's a nice attempt, but it would at minimum need substantial, specific sourcing for each assertion. It's also got words and phrases like "rightfully so" "obviously" "less obvious fakes" etc that are objectively out of bounds for a wikipedia article. You seem to be selling the Truth, walla. Sorry to be contrary, since you are also showing admirable patience.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The bolded section has some virtues. Not for the lead, where it's strongly undue weight, but perhaps for the section that discusses voter registration fraud. Providing some context for the false registrations that have occurred (workers making minimum wage, and not necessarily ideologically committed to the project, sometimes take the "easy" path of falsifying registrations) is a good thing. However, a phrase like "...get busted, rightfully so" is far too informal and editorializing. I agree with the sentiment, but not the tone. If we can quote someone saying someting a bit more formal to the same effect, I'm good with that.

The real crux of any actual issue is exactly what supervision ACORN as an organization can and should provide (and has provided); mentioning those concerns seems OK (if cited). The tittilating or salicious details of exactly which famous false names might have appeared on false registrations, or some nefarious sounding insinuation about someone being dishonest because they were given cocaine, alcohol, or whatever, have absolutely no place here! The weird obsession about a voter allegedly registering N times (for N="shockingly many") is even odder: that would be a crime on the part of the voter, nothing to do with ACORN at all... I could also go pick up registration forms from each of League of Women Voters, NRA, Right to Life Association, along with one from ACORN and fill out all of them... pointless and illegal, but no special shame on each organization that conducts registration drives. LotLE×talk 23:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am also a bit perplexed at how many complaints about this article allegedly "missing" (or censoring) something reflects nothing other than a failure to actually read the article. There is a longstanding existing discussion of ACORN resisting unionization of its own employees (and losing that, happily IMO). Not everything in the article can be in extra bold ALLCAPS in the lead, in flashing red letters. Sometimes reading is required. Nor should sections contain "pointers" to "other sections readers might want to read". LotLE×talk 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, a simple it's already in the article, would suffice. There seems to be some information organized by chronology, and other information organized by topic. So it's not always easy to find what you're looking for. I would prefer topic categories with chronologies in them. So there would be a housing section. A voter registration seciton. An education section. Etc. This would really help a lot. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Whew! Finally got through the new stuff as of today. You guys sure like to talk. I guess as long as I watch for straw polls I'll have my voice heard occasionally...right? I do still say that ACORN's accidental encouragement of voter registration fraud due to their unfortunate policy of paying by the registration does implicate them somewhat, at least enough to have this stuff mentioned in their article. Flavor details about Mickey are bad, systemic problems with canvassers and dumb policies is good (as long as you can find RS covering it). -Fredgoat (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(not sure where to put this so I'll leave it here) We should distinguish between voter fraud (fake votes, wrong election outcomes) and voter registration fraud (fake submissions), which only become actual vote fraud if the election commission accepts the entries and they actually show up and vote. Even if it is done from sheer laziness it is still fraud - just like writing checks when there's no money in the bank, or trying to backdate a document you forgot to sign. Obviously Mickey Mouse is not going to vote to change the outcome to the election, and someone signed up 15 times without knowing it won't vote 15 times if at all. The more pernicious problem is if they sign up a real voter using illegitimate means and that person votes, or if they sign up a fake voter and someone comes in and casts the fake vote. Or if a legitimate voter is signed up and thinks they're registered, but their registration is thrown out because ACCORN filled it out wrong. In any vote gathering process a surprisingly high number of people get thrown out as ineligible, incomplete, etc. . . in ballot initiatives it's something like 1/4 to 1/3 of all the signatures are not legitimate because the person isn't a voter, isn't in the district, signed twice, didn't provide enough information, the canvasser faked things, and so on. I don't know what the rate is for voter registration drives, probably it should be much lower, but there are always going to be bad submissions. That's why they review each one. I think it's pretty well sourced that their lax supervision and quota system encouraged some workers to do this. What's missing is sourcing as to whether this is a problem endemic to all voter registration efforts and, if so, if ACCORN is within the normal range....or do they stand out as being especially bad? All the partisan attention and news stories may show it happened, but it does not establish the context. Wikidemon (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

FBI Investigates ACORN for Voter Fraud

Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Dr. Entropy 16-OCT-2008 @ 14:14hrs EasternDr. Entropy (talk)

The FBI is now investigating ACORN for alleged voter fraud in 14 states, including several key 'battleground' states of Ohio, Colorado, Florida, and Michigan.

These are due to ACORN's having registered "Mickey Mouse" to vote in Florida, and having registered the starting lineup for the Dallas (TX) Mavericks in Las Vegas, Nevada.

You might wish to add this to the main article, as it is a fact that they are being investigated for alleged voter fraud.

I won't quote from the article, but a link to it is here: http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=213&sid=1498414

I'd do it myself, but I'd mess the page up badly. :) HTML and I do NOT get along!

Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Dr. Entropy 16-OCT-2008 Ending revision at 14:17hrs EasternDr. Entropy (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Three things:

1. You do not need to know HTML to edit Wikipedia. It has a special, easy-to-learn system of markup that takes only moments to get the hang of.
2. You have not presented a reliable source to back up your claim. Your source states something entirely different (see #3).
3. In fact, there is no evidence of voter fraud. You are getting confused with voter registration fraud, and in most cases it was ACORN itself that reported the incidents.

-- Scjessey (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Dr. Entropy 16-OCT-2008 14:29hrs (Eastern)Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey, I conceed point 1 and 3 in that you are correct that voter fraud and voter registration fraud are indeed two very different animals.

1. 2 however, I believe can be resolved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations

In fact, they do list news organizations as reliable sources.

Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Dr. Entropy 16-OCT-2008 Ending revision 14:31hrs (Eastern)Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The point that I was making was that your reliable source was reporting something other than voter fraud. If you are changing your claim to discuss vother registration fraud, then the RS applies. That being said, this is already being discussed in this talk page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Dr. Entropy 16-OCT-2008 14:41hrs Eastern Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that this talk page does include the allegations of voter registration fraud. You are also correct that I was confusing them. So no, I'm not changing my claim, merely clarifying it.

My point, however, is that the main article does not include the fact that the FBI (part of the US DoJ) is now investigating ACORN over the allegations of voter registration fraud. That is what I would like to see added to the main article.

I hope that clears up the confusion!

Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Dr. Entropy 16-OCT-2008 14:44hrs Eastern. Ending revision. Dr. Entropy (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for, in the middle of Voter Registration? Ctrl-f is my friend. -Fredgoat (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The FBI investigation information should remain as the issue is timely, CNN, MSNBC and others are reporting accusations of "widespread" voter fraud in numerous states. This article is so weighted pro-Acorn, balance is needed. Timely news should not be suppressed.--Don1962 (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is already a section on voter registration, and ACORN's difficulties with fraud, in the article. There is no need for duplication. Also, the article is supposed to be neutral, and not reflect that latest hot air puffing out of the McCain campaign. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been having trouble adding details about the voting fraud issue, although I thought consensus favored some details being added? I'm going to try (again) to put this mildly worded tidbit in: In some cases a voter seems to have registered 15 or even dozens of times. http://www.nypost.com/seven/10142008/news/politics/bogus_voter_booted_amid_probe_of_acorn_133540.htm

I hope the argument over the FBI investigation can be put to rest. I don't see how anyone could argue the notability or appropriateness of including this information in the article.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

I am amazed that editors are just ignoring what I have been saying above (and in edit summaries). Let me say it one more time: there is already a section on voter registration that covers this issue. I have moved this "content" to that section, although it still violates WP:RECENT. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Wallamoose, it's hard to imagine how anyone could imagine, even for a moment, that an unconcluded investigation, with no charges, whose existence is indicated solely by anonymous statements, comes anywhere even remotely close to notability for this article. Definitely not anything relevant to this article (at this time). Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. LotLE×talk 19:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This material isn't covered elsewhere. There's no mention of the FBI conducting the investigation.

As far as noteworthiness, this story is on CNN every night.

If the FBI were investigating any other organization connected to a presidential candidate, you would certainly see it in those articles. --Don1962 (talk) 19:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTNEWS. This is a good policy to read to understand that 'Wikipedia is NOT NEWS. If you were to read WP:NOTNEWS, you would understand that Wikipedia is not here to serve as a newspaper of breaking stories! Following WP policy, such as WP:NOTNEWS is a good thing, in fact it is madatory on WP. LotLE×talk 20:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, maybe I can help. Is the issue really just that these investigations should say "FBI" in them? Is that what you're suggesting? Or are you going for something larger? It seems fine to me to put "by the FBI" into the article. Previous investigations of fraud have been by the FBI too, right, so we can say that? I mean, I don't think any other government organization actually conducts large-scale criminal investigations. -Fredgoat (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)