Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 26 June 2009 (colbert for the hell of it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 5 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. {{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=low|LA=yes|LA-importance=low|NOLA=yes|NOLA-importance=low}}Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Organized Labour Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Quote of WSJ article re" partisan /non-partisan

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

The source states specifically:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added a source that says, bluntly:

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

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

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

Huh?

"ACORN is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization that typically champions liberal and progressive causes." How can you be nonpartisan and advocate liberal and progressive causes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.158.80 (talk • contribs)

This article is NOT NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the content that's being scrubbed: In 2009, the Nevada Attorney General and Secretary of State filed a criminal complaint against ACORN and two employees over its use of a quota system for voter registrations by employees<ref>, CBS News Las Vegas channel 8, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>, Las Vegas Sun, May 4, 2009</ref><ref>, MSNBC, May 4, 2009</ref> ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nevada complaint material

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-partisan

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

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

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

I do agree with the gist of that objection to the "nonpartisan" designation. Even assuming it is technically true, it is not terribly noteworthy as shown by the fact that relatively few sources see fit to mention it. Moreover, it potentially misleads the reader, as evidenced by the need of most sources to qualify or dispute it when they do mention it. I too question why the "nonpartisan" statement is important in the lead. If it is sourced and relevant it can go in the body in a description of the organization structure, and even there it is best put in context, something like "As a xxxx Acorn is required by tax law to be nonpartisan. In practice, it has openly supported Democratic candidates for office and advanced liberal positions, and some critics question whether by doing so it has violated the tax rules for such organizations." (assuming proper sourcing). There are other sources to be sure. I haven't had a chance to vet all of these but in a few seconds on google I have Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Sun-Times, fairvote. Wall Street Journal says the project vote was the nonpartisan operation / wing. All in all not a big haul of sources. Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Doing a little background reading, I see our article Nonpartisan mentions the issue of tax-status versus de facto sympathy with a particular political party right in the lead of that article. Moreover, that lead mentions the National Rifle Association as an example of such a nominally-nonpartisan-but-sympathetic-to-Republicans organization. Following the link to the NRA article, that particular organization lists its nonpartisan status in its categories, but not in the article lead. Just one data point. LotLE×talk 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Looking for more data points, I started browsing the category for "Nonpartisan US organizations". Here I'm only interested in ones with a clear de facto political slant. Given the methodology, all of these obviously do include the category:

• American Enterprise Institute: "Nonpartisan" not in lead or body
• Cato Institute: Not in lead or body
• Center for American Progress: Not in lead or body
• Los Angeles National Impeachment Center: "Nonpartisan" mentioned in lead.
• Future of American Democracy Foundation: "Nonpartisan mentioned in lead (but slant is not as obvious)
• Heritage Foundation: Not in lead or body
• National Association for the Advancement of Colored People: Not in lead, sort of in body via title of bibliographic source.
• Commonweal Institute: Not in lead or body

The "take away" I start to get from this is that we are not all alone in listing "nonpartisan" in the lead description, but neither is doing so the most common approach of Misplaced Pages articles on analogous organizations. I would not object to removing the adjective from the lead (but leaving in the category).LotLE×talk 17:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Those are interesting results. Thanks for looking into the issue. Much appreciated. Of the two that do include the non-partisan designation, the Future of American Democracy Foundation appears to be legitimately non-partisan (in principle and fact). Calling the Los Angeles National Impeachment Center, a group dedicated to impeaching George W. Bush non-partisan seems ridiculous and should be clarified or excised.

I have no objection to noting ACORN's technical non-partisan designation (although it seems to apply only to one part of the organization?) with context in the article body. Stating it in the lead when it's disputed by political activities, endorsements, alignments, and media coverage, I don't think is right. I'm open to alternative suggestions if there's a better approach, but removing it or addressing it in the body of the article seems to me to be the best approach. Thanks again for taking my concerns seriously and looking into them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add a few comments and questions of my own. Like CoM, I was formerly under the impression that "partisan" = "involved in politics", and as such one could only logically apply the nonpartisan label to ACORN's non-Political Action branches. Then I learned the real meaning of the label, and its "of a party" requirement. ACORN is an issue-driven organization, not a party-controlled organization. We can all agree the majority of issues championed by ACORN are also championed by Democrats, but that is not what defines partisanship. Take a look at the now famous video of ACORN members waving John McCain signs and cheering him as he spoke about immigration. Was ACORN for Republicans before ACORN was against Republicans (if I may so mutilate a now popular political turn of phrase)? No, it was not about political party, it was about issues and McCain was saying what this nonpartisan organization wanted to hear. This was previously discussed, by the way, a couple sections up on this very page. See heading: Quote of WSJ article re" partisan /non-partisan

Looking closer at the interesting wordplay used above, being called "liberal" does not indicate party affiliation. Endorsing Obama for president does not equal "endorsing Democratic candidates" just because he is one, nor does it imply multiple endorsements indicated by "candidateS". Looking at CoMs 4 reference links in the initial paragraph above, "self-proclaimed non-partisan" does not mean it isn't also proclaimed in reliable secondary sources. Project Vote does not equal ACORN. Saying other groups are "strictly non-partisan" does not mean ACORN is not nonpartisan. "Criticized by Republicans as being highly partisan..." doesn't mean they are, obviously; it merely means it's election time again. "The first page of its minimum wage plan says..." nothing of the sort (although I would welcome being proven wrong on this. Link, please?). "...investigated repeatedly for voter registration fraud," has nothing to do with partisanship. In summary, where's the beef?

Wikidemon, how does having the description "non-partisan" in the article "potentially mislead the reader"? It is present in a sentence that, in my opinion, sufficiently precludes any sort of misunderstanding:

ACORN is a non-profit, nonpartisan social justice organization, but its legally separate political action arm frequently champions liberal causes, and endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008.

I suggest that the confusion (resulting in "the need of most sources to qualify or dispute it when they do mention it") is manufactured, in much the same way "voter registration fraud" is confused with "voter fraud" to give the scary false impression of tainted election results instead of the actual reality of a worker trying to make an easy buck. Just about every mention of a voter registration issue is also accompanied by the clarification that it "isn't voter fraud, and no unauthorized votes were cast, nor were any legal votes denied, yada yada...). I suggest that having the accurate, reliably sourced "non-partisan" description in the lead serves to clear up confusion, not add to it. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Xenophrenic: I agree that the sentence about the nonpartisan nature of ACORN is worth having in the article. I am not one of those who misunderstands the term to mean "non-political" or whatever. They are most certainly not affiliated with any party, and hardly always agree with Democrats (usually because ACORN is far to the left of the Dems, actually). However, per the evidence I gave above of analogous nonpartisan organizations, I think the weight of Misplaced Pages editorial patterns suggests the sentence is better put in the article body rather than its lead. I'm not terribly happy about you reverting my edit that did that. LotLE×talk 20:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

@LotLE: I felt a similar unhappiness when I saw you implement a change "per discussion" that I wasn't a party to, despite being a recent editor of the content in question. I did not mean to dismiss your research into editing trends, and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been about my reasoning as it pertains to your findings. Allow me to succinctly explain my position as it relates to your conclusions. (1) The "partisan/nonpartisan" description is found in the lead in some analagous articles, although not the majority of them. (2) The question of partisanship is of particular interest with regard to this organization, as noted by Wikidemon's observation that many sources make extra effort to explain the status. (3) CoM's opinion (as well as the similar opinion of other editors) makes clear that, unlike in the other articles you reviewed, the partisanship issue is of significant importance.

The partisanship is questioned several times in the article, under multiple headings, with multiple mentions of ACORN endorsing Obama, Republicans questioning endorsements, accusations of conflict of interest, accusations by conservatives of ineligibility for certain government funds. It is my understanding that when this much main-body content is devoted to the partisanship issue, having a single summary sentence in the lead is not only appropriate, but routine practice. If I am misunderstanding something here, please let me know. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is that "non-partisan" has a specific meaning here which is likely not to be the meaning a reader ascribes to it. The meaning is brought out clearly in the text. Explaining it in the lead would be too much detail for the lead. So, best not mention it in the lead at all. PhGustaf (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Nonpartisan has a specific meaning everywhere, not just here. If a reader is unclear on the meaning of the word, it has been conveniently wikilinked. If they are still prone to ascribing a different meaning to the word, that should be remedied by the fact that its use is self-clarifying, by the single sentence in which it is used. No need for "too much detail" at all. Just to be sure I am not misunderstanding your assessment, could you tell me what meaning you feel a reader is likely to ascribe to the word? And if you feel the word requires a much detailed explanation later in the article, how would you phrase that explanation? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible meanings include "taking no political position", "endorsing no political party or candidate", and "qualifying as a 25 USC 501(c) non-profit corporation". In this context it means the last, as it does for the NRA, where Democrats are about as common as they are in NASCAR. Without qualifiers, the word suggests they take no political position, which is silly. PhGustaf (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

On the narrow point of where the "nonpartisan" sentence goes, I think we should follow the example of the strong majority of analogous articles. ACORN is not alone in being accused of "partisanship" in the informal sense of "taking political positions" notwithstanding their non-party 501(c) nonpartisan status. That is, this information is a bit notable, but its intricacies belong in the body not the lead (per my recent edit). Counter Xenophrenic, many of the other organizations I found in my brief research above are equally subject to discussion of "partisanship" (no one ever breaths a word about the Heritage Foundation (nor the NRA) without mentioning its political slant, nor pretends it is "non-political" because it is nonpartisan). However, I think PhGustaf's concern is somewhat misguided. We can wikilink nonpartisan to indicate what it actually means. I'm sure someone can misunderstand the word if they don't know US tax law... just like I'm sure many people misunderstand what "non-profit" means (which is different from both "not-for-profit" and "non-profitable" in ways that some readers don't know "without qualifiers"). Wikilinking is an excellent capability. LotLE×talk 16:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a Wikilink is all it's worth. From the above discussion, the "officially nonpartisan but accused of having a political agenda" thing seems to reflect either a common misunderstanding or a common rhetorical device that goes with the territory of any politically-oriented 501(c)(3), not a legitimate criticism or real controversy. The reader is best educated by learning the substance of the event, not hollow criticism. Maybe the link to "nonpartisan" could be further refined by also linking to a subsection that goes over this. The notion that these organizations draw that kind of criticism is best centralized in articles about political action groups as a whole. Wikidemon (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what where the outcome of this discussion is heading. At the very least I hope the word non-partisan can be moved to the body. Alternatively it can just be replaced by 501c3 which is more to the point anyway, Describing politicized and politically active groups like the NRA and ACORN as non-partisan is very misleading and confusing. We can do better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon and ChildofMidnight are mistaken to think that ACORN is 501(c)(3). That status is reserved for tax-deductible organizations, which ACORN is not. They are incorporated under one of those 501(c) articles, most likely, but it wouldn't be (3). The correct word to get at what we are trying to say is indeed, and exactly, "nonpartisan" (just like the NRA and Heritage are... neither of which are probably (c)(3) either; I'm sure Heritage isn't). I tend to agree with Wikidemon's idea that a simple wikilink to the relevant article (maybe a subsection of it that we create) is better than the current "nonpartisan but that doesn't mean what you might mistakenly think" approach we currently have. Whether that is in lead or body... well, in the body the current explanation doesn't seem bad, but if we leave the adjective in the lead, I definitely prefer the short, bare wikilink. LotLE×talk 23:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's 501C(4), but they don't say and it doesn't matter much. Donations are tax deductible, which is the point. Your changes look fine. PhGustaf (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's figure out how Acorn is organized, then use and source the right term with a link to that article, rather than confusing things with the word "nonpartisan" - which itself is only going to be one among several things that come with being that type of corporation. It adds little, and confuses much, to call them nonpartisan. True, they aren't affiliated with a party. But most orgs are not, so it goes without saying. Wikidemon (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah... there's some subtlety here, PhGustaf. It appears that the ACORN Institute is a 501(c)(3) tax deductible organization. However, that Institute is not ACORN itself. I would guess that ACORN, the parent organization, is 501(c)(4), but I'm not sure (however, I am pretty sure that they are not tax deductible). It is not uncommon to organize sister organizations where one acts on the tax deductible aspect of an overall purpose, but the other side does things that wouldn't be eligible for tax deductible status. I suspect that is what's going on here.

Good point about "Institute". Two groups I'm associated with, Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club have, as you suggest, separate practical and political arms, one whose donations are deductible and the other not. There's a little nudging and winking involved. Perhaps Acorn is the same way, but we surely have no cite. PhGustaf (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Wikidemon's newest comment is that "nonpartisan" simply is the correct and straightforward term for the sense in which ACORN (or NRA, Heritage, etc) are not affiliated with a political party. To try to come up with some original circumlocution just promotes some other misunderstanding in some other subset of readers (as well as bordering on WP:OR). It really doesn't "go without saying", however, that an organization with distinct political goals is nonpartisan; distinguishing between these nonpartisan organizations and, e.g., the Democratic Leadership Council or Republican Leadership Council is a worthwhile bit of information we should give to readers. Just saying that ACORN has 501(c)(4) status (assuming that's correct) fails to do so, since DLC/RLC probably have the same filing status. LotLE×talk 00:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a complicated organization and the sources indicate they have parts that are most definitely partisan and that do political endorsements and fundraising etc. The link PhGustaf provided, for example, targets the Republican party and its chairman specifically. So that certainly falls into the category of what partisanship is all about. If there is something about the organization's tax status or legal status that needs to be said, (that they aren't allowed to officially affiliate with a political party?) then include that. But the word non-partisan is way too confusing and doesn't add anything meaningful or encyclopedic to people's understanding about what ACORN is or isn't. I don't even think it's accurate to say they aren't affiliated with a political party. It's best to avoid this kind of ambiguity and misleading wording and to be clear about what's most notable. As it's only mentioned in a few articles about voting issues, the questions of partisanship are probably best left out all together. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Attacking Michael Steele (or any politician of a particular political party) absolutely does not make an organization "partisan" in itself. Even more particularly, the link PhGustaf gives doesn't even have a whiff of partisanship in its actual meaning (as opposed to in some meaning-of-the-week about "non-political", or "does-things-I-dislike"). Steele apparently attacked ACORN, and he Acorn Institute disagrees with that attack on its sister organization. One would presume that if Tim Kaine also attacked ACORN, ACORN itself or the Acorn Institute would react in a similar manner... or in any case, their reaction would not come out of party affiliation. Likewise, and obviously, the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland might like or dislike some particular politician, and make statements about why their theological beliefs promoted that. The Catholics are equally nonpartisan (even though tending to lean in a particular direction among the US political parties). LotLE×talk 00:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

ACORN Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) organization. The main ACORN organization is registered as "tax-exempt", but does not specify a (c)(3) designation. The IRS recognizes 174 "affiliated organizations" under the ACORN name. In 2008, records from one source showed at least 3 of ACORN's social welfare lobbying PACs were registered as 501(c)(4), allowing for a lot more political activism. (Heritage was definitely, at one time, a 501(c)(3), but I am not sure of their present status -- and note that the non-profit NRA also endorses candidates).

I agree with LotLE's most recent edits to the article. My biggest objection was against dumbing down the article because some readers may be uneducated about the meaning of a word. Nonpartisan doesn't mean non-political (for Pete's sake, ACORN was founded to BE a political organization that would take political postions); it doesn't mean non-liberal or non-conservative; it isn't the same as "bipartisan". My second objection was against having the word removed from the lead when it summarized, per WP:LEAD, the large sections of content in the main body devoted to discussing it. As the edits are now, they inform the reader, instead of perpetuate misconceptions. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I feel like I'm witnessing the incredible morphing deletion attempt.

• First, it was "'nonpartisan' is inaccurate and self-sourced! Delete it!" (Editors then showed it was very accurate, and from reliable secondary sources.)
• Next it was "Ok, so it's accurate, but it is confusing to some readers! Delete it!" (Editors then wikilinked it to avoid any confusion.)
• Next, it was "but 'nonpartisan' isn't notable information!" Delete it! (Editors pointed out the fact that it is so notable that many sources go into extended detail describing its nonpartisan status, and the challenges to it.)
• Next, it was "But the word is already in the body of the text! Delete it!" (Editors pointed out it is WP:LEAD compliant to summarize main body content in the lead, most especially controversies.)

This is beginning to take on the appearance of a premade decision to remove this word based on a particular point of view, followed by a tour through the wikilawyer rulebook in an attempt to find a policy to justify that decision. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You've pegged it, Xenophrenic. Welcome to the world of CoM. LotLE×talk 19:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Numerous editors have explained why non-partisan is innacurate and confusing. Sources have been provided contradicting it. It's also not notable enough to be in the intro as it was mentioned in a couple of articles about voter registration fraud investigations (something not included in the introduction). It's been moved to the body where it belongs and needs to be removed from the introduction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• In case anyone wants to hear me repeat myself, I agree with CoM's comment above and I don't think I'm pushing any agenda here, just wanting the article to best inform the reader. Also, a friendly nudge to others here, please be friendly even when disagreeing! Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Repetition does not equal accuracy. Addressing each of CoM's statements that Wikidemon agrees with above:

• Numerous editors have explained why non-partisan is innacurate ...

No, they haven't. At least not in the sources you have provided. Some sources directly say ACORN is nonpartisan, while others feel the need to add "...but tends to be liberal." Even your NY Times report about the attorney's internal memo doesn't say ACORN isn't nonpartisan — it just points out due to shoddy record keeping, lack of audits and cross-affiliate employees, ACORN couldn't provide proof if needed. Exactly the problems this attorney was hired to find, and help remedy, which the article informs us was well underway last year. You can find plenty of accusations & criticisms every election cycle, but you still haven't provided a source showing they are not nonpartisan. We can't be any more disingenuous when we say, "That word is inaccurate, so stick it in the body of the article." This is telling; if it isn't true, it shouldn't be anywhere in the article.

• ...and confusing.

We resolved that complaint by wikilinking it. In the interest of "wanting the article to best inform the reader", any confusion as to the nonpartisan status of the organization should be cleared up as soon in the article as possible, and not buried near the end of the article.

• Sources have been provided contradicting it.

Incorrect. Please provide a source showing ACORN is not nonpartisan, instead of just accusations, criticisms, charges, allegations, speculation and hearsay.

• It's also not notable enough to be in the intro as it was mentioned in a couple of articles about voter registration fraud investigations (something not included in the introduction).

Being mentioned in articles supports its notability, not the converse. Accusations of voter registration fraud are not in the lead, correct, and neither are accusations of partisanship. It is disingenuous to say, "it is not notable enough to be in the intro, so stick it in the body." If it isn't notable, it shouldn't be anywhere in the article.

• It's been moved to the body where it belongs and needs to be removed from the introduction.

It does? What is the reason this time? Xenophrenic (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It boils down to confusion and noteworthiness (my new name for it, to distinguish it from WP:N). Regarding confusion, of course it confuses the reader to call an organization "nonpartisan" when it has a political slant. It's correct but confusing because of the difference between the technical meaning of the word and the common usage. Indeed the word can be partly resolved by linking to the technical definition of "nonpartisan". But not completely - how many people actually click on the link rather than assuming incorrectly they know what it means? Moreover, the fact that it is nonpartisan goes without saying - all similar organizations are. There isn't anything particularly remarkable about Acorn in this regard. Mentions in the press tend to show that something is worth noting in the article, but that is not the only test. We are written in encyclopedic tone, not news-speak, so the phraseology the press chooses to use to identify things is not the wording we choose. There are plenty of places, most places, where we use our own language to paraphrase things. We don't call summer days "balmy" or winter "frigid", or blame "mother nature" for a deluge of rain, as a newspaper might. When dealing with common misconceptions or words with multiple technical meanings in different context (as in, whether black is the absence of color, or a color, or a perception, or whether tomatoes are a fruit or a vegetable), we use some editorial discretion. The point is to educate the reader. If we want to fully educate the reader, and be technically correct, we can link to the type of organization it is, not that it is nonpartisan, which is but one attribute of that type of organization. Wikidemon (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Approximately the same number of readers misunderstand "nonpartisan" (despite the wikilinking) as misunderstand other adjectives in the lead, such as "community-based", "non-profit", "social justice", "lobbying". I really do think the success rate for readers is about exactly the same for all of those... it's just that the right-wing ACORN-haters put more words into encouraging the one misunderstanding than they do the others. The fact someone could misunderstand amounts to wikilink, but no more than that.

Moreover, it does not "go without saying" that ACORN is nonpartisan. Many similar organizations are not nonpartisan. I gave the examples of the 501(c)(4) organizations DLC and RLC above as counterexamples. The word really doesn't have the vague or multiple meanings that some editors seem to be pretending... it just has some pundits who deliberately and grossly misread it by inventing wrong meanings. But we're not the Mad Hatter here. LotLE×talk 17:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ACORN and the National Rifle Association are partisan organizations. They are closely affiliated with one party, they campaign for one party, and they work against the other party. Stating that they are non-partisan (because part of their operations are required by law to abide by certain rules) without qualifying the statement is simply dishonest. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, whatever! And up is down, left is right, and winter is summer. LotLE×talk 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Tomatoes are referred to, factually, in the lead, as a fruit. The confusion between fruit and vegetable is explained in detail later in the body of the article. ACORN is referred to, factually, in the lead, as nonpartisan. The confusion between nonpartisan and partisan is explained in detail later in the body of the article. Thank you for the analogy.

When I use the Google on ACORN + partisan, I get more than a quarter million hits. On ACORN + "voter fraud", I get over a quarter million hits. ACORN, in 40 years of operation, has never committed voter fraud, nor even faced that charge a single time in a court of law. However, there is reader confusion about these terms because of (what Wikidemon has termed) common usage. The source of the confusion is the same for both terms, and the "common usage" is intentional; that source was generally described in LotLE's most recent comment. It is likely the same reader confused about one of these terms is also confused about the other. Every election cycle, conservative forces launch their misinformation campaigns against the liberal-agenda-driven ACORN; citing individual worker misdeeds during registration and falsely calling it "voter fraud"; citing ACORN policies favored by Democrats, and donations given by Democrats, and falsely calling it partisanship. Voter Fraud and Partisanship (while claiming a tax-exempt status) are both federal crimes, felonies, and while the frivolous accusations have become routine and cyclical (and yes, undeniably "noteworthy"), there has never been a conviction.

ACORN and the NRA are nonpartisan organizations. They are closely affiliated with their respective issues, they campaign for these issues, and they work against opposing issues. Stating that they are partisan just because the issues they champion frequently mirror the issues embraced by a particular political party is simply dishonest. Hiding or burying the fact that they are nonpartisan is a thinly veiled attempt to perpetuate the cause of the disinformation campaigns.

I'm still waiting for a reliable source showing ACORN is not nonpartisan. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, ACORN is not nonpartisan. Name ONE (1) Just ONE Republican they have in any way helped... at all. Just one. We all know... it's almost fact, that they support the Democratic ticket, especially President Obama. Misplaced Pages CANNOT lie. It isn't right. They're also under investigation for voter fraud, a fact not mentioned in the beginning paragraph. And then all the money.... You need to remove "nonpartisan." User:anonymous user (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.45.83 (talk • contribs)

"it's almost fact" — that summarizes the above comment nicely. Just another illustration that the disinformation campaigns do effectively resonate with a certain percentage of the public. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the following to the article to prove that ACORN is nonpartisian: "It is also nonpartisan, because half of its members voted for George W. Bush in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections." Grundle2600 (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Whom someone votes for has nothing to do with partisanship. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit was reverted almost immediately. I see that my point has been made. Now to be serious, I added the following to the introduction: "While ACORN is classified as nonpartisan for tax purposes, its members and activities generally side in favor of left wing, liberal, and progressive causes." Grundle2600 (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the general focus of your edit (with some tweaks probably) and have discussed that above, but others seem to disagree and it does not seem to have won over a consensus. Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Tried some tweaks (basically returning to the wording of a couple months ago). It now directly states they are nonpartisan, satisfying the concerns of some editors, while also directly stating they usually lean left in their activities -- without all the wishy-washy words diluting those two facts. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ACORN Voter Registration Fraud in 14 States

Why has it not been included in this article about the indictment of ACORN in 14 states for Voter Registration Fraud? Also about the controversy surrounded the ponzi scheme this organization is in the middle of? How their connections with organized labor put them in conflict with so many programs they are getting federal money for ? this article is very biased!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shellieida (talk • contribs) 03:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to add content. Be sure to cite the content to reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you consider to be a reliable source Mr. Xenophrenic? Someone's blog? An opinion article in Newsweek (not much better). This ACORN article is OUTRAGEOUSLY biased, and is being watched and gaurdeded by like thinking individuals who seem to have the power to censor those that disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carterwj (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What Misplaced Pages considers a reliable source is explained in detail here. No editor has the "power to censor", and all editors are welcome and encouraged to improve articles, as long as they follow Misplaced Pages policies. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Censorship is quite common on Misplaced Pages. A pack of partisans hangs out on the Obama articles and related subjects and tries to keep out all notable dissent. It's pretty saddening and there's an Arbcom proceeding dealing with it. Believe it or not they're siding with those violating the wp:NPOV guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not confuse enforcement of Misplaced Pages editing policies with censorship. Misplaced Pages has numerous rules and guidelines specifically constructed to prevent the subtle introduction of disinformation, speculation, innuendo, half-truth and rumor into articles, even when cleverly disguised as notable dissent by packs of partisans. Do not be saddened; you will find that packs of partisans never prevail — even in the case of Obama-related articles. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It is articles like this that threaten to make Misplaced Pages little more than a joke. I don't know a single article about a conservative person or organization that does not — fittingly enough — have a criticism section (or the equivalent thereof). By contrast, articles like these have little to no criticism whatsoever (unless it is immediately and irremediably contested (or "put into perspective") by some "expert") and read like company fact sheets. (Oh yes, of course, we can just "add it ourselves", can't we; but as a veteran of these edition wars, I know that within a day, or less, that information has been watered down, or eliminated entirely; in contrast to conservative articles, where positive — and even neutral — assessments are (at best) qualified and put into doubt throughout the text.) Where, for example, is the information contained in articles such as The Truth About ObamACORN by Michelle Malkin?! Asteriks (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"American constitutional government cannot survive if the population count is managed and manipulated by organizations with partisan bias" writes Phyllis Schlafly in Get Acorn Out Of Our Pockets, Elections, regarding the fact that the Obama administration chose Acorn to recruit counters for the 2010 Census (and they are already canvassing neighborhoods). "The importance of a fair and accurate count cannot be overestimated because the count can give one party an unfair advantage and control over America for the next decade." Where is the Misplaced Pages article is this view (or criticism) openly and fairly expressed? Asteriks (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Most articles in general do not have criticism sections. I see no liberal / conservative divide here. This one has some significant information about Acorn, which it (correctly) organizes by topic and within sections by chronological order, rather than dividing it into "praise" and "criticism". At the same time the quality of the article is only so-so, and it could stand some improvement. If you feel that another article is substandard, you can discuss or work on that article in its own article space. Criticism like the conspiracy-ish editorial you posted is, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS, discussed only if it is noteworthy in the context of the article. A single person's making a speculative claim is not terribly noteworthy, but particularly prevalent or well known examples, such as McCain's claim about Acorn stealing the election, do get mentioned. Wikidemon (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a source about ACORN being investigated in 14 states. Showtime2009 (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This article seems to be heavily biased in favor of ACORN. I noticed scant, if any mention of the 2008 voter fraud, and even where I found a single mention, it did not seem to mention that ACORN was even at fault. --Scouto2 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See the above discussion. The majority of two sections, about 15 sentences in all, are devoted to this issue. Reading through them, the wording could be improved. As it is, taken in total it sounds somewhat defensive in my opinion. Note that the issue is voter registration fraud. No serious allegations and no conclusions were ever made of actual vote fraud. Wikidemon (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Embezzlement Charge

I added a segment taken directly from the Founder's wikipedia article. It is relevant, because it deals directly with the organization. If somebody is scrubbing this article to remove unfavorable information, then it will vanish. But I would find it hard for somebody to justify that, since it has reliable sources, and is not alligation. Mushrom (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition. The exact same material appears in the same level of detail, in the section above. Please assume good faith about other editors' motivations, and do not use article talk pages to make accusations to the contrary. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I do like this edit though. I've added back the quote marks and mentioned that the quote comes from the Times. Would it be better to paraphrase rather than quote the news source? That might be hard given the loaded words like "enemies" and "strident".Wikidemon (talk) 05:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quoting an article that quotes a person who speaks in words that further require emphasis quotes is a cumbersome business. Your edit was a definite improvement. I'm not sure converting the paragraph into prose would convey the same meaning, as we would be paraphrasing the NYT reporter, and she is already paraphrasing much of what Rathke said. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

2010 census

With regards to this revert, even if there weren't any criticism of its involvement, isn't being involved with a census a notable part of an organization's history? Andjam (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Rep. Michele Bachmann seems to hold a large number of beliefs which can most generously be described as "bat-shit insane" (the cited source even says as much). The fact she seems to have some fantasy about ACORN and the census is pretty much automatically irrelevant (though possibly germane to her article). Do you have a source for information on ACORNs actual involvement with the US census. It is conceivably relevant--but definitely not at the level of a whole major section--if we find out what the story is actually about. LotLE×talk 08:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I came across one reliable source about congress not limiting their involvement, but I'd prefer to come across more than one before flat out saying that they are involved, especially as more coverage will probably be available soon. Can you please take back the bat... label for BLP reasons? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I look forward to reading solid sources on ACORNs connection to the US census.

The WP:BLP concern isn't as you suggest; my opinion of Bachmann is clearly that, my personal opinion, and my summarization may be colorful, but is is not anything close to libelous. Moreover, this is obviously a discussion where I suggest context, on a talk page. An opinion like mine, even well cited to published sources, might raise a concern in article space, but it doesn't in talk space.

On a similar line, in the archive of this talk page, you will find many examples of editors stating their negative opinions of ACORN or of individuals connected with the organization. While few of those merit any consideration within the article itself, I would not dream of suggesting they were BLP concerns sitting in the talk page (merely that they were unhelpful to writing the article). LotLE×talk 04:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From The Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 26, 2009:

"ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) is one of 40,000 organizations nationwide that are working with the Census Bureau to promote the census, said Nick Kimball, a spokesman for the Commerce Department, the bureau's parent agency.

'They're getting no money from the Census Bureau, and it's incredibly misleading to insinuate that ACORN will be going door to door, collecting information. It's simply not true,' he said." Abeger (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

McCain criticism rebuttal

I can't help but notice that the reference used to cite the final sentence of the article's statement that McCain's statements were exaggerated and unfounded was from Newsweek of all places. Newsweek is sometimes jokingly referred to by Conservatives as Obamaweek for devoting itself so loyally to Barack Obama over the last 5 years. I don't see this as being a reliable source under those circumstances, though I'm sure some will argue. 24.186.126.200 (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the funny thing about facts. Regardless of where you find them, or who repeats them, a fact is a fact is a fact. If you look more closely at the Newsweek article, you'll see it contains a verbatim report from Factcheck.org. Perhaps you don't trust Factcheck.org either? If you look more closely at the Factcheck.org investigation, you'll see they reference each of their findings to sources including the Inspector General with the U.S. Department of Justice; official statements from the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign; the Office of the Secretary of State, Nevada; the New York Times; the Bloomberg News; CNN; and the Associated Press. Misplaced Pages has rules regarding where we can get our facts, and Newsweek qualifies. You can disparage Newsweek all you want, but they didn't create the facts — they just report them. Instead of shooting the messenger, how about you show us some facts to the contrary? Xenophrenic (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The anon reminds me of Stephen Colbert's statement (in character) that he doesn't like facts because facts have a well-known liberal bias. LotLE×talk 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if I can get that on a bumper-sticker ;) Xenophrenic (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you can. Here's the video of Colbert at WH correspondence dinner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSE_saVX_2A&feature=related (or Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner)

Now, I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32 percent approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in 'reality'. And reality has a well-known liberal bias. ... Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it's two-thirds empty. There's still some liquid in that glass, is my point. But I wouldn't drink it. The last third is usually backwash.

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• Low-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class organization articles
• Low-importance organization articles
• WikiProject Organizations articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class organized labour articles
• Low-importance organized labour articles
• WikiProject Organized Labour articles
• B-Class sociology articles
• Low-importance sociology articles