| Revision as of 03:28, 8 May 2009 editWikidemon (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,531 edits →This article is NOT NEWS: comment← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:52, 25 October 2024 edit undoLoomCreek (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions13,612 edits →topTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App talk source | ||
| (828 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Skip to talk}} | |||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{Controversial}} | |||
| {{Round in circles|search=yes}} | |||
| {{Not a forum}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Human rights|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject United States|importance=low |LA=yes |LA-importance=low |NOLA=yes |NOLA-importance=low }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Organizations|importance=mid}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Organized Labour|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Squatting|importance=high}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Housing and Tenant Rights|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| |archive = Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | |||
| |counter = 9 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| {{talkheader}} | |||
| |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes | |||
| {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= | |||
| {{WikiProject Human rights|nested=yes|class=B|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject New Orleans|nested=yes|class=B|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Organizations|nested=yes|class=B|importance=low}} | |||
| {{LabourProject|nested=yes|class=B|importance=low}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Sociology|nested=yes|class=B|importance=low}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| == Malkin == | |||
| I see the problem editor Lulu of the Lotus Eaters is up to his old tricks again. Michelle Malkin is not a fringe source. Lyndon LaRouche, Paul Craig Roberts, and a chorus of HuffPo writers are fringe sources but she is not. She routinely provides verifiable sources. Accordingly, I have reverted this disruptive edit from an editor whose history of trouble making is exhaustively documented. ] (]) 07:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The ] violation is not even remotely plausible. The proposal is to add material that Michelle Malkin writes, but with not reliable source that she wrote it, only her own words. She is clearly throwing incendiary (and rather lowbrow) accusations out there. It goes downhill from there. Don't edit war, and don't try to add this this kind of partisan nonsense to the encyclopedia, please. ] (]) 08:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Aside from the routine POV issues with Syntacticus' "contributions", this one was randomly inserted in a section of the article having nothing to do with the ideas it discusses (which are already far better covered in relevant sections). On top of that, it is, to all appearances, a ] in just dumping material written by Malkin randomly into the article. There's really nothing even remotely plausible in this disruptive insertion (I assume the earlier anon edit was Syntacticus under another guise, which probably makes it 3RR on top of the rest). <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 09:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wikidemon: I didn't "add" the Malkin material. I reverted it because the arguments made in removing it were unsatisfactory and were made by a problem editor (Lulu) who has been warned about this kind of thing time and time again. Surely you understand the difference and will make an effort to be more accurate in the future. | |||
| And now Lulu, true to form, is making untrue and unprovable assertions of sockpuppetry. Why Lulu has not been banned from WP is beyond me. ] (]) 23:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Home Defender == | |||
| I am a bit concerned that this new section is too ]ist. The only sources are from ACORN itself, and only within the last couple weeks. Whether or not this is appropriate ] to the organizations overall history is not clear. I think, also, that the editor who added it intends it to be something self-evidently bad, especially given the (slight) negative spin given in the original phrasing. However, that's just an editor, not about the content. | |||
| Apart from the relevance of the content, it's driving me crazy that ACORN's URLs seem to break the citation templates. I think the square brackets throw off MediaWiki software. Does anyone know how to fix this: | |||
| {cite web| | |||
| title=Refusing to Leave: ACORN Members Step up Fight to Stay in Homes| | |||
| date=February 13, 2009| | |||
| url=http://acorn.org/index.php?id=12439&tx_ttnews=22521&tx_ttnews=12387&cHash=5ef36d5092} | |||
| It's rendering horribly right now in the footnote. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :In the course of improving a number of sections I've tried to clean this up - there is at least one reliable secondary source, which I am adding. I've turned that particular one into a non-active link.] (]) 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I found a better, but still hack-ish fix. I used an "alturl.com" redirect that doesn't have the characters that upset MediaWiki software. I don't love this approach, but at least it makes the citation render and link correctly. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 19:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Neutrality == | |||
| {{hat|Closed this discussion due to ] and ]. ] (]) 10:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| This article should be scrapped and re-written ASAP. ] (]) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Everything you just said was informative and made sense. ] (]) 21:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::this is sadly typical of what you find on wikipedia. Anything left wing is scrubbed clean by the same ideologues who are constantly insisting that there needs to be a section in an article about someone or something conservative, highlighting the people who have written books critical of that person. This reads like a publicity pamphlet put out by ACORN, and you know what, they probably did write it. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 02:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I find that hard to believe. From personal experience, I can assure you that in all my time on Misplaced Pages, I have never heard this sentiment shared on any discussion page for any article in any way. ] (]) 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Discussion closed. What a surprise. The powers that be on Misplaced Pages are so tolerant of dissenting views. ] (]) 19:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| == Sox? == | |||
| Five similar edits in two days, each from an ]. What gives? - ] (]) 23:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == USA-centric/Not primary topic == | |||
| :Obviously it's the same person, or at least collaborating people. Unfortunately, <s>all but one are from</s> ''some are'' IP addresses, so it's hard to do any effective blocks. Nice job rolling back the vandalism quickly, Wikidemon. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 00:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC) (oops, hadn't actually checked your diffs: there are more accounts there; but I think there are also some additional IP diffs not listed). | |||
| ACORN is the name for a number of affiliated community unions in a variety of countries. This article's current focus on ACORN in the US is USA-Centric and ] for the majority of the world's readership. While maintaining the current content, I will edit the article to make it more reflective of ACORN. --] (]) 13:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Investigations == | |||
| : I disagree strongly with the creation of a specific ] article. If the bulk of RS coverage of ACORN is about the US organization, then that's also what the article should reflect. There are certainly no size constraints justifying a FORK. ] (]) 17:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I've moved the following sentence from the article to this location for review: | |||
| :I agree with this assessment. The views established within the article primarily reflect US-centric issues which ACORN in other countries have not made official stances on, or otherwise do not necessarily apply globally, such as voter registration and gun laws. In Canada, ACORN is largely associated with tenants rights and is a very active and non-defunct organization. If one were to try and research ACORN Canada, this page would come up and would be largely unhelpful. I believe this page could be merged with the current page on the US history, and a separate page could be created about the organizations as a whole, including the global history. ] (]) 22:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == "Is Acorn Intentionally Structured as a Criminal Enterprise?" listed at ] == | |||
| ::Also in October 2008, the ] (FBI) began investigating voter registration fraud claims against ACORN.<ref>{{cite web|title=FBI investigating ACORN voter fraud claims|publisher=''Los Angeles Times''|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/ny-usacor175886802oct17,0,4072326.story|date=2008-10-17|accessdate=2009-04-08}}</ref> | |||
| ] | |||
| An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Please participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 19:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
| This article is very partisan! There isn't any criticism at all. What is up with that? ACORN was caught red-handed stuffing the ballot box. That is what these people were all about. They are an arm of the Democrat Party. That is an out and out fact and yet the article attempts to minimize their criminal activity. Had ACORN not been guilty, they would still exist. ] (]) 11:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
| My first inclination is to just delete this sentence, as it is redundant to the information already in the Voter Registration section that states fraudulent registrations are investigated at federal levels. It is also an inaccurate sentence, as the FBI didn't ''begin'' investigating in October, nor does the source say it did. The feds have been investigating complaints of vote registrars every 2 year election cycle for a long time now. The source cited here says two anonymous guys confirm the FBI is investigating voter registration problems, and two ACORN guys confirm that no one has contacted them about it. What do we take away from this source to add to the article? ] (]) 03:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to ] == | |||
| == Quote of WSJ article re" partisan /non-partisan == | |||
| Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Misplaced Pages related to ] in the ]. Sign up ''']'''. -- ] (]) 09:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ==So and so from ACORN said...== | |||
| I removed "An ACORN official voiced support for a proposal Hillary Clinton made during the 2008 presidential primary election to create a federal fund for distressed homeowners." sourced to: https://web.archive.org/web/20120913072411/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/03/24/31441/clinton-calls-for-30-billion-in.html because the story basically just reads "so and so from ACORN said...", so I don't believe it is due to just parrot what ACORN said. It was not a secondary source discussion about what ACORN's position is, but simply repeating what someone from ACORN said. ] (]) 12:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC) | |||
| == Relevance == | |||
| I placed a "{{fact}}" 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 21:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| '' Project Vote estimated that 400,000 registrations collected by ACORN were ultimately rejected, the vast majority for being duplicate registrations submitted by citizens. '' | |||
| ::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. -- ] (]) 23:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This statement is trivial evidence in search of a serious crime. It is misleading and not relevant. This statement follows the same pattern, being similarly neither relevant nor encyclopedic: '' "NYC has rejected 1,000 registrations to carry and conceal handguns, the vast majority for being already licensed to carry and conceal." '' | |||
| :::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). ] (]) 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 <u>''not''</u> 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. | |||
| Persons who help others to apply for the right to vote are assistants in compliance with the civic mandate. Denial of application is necessarily beyond the responsibility of the assistant. Should every request be allowed, registration would be a needless formality. And rejecting an application to join the electorate because one is already a member is no cause for concern. | |||
| ::::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? ] (]) 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| A person seeking to ensure that they are properly registered to vote is a responsible citizen. A person helping others to achieve this, to navigate the necessary administrative process, is similarly engaged in a civic activity that is beyond any legal reproach. | |||
| :::::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. ] (]) 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. | |||
| Those who submit redundant applications are easily understood as within their rights and dutiful in their obligation to register to vote. They responsibly engage in a process the government demands in order to ensure that that they are in compliance. When authorities determine that they are already fully authorized to in their duty and right to vote, this is clear validation and cannot be misrepresented as a condemnation. | |||
| 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''. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. --] | ] 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| To imply otherwise is misleading at best. ] (]) 02:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC) | |||
| == This article is NOT NEWS == | |||
| :The statement you take issue with above is not the opinion of a Misplaced Pages editor, it seems to be an not-perfect representation of the matter as reported by The New York Times at the time at the link available in the source cited at the end. That's a decent benchmark for judging relevance for inclusion. | |||
| 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. <font color="darkgreen">]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">]</font> 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 ]. 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? ] (]) 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 ] 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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). -- ] (]) 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Here's the content that's being scrubbed: | |||
| <nowiki>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></nowiki> ] (]) 23:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I read the cited material in the NY Times to provide context for understanding the issue you raised and the issue is more complex than is portrayed on Misplaced Pages. Allow me to quote the second paragraph of the New York Times article cited at the end of the statement you quoted above: | |||
| :I'm not sure what the point of dumping it here is. We all have access to the article history. -- ] (]) 23:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :"The remainder are registered voters who were changing their address and roughly 400,000 that were rejected by election officials for a variety of reasons, including duplicate registrations, incomplete forms and fraudulent submissions from low-paid field workers trying to please their supervisors, Mr. Slater acknowledged. | |||
| 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. ] (]) 19:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a , 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :In registration drives, it is common for a percentage of newly registered voters to be disqualified for various reasons, although experts say the percentage is higher when groups pay workers to gather registrations." | |||
| ::Before anything makes its way into this article, three criteria should be satisfied: | |||
| ::#Actual convictions | |||
| ::#Direct involvement of ACORN (with ACORN's complicity, sanction or knowledge - not ''guilt by association'') | |||
| ::#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. -- ] (]) 20:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :When something on Misplaced Pages strikes you as questionable, it's a good idea to check the referenced source material to see if the information was properly transposed by the editor from the cited source. | |||
| :::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. ] (]) 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. -- ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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? ] (]) 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? ] (]) 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :] (]) 09:19, 18 February 2023 (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.] 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. ] (]) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Note - I won't respond to that here, but I have filed an AN/I report ] after warning the editor over this. - ] (]) 02:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)'' | |||
| :(after ec) - Clinton and Bush are ] 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 ] and ] for reasons why caution is necessary in this case. Oh, and Bush hasn't been convicted of anything ''yet''. ;) -- ] (]) 00:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::How does ] apply? Individuals are neither the subject of this WP article, nor are they named <u>(either in the Misplaced Pages article or the news sources)</u>. 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 ], 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. <font color="green">]</font><font color="blue">]</font> 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. ] (]) 03:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:52, 25 October 2024
| Skip to table of contents |
| 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. |
|
| 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: 3 months  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
USA-centric/Not primary topic
ACORN is the name for a number of affiliated community unions in a variety of countries. This article's current focus on ACORN in the US is USA-Centric and not the primary topic for the majority of the world's readership. While maintaining the current content, I will edit the article to make it more reflective of ACORN. --Woofboy (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree strongly with the creation of a specific History of ACORN in the United States article. If the bulk of RS coverage of ACORN is about the US organization, then that's also what the article should reflect. There are certainly no size constraints justifying a FORK. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with this assessment. The views established within the article primarily reflect US-centric issues which ACORN in other countries have not made official stances on, or otherwise do not necessarily apply globally, such as voter registration and gun laws. In Canada, ACORN is largely associated with tenants rights and is a very active and non-defunct organization. If one were to try and research ACORN Canada, this page would come up and would be largely unhelpful. I believe this page could be merged with the current page on the US history, and a separate page could be created about the organizations as a whole, including the global history. Averagecryptid (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
"Is Acorn Intentionally Structured as a Criminal Enterprise?" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Is Acorn Intentionally Structured as a Criminal Enterprise?. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill 19:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is very partisan! There isn't any criticism at all. What is up with that? ACORN was caught red-handed stuffing the ballot box. That is what these people were all about. They are an arm of the Democrat Party. That is an out and out fact and yet the article attempts to minimize their criminal activity. Had ACORN not been guilty, they would still exist. 2600:1000:A110:9C0A:F926:CF53:9F21:DA4C (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Invitation to US Housing Edit-a-thon
Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Misplaced Pages related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
So and so from ACORN said...
I removed "An ACORN official voiced support for a proposal Hillary Clinton made during the 2008 presidential primary election to create a federal fund for distressed homeowners." sourced to: https://web.archive.org/web/20120913072411/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/03/24/31441/clinton-calls-for-30-billion-in.html because the story basically just reads "so and so from ACORN said...", so I don't believe it is due to just parrot what ACORN said. It was not a secondary source discussion about what ACORN's position is, but simply repeating what someone from ACORN said. Graywalls (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Relevance
Project Vote estimated that 400,000 registrations collected by ACORN were ultimately rejected, the vast majority for being duplicate registrations submitted by citizens.
This statement is trivial evidence in search of a serious crime. It is misleading and not relevant. This statement follows the same pattern, being similarly neither relevant nor encyclopedic: "NYC has rejected 1,000 registrations to carry and conceal handguns, the vast majority for being already licensed to carry and conceal."
Persons who help others to apply for the right to vote are assistants in compliance with the civic mandate. Denial of application is necessarily beyond the responsibility of the assistant. Should every request be allowed, registration would be a needless formality. And rejecting an application to join the electorate because one is already a member is no cause for concern.
A person seeking to ensure that they are properly registered to vote is a responsible citizen. A person helping others to achieve this, to navigate the necessary administrative process, is similarly engaged in a civic activity that is beyond any legal reproach.
Those who submit redundant applications are easily understood as within their rights and dutiful in their obligation to register to vote. They responsibly engage in a process the government demands in order to ensure that that they are in compliance. When authorities determine that they are already fully authorized to in their duty and right to vote, this is clear validation and cannot be misrepresented as a condemnation.
To imply otherwise is misleading at best. Jerimee (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- The statement you take issue with above is not the opinion of a Misplaced Pages editor, it seems to be an not-perfect representation of the matter as reported by The New York Times at the time at the link available in the source cited at the end. That's a decent benchmark for judging relevance for inclusion.
- I read the cited material in the NY Times to provide context for understanding the issue you raised and the issue is more complex than is portrayed on Misplaced Pages. Allow me to quote the second paragraph of the New York Times article cited at the end of the statement you quoted above:
- "The remainder are registered voters who were changing their address and roughly 400,000 that were rejected by election officials for a variety of reasons, including duplicate registrations, incomplete forms and fraudulent submissions from low-paid field workers trying to please their supervisors, Mr. Slater acknowledged.
- In registration drives, it is common for a percentage of newly registered voters to be disqualified for various reasons, although experts say the percentage is higher when groups pay workers to gather registrations."
- When something on Misplaced Pages strikes you as questionable, it's a good idea to check the referenced source material to see if the information was properly transposed by the editor from the cited source.
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Louisiana articles
- Low-importance Louisiana articles
- WikiProject Louisiana articles
- B-Class New Orleans articles
- Low-importance New Orleans articles
- WikiProject New Orleans articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class organization articles
- Mid-importance organization articles
- WikiProject Organizations articles
- B-Class organized labour articles
- Low-importance organized labour articles
- WikiProject Organized Labour articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- B-Class squatting articles
- High-importance squatting articles
- WikiProject Squatting articles
- B-Class Housing and Tenant Rights articles
- Low-importance Housing and Tenant Rights articles
- WikiProject Housing and Tenant Rights articles