Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:00, 8 May 2009

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

Malkin

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

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

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

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

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

Home Defender

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality

Sox?

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

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

Investigations

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

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

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

Quote of WSJ article re" partisan /non-partisan

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

The source states specifically:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I added a source that says, bluntly:

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

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

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

This article is NOT NEWS

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the content that's being scrubbed: In 2009, the Nevada Attorney General and Secretary of State filed a criminal complaint against ACORN and two employees over its use of a quota system for voter registrations by employees<ref>, 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)

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 reign 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)

(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)

1. "FBI investigating ACORN voter fraud claims". Los Angeles Times. 2008-10-17. Retrieved 2009-04-08. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

• 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