Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Endlessly expanding intro

Can we please, please, please put everything after the end of the first paragraph below the table of contents (perhaps in a new subject called: general background)? Pretty please? It's just expanding up there in various partisan ways that will do nothing but confuse/bore any general reader who comes here for unslanted info rather than to have this or that bias confirmed. All that stuff about "is non-partisan, but is pro-democrat, but does not take government money, but 15 years ago once did, but does help poor people, but is controversial/corrupt.... does not belong above the table of contents.

As for my own partisan leanings -- i like obama (lets get it all out on the table) but sentences like "ACORN pursues these goals through community organizations across the country and that seek to use direct action, negotiation, legislation, and voter participation." Talk about deathless prose. Uhm, and they also seek to persuade people by using telephones, sending faxes, in face to face meetings, and via email. Why not add that in?

The first sentence of the article says as much as should be said about the nice stuff acorn trys to do in an introduction. Anything more just makes the article read like propaganda. (the third graph starting "Acorn advocates...." is overkill of the overkill).

As for the other side -- A 15 year old grant from Americorp in the introduction? really? That belongs in the intro to an encyclopedia entry on this org? All that stuff about is but is not partisan... in an intro...? Put it in "general background" below the table of contents if you must. "Acorn says (don't make a declarative "Acorn is not" that's always a matter of opinion someone can object. But what Acorn says is solid fact) it's not partisan, but it does tend to support Democratic causes. Republicans charge it blah blah blah.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I would just go ahead and do this but it would get reverted. But really, this is the sane way to structure the top of this article in encyclopedic form.

INTRO:

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is a community-based organization that advocates for low- and moderate-income families by working on voter registration, housing, schools, neighborhood safety, health care, job conditions and other social issues that affect its members. ACORN has over 350,000 members and more than 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities across the United States, as well as in Argentina, Canada, Mexico, and Peru. ACORN was founded in 1970 by Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado.[1] Maude Hurd has been National President of ACORN since 1990.

END REAL ENCYCLOPEDIC INTRO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1. GENERAL BACKGROUND.

ACORN advocates for government programs and spending to meet its objectives and is made up of several legally distinct parts including local non-profits, a national lobbying organization and the ACORN Housing Corporation.[4][5] ACORN says it is non-partisan, but it has a political committee that is often aligned with the Democratic Party on policy.[4] This alignment, as well as other political activities and advocacy, have made ACORN an object of partisan conflict.[6][4] ACORN's voter registration programs have, in some places, been investigated for fraud (what other kind of fraud would a voter registration program be investigated for but "voter registration fraud?".[7] Acorn says it does not now accept direct government funding and is not tax exempt.[10]. In 1994, ACORN received a $1.1 million grant from AmeriCorps[8][9]. END SECTION, REST OF ARTICLE ETC ETCBali ultimate (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't pretend to be an expert on Wikipedia's Intro policy (in fact I haven't got a clue what it is), but my two cents is that the way you've restructured it seems like 6 eggs one way, as opposed to half a dozen the way it's structured now. So I don't object to your change, and you have asked very nicely so that makes me inclined to support you. But I also don't see why it's needed. I think the Intro has become a pretty good summary of ACORN and the rest of the article.

The partisan addition about the Federal funding misallocation belongs back down with the loan fraud stuff where I put it yesterday.

I hope you're having a great day. Don't run with your scissors.  :) (Wallamoose (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Hi, I'm not sure if this talk page section was originally at the top of the talk page and revitalized or if it's a brand new discussion. New threads on the talkpage should go to the bottom of the talkpage. If it's a brand-new topic for this talkpage, you can automatically create a new thread for that topic by clicking New Section at the top of your browser view-port (wow I sound like an old fart using that word.) Anyway, with regards to your proposed edits, it is fair for the lead to summarize the major points of the article, see WP:LEAD. I don't exactly follow your proposed changes, above, so one suggestion is to boldy implement those changes as a single edit for the first step of a bold, revert, discuss cycle. Please read through WP:BRD carefully to decide if this suggestion is a good way to discuss your proposed change. regards, --guyzero | talk 21:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the misplacement of the new topic. As to my proposal, if this isn't a "good way to discuss" my proposed changes, than what would be? This seems the place for it. At minimum, i'd like to cut down on redundancy and tangential issues, and i'm going to do it now -- i will keep reference to the controversy in lede, as that seems to be wiki policy (general encyclopedic policy would be far more general... here goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all. This is a great place to discuss changes and it is excellent that you brought your proposed changes here first. I only suggested WP:BRD because I couldn't mentally sort out how the article and lead would look after your changes, though it may appear that I'm trying to pawn work off on you due to my slow-workin' brain. :-) regards, --guyzero | talk 21:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit [1] looks pretty good to me. I agree that information contained in the paragraph you trimmed was already contained in the first and third paras. regards, --guyzero | talk 22:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just find it ridiculous that Wikipedia will parrot ACORN's claim of being "non-partisan" when it has a PAC that endorses candidates, and only of one party. 71.156.45.13 (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for clarification, ACORN has political action committees, but not a PAC. Some information regarding their endorsements and partisanship has been added. But the debate about how much emphasis this material should recieve rages. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Linking Barack Obama to ACORN

An interesting article was published by Canada Free Press linking Obama to ACORN. Interestingly, ACORN is trying to tie themselves to John McCain. [2] RonCram (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Spectator in the UK also has an article linking Obama to ACORN. [3] RonCram (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's another article, this one from Cleveland Leader. [4]

Canada Free Press is not a reliable source, and neither is Ms. Melanie Phillips (she's a commentator). Please stop confusing news with commentary. One is reliable for statements of fact, the other is someone's opinion. --GoodDamon 14:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes you say Canada Free Press is not RS? Melanie Phillips is a commentator but op-ed pieces are RS for the opinion of the columnist. You did not discuss the article in Cleveland Leader, so I assume you accept that article as RS? RonCram (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It appears you may be correct regarding Canada Free Press. I thought it was a daily newspaper like Detroit Free Press. As an online news source, its position as RS is more questionable. I withdraw the source for the time being until I know more about it. RonCram (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that one is laughably bad. Rule of thumb: Any "news" source that lists the contributor who wrote the article as "Julie" and includes lines like the one below are to be summarily dismissed:

The mere fact that his campaign has now changed the language of the site shows that they have conceded the fact that their original remark was a bold-face lie.

It's hard to know where to even begin. The bizarre leap of logic? The blatantly biased tone? The inability to write "bald-faced lie" correctly? --GoodDamon 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting how an article can be said not to be RS when it is published in an RS publication. The point of Wikipedia policy to require information comes from reliable sources is the editorial oversight required at RS publications. Now you are going to say you are a better editor than the editor of a daily newspaper? I'm not buying. How about this one from the Wall Street Journal? [5] You do realize, of course, that this is just going to come out all the more, right? RonCram (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There really is not any doubt as to the fact Obama's campaign paid ACORN $832,000 for voting activities during the primary. This has been reported in the media repeated. Here's another one. [6] It is up to Wikipedia readers to determine if this money was used to fund voter fraud or not, but we cannot keep this information out of the article. It is interesting, relevant and well-sourced. RonCram (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to put this more clearly: Commentary is not news. It's commentary. Every single one of the links you've provided is commentary. Not news. That newspapers sometimes print commentary is no great mystery, but you'll note that they generally have them in a section called something like "Commentary" or "Editorials." Now, one of these things is reliable for statements of fact. The other is only reliable for statements of their author's opinions. You cannot source a statement of fact like "Obama's campaign paid ACORN $832,000 for voting activities during the primary" to a commentary. You can, however, source it to news. --GoodDamon 16:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact of Obama's payment to ACORN is not a matter of opinion. It has been reported in TV news shows and used as the factual basis of commentator's opinion pieces. The fact of this payment is not in dispute by Obama's campaign or by ACORN. To attempt to keep this fact out of the article because no one has found a news article reporting it is ridiculous. Broadcast media and the internet have changed the way news is reported. Opinion pieces in RS publications can be cited on Wikipedia, and often are, when the opinion piece reference a fact. What is not allowed is quoting the opinion of an op-ed writer and claiming his opinion is fact. I have not done that. RonCram (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a larger press release put out by PR Newswire and published by Forbes. [7] Now if any of these facts are disputed in a reliable source, we should include the dispute alongside. That is the way NPOV is done. But to exclude this information from the article is just plain wrong and smacks of censorship. RonCram (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron: You have a very poor grasp of what a good source is. But you have one good point here. The payment i think is sufficiently notable and should be restored. I vote for restoring the following sentence and citation: Obama paid an ACORN affiliate, Citizens Services Inc. $800,000 for "get-out-the-vote" projects for his 2008 presidential primary campaign. Obama's campaign has stated that it "is committed to protecting the integrity of the voting process" and is not working with ACORN for the general presidential election."http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.htmlBali ultimate (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a well developed understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. I have been posting on Wikipedia for years. Congratulations on finding a better source. I think it would be helpful to readers to have some discussion in the article about different ACORN affiliates and how money flows between them. The article you cited has some good info on this and I have seen others. RonCram (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama's payment to ACORN for get-out-the-vote in February or whenever is relevant how, exactly? There is no controversy around this, other than the attempt to tie it all together with WP:SYNTH. It might be relevant for a campaign article, but it is unbalanced to single out this one transaction which only seems to perpetuate the effort to connect the dots. The fact that this RNC(?) press release conducts WP:SYNTH does not mean we should follow, even if Forbes reprinted said press release. thanks, --guyzero | talk 17:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Connecting the dots is what makes this article interesting. It would only be WP:SYNTH if we were connecting the dots ourselves. The news organizations are connecting the dots. What is helpful about keeping Wikipedia readers in the dark about relationships and payments of money? Haven't you heard the saying "follow the money?" RonCram (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A 1995 article from the Chicago Reader provides a contemporaneous account of ACORN's early views of and interactions with the aspiring politician--http://www.chicagoreader.com/obama/951208/ Ajschorschiii (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on voter registration fraud investigations

Now my thoughts... I'm of the opinion that recent events should be summarized in the article, with a couple of paragraphs stating, in neutral terms, the most pertinent facts about the allegations, with careful citations to the best possible sources (no ACORN links, no blogs, no opinion pieces), so that neither "side" can accuse the other of bias. The big things -- the allegations themselves, the prior history of arrests, the raid, a very brief mention of the Barack Obama and John McCain ties -- should be covered in neutral, encyclopedic, non-bullet format (bullets are a sign of lazy editing; I'm always in favor of beautiful prose instead). And then we should take a wait-and-see approach. I strongly reject the notion that because the bullet list was there for four years, we should ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines in favor of the lazy approach. --GoodDamon 22:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A pile of crap doesn't become a stack of gold just because it sits there for four years. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullet lists are discouraged but not forbidden. Nevertheless, if you want to go to the June 2008 version (no bullets, but a new paragraph for each investigation to allow for enough room for detail) would be fine. Also, let's all bear in mind that here we have felony convictions. In the Ohio case, a volunteer was being given cocaine by a paid employee of an ACORN affiliate. He turned in fraudulent voter registration cards with names like Mary Poppins and Dick Tracy. That's NOTABLE. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

My two cents is that there are two big issues 1) the bullet issue, which is a stylistic one. I think bullets worked well for this type of information with lots of dates and locations, but it's obviously not the end all be all. I checked out the electoral/ voter fraud page out of curiosity, and it's LOADED with bullets. And it can be a useful organization tool. The 2) issue is more contentious. How much detail needs to be included in the section whatever form it takes. I'm more flexible on point 1) than point 2). I don't think just summarizing and paraphrasing is fair. Saying there was "some electoral fraud" isn't the same as saying "in Dayton, Ohio at least 1,200 fake registration were submitted by seven ACORN employees. Fake names included Wade Boggs and Nolan Ryan, but none of the 1986 World Champion Mets. Individuals interviewed admitted to getting people already registered to register multiple times, and to register their pets. The investigation has led to four prosecutions". This is just a made up example showing the extremes of too detailed and no detail. I don't think it has to be that detailed, but I'm just sayin', somewhere in between. I want to know what this fraud is. How it's being carried out. How many people are involved. I think the guy saying he registered 15 times is notable. I was only planning to vote twice.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

I have got to respond to WorkerBee74 here. No, it is not notable that someone registered as Mary Poppins, even if you put it in ALLCAPS. Funny, perhaps. It would be even funnier if someone had actually tried to vote under that name. But not notable, any more than any of the other fake names ACORN was required by law to hand in registrations for. And I note you failed to mention that those felony convictions were for individuals who had been fired by ACORN for -- you guessed it -- voter registration fraud. <snark>But by all means, push the POV that unproven allegations against ACORN are the most notable thing to focus on for the article; now that John McCain's been revealed as a supporter, I'm curious to see your contortions over that.</snark> --GoodDamon 00:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You may not feel that the Mary Poppins voter registration is notable. Maybe not so much. But when a paid employee of ACORN's local affiliate pays a volunteer in cocaine to produce fraudulent voter registrations? Karl Rove himself couldn't make that stuff up. The truth is stranger and more fascinating than fiction. One guy filled out 72 registration cards? Come on. This is the stuff that makes reading an encyclopedia interesting, rather than dull and boring. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So... When was the last time you edited in, say, a software manufacturer's article to be sure to include every individual employee who was eventually arrested for piracy? And I look forward to your edits in articles about financial firms detailing everything unscrupulous ever done by their employees, because believe me, that will be a long list indeed; there will hardly be room in those articles for anything else! Look... I don't know how to make this any clearer: Until we know whether or not this was a systemic problem, we can't treat these cases as representative of ACORN as a whole. When you have a hundred crooks in an organization with a membership in the hundreds of thousands, until you know otherwise, treat it as a case of individuals with problems. That guy giving coke for fake signatures? Sounds like a crook giving coke for fake signatures. Let me know when you find evidence he got orders from management to do that. --GoodDamon 03:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Please take note that in recent articles about the Catholic Church in America, the few dozen priests who abused children get far more attention than the 100,000+ who didn't. When people do what they say they're going to do, or what they have a duty to do, it isn't nearly as notable as when people breach that duty and commit felonies. WorkerBee74 (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take up any problems you have with the neutrality and appropriate weighting of child abuse by catholic priests in America | here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 04:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I have no problem with the neutrality or weighting of that WP article (specifically, this section). It has appropriate weighting. That's my point, and I could name other examples that further prove this point. Whenever organizations present themselves as existing for some noble purpose, and individual members subvert that purpose and commit felonies in doing so, it is very, very notable and it merits a significant amount of weight. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, the management of the Catholic Church was implicated, in the scandal and the coverup. It was systemic. Of course those abuses should be mentioned. Church higher-ups resigned over the problem. Archbishops were punished. It shook the whole church, cost it millions of dollars, and resulted in drastic policy changes. You're not even comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing apples and dishwashers. They don't equate in any way. --GoodDamon 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would note that despite the claims of a couple editors (who are supposed to be topic banned here anyway), the bullets have not been here for years. Or rather, such a large number of bullets have only been here for a couple days. It's the way they've multiplied in the last week, each with more and more spurious information, that has pointed out how stylistically and content-wise ugly they are. The fact is that during an election that raises a lot of emotions, there are going to be dozens or hundred of articles on alleged bad registrations. In fact, the issue of who gets registered and which registrations are "good" is a big, political, partisan, hot potato; part of that partisanship is demonizing ACORN specifically, but not all of it. Hundreds of bullets for every article, each containing some random sensationalistic detail, is extremely disruptive and not remotely encyclopedic.

I wouldn't have any big objection to a child article that had these hundreds of bullets. I suspect (well, I'm certain) that it would start out as a link farm of right-wing blogs; but at least that would be less disruptive of this article than are the ever expanding ugly bullets here. Over time, I suppose the worst of the non-WP:RS sources and claims in the child could go away (presumably after the election, the partisans wouldn't be quite so anxious to insert each daily National Review and Free Republic blog. In the meanwhile though, there is absolutely no way that the bullets are appropriate in this main article. LotLE×talk 23:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The bullets can go, LotLE. But the level of detail that existed before you started editing on October 12 needs to stay. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bullets bad. Always bad. Ugly, ugly, ugly. As to the rest, I argue against more on this issue. It's own article? About a bunch of partisan political claims and counterclaims that will be forgotten as soon as the US presidential election is over? Ah, it's "controversial" so it deserves its own article? Well, yes. In newspapers. But in an encyclopedia? It's a non-event.

As the version stands now there are mentions of: Six investigations that are either pending or ended without charge, with citations for each one; Four references to past allegations that led to either criminal charges or findings of fault, with citations for each one; a reference to someone trying to link Obama to voter fraud with a citation if a reader wants to learn more about the allegation; Dale Rathke's embezzlement and detail on that matter, with citations; ACORN getting in trouble with the NLRB, with a citation. What more could possible be needed.

In two or three cases I could live with an extra sentence with details of charges. For instance "1,200 fake registrations were submitted in Akron...". A reasonable reader might wonder about scale, so specificity can't hurt. But when I say two or three more sentences i'm talking about declaritive, factual sentences with no commas or clauses. Ten words each, tops. Needless and irrelevant detail on what specific fake names were used? Or what some outraged politician in this or that juridisdiction had to say about his political opponents? What possible purpose does that serve in an encyclopedic article on this organization? Well, it can lead to edit-warring, partisan involvement, et al. That's about all.

There is information in the article that tells the reader ACORN branches have sometimes run afoul of the law and that some people believe this reflects a systemic problem. There is also information that other people see ACORNs legal problems as isolated incidents and not systemic. Both points of view are there and with due weight, plus citations for further reading. But now people are seeking to add (or delete) detail to get the article closer to "The Truth." If there's something uglier than bullet points, it's "The Truth."Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The level of detail that existed in this article for four years is where it should stay. Fifteen people have already been convicted on felony charges in four separate states. Each separate case is notable on its own merits and worthy of a paragraph, not just three or four words identifying the place. Wikipedia is not censored. Supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge. One person says he filled out 72 voter registration cards. The scope of this fraud and its brazen criminality are very, very notable. ACORN has admitted after the Washington state case that there are criminal consequences for the national organization for just one more new case. That was in 2005 and we've had several new cases since then. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! You just volunteered to write a book! After all, entire, detailed paragraphs on each felony conviction of each fired ex-ACORN employee would take up this entire article, and then some. Add the organization's 30+ year history to your apparent enthusiasm for excessive content, and you've got yourself a thick, coffee-table book. After all, if you're going to weigh the convictions of former employees so heavily, you no doubt will similarly weigh the stories and efforts of those ACORN employees who haven't been arrested for anything, and the years upon years of work they've done for the organization. Seriously... Give it up. This article will not become a laundry list of allegations against ACORN, any more than Barack Obama's BLP will become a diatribe about how he's a secret Muslim, or Bill Ayers' BLP will become entirely devoted to the brotherly love the two share as best friends forever. Sorry for the snark, but this is getting very old, very fast. --GoodDamon 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop pretending that I want to write a book. I want to restore the same level of details we saw here before LotLE found out that the GOP was talking about ACORN. The timing of these new arrivals is questionable, to say the least. Anyone seeking to reduce the level of detail that existed in this article for four years needs to provide several damn good reasons for this. We've already provided several damn good reasons against you. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you most certainly don't want that. Because the level of detail that's been in here for the last "four years" was a helluva lot lower than what's in it now. Heck, even as recently as the 3rd, the level of detail was lower. You want to go back to that? I don't buy it. It has not had the level of detail you want for four years. It has had a bullet list. And you want to vastly increase the size of that bullet list. You can drop the "four years" thing now. --GoodDamon 01:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to gang up on one editor, even if (s)he is particularly disruptive and overshadowing the constructive (while still contentious) input of other more reasonable editors <cough>Wallamooserocks</cough>, but you shouldn't talk about the suspicious new arrivals, since, as far as I can tell, you are the suspicious new arrival WorkerBee. Also no one ever suggested four words per fraud case. For what it's worth, I like what Bali ultimate and Wallamoose said about how the article should look. Can we agree on no bullets (ugly) and no additional articles (stupid), but short summaries including every instance of a citeable fraud conviction (even if it accompanied a firing) or raid or other notable occurrence? I think we should get unfrozen here, if only because Wikipedia has political consequences (whether it intends to or not) and as such has a duty to be more or less balanced when it matters (such as at the height of the election debates). Right now this stuff is pertinent and the page is too left-leaning. I don't want to win that way. :P -Fredgoat (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said here, although I wouldn't characterize the changes you're proposing as making it less left-leaning, so much as bringing more focus on recent events to it. Voter registration fraud is a crime, not a political position, and at this point the main thing that remains to be seen is whether ACORN had any organizational involvement in it. The reason I'm opposed to including more than a summary of the issue is that we don't yet know how the investigation of ACORN will conclude. If it goes one way, then there was an institutional problem with the organization's leadership, and this will become a major section of the article. If it goes the other way, there were some bad seed employees like you'll find in any large organization, and the organization itself is blameless. We don't know. Until we do, I would definitely not go beyond your proposal. --GoodDamon 02:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The FBI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

WorkerBee was incorrect in his statement that I supported this version, of course. However, there is one thing that does need to go in that's notable enough to merit inclusion: The FBI investigation. No conclusions should be based on the fact that there is one, and the attempt to lend it undue weight and rearrange the article so it is about the investigation instead of about ACORN is unsupportable. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned. I propose this wording or a variant thereof (with a proper reference): "The FBI is investigation the fraudulent voter registrations." Simple, straight forward, does not presume guilt or innocence on the part of the organization. It should go into the Voter Registration section (no, you can't rename it to "ACORN COMMITS MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD OMG LOL" or whatever the current inflammatory heading of the day is). So, can I get some consensus on this? --GoodDamon 19:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention anymore? Had no idea... there was in earlier consensus versions... it seems that the edit warriors have led to more POV in the direction opposite to the one they were pushing. At any rate... your sentence sans the type is fine, with a citation.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a neutrally phrased statement that the FBI is investigating. At this point, anything beyond that would be excessive weight. Should the FBI find partial or systemic collusion to engage in registration fraud, that will certainly be notable enough to include as well. --GoodDamon 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The sources that had existed for the statement before were not WP:RS. It was in a reasonable newspaper, but only attributed to "anonymous FBI sources". Until or unless named FBI people can confirm that there is an investigation, we shouldn't try to "break the story". LotLE×talk 21:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Associated Press is the source, and they are a sterling source, generally considered top quality. It's not up to us to assess their sources... They broke the news, not Wikipedia. And there are dozens of other stories that repeat the statement. The FBI really is investigating, although POV-pushers are attempting to exaggerate the extent of the investigation. It's worth, for the time being, a sentence-worth of mention. I'm not pulling up blogs or any of that crap to source it, I'm using the AP (and not an opinion piece published by the AP). --GoodDamon 22:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

AP is definitely a strong WP:RS. But there is not yet any indication that this is a significant event in 40 year the "life of the organization". Moreover, despite the reputation of AP, this is not a story we should tell if it was "planted" by partisan FBI workers (something hardly implausible). Maybe the investigation will result in convictions of the ACORN Board of Directors: in that case, it will be hugely important to the history of the organization, probably the biggest thing in its history. Or maybe the investigation will find no hint of wrong-doing at any level of the organization: in that case it won't merit the most passing footnote. Remember WP:NOTNEWS. We don't have a deadline on getting this information into an encyclopedia. The best thing to do with an event that may or may not be of any enduring significance for the topic is to let it wait until there is some confirmation of the actual nature of the story. At the very least, wait for any kind of official statement by the FBI (or other agencies) before rushing to get the headline into WP. LotLE×talk 22:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's a solid argument against inclusion. I suppose I was indulging in a little bit of recentism myself. The known criminal investigations are of far superior weight to an unknown, nebulous FBI investigation. I'll concede the point. --GoodDamon 23:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. This is the Associated Press reporting an FBI investigation. They have fact checking. In the past, confidential sources for reliable news organizations, such as the Washington Post, have proven to be very reliable as in the Watergate case. If this follows their past pattern, the FBI employees providing this information are known to the AP reporter. He knows their names. He has seen their FBI identification. In a day or two, the blocks will start to expire for the people who you've been edit warring with, and they will have a valid basis for their complaints. In fact, you've just discovered that they have always had a valid basis for their complaints because the FBI investigation was not mentioned in this article. As an univolved observer in good standing, I respectfully suggest that you put the FBI investigation into the article since it's being reported by a reliable source. We do not second guess reliable sources. Make a few other concessions to the SPAs, reach a compromise, and stop acting like this is the Alamo. Marx0728 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

After some thought on the matter, I'd like to wait to see if anything comes of the investigation. While I agree with you on the AP and on the history behind confidential sources, there's no way to know what weight the FBI investigation will have. We do know the weight of the criminal investigations; they've already had a deleterious effect on ACORN, and resulted in arrests of their employees. That's solid, weighty, verifiable effects on the organization. I'm not saying the FBI's investigation won't have similar -- or even vastly worse -- effects on ACORN. But there's no harm in waiting to see how it all shakes out. There's no deadline, and if it turns out to be a non-issue, then it'll require further rewrites of the article after the fact. Now, if the FBI announces the investigation and there's suddenly a preponderance of more substantial reports about it, I'll be first in line to add it back in. But it can certainly wait until then. --GoodDamon 19:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Marx. It is a noteworthy and relevant fact no matter the eventual outcome.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Would the mention be important to a reader finding an archived version in 5-10 years? Would it even make a bit of sense to them? I don't know the answer. Neither does Bali ultimate, neither does Marx0728. Until we know the answer, it's not an encyclopedia, it's WP:RECENTism and doesn't follow WP:NOTNEWS. Despite the threat of edit-warring, we don't need to get every possible story into an historical article as soon as it breaks. There is currently no way to include this that gives an historical view. Maybe there will be next week, or next month, when we know something concrete. LotLE×talk 18:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I think an investigation by the FBI is, now and forever, notable. Later one can add a sentence that it petered out and they were cleared or whatever. I think that yes, an encyclopedia article on this organization 5-10 years would appropriately have such a sentence. I also agree with Marx that as a practical matter, failure to include a little on this in a non-inflammatory way will act as a greater goad to the trolls.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should ever customize an article to appease POV warriors and trolls, just on general principles. In any event, I'm only about 60-40 in Lulu's camp, so if someone digs up more concrete information about what, exactly the FBI is investigating, I'd definitely be willing to take a second look. --GoodDamon 20:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm only about 60-40 in Lulu's camp too :-). Or rather, I'm strongly in my camp if the source(s) rely 100% on "unnamed sources" to indicate an investigation of unknown scope and indeterminate focus. As soon as there is a named source that gives some concrete detail about what is or is not being investigated, I'm perfectly happy to have a neutral sentence about it. LotLE×talk 20:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

See, now this is cooperative editing. We have disagreements, we talk out those disagreements, we reach an understanding of the situation, and real consensus becomes achievable. No edit-warring required! --GoodDamon 20:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There really is an FBI investigation. The AP story is well sourced, and i don't think the obama people would be writing letters to the attorney general complaining about the investigation being politically motivated (see |here) if they didn't believe there was sucn an investigation.

The letter i've linked to repeatedly refers to improper leaks about the investigation emenating from the justice department. The point of the letter is to say that leaks of the investigation, and the investigation itself, are being done to influence the election. I think all of this is notable and should be in the article. In this sort of format: "On DATE the Associated Press reported that the FBI had started an investigation into Acorn's voter registration efforts. Acorn and its political allies said the investigation was politically motivated." here's a link that might be of use. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/campaign-2008/story/739642.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Bali beat me to it in providing this source. I was looking at it online, I came back here and he/she had already mentioned it. A quote from the Miami Herald may be appropriate, in this fashion: "According to the Miami Herald, 'the FBI is investigating ACORN and the possibility that it's engaged in a vote-fraud scheme.' Acorn and its political allies said the investigation was politically motivated.[8]" These are reliable sources. Marx0728 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No dispute there. They are definitely reliable sources. Hmmm... I think the addition of that Miami Herald story pushes me back to the other side of the fence, although I want to make absolutely positive we don't weigh this too heavily, as it's still too light on details regarding exactly what/who is under investigation. Lulu, got any argument to add to this? I'm also wondering what other editors have to say. I'm now about 55-45 for adding a single sentence on the FBI investigation. --GoodDamon 22:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Back again... i would be strongly opposed to the wording from marx, particularly the bit about the "possibility of a vote fraud scheme." Just say the FBi is investigating "Acorn's voter registration efforts;" language that is neutral, doesn't presume anything about what direction an investigation may or may not go in, etc... if the investigation goes anywhere (or is squashed) or whatever, sentence can be added later.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it and adjusted the wording for neutrality. --GoodDamon 23:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) :::This is how to compromise with the edit warriors who are blocked. A small accommodation of their demands will suggest that if they push for more upon their return, they might be showing an unreasonable nature. We're not fond of unreasonable people here. I have been bold, added the sentence I proposed above. If you have a problem, change the wording a bit. No worries. Marx0728 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)For normal editing conflicts, you're absolutely right. But in those cases, we were dealing with single-purpose accounts whose creator (I'm convinced it was sock- or meat-puppets) had no interest in improving Wikipedia; they were merely using it to advance a political point of view. Those accounts inevitably get blocked repeatedly and eventually banned, and there's no way to convince them to start editing more cooperatively. It's their way or the highway. Personally, I was never strongly opposed to including the FBI investigation, and with the addition of more sources it looks like a perfectly valid piece of content to include. But they wanted to make the article about the voter registration fraud first, a detailed love story between Barack Obama second, and an article about ACORN as a distant third. --GoodDamon 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I am off for the weekend. Good work. I hope you don't have a big fight on your hands when I come back. Those edit warriors will be unblocked by then and they may be angry. It's best to avoid immediate conflict by just giving them an inch. When they come back and demand a mile, it will be clear who's being reasonable, and who's being unreasonable. Cheers. Marx0728 (talk)

See my comment above (when you come back). You can do that with editing disputes. POV warriors are something else, though. --GoodDamon 23:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Marx: Don't worry about the edit warriors. They should not drive content, one way or the other. However, adding text as a new editor here with no track record and without finding consensus is contentious and i would have straight reverted if the nicer goodamon hadn't beaten me to it with a polite deletion. New users are of course welcome but on something that has been this heated, it is unwise to jump right in like that.

I also note that you returned to wikipedia, after a long absense, a day after the blocking of the two former edit warriors. I also note the only outside activity on your own talk page during your brief last foray into wikipedia in july was by kossack4truth. I draw no conclusions yet.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suggest striking or redacting that. Until there's evidence otherwise, I'd prefer to assume good faith of any new editor who shows up. --GoodDamon 23:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if i understand the edits lotle just had to do, the new user marx added in the contentious bit "about 26 investigations and/or convictions." Just went ahead and did that without ever bringing it up here. i can see no way he would have been aware of that number, or that it was disputed, or anything of the kind, if he simply just happened upon this page as his sole new interest upon his return to wikipedia after a long absence. And that unflagged insertion (no notification on the edit) came after he was so nice in seeking consensus here on another matter, the FBI stuf -- but then unilaterally went and did it his way absent consensus being found. So, I'm sorry to say that an eye will have to be kept on marx. The goodwill well will be shallower for him than it was for wacker/worker. (As a matter of personal policy, i won't redact my own comments, though i will in some cases apologize, say i was wrong etc... later).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, good catch. I missed that. OK, then. We might have a return of the POV warrior, and I'll admit the appearance of marx seemed kind of coincidental. Nevertheless, until and unless he gets contentious, I'm inclined to chalk that one up to seeing the numbers in the comments and adding them all up. If marx is the POV warrior, we'll find out very, very shortly, because he will side with 300wackerdrive and WorkerBee74 on almost everything, while arguing that he's merely being "reasonable." --GoodDamon 23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also the immediate semi-threat of "when the blocked editors get back, I know they will ..." as Marx0728's first comment. Such prescience about the future actions of WB/300/etc. is interesting. LotLE×talk 23:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And back to actual content -- i think damon's current wording on the fbi investigation is fine and appropriate. Please lotle, i really don't see the need for more fiddling on that one.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yeah, I got the feeling that Marx0728 might not be entirely barefoot too. In any case, I'm good with the most recent edit on the FBI matter, by GoodDamon: "In October 2008, the FBI investigated ACORN to determine whether the group coordinated any registration form falsification." The phrase used really is from the AP source (or close enough), the time indexical is removed. I still think the fact AP itself points out it only has anonymous sources is rather important, but that's fine... as long as it doesn't grow something POV in the sentence, I'll leave it be. LotLE×talk 23:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we can pretty much call that the "consensus" version of the sentence, then. I'm more than wiling to close the book completely on the topic of the FBI and the criminal investigations at this point, and get back to growing the more pertinent sections regarding ACORN's history. --GoodDamon 23:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A question... after Marx made his edits a lot of objectionable material was in the article again... but the addition of that material wasn't obvious by merely comparing his various edits to each other, or to the editors prior to and after his edits. I only got them by reading the article again. How could that be? (the answer may be that i just misread the screen, but i did it twice).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as a general thing, I often find it useful to look at the diff across a span of edits, rather than only adjacent ones. So for example, I can look at "everything that changed since yesterday" or "everything that changed in User:Foo's 6 consecutive edits". It's not a silver bullet, but if you don't use that, it might help you see the history better. LotLE×talk 23:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is very clever of you to come to this article and delete an entire list of statements each supported by a reliable source, claiming a WP:WEIGHT violation due to length, and then fight against inclusion of any summary statement to the effect that 26 ACORN workers have been indicted or convicted in six states, claiming a WP:SYNTH violation. You have constructed a very precise Catch-22 to reduce mention of this scandal to an absolute minimum, and you pretend you didn't notice that your version somehow failed to mention the FBI investigation of the national organization. Very clever of you. Your bias has been exposed. You are whitewashing this article to help get your candidate elected. It is a gross violation of both WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV to refuse to mention "26 in six states," after you erased the bullet list of individual investigations, charges and convictions. 300wackerdrive (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your proposed inclusion is a clear violation of WP:SYN, where it says the following:

"Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C."

Edit-warring, name-calling and accusations of bias will not change this fact. You are using synthesis to augment negative reporting in order to suit your personal agenda (as evidenced by your narrowly-scoped editing record). Please cease your disruption immediately or face additional blocks to the two you have already collected in your two-week Wikipedia experience. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I go ahead and close this discussion? The issues it brings up -- weighting, the FBI investigation, etc. -- all seem to have been dealt with appropriately. New accusations from single-purpose accounts discussions of content ought to be in new sections. --GoodDamon 15:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerning WP:SYNTH issues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I object. The WP:SYNTH issue regarding 26 workers indicted or convicted in six states still needs to be worked out. 300wackerdrive (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be a different topic. That section was primarily about the inclusion of the FBI investigation. Let's make this a new topic, then post the results from your WP:SYNTH question here when it's done. --GoodDamon 15:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Then in order to avoid any problems with SYNTH, I have listed the individual cases, each with a realiable source cited. Let's try to defeat the Catch-22 that is now being employed to suppress these well-sourced facts. 300wackerdrive (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A litany is of undue weight and questionable relevance. Please don't edit war on this - you are an WP:SPA who was blocked twice in a week for edit warring the exact same section, and this is still the same week. This was already rejected about a week ago. We have decided as a group not to include information in this detail. The way to cover this is to say in a neutral way what happened without counts that synthesize a result or mix apples and oranges, and provide links to the reliable sources. There's no cach-22 in not being able to get around the rules to do what you want, it's just regular consensus. Someone else, or I, will revert once you are done inserting this. Wikidemon (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, you have massively rewritten that section, so it is no longer about ACORN's voter registration drives, to provide an extreme emphasis on just the controversy. You can't possibly describe the prose changes and additions in these edits as simply listing the individual cases. Let me be blunt: This article is about ACORN, not about the current largely manufactured controversy, and not about the individual employees of ACORN who decided that making up names was easier than working. The reason you keep losing these arguments is that you are trying to make this article about something that it is not. 300wackerdrive/WorkerBee74/sock-name-of-the-day, 'why are you here? Do you want to improve Wikipedia? Do you have an actual interest in ACORN or Barack Obama or Saul Alinsky or Bill Ayers? Are you interested in any aspect of any of those articles other than what you can use to specifically smear Barack Obama with? Are you interested in them in any way that isn't related to campaign talking points? So far, I think the answer is no. I no longer assume good faith about you or your edits. You mis-describe them, you give bad summaries of what you've done, and your focus is rather singular in nature. I am reverting your edits now, and I warn you not to restore them, in any of your guises. There are so many things wrong with what you've added, from weasel words to ignoring the manual of style in favor of painting ACORN with a negative brush that there's no point in listing each thing individually. Cut it out. And if you'd like to restore some good faith, edit in a different section of the article. Do some real research into ACORN and its history, and demonstrate that your interest in it goes beyond making the article into an attack piece. Consider this your only warning. If you revert, I will file another AN/I report, and you will be blocked again, I guarantee it. --GoodDamon 17:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with wacker's proposal. I would also note leaving synthesis issues to one side that his edits have frequently been factually unreliable. It takes a lot of time to sort through the flurry of citations he usually drops in, and when one does they've been misunderstood/misrepresented by wacker.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

He's blocked again, this time for two weeks. I don't imagine we'll have to deal with that particular account again, as the election will be over by then. --GoodDamon 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as the kind folks at WP:SYNTH established that this was indeed attempted synthesis, I'm going to go ahead and close this one, too. --GoodDamon 20:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CCHD drops funding of ACORN

The Catholic Campaign for Human Development, a long-time ACORN funder, is reported by Catholic News Service to have dropped the funding of ACORN over "financial irregularities."--http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805268.htm Ajschorschiii (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a very weird story. It concerns the embezzlement (documented in the article) that happened in 1999. It's not clear if this is actually something CCHD did recently, or if it's some kind of old story with a new date stamp added. LotLE×talk 05:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Knowledge of the embezzlement allegedly was kept from the ACORN board for years, and apparently CCHD acted after the embezzlement was made public. According to John Fund of the WSJ on 10/30/08--"Mr. Rathke's departure as head of Acorn came after revelations he'd employed his brother Dale for a decade while keeping from almost all of Acorn's board members the fact that Dale had embezzled over $1 million from the group a decade ago." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533169940482893.html Ajschorschiii (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the public withdrawal of "1.3 million" claim

I'm sorry, but a portion of 300wacker's edit needs to be restored. It is ACORN's public withdrawal of its "1.3 million voters registered" claim. The spokesman for ACORN, Mr. Kettenring, stated ACORN "intended to change the language on its Web site to reflect that 400,000 of the 1.3 million registration submissions would likely be rejected by election officials." This is a remarkable admission and it is noteworthy. It is well sourced: the New York Times. If no one objects, this should be restored. I'll be back in a little while to review your comments and restore the material if there are no valid objections. This is extremely noteworthy, well sourced and it can be neutrally worded, succinctly to avoid any complaints about undue weight. No question about it. Marx0728 (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned the possibility that 300wacker would, upon being given an inch, try to take a mile. He has now been blocked and that is good. But well-sourced noteworthy material, like the FBI investigation, is being inadvertently reverted when removing his disputed material. Don't give people like this a leg to stand on, when they claim that you're biased. This is negative information that belongs in the encyclopedia because it improves the encyclopedia. Removing it lends him credibility when he makes these accusations. Marx0728 (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

None of us care what wacker might or might not do and has no relevance to what should be in the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Despite the suspicion most editors rightly have about this editor, new to this article, who instantly discovered all the edit history and positions of the banned socks, it is true that not all, or even most, registrations are of brand new voters. Most registrations are renewals, or of voters in new locations/states. I don't see any data on that percentage for 2007-8, but I did find some information on 2004-6, and added it to the article. I think a slightly longer history of registration efforts is helpful, and I threw in some demographic info on the registration patterns (that ACORN makes a point of).

I admit that the prior inaccurate language was my fault. I had misread a press release (which has now link rotted, so I replaced the URL with a different, active, article), and gotten the impression that it was "new voters" being discussed in the 1.3M. There is, of course, nothing remarkable or noteworthy about the fact that registration forms have a rejection rate... specifically, the vast majority of the rejections have nothing to do with alleged fraud, but simply with various errors (including, probably most commonly, the simple uncertainty by existing voters whether their registration is current, who hence go ahead and fill out a form "just in case"). LotLE×talk 23:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That text definitely needed to be corrected, and you'll get no argument from me over it. --GoodDamon 23:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If I am a stopped clock, call me Westclox. If I am a blind pig who has found an ACORN, call me Wilbur. But this blind pig has found two acorns. First, deletion of the Associated Press report that the FBI was investigating ACORN. Then, a deletion of the New York Times report of ACORN admitting only 1/3 of its new voter registrations were genuine. Both times, after being advised that this well-sourced and notable controversial information had been removed, excuses were made for not restoring it. The sources do not prove that "the vast majority of rejections have nothing to do with alleged fraud," which is a lawyer like parsing of the facts. People have pled guilty to voter registration fraud in multiple cities, so it isn't just alleged fraud. It's proven fraud. The sources do not say "vast majority" of anything. They only say that thousands of voter registrations have been shown to be fraudulent, with more being investigated. This text still needs to be corrected, and I hope I'll get no argument from you over it. I'm sure you can find a reasonable and neutral way to use both of these highly reliable sources to state both of these extremely notable facts. Marx0728 (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the sort of crap that makes me unable to assume any good faith by this new user account. Marx0728 is claiming that some large number of the 2007-8 registrations by ACORN are renewals or address changes. In itself, that claim seems reasonable and germane (I'll need to check the sources, given the plethora of inaccurately characterized sources we've seen here). However, the spin that this account tries to put on it is that these renewals and updates are "not genuine". That's an asinine campaign spin, or simply an outright lie. Then it gets even worse in trying to spin dozens of frauds into hundreds-of-thousands of "presumed fraudulent" registrations. Every new edit by this account goes from bad to worse.LotLE×talk 19:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted marx, who inserted language previously dropped as a result of discussions here and, if i understand correctly, held off on by lotle who informed us he was seeking clearer sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times and the Associated Press are very clear and very reliable. Suspicions against me have been openly stated, so I'd like to ask you a few questions: first, why can't we use the New York Times and the Associated Press until sources that are more clear can be found? Marx0728 (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying the NYT and Ap aren't reliable sources. Please read the talk page above.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read it. Is there some way that we can word this material to satisfy everyone regarding our own (Wikipedia's) neutrality? This information is notable. It belongs in the article. Keeping it out raises reasonable questions about bias. Marx0728 (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you're taking so long to answer, I'll ask another question or two. Why am I not allowed to be bold like lotle, who has admitted, "that the prior inaccurate language was my fault"? The language that I have used is accurate. Marx0728 (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I followed the NYT link Marx0728 proposed. It's a dead URL, so I have no idea if the purported claim was ever contained therein. Obviously, the slanted soapbox wording was not usable in any case, but the fact itself (number of renewals and rejections) is not usable without a verifiable citation... something a bunch of socks seems unable or uninterested in providing. If this user wants an addition, I think we should insist the s/he bring the proposed citation to this talk page, and let editors who have shown good faith examine it for relevance.LotLE×talk 19:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah the link aint dead, he just formatted it badly. Correct link is: www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24acorn.html . Here's the sentence i propose for using this information: "In October 2008, Acorn and an affiliated organization called Project Vote revised an earlier claim they had registered 1.3 million new voters that year down to 450,000." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 20:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Actually, doing it now. A non-controversial fact that will correct currently wrong info in article.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Recentism

Is there anyone who believes that ACORN being used in the 2008 presidential debates should not be included in the article? If not, exactly what is it about including it that constitutes "recentism", and is there anything that merits placing a pastel box on the tiny subsection? Shii (tock) 04:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To summarize earlier discussions, the investigations and accusations concerning ACORN are all unsettled and ongoing, while ACORN's voter registration efforts go back decades. In that context, WP:RECENTISM definitely applies. The fact is, until the investigations are complete and charges are leveled (or not leveled, as the case may be), we have no idea if the employees who committed registration fraud did so simply to avoid work, or did so because of a systemic problem in ACORN's management. All we do know, for the time being, is that employees committed fraud and ACORN has been accused of allowing/encouraging it. In two months, ACORN's problematic voter registration efforts will either be a long-forgotten election talking point, or it will have devastating consequences for the organization (assuming the investigations turn up evidence that there is indeed a systemic problem). But until then, efforts to focus on this issue, beyond stating that it exists, are definitely premature, certainly are of undue weight, and could result in a lot of work down the road (if, for instance, ACORN is found to be without culpability). There's no deadline for incorporating this content, and Wikipedia is not news, so we don't need to scoop anyone. Therefore, it's best to note that these are recent events, avoid focusing on them too hard, and wait until the investigations end before declaring anything definitive about them in the article. --GoodDamon 06:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Specifically about the debates -- I don't recall a clear criticism regarding ACORN coming out of the 2008 presidential debates, though John McCain did mention (paraphrasing) that Obama needs to "come clean" about his involvement with ACORN. That mention in the debate does not belong in this article, though it may belong in a presidential campaign or 2008 debate related article. All of Obama's connections to ACORN are documented in this article, with reliable sources. Though McCain trying to somehow tie Obama and ACORN and Doubt (and Ayers and etc.) all together is the news of the day, it is not relevant to the history or activities of ACORN or Obama (past what is documented in the article). It may be revelant to the story of the campaign or the debates, you might try checking in on those articles. Truth told, after the election, the minor Obama connections to ACORN will probably no longer be notable enough for continued inclusion, but who knows? regards, --guyzero | talk 08:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Shii: Yes, there are many people who believe exhaustive blow by blows of campaign talking points constitute recentism.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it can be easily disputed that McCain's allegations have significantly damaged ACORN's reputation, though. Shii (tock) 01:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. few months from now we could see the organization out of business and dozens of people under felony indictment. But McCain could lose, and looking back we may see it as a desperate ploy, with no more substnace than San Francisco values or Dan Quayle's "cultural elite" talking point. That's at the heart of recentivism. We just don't know, and we don't have the crystal ball to predict how today's news will translate to tomorrow's notability. Wikidemon (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of goaltending and whitewashing on this page are well founded. Upon reading the "Voter registration" section of the mainspace, one would think that zero ACORN employees have been charged with a crime. As proven with reliable sources, there have been 26 charged in six states, with 18 convictions, nearly all felonies. This is very notable. That section reads like a CYA spin doctored news release from ACORN. We are not ACORN's public relations firm. We are supposed to be neutral. Please take note of Anita Moncrief's sworn testimony in a civil lawsuit against ACORN in PA. The contents of her testimony are also very notable. [9] She stated that quality control on their voter registration drives is "minimal to nonexistent." This also sounds very, very familiar: "Everyone wants to paper things over until later." Nate Toler, another former ACORN employee, says that "There's no quality control on purpose." ACORN's self serving claims should be balanced by these quotes. If you don't like the Wall Street Journal, I'll run Nexis searches until I find one you like. But stop obstructing improvements to the encyclopedia. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, our sock's first edit after his/her one week block is to try to start at disrupting this article again. Obviously, as is the rule, the claims made here are just factually false. Well, the "goaltending" and "whitewashing" are more subjective terms that aim at being combative and belligerent. The bit about "18 convictions, nearly all felonies" is simply a factual invention by WB... during the rather exhausting discussion, s/he was not able to find any citations for this total number, nor any citation whatsoever that indicated even one felony conviction (charges yes, as the lawyers in WB's office would be happy to tell him/her, prosecutors always charge a felony to leverage a misdemeanor plea; that's how the world works, at least the USA). I haven't looked at the obscure civil suit mentioned, but I assume it's as little relevant as are most of WB's disruptions. LotLE×talk 19:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The "charge a felony to leverage a misdemeanor" claim sounds like an original research violation. Just list the facts. That's all I'm asking. Since we don't like bullet points in article mainspace, make paragraphs out of it: eight in St. Louis, four in Kansas City etc. The St. Louis Post Dispatch, for example, stated very clearly that the eight guilty pleas there were on felony charges. But that's a red herring by LotLE since I only want the words "charged or convicted" in mainspace. I seek to improve the article, and I don't care to disrupt anything. Other editors in good standing have noticed your whitewash efforts here. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

STOP. Coming back from a long block and immediately disrupting this talk page, especially with accusations and insults, and the facetious claim that "other editors" support your attacks, is a good way to get banned. Redact your comment, or I will immediately render another report to AN/I. I have zero tolerance for your disruption now. --GoodDamon

It usually doesn't do any good to demand retractions, but if the behavior continues I would encourage a report. Any constructive proposals for improving the article are welcome; insulting the article and its editors would be out of line.Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

A constructive proposal

Workerbee has made a constructive proposal. Accusing him of being a sock, claiming that the sources don't specify felony convictions, and othere elements of lotle's response are provocative. I would ask that everyone stop provoking Workerbee, and examine his constructive proposal:

Please take note of Anita Moncrief's sworn testimony in a civil lawsuit against ACORN in PA. The contents of her testimony are also very notable. [10] She stated that quality control on their voter registration drives is "minimal to nonexistent." This also sounds very, very familiar: "Everyone wants to paper things over until later." Nate Toler, another former ACORN employee, says that "There's no quality control on purpose."

Since we don't like bullet points in article mainspace, make paragraphs out of it: eight in St. Louis, four in Kansas City etc. The St. Louis Post Dispatch, for example, stated very clearly that the eight guilty pleas there were on felony charges. ... I only want the words "charged or convicted" in mainspace.

The quotes from ACORN are self-serving. This provides another POV. NPOV is not the absence of any POV, but reporting all notable POVs. There are several important, noteworthy facts about the registration drives, and all of them need to be clearly presented in this section.

1. The numbers of voter registrations claimed by ACORN. Millions of voter registrations have been turned in. This is notable. It's in there. Good work.
2. However, hundreds of thousands of them were rejected. Thousands have been declared as fraudulent by local officials. This gets a vague and incomplete mention. Spell it out.
3. A substantial number of ACORN workers have been charged or convicted in several states. I think we can find a neutral way to say that. It's very notable, and should be in the article with all the reliable sources cited. Don't cherry pick just two of them.
4. ACORN's statements in its own defense, while self-serving, deserve to be in there. The local official saying that it was just local con artists fleecing ACORN, rather than an attempt to steal the election should also be in the article because it's neutral notable commentary from a well-informed source. It's all in there. Good work.
5. Unfortunately, now we have sworn testimony by Ms. Moncrief, a former ACORN employee, and it's in reliable sources, very notable and very damaging, contradicting ACORN's self-serving statements. It is recent, but I anticipate that minutes after the last state is called for Obama to get him past 270 Electoral Votes, a Featured Article Barack Obama will declare that he won the election. Minutes after some notable person dies, his Wikipedia bio is edited to reflect that fact. We do not need to get a verdict in this notable Pennsylvania lawsuit to include her sworn testimony. It's notable, it has already happened, and nobody is going to unring that bell.

Only two of the five numbered points above have been included in the article. All five are notable, all five are well supported by reliable sources such as the Associated Press and New York Times, and putting all five into the article is what should be done here. Marx0728 (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Marx: Do you have a recommendation to improve the article? It's not clear what you want exactly from the above. Write up the content you think deserves inclusion, provide citations, and bring it here for review.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and some of your assertions above are demonstrably false. Can't be bothered yet another point by point refutation of soapbox stuff; just, please, write text of quality to be inserted to the article, provide sources, and we'll seek consensus here on the talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight. However, let's cut the "Allegations of" nonsense. Here we are discussing recentism; both pro and con arguments are discussions of recentism. I've changed the header to suit. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We do need to be firm about disruption here. Spelling out #2 requires context regarding voter registration process. Spelling out details without context is not going to work. #3 is in the article. For #4 we do not need ACORN's statements but we could include the more notable. There are reliable sources for the point. There is no "rather than an attempt" - there is no evidence of any attempt in the first place to steal elections or conduct voter fraud, so no need to refute anything. #5 is not notable, ripe, or a reliable source. A single low level worker's testimony in an ongoing case cannot reasonably be used by Wikipedia to impugn a company. Perhaps at the conclusion of any case, the results of the case are important. Wikidemon (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You say #3 is in the article? Where? Is it in the "Voter registration" section? If not, then we need some mention of it there, however brief. If you choose to go into the details of the charges and convictions in some other section, that is worth discussing, so please explain. #5 is very notable. It's ripe because Ms. Moncrief has already testified. Unless she is charged with contempt of court for giving false testimony, the words "minimal to nonexistent," in quotation marks, should be in the article to describe ACORN's quality control. ACORN's self-serving explanation is in there and in some detail. There is another side to the story. This is it. It isn't just one "low level worker" either; you forgot about Mr. Toler, who was not a "low level worker." The Wall Street Journal has fact-checking, but if you want a more reliable source, here's one: [11] It's the Philadelphia Inquirer. Marx0728 (talk) 23:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I move to close this "recentism" section. Marx: Do you have a proposal, written, for the article? Please bring it here in a new section, with the citations. The soap-boxing on this talk page, which has been going on for weeks like a pony express (one horse drops off, new one comes on, etc...) has grown tedious. I honestly can't be bothered reading through screeds anymore. Bring text, in the form you'd like it to appear in the article, and then we'll see what you're proposing and can judge that thing on its merits.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Btw. I took a look. The citation to the testimony in an unconcluded civil suit that WB cites (and advocated by "surrogate" Marx0728) is to an opinion piece by a familiar opponent of ACORN. No matter who reports this testimony, it's wouldn't make it past the WP:NOTNEWS cutoff; in this case it also doesn't come close to WP:RS. LotLE×talk 23:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed new "voter registration" section

ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004. During 2007 and 2008, ACORN claimed that it gathered over 1.3 million voter registrations in 21 states(1); this number included 450,00 first-time voters and 400,000 rejected forms. During this drive, 60-70% of registrations were among people of color, and 50% were among (2)citizens voters under 30. ACORN collected 1.7 million registrations during drives in 2004 and 2006. During the earlier campaigns, 400,000 new voters were among the registrations. (3A)However, the New York Times has reported that the 1.3 million number is a "wild an "exaggeration" and Michael Slater, executive director of an affiliated organization, Project Vote, has stated that the real number is closer to 450,000; the remainder include registered voters who were changing their addresses, and about 400,000 that were rejected by election officials.

Where ACORN has discovered that its workers submitted potentially false voter registration forms, it has followed legal requirements to submit the forms to voter registrars, flagged as requiring additional attention. San Diego County, California officials stated that ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors in 2008, whether innocent or intentional, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations.

ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in various cities and states, in some cases as a result of the ACORN-flagged registration forms, (3B)resulting in criminal convictions for voter registration fraud against ACORN employees. (3C)and some ACORN employees have been convicted of voter registration fraud. In a case in Washington state, ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to the prosecutor, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections." In October 2008, the FBI (4)investigated began an investigation of ACORN to determine whether the group coordinated any registration form falsification.

ACORN has publicly supported and cooperated in the investigations of employees submitting fraudulent voter registration forms, fired them when it found that evidence supported any charges, and has stated its concern with false information on registration forms. (5)Testifying in a Pennsylvania lawsuit against ACORN by the Republican Party, fired ACORN employee Anita Moncrief stated that ACORN's quality controls on their voter registration drives were "minimal to nonexistent," that training for canvassers was weak, ACORN knew most of its new voter registrations were fraudulent, "forty percent [bona fide registrations] was OK," and ACORN's cooperation with authorities in prosecuting ACORN employees was known as "throwing "threw them under the bus." Marx0728 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made a few modifications to this rough draft per discussions below. WorkerBee74 (talk) 09:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on proposed revision

Vote against the above being included? Reason: It's a restoration of previously edited/deleted/changed content, reasons for all of which were given at the time the edits were made, and are as good now as they were then. Marx - you're making it very hard to take you seriously.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I put most of it in and Bali ultimate reverted it without discussion. These are notable facts from reliable sources, accurately and neutrally stated. Don't point in the direction of the archives. Tell me why it is unacceptable to quote Moncrief's testimony, since it is a direct refutation of ACORN's self-serving claims. Marx0728 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I support Marx's proposed edit. It's weak, it's tame, it should list the states and number of ACORN employees charged and convicted, and it should include Nate Toler's statement, but it will do for now. If the FBI investigation produces indictments, this section should be doubled or tripled in length with all of the details LotLE and his canvassed friends are trying to keep out. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If I had to do an up / down on the entire change it's a strong oppose. I see it does not show the differences so it makes a comparison difficult. I'll try to go through it paragraph by paragraph.Wikidemon (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

All the sources are reliable and properly formatted. All statements are neutrally worded and they describe notable events. Do you want me to italicize the portions that were changed /added? Marx0728 (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll withhold comment on the specifics. Yes, a strikethrough of deleted text and an underline or italicization of new text would be helpful. Wikidemon (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon: This was all gone through before, with reasons given. His burden should be to make the case that these changes should be made. he hasn't done that. Some of those sources are weak; some do not reflect what they're claimed to bolster; some of its vaque; some of it is franky ridiculous (the pov pushing from the NYT article, using a headline as "quote" and attributing it to the author of the article, for instance). The list could go on. Fortunately, Marx, workerbee, wacker and the whole delightful cast of characters will be gone soon.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Bali ultimate: you didn't give a reason, you just reverted it.[12] The words "wild exaggeration" appear in the text of the New York Times article, in the first paragraph. So I will change the suggested edit to say "wild exaggeration," rather than "wildly exaggerated." Marx0728 (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the best, most news release worthy, most self-serving pro-ACORN material in the section (added by lotle) came from an article and an ACORN press release dated October 2008. If we're going to enforce recentism against what I want to add, then that should be deleted as well. The sword of recentism is a double edged sword. Marx0728 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the word "citizens" with "voters" because the source doesn't support "citizens." I have replaced "investigated" with "began an investigation of" because there is no indication that the investigation has concluded, so it shouldn't be described in the past tense. Marx0728 (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, my response. #1 - no. It is already in the article in a more neutral form; claiming it is a wild exaggeration is simply editorializing and not pertinent, so a POV violation. #2 - yes, improves wording. #3 - fine in principle, criminal convictions are sourced and worth knowing about (specific sources may have to be vetted). #4 - yes, an improvement. #5 - no, poorly sourced / POV / BLP. An opinion about the organization given in testimony during a trial is not a reliable source to characterize the organization. Further, I am not interested in horse-trading. If you have a problem with the sourcing or edits to other sections of the article feel free to bring that up as a separate issue.Wikidemon (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The alleged editorializing is a direct quote from a news article in the New York Times. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

...where it is editorializing... Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

My comments. I think the numbering of points and using bold and strikeout is actually nice to present clearly what is proposed. So kudos on that much:

• (1) vs. (3): (3) is extremely unencyclopedic soapboxing that tries to take bits and pieces of an article to create the worst spin possible. (1) simply neutrally states the facts reports. So that choice is obvious.
• (2): I used the word "citizen". At the time I recognized it was clunky; the problem is that we don't actually know whether a first-time registrant will ever actually vote (and hence be a voter). I was trying to fudge that (the earlier clause avoids needing to use the noun for the voters/citizens/registrants. However, I don't care much about the change, I just get pedantic.
• (3) (numbering duplication): I think it's OK to add the convictions. The way the proposal is worded it implies that every investigation was accompanied by convictions, which is not true. This would be better: some ACORN employees have been convicted of voter registration fraud.
• (4): Sure, that's fine, "began an investigation".
• (5): Absolutely not usable in any portion. Gross soapboxing based on an opinion piece about an unresolved civil suit. Fails WP:RS, WP:NOTNEWS, and it's entirely WP:UNDUE weight.

LotLE×talk 01:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you're objecting to a fact-checked WSJ article because it's written by John Fund, the same applies to the high velocity spin doctoring from ACORN's October '08 press releases. They're POV whitewash. We can rely 100% on a Philly Inquirer article. The phrase "minimal or nonexistent" may have been said by a GOP lawyer instead, so let's leave it out. Let's rely on a Philly Inquirer news story. It's the gold standard of reliable sourcing. Now, according to the Philly Inquirer, Moncrief said that ACORN "knew that most new voter registration forms it had gathered were fraudulent. 'Forty percent [bona fide registrations] was OK.' " The Philly Inquirer also says Moncrief testified that if canvassers "were caught committing fraud, the group 'threw them under the bus' as scapegoats to take all the legal blame.' " [13] On the weekend of October 12, there was an excellent, well-sourced list of all ACORN investigations, with numbers of employees charged. It was deleted in an extremely bad edit, and replaced with self-serving crap from October 2008 ACORN press releases. A very bad edit. Gross soapboxing. So I suggest that editors who are now complaining about recentism and POV should take a look at the handiwork of the editor who made that very bad edit. WorkerBee74 (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't like the term "wild exaggeration," even though it's from a news article in the New York Times? Fine. Take out the word "wild" and leave in the word "exaggeration." I am fine with using the phrase "some ACORN employees have been convicted of using voter registration fraud" if all eight of the reliable sources are cited as Marx has done. The gross soapboxing from ACORN press releases can only stay if it's balanced by the Moncrief testimony as reliably reported by the Philly Inquirer. Bear in mind WP:NPOV does not mean "no point of view." It means accurately presenting all significant POVs and both the self serving crap from ACORN and the Moncrief testimony are significant POVs. I'll go ahead and make those changes in the rough draft in the preceding Talk page section, for further discussion and review. WorkerBee74 (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Still oppose the same parts of the proposed change for the same reasons. And I am not going to tie this to negotiations about any other part of the article. It's pretty simple. We don't editorialize, and we don't use unreliable sources. I don't know why that should be so hard to accept. Wikidemon (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Then we don't act as a mouthpiece for the ACORN editorializing either. I'm removing the self serving press release crap. Please explain why the Philly Inquirer is unreliable. If it's a good explanation, it won't be so hard to accept. WorkerBee74 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some quick rules of thumb for you, WB:

• Opinion piece from a blog - Not a reliable source
• "News" article from a blog or online source that has been rejected, or would be rejected immediately, at RS/N - Not a reliable source
• Opinion piece from an otherwise reputable, reliable news blog - A reliable source only for the opinions of its author
• Opinion piece from a partisan or tabloid newspaper or television show - Usually not a reliable source. Occasionally a reliable source for the opinions of its author
• Opinion piece from a mainstream, reliable, reputable newspaper or news show - A reliable source only for the opinions of its author
• News article from a mainstream, reliable, reputable newspaper or news show - A reliable source!

Kind of limiting, isn't it? Well, frankly, that's intentional. No one wants articles to become a tug-of-war between WorldNetDaily and, say, TalkingPointsMemo. So if you could please stick to sources that fall into that last category, I think everyone else here will gladly agree to do the same. --GoodDamon 13:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice overkill there, completely unnecessary, carefully dodging the question that I actually asked. Please explain why the news article from the Philly Inquirer, linked above, does not fall into that last category. While you're at it, please explain how LotLE could have believed that self serving, spin doctored crap from ACORN press releases could possibly have fallen into that last category. Thanks for your kind attention to this matter. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that one is certainly a reliable source. It's a news article, not an opinion piece, and it comes from a respectable, reputable news organization. It could definitely be used as a source for something in this article. However, you've been misrepresenting what the article actually contains. The article does not refer to ACORN in the manner you've described; rather, it quotes Anita Moncrief. It makes no judgment as to the validity of Ms. Moncrief's statements, and in fact asserts -- makes its own statements of fact -- that Ms. Moncrief's statements are "vague on many details" and generally makes her out to be unreliable. Another choice quote, right from the beginning: "On cross-examination, she admitted that she had never visited ACORN's Pennsylvania operation, the ostensible focus of the hearing, and was not familiar with the state's voter-registration laws."

WB, it's not enough that you use reliable sources, although I commend you for apparently finally accepting that you need to do that. You also have to accurately reflect what reliable sources say. Now then... As for the removal of ACORN's press releases... Great! Those didn't belong there. We can cite ACORN's responses to different articles anyway. --GoodDamon 15:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We can and have used reliable sources that quote ACORN. Splendid. They make no judgment as to the validity of statements by ACORN. Likewise, we should use this reliable source to report what Moncrief said. Pardon me, but I fail to understand how the source "generally makes her out to be unreliable." Although she hadn't visited the PA ACORN offices, she worked for Project Vote in Washington, and she testified that the two groups are so closely aligned that they were one and the same. Moncrief is intimately familiar with the culture within ACORN and its close affiliates such as Project Vote. While she did not work on the PA registration drive, she "was privy to national briefings on the subject" of the PA registration drive, a fact which you omitted; therefore her testimony was well-informed. Any witness providing an overview of an organization with 350,000 members is going to be a little vague on a few of the details. By the way, the Inquirer said "at times vague," another little fact which you omitted, suggesting that at other times her testimony was well-detailed. The Inquirer has made no judgment as to the validity of her statements, but it's all sworn testimony, not a self serving whitewashing in a press conference or press release. Like the Inquirer, we should make no judgment as to the validity of her statements. We should simply report them. By the way, I've always considered the WSJ to be the gold standard of reliable sources and when a WSJ columnist makes a statement of fact, I would consider it to be reliable enough. But OK, we're using the Inquirer instead. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not worth arguing that an eyewitness testimony in a civil suit is an unreliable source for Wikipedia. She's not a journalist at a neutral, fact-checked, publication. She's not a scholar writing in a peer-reviewed journal in her area of study. She's not a government official producing official government records. She is a mile away from any of the categories of sources considered reliable. We simply cannot selectively repeat things people say in court; otherwise Wikipedia becomes the partisan battleground of agendas that courts are. And Wall Street Journal editorials? They are some of the worst. Their journalistic articles are well done, but their editorialists are as loose with the facts as Fox's and have free reign to distort and misrepresent things at will. It doesn't matter what newspaper she is quoted in; her claims are just claims and not a reliable source of information.Wikidemon (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) When we use a reliable source that quotes ACORN, we attribute the quote to ACORN and cite it to the reliable source. We do not attribute the quote to the reliable source itself; we're using the source to provide the quote, not to establish that the source somehow agrees with that quote. Similarly, if we add a quote from Ms. Moncrief, we attribute it to Ms. Moncrief, and cite it to the source it comes from. But it doesn't quite have the same ring when we say, "according to fired former employee Anita Moncrief" as it would if we said, "according to the Philadelphia Inquirer," does it? Look... You can't just say a reliable source makes a statement of fact when it's actually quoting someone else, especially when that reliable source feels it is pertinent to mention that the person it's quoting committed $3,000 worth of thefts from her employer and makes vague statements. That is misrepresenting what the source actually says. --GoodDamon 16:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WD, with regard to the WSJ columnist, you are beating a dead horse. I already conceded the point. But please point me to a WP policy or guideline saying we can't use Moncrief's testimony, as reliably reported by the Philly Inquirer. I realize that you don't like it, but that's not enough to keep it out of the article. She may not be a journalist, or a scholar, or a government worker. But she's an eyewitness and a whistleblower giving sworn testimony, under penalty of perjury. We have abundant examples of quotations from politicians who are not under oath. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS. Statements that are not reliable are included only for the relevance of the fact that they were made.Wikidemon (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WD, those two policies are wonderful red herrings. They don't say that we can't quote sworn eyewitness testimony by whistleblower as reported by a reliable source. GD, the Inquirer doesn't use "thefts" to describe Moncrief's unauthorized charges on a Project Vote card. There's no report of any criminal charge and she was paying them back, which does not indicate an intent to steal or defraud. Please be careful about BLP violations. I think it's sufficient to say she was fired. If readers want to know why, they can click on the link. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is, to say the least, a little odd here. Let's say I started saying publicly that ACORN was a front for a space alien invasion, and then went to court over it. Heck, let's say my space alien invasion comments are in sworn testimony, and a newspaper quotes me. That doesn't make my testimony reliable, even though it was quoted in an honest-to-gosh newspaper. You're trying to associate the fact that she was quoted with the reliability of the news organization quoting her. --GoodDamon 17:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to know all the facts about these space aliens and then let the earthlings decide. If any details about the space alien fraud allegations, that are reliably-sourced, are excluded by the so-called "regular editors", it will show just how biased Wikipedia is. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cute analogy, GD. Let's examine its gigantic flaws. First, if you file suit claiming that this is a front for a space alien invasion, it will be dismissed so fast that it'll make your head spin. You'll never get a chance to testify. And second, on some astronomically unlikely chance that you happen to get a sympathetic judge who is willing to hear your testimony, any reliable source reporting it will publish in a "News of the Odd" section and identify you as a crackpot. Apples and oranges, GD. Here we have a whistleblower giving testimony that is NOT inherently incredible. She is not talking about space aliens, or claiming that the sun rose in the western sky at 3:30 in the afternoon. Her testimony is credible. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Simply said, the only reliable part and fact here is that she did testified this, whether stating the truth or not.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion of proposed revision

(un-indent) I think a useful link to mention at this point would be Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. It's important to understand that, as an encyclopaedia, we rely for most of our content on reliable secondary sources (e.g. newspapers) to evaluate, interpret and give context to the information provided by primary sources (e.g. court transcripts). It would be an error (original research) if we were to apply our own interpretation to the information provided by the primary source. Another error would be to represent unfairly or with any bias the viewpoint put forward by the secondary source. Please bear these principles in mind when deciding which sources to include, and how to represent what they say. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, SS. The Inquirer, a reliable secondary source, says that Anita Moncrief's testimony was "scathing, though at times vague." No apparent judgment as to her credibility or lack thereof. We should report it while avoiding any such judgments of our own. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting your source. I already explained what the source says, with quotes, and we're all capable of reading. You are misrepresenting it, and I think we all want you to stop that immediately. Anita Moncrief's testimony is not going into this article. It carries zero weight here. End of story. --GoodDamon 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone should be made aware that lotle is still edit warring against this new consensus version that excludes self-serving material from ACORN press releases. Please be vigilant regarding this, help me preserve the new consensus version, and report lotle for a 3RR or edit warring violation if appropriate. I've reverted it back to this new consensus version. I don't believe consensus has yet been shown on Ms. Moncrief's testimony. Congratulations on your rehabilitation, Workerbee. Please continue to edit responsibly. GoodDamon and Wikidemon, you are to be commended for refraining from provocation. It appears to have worked wonders. He's much less thorny. Now let's try to be vigilant about lotle's continued attempts to put in ACORN press releases, and continue to discuss Ms. Moncrief. Workerbee made some very solid and courteously presented arguments. Marx0728 (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted to the pre-edit version, as we obviously do not have consensus on a specific version even if there is consensus for something and not others. I do not concur with the above analysis of the editors involved. I suggest that anyone who wants to make an edit make sure they have consensus for their specific edit, and take it one step at a time.Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious we have consensus for removal of ACORN's self-serving press releases. We can get that far. The mainspace should reflect this. Material that cannot be supported by reliable sources must be removed, particularly where there are BLP concerns. It's clear that the other sources cited by lotle do not support his self-serving ACORN claims. If a spokesman is saying something about ACORN, and is quoted in a reliable source, that spokesman needs to be identified in the article and his statements need to be accurately represented here. Do not cite some other, apparently reliable source and use it as an excuse for adding ACORN press release material. Marx0728 (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If they're cited appropriately in reliable sources, then I agree, ACORN statements can go into the article. But that raises the question of why a whistleblower giving sworn testimony is being kept out, if ACORN spokesmen who are not under oath are being allowed in. If ACORN statements are allowed in this fashion, then they would have to be described in the same fashion that Ms. Moncrief's testimony would be described, for example, "An ACORN spokesman, John Smith, said that blah blah blah."[Reliable Source.] But what lotle is trying to do here, and what Wikidemon is supporting him in, is citing apparently reliable sources and then using them to stuff in press release material that isn't supported by the reliable source. Please consider your sources and what they really say. Marx0728 (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not replace them with valid sources? ACORN has made plenty of statements to the press about their current troubles. A quote from ACORN, attributed to ACORN, cited to a reliable source, is certainly a reasonable addition here. --GoodDamon 19:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can find such a source and identify the ACORN spokesman, for example, "An ACORN spokesman, John Smith, said that blah blah blah."[Reliable Source.] Then of course, go right ahead. But the statement in the article must be 100% supporetd by the source, and the ACORN spokesman telling these self-serving tales must be identified as the origin. His statements must not be presented as fact, as has heretofore been done. Marx0728 (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec X4)I'm not making excuses for anything. The revert-warred new version seems to have at least six changes to the article. I do not think I support that version, but with eight (and counting?) reverts in quick succession it is hard to know which specific version we are talking about. Please slow down, respect BRD and discuss rather than re-add disputed changes, and take any proposals one by one. Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I'm intrigued by the space aliens analogy. Allow me to offer one that's a lot less ridiculous. Suppose that a consumer rights group sues General Motors. There's a mechanical engineer who worked for GM for 30 years, designing brake systems and passenger restraints. He testifies, as the consumer rights group's star witness, that GM has been reckless in its crash tests for many years, that they don't care about the accuracy or integrity of their crash test data, that any GM executive could have tampered with the results to make all GM vehicles look perfectly safe when they're not, and that now people are dying. Any GM employee who is caught faking or tampering with data is "thrown under the bus" but there are others, the engineer testifies, who aren't being caught. His sworn testimony, in a so-called "obscure" lawsuit in Pennsylvania, is reliably reported in a Philadelphia Inquirer news story which describes said testimony as "scathing, though at times vague." In other words, some parts were better than others. A typical witness and a classic whistleblower. Does it belong in the General Motors article? WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I finally have a minute to answer this absurdity. Marx, you can't compare a theoretical GM employee who has worked for the company for 30 years and been a sterling employee to Anita Moncrief, who worked for ACORN for three years before being fired, and -- to put it charitably -- failed to understand the purpose of a company credit card. She might be a credible witness for other reasons. She might not be. We don't know. So how much weight should we give quotes of her testimony in this article? None. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. This is yet another case of recentism trumping all sense of proportion and logic. Since every single one of your edits, without exception, has been an attempt to include recent, conceivably negative events related to ACORN -- and then hang them around Barack Obama's neck -- I have a challenge for you: Find something neutral, some weighty fact about ACORN, and add it to the article. For bonus points, have it be something unrelated to their signature gathering efforts. Right now, I take the same perspective as bali below: Revert on sight. You want to restore some good faith? Answering my challenge would go a long way. --GoodDamon 20:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• comment The problem with marx and worker is they are very, very hard to work with and, at least in my case, have exhausted good faith. Discussion about proposed charges immediately deteriorates into personal attacks, shifts to other parts of the article and other content disputes, more allegations of this or that, false horse trading, etc... It's almost impossible to engage what they bring up in a serious matter. I write all this because at this point i'm simply inclined to mass revert their edits (which are frequently made simultaneously in multiple sections of the article, without edit summaries etc...) because they demonstrate little "actual" willingness to focus on making this a better article(i use the scare quotes for actual because Marx seems to be a devotee of burns: "Sincerity: If you can fake that, you've got it made.")Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Worker Bee: To label my comment as an unhelpful personal attack (and of course not provide an edit summary to notify me or anyone else that you've done this) is silly -- Imagine if i were to go through and label every comment of yours i found objectionable in such a way.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit

All those supporting the most recent edit by Marx0728, found here, as a starting point for further discussion, please signify by stating your support below.

• Strongly Support. Self serving spin doctored crap from ACORN press releases is removed. More self serving ACORN crap that was passed off by LotLE's sleight of hand as being supported by reliable sources is also removed. Spokesmen for ACORN need to be clearly identified as such when they speak and they need to be found in secondary sources. This edit is just a starting point for further discussion because it removes all the self serving spin doctored press release crap. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment In my experience, this is exactly the sort of complex edit that (a) is very commonly "fought over" in edit wars, and (b) is unlikely to achieve consensus. I would suggest proposing smaller changes, discussing the merits of each, with reference to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Also, I'd like WorkerBee74 to dial down the rhetoric by about 4 notches, and stop making remarks such as "sleight of hand" when referring to other editors' contributions. Assuming good faith is more necessary than ever when attempting to resolve a content dispute. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Per SheffieldSteel above. While there are some components of the edit that I do support, the attempt to rapidly alter the article with multiple edits -- only 1 or 2 of which are defensible in any way -- smacks of a return to POV-pushing. Here's how it works in contentious subjects. 1) Propose an individual change. 2) Get consensus for that change. 3) Make that change. 4) If no consensus is reached, do not make the change. And I would add, abusing WP:BOLD is no excuse for POV-pushing. --GoodDamon 20:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Support. It is a good starting point. From there, we can discuss what material to add back into the article. This is the "Voter registration" section, stripped down to its least objectionable form. All agree that at least this material should be in the section. All disagreements arise over adding other material to this. Marx0728 (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Clean up first paragraph

A more specific proposal (without prejudice to considering other proposals in addition):

1. ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004. During 2007 and 2008, ACORN gathered over 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states; this number includedincluding 450,000 first-time voters new registrations.
2. The remainder included address changes, as well as 400,000 forms rejected among other things as duplicates, incomplete submissions, and fraudulent submissions.and 400,000 rejected forms.
3. During this drive,Acorn claims that 60-70% of registrations during the drive were among people of color, and 50% were among citizens under 30.
4. ACORN claims it collected 1.7 million voter registration forms registrations during drives in 2004 and 2006. During the earlier campaigns, 400,000 new voters were among the registrations.These included 400,000 new registrations [needs valid cite]

Discussion

Rationale as proposer.

• Change #1 is for accuracy and conformity with source. It does not say there were 450,000 new votes, but 400,000 new registrations. The source does not say whether those people actually voted after being registered, or whether they had ever been registered anywhere else before, only that there were 450,000 new registrations.
• Change #2 is for completeness and conformity with source. As it was our article failed to account for 450,000 of the forms. The New York Times source says it was changes of addresses. Also, it is important to note why the forms were rejected - the Times says that the reasons included duplicates, incomplete forms, and fraudulent submissions. We can neutrally repeat what the Times said.
• Change #3 is to insert the statement that the demographic breakdown is Acorn's claim, and also for flow.
• Change #4 is again to insert a statement that this is an Acorn claim. However, note that the 400,000 number is not in the source and needs to be properly cited.

- Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with all of these changes suggested by Wikidemon. They all improve the language flow and/or the conformance to what's given in citations. LotLE×talk 21:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

seems fine to me.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Half of the proposed edit (Sentence #3 and Sentence #4) cannot be reliably sourced and therefore should be removed. The actual source is a self serving ACORN press release. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 21:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If I might make a suggestion, per Words to avoid, change "ACORN claims" to "ACORN said". The use of the word "claims" can make it look like we want to call into question the veracity of their statement. Of course, as an encyclopaedia, we just want to document it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The following should be removed.

#During this drive,Acorn claims that 60-70% of registrations during the drive were among people of color, and 50% were among citizens under 30.

#ACORN claims it collected 1.7 million voter registration forms registrations during drives in 2004 and 2006. During the earlier campaigns, 400,000 new voters were among the registrations.These included 400,000 new registrations [needs valid cite]

We might include a very brief, extremely generalized, and strictly neutral summary statement, such as "ACORN has reported being involved in earlier registration drives." Then follow it with a citation of the ACORN press release. This is as far as I would go with this material, and I'm very reluctant to even go this far. All this needs to be reported by a reliable secondary source. What we have here is a self-serving primary source. Marx0728 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you accept my recommendation, here is what the first paragraph would look like:

ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004. During 2007 and 2008, ACORN gathered over 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states, including 450,000 first-time voters new registrations. The remainder included address changes, as well as 400,000 forms rejected among other things as duplicates, incomplete submissions, and fraudulent submissions. ACORN has reported being involved in earlier registration drives.

Is this acceptable to all concerned? Marx0728 (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• (Sigh.) Whatever. Support. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
• That's fine too, except that I would cut out the last sentence until and unless someone proposes a reliable 3rd party source on past drives. I don't think we need to decide the point yes or no that Acorn is an acceptable source about its own past drives - surely, if it's worth reporting here then some third party source wrote about it in the past, so leave it out pending a more solid citation.Wikidemon (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I have stricken that last sentence, then. I was reluctant to put it there in the first place. Marx0728 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course one would not have to search very long on google to find that their registration drives, and the controversy over bad form submissions, do date back.[14] But if we can get this paragraph down for now, we can consider that separately. Divide and conquer.Wikidemon (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Of course I Support. Marx0728 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Clean up 2nd & 3rd paragraphs

Only positive votes on that one. Everybody else has had several hours to comment. Let's move on. Another specific proposal - the first retained sentence, starting with "San Diego County," would be added to the end of the first paragraph above:

Where ACORN has discovered that its workers submitted potentially false voter registration forms, it has followed legal requirements to submit the forms to voter registrars, flagged as requiring additional attention. San Diego County, California officials stated that ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors in 2008, whether innocent or intentional, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations.

ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in various cities and states, in some cases as a result of the ACORN-flagged registration forms, and some ACORN workers have been convicted of voter registration fraud.[All eight cites, of course.] In a case in Washington state, ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to the prosecutor, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections." In October 2008, the FBI investigated started an investigation of ACORN to determine whether the group coordinated any registration form falsification, and other investigations by state authorities are also ongoing.

Further discussion

strongly oppose this proposalBali ultimate (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

would you care to explain why, and keep your comments to the "Discussion" section?

Rationale as proposer, even though we've already thoroughly discussed most of it.

• The first sentence is unsupported by the only cite in that paragraph. In fact it's fully supported by self serving press release crap. We all know better.
• "... and some ACORN workers have been convicted of voter registration fraud." This wording was originally proposed by LotLE.
• "... started an investigation of ..." Present tense, not past tense, is appropriate here.
• Final phrase gives the full current picture accurately and is easily supported by several reliable sources. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Agree that if the first sentence is challenged as being disputed material without a source, it should be removed unless a source can be found. You would think there is a source for the three issues: (1) there is a legal requirement to submit forms even if they are believed to be false; (2) there is a legal requirement to flag those forms as needing attention; and (3) Acorn has followed those requirements. The part that is self-serving, and should probably be reworded even if better sourced, is the implicit statement that Acorn followed the law and that the reason Acorn did it was to follow the law. There's no proof that Acorn as an organization didn't follow the law, but also no demonstration that they did - that's a legal conclusion, and not one we can make without sources. Moreover, a statement by the organization about its own motives seems pretty unreliable. The second and third changes are fine and seem uncontroversial. The statement that other state investigations are ongoing is fine if sourced. It all looks uncontroversial to me (even if some people oppose it).Wikidemon (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Of course I Support. Marx0728 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Demon: I can't even follow what's needed or why anymore. But in response to your specific requests here are some news links: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15campaign.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1225556056-jVNCbllc97JaLNR70KHvSA is a new york times article that's good for Acorn defenses of itself (rather than via press releases) http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/14/cbsnews_investigates/main4522374.shtml is a link in which it is again asserted that laws require them to submit forms even when they look fishy, though again, this has been framed in the frustrating "Acorn says" manner (bonus: embedded video of McCain at Acorn rally telling them "what makes america special is what's in this room tonight.") http://mediamatters.org/items/200810140010 is to a partisan website. However, the linked post is done by a credible, named person who both read and links to a florida statute that does, in fact, say that all forms must be submitted. The laws on this matter are state by state. In the case Florida, as the post states (and as i have backstopped by reading the linked statute) lays out a $500 fine for each application received by groups like Acorn that are not turned in. http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/acorn_rallies_its_troops.php this also asserts the legal requirment in a more general way. Unfortunately, it's a blog by Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic -- he's a credible guy, but may not prove a sufficiently reliable source. http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title3/ar14/ch2.html#IC3-14-2-5 is indiana law. Probably can't be used as constitutes original research. In the case of Indiana it basically says that failure to deliver a form is a Class A Misdemeanor, but also classes "knowingly" delivering a false form as a Class A Misdeamonor.

I could go on, but i'm sure it would prove as exhausting to me as it would be to everyone else. It seems to me fair to report Acorn's assertion that "in many cases, they are required by law to hand in forms." But what all this shows is that there are a patchwork of electoral laws in the US -- broad sweeping assertions, either positive or negative, about Acorns legal obligations in a national sense, are almost impossible to make. The more I read up on this issue, the more it seems all such assertions, accept perhaps when made as a matter of opinion (i.e. "acorn haters say acorn sucks. acorn lovers say acorn rocks. (wiki article is completely incapable of saying who is right") should not be made.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If a source frames it in the "annoying" but entirely accurate way of "ACORN says," since the neutral, reliable reporter can't verify it for himself but must take the self serving ACORN spokesman's word for it, then that's the way Wikipedia must report it. That's the central problem with this section. Unsupported and unverifiable claims by ACORN spokesmen are being presented as facts chiseled in granite. No mention of the indictments, convictions and sworn testimony of ACORN workers that indicate the opposite is true. And by the way, if proving these partisan claims is exhausting I truly cannot care any less. Prove it or lose it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Also, if we include statements by the self serving ACORN spokesmen, we must report them as "ACORN spokesman David Hagstein said," just as the reliable sources do; and we must balance it with the sworn testimony of "Fired Project Vote worker Anita Moncrief said." Make no judgments about credibility. Just neutrally report what both of them said. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I'm all for sourcing it as "Acorn says." I though your complaint that sourcing anything directly to Acorn made its use completely inadmissable? To be clear: I assent to any direct statements from Acorn being described as "acorn says" as in "Acorn says that it is required by law in some states to turn in all forms." I'm even more comfortable in my position after having read statute that backs their statement up. After all, they're not saying "the sky is red" or something manifestly ridiculous. In this specific case, the assertion by acorn is backed up by reality.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Moncrief isn't saying "the sky is red" either. Her sworn testimony is backed up by the reality of indictments, felony convictions, and stacks and stacks of fraudulent registration cards, turned in to election authorities in 15 states. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, on Moncrief: No, we must not "balance" what acorn says in an organizational sense against what a disgruntled former worker says. There is no balance here. And by this logic, we would then have to quote every current and former worker who says nice things about acorn ,and then maybe more former workers who have mean things to say about acorn, and round and round it goes. Please stop with the false "x must be balanced with y" assertions." We are not horse-trading here.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to quote every disgruntled former worker whistleblower or every self serving ACORN mouthpiece ACORN spokesman. One of each is sufficient. But I'd be fine with leaving both of them out. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC) Presenting the ACORN spokesman's self serving statements without balancing them with Moncrief's testimony and the criminal cases is, effectively, an official Wikipedia endorsement of one side in this dispute. You are aware, I'm sure, that this defies the most fundamental policy: NPOV. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Article protected

(un-indent) I think a useful link to mention at this point would be Consensus. Please discuss the desired article content and try to reach consensus. Consensus doesn't mean everyone agrees; it doesn't mean tyranny of the majority; it certainly doesn't mean "I have agreed with everyone who agrees with me"; it means there is a predominant willingness to accept one version. If you're not prepared to be persuaded to accept a compromise, don't attempt to persuade others.

As and when a consensus does emerge, I'll be happy to unprotect the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Excessive use of Undo

I added an actual quote from the 1983 member handbook (to the period dealing with early '80s) and then someone named GoodDamon used undo on it! It was a referenced article using the quote. Are you seriously saying that the quote from the handbook is innacurate? It looks like there are people goaltending this article, but they need to be reminded that Wikipedia is not an advertisement for ACORN or any other entity. Facts are facts and you should not try to remove facts from an encyclopedic article. I assume once the election is over and precious Obama no longer needs to be protected then truth may be free once again? JettaMann (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read my edit summary. You used lewrockwell.com as the source for your citation. Lewrockwell.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source of information. If you can find a better source, such as a reputable newspaper or peer-reviewed journal, I have no issue with your addition. Please assume good faith of other editors, including me. :) --GoodDamon 16:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WTF?

What happened to this article? Did a revert bomb simply explode inside the histories? That's my rant, but I can't help but notice the links directly to the ACORN page. I highly doubt that ACORN has a "neutral" description of itself or it's actions. Anything coming directly from ACORN needs to be removed per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Additionally, this page shouldn't be protected as the edit war has come and gone. I'm so sick of seeing fully protected pages as a result of admin laziness, meaning, instead of fully protecting the page, just warn the folks involved and start blocking. Why punish a community of editors for the actions of a few? Digital^Ninja 19:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it's better to block editors, at other times, it's better to protect the page. Several factors can "tip the scales" either way, such as how many editors are making reverts, how many edits are being reverted, any how many useful contributions are being made by other editors. Now, you have to go back about 30 edits in the history to find a change that wasn't either reverted or itself a revert. Multiple reverts were being made by multiple editors on either "side". Under the circumstances, I felt that protecting the article was the best course to take.

No one is being "punished" by this. All editors are still welcome to contribute. Uncontroversial edits can still be made to the article using the {{editprotected}} template. Controversial edits, and edits without consensus, arugably shouldn't be made anyway. And, as I said above, if editors can reach consensus on the issues raised above, protection can be lifted altogether.

Of course, if you're unhappy with my decision, you can always request review at the admins' noticeboard. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Usable edits

In the midst of WB/Marx's rather bad edits that he's been warring over, there were a few worthwhile changes. It's difficult to sort through large edits and find the reclaimable bits.

• The little thing that, indeed, the FBI began an investigation (rather than "investigated")
• The ACORN press release claim: "During this drive, 60-70% of registrations were among people of color, and 50% were among citizens under 30.". I think this information is valuable in terms of showing their registration focus (hence why I added it). However, a press release is definitely a biased source. We should stick in something like "According to an ACORN press release, ..."
• The sentence or clause "some ACORN workers have been convicted of voter registration fraud" is worth sticking in there next to the fact they've been investigated (with a couple WP:RS citations, probably ones already in the article).

LotLE×talk 21:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all three...which does not necessarily mean that I don't agree to exclude other changes (see elsewhere). Is ACORN the only cite for that 60-70% and 50% figure? I think it's reasonable to include it as a self-reported statement, and useful because it gets to their mission or focus. But there must be somewhere where they say that Acorn's effect is to sign up disproportionately lower income, people of color, younger, liberal, etc., registrants. Even if the RS reports on somewhat different issues or statistics it would still get that point across. Wikidemon (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to find some other source, even if it was less precise in the percentages. Everyone seems to agree that ACORN focuses registrations on certain demographics, but that is spun differently by different parties, for obvious reasons. Young people and people-of-color lean Democratic, so folks who don't want more Democratic votes often oppose those targeted efforts. I suspect, however, that we'll find editorials railing against the focus more easily than news sources per se. LotLE×talk 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for Controversy section

Just a suggestion, many articles similar to this where the organization has been allegedly involved in fraud have a controversy section. For example, Premier_Election_Solutions (where the company has also been accused of electoral fraud). As has been frequently mentioned, all of the allegations of fraud are buried under a mountain of text, with the exception of one short sentence at the end of the first paragraph mentioning an investigation. Malcolmst (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "criticism and controversy" sections are something Wikipedia is trying to make a thing of the past. They're magnets for trolling and editwarring. Any description of criticism and controversy should be scattered throughout the article, rather than concentrated in one section. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WB above (heh... Never thought I'd say that), "Controversy" sections typically degrade into coatracks for attacking the subject of the article. Criticism should be worked into the body of the article. The only exceptions I can think of are when negative material is the primary cause of notability. --GoodDamon 02:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with damon.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New development in ACORN matters

"Law enforcement agencies in 11 states have been investigating former ACORN canvassers - investigations that have involved the FBI in Nevada and New Mexico ... The Ohio Republican Party is in a court battle with Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner over potential election fraud. The Republicans won a federal appeals court order demanding that Brunner turn over to county election officials by Friday [Oct. 31] the names of about 200,000 new registrants whose personal information did not exactly match state drivers' license or Social Security data. ... Brunner filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court." Reliable Source. This is a significant development, and the story also summarizes the current investigations quite well. Should this be included? WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, for two reasons:

1. It has pretty obvious recentism issues, and Wikipedia is not a news aggregator.
2. This is nothing to do with ACORN. This is actually a story about yet another attempt by Republicans to acquire a caging list so that they can engage in voter suppression.

-- Scjessey (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Ditto, no relevance. LotLE×talk 00:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

There's another reason: That particular section of the article isn't about ACORN. Nice "..." there, WB. You've effectively conjoined two topics that aren't actually conjoined in the article. Don't you ever get tired of misrepresenting the content of your citations? --GoodDamon 15:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The Republican Party has previously stated that they have obtained lists of the names and addresses of ACORN's newly registered voters and sent out "test mailings." This was simply mailed to the names and addresses listed, welcoming new voters to the political process and inviting them to vote for GOP candidates. These mailings were frequently returned to the GOP with markings such as "No longer lives at this address," "Vacant lot" and "Abandoned building." It is not a voter suppression tactic, but a way of gauging the true depth of the voter registration fraud that is happening on ACORN's watch. Those who characterize this watchdog effort as a voter suppression tactic against legitimate voters should be ashamed of themselves. Also, the executive director of Project Vote, Michael Slater, admits that as many as 13,000 of their voter registration forms "could contain fictitious names or addresses." This is a new, reliable source containing statements by the top man at Project Vote which appears to be ACORN's parent organization. So by all means, let's carefully look at what this source reports. The KC Star, like the Philly Inquirer, is an eminently reliable and neutral, perhaps even Democrat-leaning source. Its reporter saw fit to report Brunner's emergency appeal in the same story as Slater's confession, so I think it's more than a little bit relevant. No misrepresentation of any sources here, GD. I did not claim that ACORN or Project Vote is a party to the suit. The parties were correctly identified as the GOP and Brunner. Don't try to accuse me of misrepresenting the source when I've done no such thing. You, however, might remember such efforts at Talk:Barack Obama. WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not lying. The KC Star felt it was relevant enough to report in the same story. I quoted them directly and didn't say, or imply, that ACORN or Project Vote was directly involved.

Next let's address this completely frivolous and baseless WP:RECENT accusation. Here we see a closely knit family of organizations. A key man admits 13,000 fraudulent voter registrations. There are 26 employees charged or convicted in 6 states. Even though we can't say that in mainspace, we can say it here. They're being investigated by authorities in 11 states and by the FBI in two of those states and, since the KC Star has reported it exactly that way, we can and must report it that way in mainspace. It doesn't violate WP:SYNTH

This is a major landmark in the history of any organization. It will be notable 20 years from now, 50 years from now, and 100 years from now. So stop falsely claiming WP:RECENT, and while you're at it, stop all of your other false accusations against me. Focus on the content and the edits. False accusations are a personal attack. They violate WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Please refactor immediately. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're going to get anywhere at the moment complaining about whether interpretations of sources sink to the level of lying. However, an appeals court order requiring the organization to disclose a list of new voter registrants is not very notable, and is a strong case of recentivism. It is simply one ruling relating to public disclosure. If something comes of it in the end, then depending on how it shakes out it may or may not be relevant to the organization. That's about as much as one can make of it. Until then it gives the matter undue attention to include it in the article. Wikidemon (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. What about Slater's confession about 13,000 fictitious (a synonym for fraudulent) voter registrations? Let's not cherry pick the ACORN/Project Vote statements that we're going to use. Take the bad with the good. Slater isn't a "disgruntled former employee." WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people should be using article talk pages to discuss editor conduct. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

All are encouraged to continue attempting to reach consensus, and refrain from attacking other editors. I see a good faith disagreement here that someone wants to escalate. Please assume good faith, everyone, and proceed. Marx0728 (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Many editors are well past assuming good faith with this particular editor. But I do think we ought to do some thread pruning and archiving. The bickering clouds attempts to build consensus (or find that there is none). The article is still protected. What a mess. Wikidemon (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Marx: Do you grasp the irony of editing others comments, labelling them personal attacks, then launching a long personal attack on the two people whose prior comments you had just so labelled? On that note, ta.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I apologize to Bali ultimate. I just want this article to accurately show all of the most notable and verifiable facts. I did not intend to mislead anyone regarding the lawsuit against Jennifer Brunner. But there have been a lot of false accusations against me, and I admit that I'm getting sick and tired of being needled this way. Let's try to reach a consensus. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed version of entire voter registration section

I have removed all of the strikethroughs and underlining. This is a "clean copy" for Sheffield Steel to cut and paste into the article mainspace. There was substantial agreement (in two parts) above, with the sole objection from Bali ultimate, who has now departed the article. I have added a citation of the new reliable source (Kansas City Star) to support the "11 states" reference, but not one other word of additional content. Please state, in the discussion section below, whether you support or oppose this version. We can discuss adding any additional material, such as Mr. Slater's or Ms. Moncrief's statements, in a civil manner after this step is completed. Marx0728 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

---

ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004. During 2007 and 2008, ACORN gathered over 1.3 million voter registration forms in 21 states; this number included 450,000 first-time voters. The remainder included address changes, as well as 400,000 forms rejected among other things as duplicates, incomplete submissions, and fraudulent submissions. San Diego County, California officials stated that ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors in 2008, whether innocent or intentional, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations.

ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in various cities and states, in some cases as a result of ACORN-flagged registration forms, and some ACORN workers have been convicted of voter registration fraud. In a case in Washington state, ACORN agreed to pay King County $25,000 for its investigative costs and acknowledged that the national organization could be subject to criminal prosecution if fraud occurs again. According to the prosecutor, the misconduct was done "as an easy way to get paid [by ACORN], not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections." In October 2008, the FBI started an investigation of ACORN to determine whether the group coordinated any registration form falsification, and 11 state authorities are also investigating voter registration forms turned in by ACORN employees before they were fired.

Final discussion

{{editprotected}} Please state below whether you support or oppose the previous "voter registration" version.

• Strongly support. This achieved consensus in two sections over the past two days. It strips down the section to its bare essentials and leaves out any material that was the subject of an objection by any editor. Sheffield Steel has indicated that if we can reach consensus, he'll lift the full protection. So let's reach consensus. Thanks for helping me reach this goal in a calm and mutually respectful manner. Marx0728 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Weak support. Strong support. It should include the sworn testimony from Moncrief and the confession about 13,000 fraudulent voter registrations from Slater. But it also gets rid of all the self serving, spin doctored press release crap, so it's good for now. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support. - not perfect but an improvement, and everything in there is sourceable, neutral, and of due weight IMO.Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Weak support - It looks to be an improvement. It's not perfect, but I can live with it as a starting point. Is there a source for the 11 state count? --GoodDamon 22:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reject - I made a mistake I won't make again: I trusted WB to, just this once, be truthful. No, that cite does not support the sentence referring to 11 states investigating ACORN. They are investigating former canvassers, and the article does not establish that they are investigating ACORN itself in conjunction. I won't even bother warning you against misrepresenting the content of sources anymore, WB. I'm through with this. You are an untrustworthy POV-pushing SPA and likely puppetmaster, and you've used up the very last dregs of good faith I could possibly have had in you. I no longer have any reason whatsoever to trust a single point you push, and will henceforth reject any other content you propose out of hand unless more trustworthy editors vouch for you. --GoodDamon 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is. The last one cited, KC Star. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support as an innocent quiet bystander who is following this "sitcom" very enthusiastic for quite some time as long as no major valuable rejection(s) appear(s) (such as violation(s) of WP-policies to give an example). It's a good compromise for now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reject (in part) The language looks more-or-less OK, other than the uncited claim about 11 state investigations. Somewhat per expectations, the KC Star cite that WB claims supports this claim does not do so. However, it does seem to contain a needed citation for another claim in the article: "ACORN is bound by laws in most of the 21 states where it's been active to turn in all new registration applications, even suspicious ones, and the group follows that policy everywhere, spokesman Scott Levenson said.KC Star" We should use that to support the stated fact about "required to turn in forms". LotLE×talk 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodamon: Here is what the Kansas City star says: "Law-enforcement agencies in 11 states have been investigating former ACORN canvassers." I don't think that supports the last sentence of that edit as written (it is "former canvassers" after all that are being investigated, not acorn itself, according to the KC star).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

They are "former" ACORN employees only because, according to Moncrief, they've been thrown under the bus. When they turned in the stacks and stacks of fraudulent voter registration cards that Democratic election officials are now identifying as fraudulent, they were "current" ACORN employees; and if they're indicted, convicted and sent to prison like so many others, it will be for felonies that they committed in the course of employment while they were "current" ACORN employees. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it always comes back to the FBI investigation which cannot be sourced to "reflect" an investigation of ACORN itself. So no "season finale". This needs to be fixed if possible or left out. Any ideas? And sorry for "soaping" a bit.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

MCK, the FBI investigation has already been sourced to two separate reliable sources. The last two sources cited: AP and KC Star. These are the gold standard of reliable sources. I'm glad I could clear up this misunderstanding for you. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried clicking on your "gold standard" sources above, and both of them are dead links. Epic FAIL. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• reject oh yeah, as that last sentence is at the very least misleading (once one seeks out the sources and backstops for oneself), i can't support the edit as it stands. Could live with it if that's removed (the fbi bit is fine, TMC. The problem is tying of the FBI bit in 2 states, to something entirely different in 11 states in a misleading and incorrect manner).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Bali ultimate and LotE are welcome to propose alternate wording for the phrase they call "misleading" and, if it preserves the fact that 11 states are currently investigating fraudulent voter registrations turned in by ACORN, I'm fairly sure that I'll support that subsequent edit. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• goodness we've got two rejections and TMC seems to be on the fence (he says changes are needed, so it appears he is not in agreement). Also, Goodamon asked a question, and made it appear that his full assent was dependent on an answer to his question, one he has not yet received. So, I count only 3 supports, one maybe support, and 3 requests for further changes. And please, remember, voting and consensus are not the same thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reject - mainly because it invokes an FBI investigation that has no indictments or convictions, and may turn up nothing whatsoever. Furthermore, I believe WB74's attempt to get it shoehorned into the article before a reasonable amount of time to discuss it has passed is highly disruptive. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop deleting my edits to this page immediately, and stop trying to spin doctor the responses of others who clearly said, Support. We have consensus. Five in favor, and three opposed based on their hairsplitting objection to a twice reliably sourced statement. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Not done There's no consensus for these changes. Please try to work with one another to establish a version that gets broad support. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Waiting for one of the objectors to post an alternate version of the sentence which they object to. As long as it include the FBI investigation, and the fact that 11 states are investigating fraudulent voter registrations turned in by ACORN, which have both been reliably sourced, without trying to shoehorn in any self serving press release crap, I'll probably have no problem with it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I would favor keeping the existing version, with the removal of "In October 2008, the FBI investigated ACORN to determine whether the group coordinated any registration form falsification." Since there are no indictments or convictions, there should be no mention of it in the article; furthermore, if indictments and convictions did exist, it would still have recentism issues. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't agree with you there. An FBI investigation is notable enough for inclusion, in my opinion. Even if it results in no criminal charges against ACORN itself, it's a big enough event in the organization's history to merit a mention, although in that scenario it would be mentioned and then noted that nothing came of it. --GoodDamon 01:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced, but I can support leaving the current text (about voter registration) as it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can support it. Don't pretend any faux reluctance. You love it. It presents all the self-serving press release crap as facts chiseled in granite, and fails to mention the FBI investigation or any of the 26 indictments or convictions. So it serves your agenda. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please consider removing this last comment of yours, WorkerBee. It's a clear personal attack that has nothing to do with improving the article. You have already been warning about this behavior many times. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt

I have edited the final phrase that three editors find objectionable. It is highlighted in blue above. I cannot imagine anyone splitting that hair any further. Recentism is a bogus objection as GD pointed out. The FBI investigation will still be notable 100 years from now.

• Strong support. WorkerBee74 (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Complete rejection per the reasons already given. This changes nothing, including the non-neutral language. The version currently in the article will do for now. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Reject - And I will continue rejecting any further proposals that try to turn investigations of former employees into investigations of ACORN itself. --GoodDamon 01:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
• Reject -- the blue revised bit upthread still does not correspond with the citation offered.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Five more words

I've added five more words, highlighted in red above. Go ahead, put that hair under the microscope and split it again. You're clearly trying to protect the selfserving press release crap, and keep out any mention of the FBI investigation or the 26 indictments and convictions, until after the election.

• Strong support. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)