Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and Huayllay District: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Wallamoose (talk | contribs)
1,598 edits
 
The Anomebot2 (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,036,909 edits
Adding geodata: {{coord missing|Peru}}
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox District Peru
{{User:MiszaBot/config
<!-- Basic info -->
|archiveheader = {{atnhead}}
|district = Huayllay
|maxarchivesize = 150K
<!-- Images -->
|counter = 35
|map = <!--Location of the district Huayllay in Pasco.svg--><!--locator map-->
|minthreadsleft = 5
|image = <!--a skyline if possible-->
|algo = old(30d)
|image_size =
|archive = Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now/Archive %(counter)d
|image_caption =
|cofarms = COA Huayllay District in Pasco Province.png
|coa_width =
|flag =
<!-- Location -->
|region = [[Pasco Region|Pasco]]
|province = [[Pasco Province|Pasco]]
|capital = [[Huayllay|Huayllay]]
|elevation = 4310<!--Elevation in meters, without any formatting-->
|hamlets =
|ubigeo = 190104
<!-- Area and population -->
|pop = {{commas|9592}}
|density = {{commas|9.3}}
|area = {{commas|1026.87}}
<!-- Politics -->
|founded =
|mayor = Roman Luis Marcelo Callupe
<!-- Other -->
|web = www.munihuayllay.gob.pe<!-- web address without the leading http:// -->
}}
}}
{{archives|auto=yes}}


'''Huayllay District''' is one of thirteen [[Districts of Peru|districts]] of the province [[Pasco Province|Pasco]] in [[Peru]].<ref>{{es icon}} [[Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática]]. ''[http://desa.inei.gob.pe/mapas/bid/ Banco de Información Distrital]''. Retrieved [[April 11]], [[2008]].</ref>
== 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.


==References==
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?
{{reflist}}


{{Pasco-geo-stub}}
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).
{{Districts of Pasco Province}}


{{coord missing|Peru}}
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.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 20:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


[[es:Distrito de Huayllay]]
== Political Perceptions ==
[[it:Distretto di Huayllay]]

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

:They are part of this, regardless if you know of them or not. I have a home loan, pushed through by ACORN. What a joke! Yes, it is a GREAT loan, but I should not have been eligable for it. I was 4 months out of college, and had only 3 months of pay stubs. I was approved for $230,000 for a home. B of A followed their recomendations blindly. I was smart enough to buy a house at just over 1/2 was I was approved for, so I still have a home. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/216.199.190.150|216.199.190.150]] ([[User talk:216.199.190.150|talk]]) 15:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

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

To imply that Acorn is responsible for the trillion dollar financial crisis because they provided loan and credit counseling surpasses ridiculous and is squarely in the domain of ludicrous. It is the worse type of right wing talk radio blither <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/144.160.5.25|144.160.5.25]] ([[User talk:144.160.5.25|talk]]) 20:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

It shouldn't be on the article page because it makes no sense. B of A was responsible for lending you money. B of A is responsible for doing its credit analysis. If your mortgage blew up, B of A would have been responsible -- I'm not clear how ACORN came to be advising B of A on your loan, but it's of little import: B of A is under no obligation to take anyones advice on individual loans but its own. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.108.109.109|66.108.109.109]] ([[User talk:66.108.109.109|talk]]) 21:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

Phrases like "widely considered" without numerous citations (at least) to back them have no place in a wiki article. As for the stuff about "opposition to free trade" or "support for price controls." If these things are in fact true and aren't already mentioned in the article a sentence like "ACORN supports government price controls on (whatever it is they support controlling the price of)" followed by a citation proving the assertion. A just the facts approach is always best. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.240.2.63|96.240.2.63]] ([[User talk:96.240.2.63|talk]]) 21:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Have edited out a lot of editorial content from this section again, much of which was cut and pasted from the earlier deletion. Still polemical, but with a few citations added. I've allowed the citations to stand with a sentence like "Acorn has been criticized by a number on the right" but it is completely innapropriate to lift opinion from, well, opinion articles, and spin them as fact. (I was earlier user 66.108 etc...). <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.240.2.63|96.240.2.63]] ([[User talk:96.240.2.63|talk]]) 01:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Acorn DOES do home loans. http://acornloans.org/ <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/193.60.90.99|193.60.90.99]] ([[User talk:193.60.90.99|talk]]) 06:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

acornloans.org doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. If I'm wrong please show me how. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/155.97.82.131|155.97.82.131]] ([[User talk:155.97.82.131|talk]]) 20:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

On two occasions user 12.44.252.196 has deleted sourced information from this section. Wondering if this constitutes vandalism?Am unsure, but at least want to flag it here. (He basically takes out the sources leaning towards "Acorn is ok" and leaves in the comments leaning towards "Acorn is very bad.") <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bali ultimate|contribs]]) 02:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

#1 Senator Christopher Dodd, (D-CT). Chairman of the Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs Committee
#2 Senator Barack Obama, (D-IL) Federal Financial Management Committee
#3 Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Chairman of the Finance Committee
#4 Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vivaperro|Vivaperro]] ([[User talk:Vivaperro|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vivaperro|contribs]]) 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Should this be added ==

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

== Rewriting History ==

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

Wikipedia is twisted.
15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)~
This entry impunes the Wikitegrity <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ZapDuff|ZapDuff]] ([[User talk:ZapDuff|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ZapDuff|contribs]]) 15:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Ex-ACORN Workers ==

I've reinstated the paragraph about the "Ex-ACORN workers". According to the source, they '''were''', in fact, ACORN workers at the time the false voter registrations were submitted. They were "ex-ACORN workers" at the time of the news story, obviously because ACORN had fired them by then. --[[User:Clubjuggle|Clubjuggle]] [[User_Talk:Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><sup><small>'''T'''</small></sup></font>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle|<font color="#0047AB"><small>'''C'''</small></font>]] 11:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:By analogy, I'm certain there are a fair number of employees of [[Walmart]] who have committed crimes. Some of those are even fairly directly related to their employment (hypothetically): Walmart employees deliberately shortchange customers and pocket the money; or steal the purses or break into the cars of customers, taking advantage of their knowledge of customer location; or steal items from trucks and warehouses; etc. Would it be appropriate to catalog crimes like this in the Walmart article, even if we limited the list to crimes committed by employees who were on-the-clock, and committing crimes that were enabled by the circumstances of their employment? And especially, would it be appropriate to try to construct an insinuation that Walmart cultivated a culture for such criminal activity? <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 18:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::But see this [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/02/ap/politics/mainD8KGIHB01.shtml CBS News story]:
::<i>Even groups supporting the organization's efforts question why fraud allegations keep cropping up.
::"They're sort of their own worst enemy," said Bill Faith, who directs Ohio's largest homeless advocacy group and shares many of ACORN's goals.
::"They want low-income people to register to vote but because of the kind of problems that come from their program, it provokes a reaction from the Legislature that actually makes it harder to run such programs," Faith said.</i>[[User:Bdell555|Bdell555]] ([[User talk:Bdell555|talk]]) 01:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

== How is ACORN funded? ==

The article does not answer one of the main questions readers want answered: How is ACORN funded? Do they apply for government grants for their programs? Do they ask for contributions from local businesses and neighbors? Do they sell products for a profit, like Red Cross? 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:After looking at their website, it appears they do not take government funding. Here is the paragraph I found:
::''ACORN is a non-profit, non-partisan social justice organization with national headquarters in New York, New Orleans and Washington, D.C. To maintain independence, ACORN does not accept government funding and is not tax exempt.'' [http://acorn.org/index.php?id=12342]
:It seems to me this should be part of the article - reworded, of course. [[User:RonCram|RonCram]] ([[User talk:RonCram|talk]]) 21:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is a falsehood that his organization does not take government funding, even in the most recent bailout bill, ACRON is earmarked for government funding.
The Wikipedia article says they are not a non-profit organization and does not take government funding, yet their web site state they are a non-profit organization.
I contend this is an socialist organization that hides funds and expenses through "allied organizations".
This is not a neutral article because it is misleading. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/72.14.127.182|72.14.127.182]] ([[User talk:72.14.127.182|talk]]) 23:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Well, do you have any links to parts of the bill that show this earmark? By all means, an interesting fact if it is indeed a fact. And what does non-profit have to do with the price of tea in china? you seem to have a political point to make, not a case that the article isn't neutral. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bali ultimate|contribs]]) 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

Here is some information on how ACORN is funded:
"Most of these programs are conducted locally, by state-level ACORN organizations — which are often set up as 501(c)3 nonprofit entities distinct from the national ACORN umbrella, a 501(c)4 lobbying organization. Sounds benign enough — except that, according to Bob Huberty, executive vice president of the Capital Research Center, these tax-exempt 501(c)3s "have no reason for existence other than to get grants from the government and foundations." They are, essentially, an ACORN front for asking Uncle Sam to subsidize political activity". http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/clyne200410311142.asp
([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 21:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC))
* You mean, according to an employee of a conservative think tank writing in a right-wing magazine, they are essentially an ACORN front for asking Uncle Sam to subsidize political activity. - [[User:Matthew238|Matthew238]] ([[User talk:Matthew238|talk]]) 22:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Regarding: ACORN & the Money Tree, "Taxpayer money helps fund voter fraud" by Meghan Clyne: The article is in a conservative newspaper, but that doesn't mean it's any less true than if it were in the liberal NYTimes. I made a mistake not adding quotation marks so I hope people did't think the statement describing the group was mine. Obviously it takes a POV, but the description of the organizational structure seems pretty reasonable. Do you have a better source on how ACORN is structured and funded? ([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 07:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

== Should this be removed? ==

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

:Also because self-reference in a WP article is always impermissible. The anons are welcome to rail and rant here on the talk page (within some limits), but that sort of meta-commentary is always out of place in article space. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 17:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed. It's editorial and way out of bounds for a wiki article. If anyone wants to make accusations of bias, propaganda, etc..., the talk page is the place for it. But in the article itself, even if you agree with the opinion of the poster, it's just an immediate delete. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/66.108.109.109|66.108.109.109]] ([[User talk:66.108.109.109|talk]]) 17:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:There is also the repeated deletion by the IP of the cited Huffington post characterization of "political perceptions" with an entirely [[WP:OR]] soapbox re-titled "controversy". That is, IP=86.201.30.228 (you might consider getting an account Mr/Ms.66.108--; good edits are easier to remember by name). Well, plus the silly ranting that claims to have "reported me" (under my birth name and username to "Michelle Malkin and other news desks"). That sort of thing (discussing editor identities, especially accompanied by threats, even silly ones) is generally a "block for life" sort of thing; however, given its an anon who would evade a block, I'm not sure I see too much point in doing administravia. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 18:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


== Front organization ==
Mark Levin has called ACORN a Marxist front organization. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.58.102.163|75.58.102.163]] ([[User talk:75.58.102.163|talk]]) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* I didn't know who Mark Levin was, so I looked him up on Wikipedia:
::"Mark Reed Levin (born 21 September 1957) is an American conservative political commentator, radio host, lawyer, and bestselling author. His nationally-syndicated talk show, The Mark Levin Show, airs throughout the United States on ABC Radio Networks."<br>
:I'm guessing he isn't the only conservative commentator to have said things about this group. - [[User:Matthew238|Matthew238]] ([[User talk:Matthew238|talk]]) 22:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Housing crisis ==

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

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

What do other editors thing? <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 19:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

== Funding in housing bill and controversy ==

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

Well, i edited the section to accurately reflect the information in the two cited articles from Politico and the Wall Street Journal. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bali ultimate|contribs]]) 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

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

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

Nonetheless, in general I want to congratulate the editors, and encourage the spirit of cooperation. I apologize if I failed to make sufficient efforts at this. For better or worse, I have been quite frustrated by some obviously bad, probably libelous, definitely unencyclopedic, edits that have plagued this page recently. But I probably also painted with too broad a brush some edits that could have been ''improved'' rather than deleted (as has now been done very well by other editors). <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 02:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

:For what it's worth here's my addition after some edits were made to it (and before it was summarily deleted):
::ACORN is a nonpartisan organization, but it is affiliated with a political action committee that is closely associated with Democrats and has endorsed Barack Obama in the presidential election.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/27/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4483168.shtml</ref> The prospect of ACORN getting millions of dollars from the Federal economic bailout has also stirred controversy among Republicans, along with other [[earmark]]s in the bill. <ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/27/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4483168.shtml</ref>The group has also had scandals involving voter registration fraud among some of its employees.<ref>Las Vegas News-Review Oct. 8, 2008 http://www.lvrj.com/news/30613864.html</ref>
:I think it's pretty reasonable, but welcome further good faith edits and additions. I think it's important to address the issues or partisanship, funding and voter registration activities in the lead. I have no problem with a NPOV way to do this, but there are extensive sections in the article about this and it's a big part of what ACORN does and why it's become well known and controversial. The reason citations may be needed is because otherwise people just take stuff out saying it's biased or made up. ([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

::The is no need, and no reason to add, a lead paragraph that says almost exactly the same thing as the paragraph already in there (the existing one is much better worded, but in any case, two adjacent paras saying same thing is redundant and has redundancy in its repetition :-)). On a small point, the one specific presidential (primary) endorsement is not worth the lead: democratic associated, fine; endorsement list, put it later in article. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 15:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

::::Your recent wording change to the lead, Wallamoose, puts the Democratic association in much more encyclopedic language. Thanks for that change. I quite agree that general concept is worth keeping in the lead. However, the specific endorsement of one political candidate in the 2008 presidential race is not worthwhile lead material. I think it's fine to mention later in the body, but the organization has existed since 1970 and has endorsed a large number of candidates during that time. One recent endorsement that makes it to news stories this month is far undue weight for the overall history of the organization (at least, as I say, for the lead summary). <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::Okay. That seems like a good compromise. I found this on an ACORN site and thought it made a good addition to the introduction. Some of the information there seems kind of general so the reader doesn't really get and idea what the group does. I tried to add some content with some specifics: so instead of just saying "housing" it says housing for first time homebuyers and tenants. Maybe this makes it redundant, but I thought it was helpful. It's from ACORN so I think it's pretty favorable to them as far as any kind of POV issue. I just prefer the specifics because I know that many people don't know what community organizers or community organizations actually do, and so I find this helps me to see specifics which are then dealt with more fully in the article.
::::::ACORN's priorities have included: better housing for first time homebuyers and tenants, living wages for low-wage workers, more community development investment from banks and governments, and better public schools. http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=1139&L=0%3Fid%3D8144 ACORN pursues these goals through by developing community organizations around the country and then effecting change through direct action, negotiation, legislation, and voter participation. http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=1139&L=0%3Fid%3D8144
:::::My only other desire would be to have more about the group's structure and funding. It seems to be complex and I'd like to know what the different "arms" are and how they operate. This would be good in the article and in the intro. I'm still not clear on exaclty what ACORN is. Does that make sense? ([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 19:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

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

:Thanks. Your several changes in the last few hours all seem to be adding valuable material and improving the language of the article. The description of first-time home buyers and government supported housing programs makes much more clear the context of claims of ACORN-supported loans being tied to the current mortgage crisis as well. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 20:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'm glad you're happy with the changes. I agree on the housing issue making more sense in the context of making loans to people who don't meet traditional criteria, and why some would take issue with that and whether it contributed to the housing crisis. Obviously there are two sides to the issue, and they're fighting it out as we speak. I'm just trying to get (and share) a little of both sides and a clearer understanding of what ACORN is and how it operates.
::On a more contentious note... I reverted a couple of your edits removing allegations of voting fraud. These seem to have been good faith additions. And I'm not clear on why some are okay to include and others aren't. Clearly this is a dicey and hot political issue so I think it needs to be covered. At some point consolidation makes sense, but I'm having a hard time with "pruning" that takes out some of the instances where problems have occured and leaving others. What do you think? This issue is going to continue to make news as we head into Nov. 4. I would suggest consolidating it sometime after that, and allowing sourced additions where instances of allegations and investigations are ongoing or initiated for the time being. I don't have any problem with sourced material supporting the voter drives led by ACORN.
I see you took the information back out (at least one of the notes) saying "This is why it's marginal: the article says the Secretary of State is (rightly) investigating duplicate/fraudulent registrations; but all evidence in article says ACORN is working with clerks to correct records." I would suggest adding to the mention that ACORN says it is cooperating rather than deleting the mention completely.([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 20:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

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

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

*In 2008, the [[Michigan Secretary of State]] office told the [[Detroit Free Press]] that ACORN had been submitting a sizeable number of duplicate and fraudulent applications to vote. [http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008809140383 Bad voter applications found, September 14, 2008]

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

== Additions ==

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

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

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

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

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

:I am, personally, happy with this addition. It's nicely sourced and neutrally enough phrased. I don't think I'd agree myself with the CRL's conclusions, but it's circumscribed as their claim. Still, let's keep [[WP:WEIGHT]] in mind; not every sourceable criticism ''automatically'' needs to get thrown in (though some clearly can be included). <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 18:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::Maybe I did too much, but I added this:
:::ACORN and its affiliates advocate for affordable housing by urging the development, rehabilitation and establishment of housing trust funds at the local, state, and federal levels.<ref>ACORN affordable housing statement http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=44</ref> The group also pushes for enforcement of affordable-housing requirements for developers and promotes programs to help homeowners repair their homes and organize tenant demands.<ref>ACORN affordable housing statement http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=44</ref>

:::ACORN has been criticized by free market groups and some Republicans for its role in advocating lending practices to borrowers without traditional qualifications (large down payments and proven income sources), and for encouraging government based housing trusts rather than a market oriented approach to expand public housing.<ref>http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=1139&L=0%3Fid%3D8144</ref><ref>Consumer Rights League http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/</ref>A report from the free-market Consumers Rights League charges that ACORN misuses housing funds and encouraged banks through the Community Reinvestment Act to make some of the risky loans now at the center of the housing mess.<ref>Consumer Rights League http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/</ref><ref>http://www.consumersrightsleague.org/uploadedfiles/Latest%20Million%20Dollar%20ACORN%20Scandal.pdf</ref>
::Trying to give a better NPOV idea of how group operates, what it does, and why it's controversial. There wasn't much about their Housing activities that I could find.
([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 18:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

== Redundancy ==

The line "is affiliated with a political action committee that is closely associated with Democrats" is in the intro with one source, and is exactly repeated in the last paragraph of the article with a different source. If I try to edit this, I'm convinced I'll mess it up, so I'll leave it to someone else to decide which one to remove. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.99.238.21|76.99.238.21]] ([[User talk:76.99.238.21|talk]]) 19:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

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

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

:As requested here are a few citations noting they have a PAC:
::http://www.donnaedwardsforcongress.com/node/50
::http://www.mncampaignreport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1080
::http://forums.e-::democracy.org/groups/mpls/messages/post/32Su4z8UQx1ItYvYI1esXw

:As far as being non-partisan, maybe someone can find support for :Republican candidates? I'm not going to hold my breath. :)
:([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 00:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

== Controversial Edits ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::"Some ACORN execs allegedly are involved in a $1 million embezzlement cover-up at their headquarters. Representing them in the case is none other than Michelle Obama's old law firm in Chicago."
([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 21:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

== Misleading statement ==

The current text says:
:''A nonpartisan organization, ACORN is affiliated with a political action committee that is closely associated with Democrats.''
If ACORN is not ''directly'' associated with Democrats, why is this affiliation being mentioned? Are they associated with Kevin Bacon as well? Either they are partisan (affiliated with a party) or nonpartisan. This sentence is trying to have it both ways, presumably to push some kind of POV. -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 23:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::Agreed, see my note above. I made an adjustment [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&curid=922877&diff=244252076&oldid=244250226] to the paragraph as the source provided didn't specify a political action committee. Review and copyedit of my edit is most welcome. thanks, --[[User:Guyzero|guyzero]] | [[User talk:Guyzero|talk]] 23:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::That's cool, but I was referring to the sentence in the introduction (penultimate sentence of third paragraph). -- [[User:Scjessey|Scjessey]] ([[User talk:Scjessey|talk]]) 23:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Wow, my reading comprehension is horrible. I propose using the same wording (drop non-partisan as unsourced) from my edit above, and then reducing the similar sentence in the political perceptions section to just mentioning their endorsement for Obama, and moving it to later in that section. --[[User:Guyzero|guyzero]] | [[User talk:Guyzero|talk]] 23:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::I believe the word non-partisan is taken from their website. At one point I believe there were two citations. But I think one got removed. People don't seem to like multiple citations, but sometimes it's hard to consolidate without doing it that way. Otherwise the sentence gets changed because the supporting citation is gone. (Same with words being put in quotes. They're done that way to indicate that's how the source describes it, but people take them out. And then the wording gets changed and doesn't reflect the source any more. So then sometimes the whole sentence gets deleted). I think it's a stretch to say they are non-partisan, but that's what they claim. So that's why the statement in the article is sort of self-contradictory. This has also been an issue with their not taking Government funding, because much of their work is done with government funding. But I guess they don't take it directly. It's kind of complicated like that... This issue is also discussed in the "Redundancy" section.([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
This article seems to describe the group's organizational structure (and uses the word non-partisan) then describing how another ACORN arm lobbies (I assume this is the PAC):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121745181676698197.html?mod=hps_us_pageone([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

== Barack Obama mention in Intro? ==

This seems to be a point of contention. I think it's a big issue with people and a notable, verifiable NPOV statement. Obama has a history with the group that's discussed in the article and community organizing has been a campaign issue. So I'd like to see the endorsement or mention of his connections to the group mentioned prominently. They have come up repeatedly in relation to one another. But a wiser editor has convinced me it doesn't belong in the lead. What do others think? ([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 06:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
:This is the article about ACORN. Obama might be big news today, but their endorsement of him last February and his involvement with them years ago are actually pretty minor details with regards to the mission and history of ACORN itself. We give Obama plenty of mileage in this article, IMO. My comparison would be adding Sarah Palin to the lead of [[Bush Doctrine]] due to her "memory issue" on that topic -- I felt it was NPOV to not include her in that topic as well -- her flub there isn't notable against the history and information around that topic.
:Anyway, I'm cool with mentioning that there is ongoing partisan and voter registration controversy in the lead, but painting Obama into that paragraph is not NPOV as he is not a current or past major influence or component of ACORN, the article subject. --[[User:Guyzero|guyzero]] | [[User talk:Guyzero|talk]] 06:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:I think that specifically mentioning Obama in the lead-in paragraph isn't necessary since ACORN has endorsed many candidates over several election seasons. Lead-in paragraphs are supposed to be general and only mentioned extremely notable information, regardless of current events. However, I do think mentioning Obama connections to ACORN in detail in a section or subsection is perfectly appropriate since his connections with the organization, particularly in this election, are definitely notable. --[[User:Amwestover|Amwestover]] ([[User talk:Amwestover|talk]]) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
::I've added a section titled "ACORN and Obama association" below political perceptions. I didn't see mention in the article of Obama's history working for and with the group. Has someone scrubbed this from the article or am I imagining things? I was going to consolidate it in the new section. Maybe it was only posted on the discussion page, but I could've sworn I saw it in the article at one point.([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 16:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
:::There was an unsourced addition that I removed, yep. --[[User:Guyzero|guyzero]] | [[User talk:Guyzero|talk]] 16:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Did Obama work with Acorn in the past? I thought this was pretty well established. Why delete it and not {{cn}}? Is there a dispute over this history or it's appropriateness to be included in this article or that section? I'm not meaning to be beligerent, just trying to make sure that section covers the appropriate ground (albeit briefly as has been agreed to).([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 20:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Obama's work as an ACORN trainer should be citable. I've seen that discussed in [[WP:RS]] sources before (but I have to run, so can't find it right now). However, it's feeling like the whole Obama section is veering heavily into [[WP:UNDUE]] weight territory because of [[WP:RECENT]]ism. Yeah, that one association is in the news this month, but in the 38 year history of the organization, Obama just isn't very important. It looks like a way to indirectly write an Obama article while keeping the pretence of writing one about ACORN. I don't think it is ''so'' overlong right now, but it seems like a place where everyone wants to throw in everything they can find about the connection, and is growing far too rapidly. <font color="darkgreen">[[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|LotLE]]</font>×<font color="darkred" size="-2">[[User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters|talk]]</font> 20:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Copyedits needed ==

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

:It seems like you want this article to be only about ACORN in isolation. But ACORN is at the center of a big partisan controversy. So I think it's fair to have a section that focuses on the conflict. I don't think readers should have to hunt for this information in lots of sections of the article. ACORN has been in the news because of the issues in the Political Perceptions section (I'm not in love with that title but it's okay). I think the Obama issue is sort of similar. You may not think it's a big deal, but the news media and the campaigns and politicians are making it a big deal. Obama and ACORN are tied together in many people's minds and I think it's important to address that. Whether this is sensational or not I don't know, but I don't think it sensationalizes the issue any more than it already has been. Have you read Boehner's comments? They are pretty sensational. So it seems reasonable to answer the question that readers looking for this information want. What is the connection? What is ACORN? How is it funded? Our challenge is to do so in a fair and informative way. ([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 07:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
::Not at all. Please [[WP:AGF]] about my intention for article -- I want to make it easier for the reader to find what they are looking for, including better access and context for the juicy controversial bits. As it is, the reader has to hunt. I also agree that the voter fraud stuff should be in it's own section (for table of contents access), and probably immediately following the Issues and Actions section on ACORNS voter registration component -- that will at least give it a little more [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Balance]]. Really the other issue is that the Political Perceptions section is kind of a mess, with several unrelated (because they are about different components of ACORNS functions) sections. It is hard for the reader to find anything in that section, or to know it's contents, without actually reading all of it. Unfortunately, I don't have a great proposal about how to clean up that section, thus I created this thread. Again, please assume good faith. --[[User:Guyzero|guyzero]] | [[User talk:Guyzero|talk]] 07:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I didn't mean to imply bad faith. I'm just trying to emphasize the importance of providing the information and answers that people are coming to this encyclopedia entry to get. So I think you will find people will keep adding Obama to the intro, because when it's not there it seems like it's being hidden. It would be like not finding Anita Hill on the Clarence Thomas page. I use that as an example only because I'm involved in a steel cage match over there to try and get some balance. :) Thanks for your efforts and insights. Now I'm going to go look to see if Anita Hill is in the Intro to Clarence Thomas, but I can tell you there is a MASSIVE section with every kind of sexual allegation anyone has ever made against him. Gulp. Maybe you're right... ([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 07:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
::::Lucky for me, Anita Hill is not in Clarence Thomas' article lead, but Judge Thomas is in [[Anita Hill]]'s lead, heh! Anyhow, to put it to you another way, if Obama was an important person with regards to the actual operation, the history (i.e. if he was a founding member or a president), or the mission of ACORN, he'd go in the lead. But he's not. He hired them during the primaries, was president of an organization that worked with them in 1992, and they endorsed him February this year. The fact that the media is tying Obama and ACORN together currently appears to be just innuendo. Putting him in the lead is not NPOV - he is not notable with relation to the article subject. cheers, --[[User:Guyzero|guyzero]] | [[User talk:Guyzero|talk]] 08:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Hahahaha. It's a short lead on that article! You've convinced me that Obama doesn't have to be mentioned in the lead as long as it's featured prominently in the article. A small section? You may be interested to note that a user stalking me is now recommending adding mention of Anita Hill to the Clarence Thomas article introduction.([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 16:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

== Vigorous editing ==

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

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

:I would support removing the neutrality disputed tag at the top if the article's quality can be maintained in that regard. I would also support a separate article for the voting controversy and partisan conflict portions, which could then be summarized and consolidated (as Lulu and others seem to want since they delete a lot of the new additions going in there...). That way the coverage could be expanded on somewhere else and no one has to feel that the coverage is grotesquely one-sided and leaves out information they want included. ([[User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] ([[User talk:Wallamoose|talk]]) 20:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Revision as of 16:21, 11 October 2008

Template:Infobox District Peru

Huayllay District is one of thirteen districts of the province Pasco in Peru.[1]

References

  1. ^ Template:Es icon Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. Banco de Información Distrital. Retrieved April 11, 2008.
Stub icon

This Pasco Region geography article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now&oldid=244590079"