This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Human rights B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Louisiana / New Orleans B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana - New Orleans (assessed as Low-importance). Organizations B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organized Labour B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This proposed version trims refs that don't work, seemed minimally applicable, or were frankly redundant, consolidates at least one ref that had been duplicated, and reincorporates some language that is on the page already, while tightening other language and removing excessive emphasis on certain recent events. Let me know what ya think.

ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004,^[1] focusing primarily on poor and minority registrations.^[2][3] 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 and approximately 400,000 forms that were rejected for various reasons, including duplications, incomplete forms, and fraudulent registrations.^[1] San Diego County, California officials stated that ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors in 2008, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations.^[4]

Several cities and states have investigated ACORN's registration efforts, in some cases as a result of ACORN-flagged registration forms; some ACORN workers have been charged with or convicted of voter registration fraud.^[5][6][7][8] 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."^[6][9] In October 2008, FBI insiders leaked a story of an ongoing investigation into whether ACORN coordinated any registration form falsification.^{[10][3][11][12]} ACORN has stated it supports and cooperates in investigations of employees who submit fraudulent forms.^[12]

Does this fly as a suitable minimal set of changes to the current text, without overly emphasizing current events? --GoodDamon 07:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC) EDIT: I've updated the text to address some of the concerns below, and include a little bit about who ACORN targets for registration, as that would seem to be a salient point. I also trimmed another ref that wasn't very good, and did a little more language cleanup. Comments? --GoodDamon 14:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to it, but IMO it fails to capture the crux of the reason why Acorn became controversial in the election, which I think is salient. Further, the last sentence phrased in that way looks like an apology or justification, and also implies that Acorn in every case did the right thing. I'm sympathetic to the notion that the new round of investigations will either go nowhere (in which case the fact that they occurred isn't very notable) or they will lead to something far more serious than a mere investigation. So it's premature to say. Wikidemon (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ACORN's registration efforts have been investigated in various cities and states" is a passive construction . We should state by whom ACORN has been investigated, and list the places. For reasons to avoid this passive construction, please see [1] and understand that it is particularly relevant in this case.

Looks fine to me. I don't think the state investigations are necessary here, but the way GoodDamon phrases them is perfectly neutral. The cleanup of references is definitely a great service. Except the bit about ACORN targeting young and minority voters seems to have dropped by the wayside... I continue to think that is important and relevant (even if we phrase the exact ratios circumspectly: "ACORN reports that X% ..." or whatever). LotLE×talk 09:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few matters to be dealt with now that the disruption is (finally!) over, and I'd like people's input and arguments below.

Sure...but now that the sockpuppets are gone maybe we can just return to normal BRD once article protection expires in 3 days, which would use far less cycles than !voting. The changes proposed are fairly minimal. Wikidemon (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: There appears to be consensus forming among the non-sock regulars here for my version, so I'll request its addition tomorrow, barring significant dispute. I have no desire to declare consensus prematurely, so I want to give anyone interested who comes by the chance to speak up. Once we get past this, maybe we can finally focus on expanding the article.

Personally, I'd like to see more history about the organization. There's a redlink in the article for a subsidiary called "AM/FM" which looks like an interesting topic to expand on, though I'm not sure it's notable enough for its own article. It might make a better subsection of this one. Anyways, I'll start getting into that tomorrow. --GoodDamon 00:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FBI investigation - Keep or toss?

Issue one, regardless of what version of the voter registration section we end up with, is whether or not there should be a mention of the FBI investigation. I'll try to sum up the arguments pro and con. Pro: An FBI investigation of an organization may be considered notable, regardless of the investigation's outcome. Con: We don't know the results yet, which may exonerate ACORN and result in little more than a footnote. --GoodDamon 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So my reading is that those are the main arguments. At this point, I am:

• Neutral - Both are solid arguments, and I am open to being convinced either way. --GoodDamon 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep at current weight and length in article. It's a notable fact that this happened, no matter where it leads.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Toss until or unless some official statement or result occurs. There's no deadline on getting things in WP. If something actually comes of this, I'll be the first one to add it, for now we don't know (FWIW, "comes of it" could well be "Bush Justice Department investigated for leaks" just as easily as "ACORN indicted" for conduct... or mostly likely it all sort of gets forgotten when nothing is announced of substance). LotLE×talk 21:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if absolutely nothing comes of it, i argue it would still belong (an unjustified politically motivated investigation in service of swaying an election? very notable.)Bali ultimate (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is an "absolutely nothing" that is much less noteworthy than this. It might well be that neither ACORN nor the leakers/investigators are ever accused of anything. It could just fizzle out silently until it becomes a historical curiosity of this election cycle that hardly anyone remembers (just like what mostly happened in 2006 around the same issues and same alleged investigations). An "unjustified investigation" might offend your or my moral sense, but unless it becomes "unjustified" as a matter of public scrutiny, it's not something we have sources to do anything with. Or it might prove "justified as a matter to investigate, but no finding of chargeable wrongdoing"... in such case, in a year no mention will be notable for this article (obviously, I don't have a crystal ball to know which outcome will actually occur). LotLE×talk 00:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep - It does need to be brought to attention that government officials exposed the investigation (see, didn't use leak :)). Digital^NinjaWTF 22:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wording - Change?

Issue two is whether to change the current wording at all, or keep it as is. Again, the arguments. Pro: The current wording contains too many primary sources, and the prose is clumsy. Con: It may be best to change incrementally instead of in a bold edit.

My vote:

• Change - Regardless of the content, the prose in the current version is pretty bad, and needs to go. --GoodDamon 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Vague. Definitely some improvements are possible, but it's hard to vote on "something should change". The citation cleanups are unambiguously good. LotLE×talk 21:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Change - I think if you simplified it, the prose would improve. I think it has more to do with funky structure. Digital^NinjaWTF 22:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: proposed wording is still a problem ." Instead of wether I prosose "possible" and the appropriate syntax changes to make it flow better. I can return in 5 hours to develop this idea. As a courtesy I ask that the edit be postoned a little longer so that I can participate in the debate more fully.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If change - Which one?

Issue three is whether to change to the sock-produced one, which I would normally just cross off the list on general principles, except that it is actually not all that bad. The disruption they/he imposed on this page resulted from vote-stacking and premature declarations of consensus, not from the content itself. So which version to go with, that one or my proposal, or perhaps Door #3?

My vote:

• Version by GoodDamon - Well duh, I wouldn't have written it if I didn't think it was the best option. --GoodDamon 21:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• support GD version i'm more in the leave it alone camp, but let's move on.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• GD rulz. All his/her proposals have been reasonable. I wouldn't say that if we stick in something it must always and forever have those exact words, but GD's version is perfectly good for now. LotLE×talk 21:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As a matter of principle, I'm not going to be the first to !vote, "keep the sock one". Besides, I like the GD version just as much. Digital^NinjaWTF 22:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making it official

Well, it's the next morning, and there still seems to be consensus around my suggested version, so I'm going to go ahead and request it be added. I will not include the language about the FBI investigation due to ongoing concerns with that. I think that's a separate issue at this point, and one we can tackle once the rest of the wording is in place.

{{editprotected}} Please replace the current Voting registration section with the following text:

ACORN has conducted large-scale voter registration drives since 2004,^[1] focusing primarily on poor and minority registrations.^[2][3] 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 and approximately 400,000 forms that were rejected for various reasons, including duplications, incomplete forms, and fraudulent registrations.^[1] San Diego County, California officials stated that ACORN-submitted registrations had a rejection rate of 17 percent for all errors in 2008, compared to less than five percent for voter drives by other organizations.^[4]

Several cities and states have investigated ACORN's registration efforts, in some cases as a result of ACORN-flagged registration forms; some ACORN workers have been charged with or convicted of voter registration fraud.^{[5][6][13][14]} 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."^[6][15] In October 2008, FBI insiders leaked a story of an ongoing investigation into whether ACORN coordinated any registration form falsification.^{[16][3][17][12]} ACORN has stated it supports and cooperates in investigations of employees who submit fraudulent forms.^[12]

Please wait a little longer so that I can participate more fully . i need 5 hours.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but we seem to have a pretty solid consensus here, so I hope your argument is a doozy. --GoodDamon 23:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still not seeing an argument against this proposed edit. --GoodDamon 04:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debate continues elsewhere on this page. We can hold off a little longer.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. I've added a "that" in "ACORN has stated that it supports and cooperates ..."  Sandstein  19:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a good idea to remove the FBI bit for now. That is a separate issue, and it's not hurting anything remaining out of the article for a while while we hash it out. I support the above changes. Any passing admin, please go ahead with the edit stated in the section above, per Gooddamon. Cheers, Digital^NinjaWTF 15:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment wait a minute -- the FBI sentence is now being edited OUT of the article. I guess i misunderstood this edit. If that is what is about to happen then i am opposed. The fact of a federal investigation into an organization (whether its later shown to be justified or politically motivated) is notable and the sort of thing any general encyclopedia reader would like to know. I won't get into a fight over this since it's been so exhausting here. But if that's what is about to happen, then i am very unhappy.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're not editing it out of the article, we're just updating the rest of the section until we can come to an agreement over how to word the FBI sentence. Don't worry, it will definitely be going into the article one way or another, that's not the issue, it's simply wording :) Digital^NinjaWTF 16:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as we've agreed on how to word the sentence, it will be inserted. Seriously, I give it 24 hours before it's added maximum. Digital^NinjaWTF 16:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry Bali, I should have been more clear. I'm only taking it out until we can settle on wording. Since there was all that hubbub over "leaked" vs. "revealed" and such, I thought it would be best to trim it out until a separate consensus can be reached on it. --GoodDamon 17:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, this is the sentence I trimmed, and I'd be happy to re-add it if everyone agrees it's good as-is after all: In October 2008, FBI insiders leaked a story of an ongoing investigation into whether ACORN coordinated any registration form falsification.^{[18][3][19][12]} --GoodDamon 17:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I disagree and don't support this edit. Why not leave in at least the mention as it is now (which no one disputes is accurate... the dispute, if there is one, seems to be over tone) and then change the language once you've reached consensus on new language? I also don't think any of the people who argued in favor of "revealed" against "leaked" prefered no mention of the federal investigation at all in the interim.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid point. I've re-added the language, and we can work on it afterward. Everyone OK with that? --GoodDamon 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me. Thanks.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree that the FBI sentence is needed to start with. But I certainly recognize that rough consensus is for its inclusion, and if included the above phrasing is fine. LotLE×talk 18:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Stupid....leaked....I'm fine with the wording "leaked" I suppose. But, make no mistake, I'm sitting at my desk frowning and I'll probably eat fast food for lunch now, so you guys will just have to live with that. Digital^NinjaWTF 18:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making me feel guilty for your clogged arteries, eh? Harsh. ;) Seriously, let's just go with it for the time being, then see if we can come up with something better later. --GoodDamon 19:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. And I'll order a McSalad :) Digital^NinjaWTF 19:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for the dressing: their default one has as many calories and fat grams as a burger. :-) LotLE×talk 20:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(<--) I got it, I got it! How about this:

In October 2008, Government insiders unofficially acknowledged an on-going FBI investigation into ACORN for accusations of voter fraud.^{[20][3][21][12]}

ILIKEIT Digital^NinjaWTF 22:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaagh... I'm afraid I don't. "Unofficially acknowledged" is needless verbosity where the word "leaked" means the same thing. I can say "energetic disassembly at high speed" or I can say "explosion." I can say "rapid oxidation accompanied by heat" or I can say "fire." It needs to be concise. And I don't think "unofficially acknowledged" is even accurate. They gave the information to the press; it's not like the press asked "is there an FBI investigation" first. --GoodDamon 23:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. Not saying "leaked" only serves to obscure that the fact of this investigation was "leaked." It is both the term of art and the term of general comprehension for precisely what happened in this instance. It wasn't "announced;" it wasn't "revealed;" it wasn't "discovered;" it was anonymously told to a reporter by someone in the know but who, for one reason or another, was afraid of sanction if he was identified as the sourced of the information. The term in English for such a thing is "leak." If it is not to be mentioned as having been leaked, then i will move into the lotle camp and argue against the FBI stuff being included at all, since obfuscation of how this controversial fact is known is likely to lead to confusion.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and I think you miss the point of how context, wording, and experience relate to mainly feelings of negative dissonance with the current use of wording. For example, using your analogies, if I say, "He was so mad he told me he'd punch me in the face until my head exploded." That sounds terrible. Now, look at the exact same meaning, just communicated this way, "He expressed disdain to such an extent, even exclaiming bludgeoning me until my head experienced an energetic disassembly at high speed." As you can see, one way simply sounds better and makes you feel better by lacking the negative connotations? Digital^NinjaWTF 23:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is a poor one and makes little sense. 1. If we're quoting what someone said, we should reproduce the exact words, every time. 2. Yes, paraphrases may sometimes avoid inflammatory language. But the word "leak" is not typically thought of as having positive or negative connotations. It can be seen as a good thing (a whistleblower leaked some bad goings on by the government) or as a bad thing (a spy leaked state secrets). Sometimes two sides disagree on whether a given leak is treasonous or heroic (think of Watergate) but they don't disagree that the source of the information was, in fact, a leak.

So. It is important that there has been no official government word on this, and that there would not have been any knowledge of this if it had not been "leaked." If the FBI information is fit to be in the article (and i've argued that it is) then the means by which it came to light (the mode of description used by almost every reliable source) is a neccessary piece of that puzzle. Without one, I can't support the other.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to side with Bali on this. "Leak" is the word in the English language that most accurately and most concisely describes what happened. I think I gotta take a hard line on this now (something I'm always hesitant to do). We shouldn't be trying to obfuscate how the information leaked out. --GoodDamon 23:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, leaked it is. That only leaves Dixie in opposition. I just wish the FBI would come out and announce it (grrr, stupid FBI). Digital^NinjaWTF 23:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it a lot easier, yes. I look forward to when we can replace "leaked" with "announced" or something like that. --GoodDamon 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best use would be the one that those who broke the story. The AP's language is this article would be acceptable [2]. The other other sources who use leak instead of the language of the AP get fringier and more partisan. Titles to articles are not made by the article writers, and less creedence should be given to the headline. Most important is the content .Die4Dixie (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prososal " Senior law enforcement officials within the FBI confirmed an investigation of ACORN.. and go on to explain it. I like confirmed, the language used by those to whom is was "confirmed"Die4Dixie (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who broke the story are involved in the release/leak, so they're not a neutral source. They're not exactly going to say "someone within the FBI who committed a crime by doing so, and seemed to be doing it for political reasons, told us that the FBI is investigating." I would go with the strongest source(s) or weight of the sources, not a self-interested report. I haven't looked at it so I have no opinion on what that might be.Wikidemon (talk) 03:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, I'm not sure I can agree that the AP is not a reliable source. Please read the article and get back with me. I have no problem with a mention of " against policy" as the article says that . Perhaps we could give the FBI investigation its own section and explore it neutrally.Die4Dixie

"^ a b Ryan Grim (September 27, 2008). "ACORN Issue Fueling Bailout Opposition". CBS News. " this source is realy from a blog at politico repeated by (and attributed to the blog by) CBS. Politico blogs are notoriously unreliable sources vide john edwards cancer campaign fiasco.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a weblogger at the Huffington post the same weight as the house minorority leaser is not neutral:"

In contrast, John Atlas writes in a Huffington Post editorial that ACORN has "accumulated many enemies" and has been "subjected to vicious attacks from business lobbyists, conservative politicians, and right-wing media." This same source alleges that the George W. Bush administration has sought to harass ACORN with accusations of voter fraud.[42]" This is a neutrality problem , and using a blog trying to pass it off as a reliable source (and the Huffington Post is not reliable especially not one of their editorials). This makes it harder for me to see why we cant use the AP's language of "confirmed" for the investigation, because the AP is a reliable source, and the source by which much of the media gets is information from.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} If we could get a vote on what part of the article people have an issue with, I'd like to tackle that. Currently, there is an NPOV tag on the article which I suspect as many established editors are here, we could make that go away pretty easily.

I personally don't feel the need for the NPOV tag. I'm going to suggest removing the tag. If you feel a reason for the tag to stay, please explain why by "Tag should say, [reason]"'.

• Remove Tag - I don't see any major issues. I think what POV may be in the article, we can remove it via normal discussion on the talk page. The NPOV tag seriously disrupts the perceived accuracy of the article to readers. Digital^NinjaWTF 15:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Tag - As I recall, it was added by a passing admin who wanted to let users know that there was a POV dispute, and said it could be removed once we'd all settled on wording. Now that we know we were the victims of a sockpuppet army, and have settled on wording for that section, I have absolutely no problem with the tag being removed. --GoodDamon 15:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Tag - Didn't even know it was there at this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Tag - I normally don't comment or follow this article too much. However, I do remember that tag had been added by one of the POV warriors who has since been banned. This article does not merit a NPOV tag. Brothejr (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove Tag. No great neutrality disputes. I actually don't even think the sock army was alleging that exactly, but in any case, without them it's just normal editing matters. LotLE×talk 17:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tag. I need a 5 hours to come back and give more details of my objections. I have some pressing business. I'd also like to hold up the propsed edit until I can return. Die4Dixie (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, what he really means is that it'll take him 5 hours to fully grasp the significantly improved level of consensus building dynamic on this page, and as a token of remembrance, he would like the NPOV tag moved to a subpage of his userpage ;-D Digital^NinjaWTF 22:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's not a vote, but i see no arguments against removing the tag (an appeal to wait until near midnight to hear a reason is not a reason, after all) which, at any rate, was placed here at the behest of a banned pov sock-crew and so is a just a reminder of an unpleasant chapter in our history. Proposals for reinserting the tag can be made at others leisure, and judged on their merits.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with you, Bali. A request for a 5 hour continuance isn't the best reason I've ever heard. I'd definitely consider whatever he's objection is, that's for sure, and we can always modify the article. I'm for moving on and then when he gets back to voice his objections we'll take it from there. Digital^NinjaWTF 23:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ACORN has been criticized by free market groups for its role in advocating easier credit standards for low-income home buyers and for encouraging government-based housing trusts rather than a market-oriented approach to expand public housing" does not sum up conservative objection. It makes it appear that they just don't want poor people in homes ( those meanies). The true objection is their pusshing those loans and their culpability in the trainwreck that is now our economy. The wording is not neutral , and without further explanation, leaves a deliberate mistating of of the position. Now I am going to go through the whole article and find the other examples. If you must remove the template, I hope that when I have collected the issues we can return it until they are addressed. As far as banned users and if their logic was valid or not, well even blind hogs find ACORNS every once and a while. I'm not prepared to dimiss everything they said just because their method of promoting it was improper.Die4Dixie (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blind hogs find acorns but they can't place POV tags on a Wikipedia article, and neither should sockpuppets. That's a process tag, and sockpuppets have no right to Wikipedia process - their statement that they disagree with the content of an article is not a valid statement. As for Die4Dixie's objections, why not propose a change to the article with appropriate sourcing, and wait to see how the discussion goes? A POV tag should happen when all else fails and there is a serious, legitimate issue, not before the discussion was even had. Wikidemon (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 04:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (Resetting indent) This sounds like a different issue for a different thread. I'll go ahead and create it. --GoodDamon 03:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "ACORN pursues these goals through demonstration, negotiation, legislation, and voter participation" source back to an ACORN press release can't seriously be considered neutral. I believe the AP's reorting to be less self serving that their (ACORN"s) press releases.Die4Dixie (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with Bali's sagacious advice about reliable sources below I think we can close this and KEEP the tag--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who is finding Die4Dixie's declaration of "consensus of one" and general inflammatory manner strangely familiar?

In any case, this raising of every possible quibble in the article text as an alleged justification for the {POV} tag is contentious at best. Tag a sentence with a {fact} tag or whatever, but don't put an ugly banner on the article to make some pedantic WP:POINT LotLE×talk 08:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu, please read and comment on the excellent points that I and another user have raised instead of making ad hominem attacks. Serious neutrality issues exist. Please don't be a WP:DICK by attacking editors and making insinuations.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any "excellent points" in your long discussions. What there is is a lot of soapboxing to try to take out anything that can be insinuated as positive (no matter how reliable the sources) combined with a suggestion to insert lots of right-wing blog comments condemning ACORN. It's political pandering at its worst, and would most certainly destroy the article (or at least bring it back to the dismal state it was at a few months ago, before me and a few other editors made it a heck of a lot better). LotLE×talk 08:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to Ninja' list below. It's a start. I have not advocated the inclusion of a single blog. In fact, I advocate their removal, so your comments appear to be deliberately inaccurate at best. Your "better" is a claptrap of blogs, left wing hacks, and self serving press releases from ACORN. You are way off bas and can leave the idea because of those specious "improvements" that you WP:OWN something here on your personal blog.Die4Dixie (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu, I'm surely not interested in degrading the the quality of the article, and I certainly can vow not to cite or proposal anything of right-wing origin. You guys have made drastic improvements to the hate piece this once was, and I think I speak for myself and Dixie that we just want to make sure that any well sourced, informative piece regarding ACORN is in the article without interference numerous from opinion pieces. No right-wing stuff, no blogs, no weasel words, just a well structured, informative article. Digital^NinjaWTF 14:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Y Edit done.  Sandstein  19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Die4Dixie has raised an issue concerning ACORN and the current housing-related issues in the economy, although my understanding is that the vast majority of predatory loans weren't regulated by the laws that apply to ACORN and similar organizations, and weren't otherwise associated with ACORN. I think this is mostly left-over election-year exaggerations. I'll look up the relevant laws, and see if I can find a reliable source on it either way... Google News, alas, is chalk-full of editorials and blogs on the matter, but little in the way of reliable news stories. --GoodDamon 03:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long back and forth with a user named carolmoore on this about 4-5 weeks ago here. It's archived somewhere (you can also look at the true cluster fuck that is the community reinvestment act article if you want to go way deep. This ground has all been covered there. Good luck in the archives). But if you're willing to take my word for it let me save you some trouble Damon. There is not a single mainstream economist that believes the community reinvestment act (the chain of custody on this conspiracy theory is via the CRA because ACORN, and this is a true fact, advocated for the CRA's passage) is responsible for our current woes (for the simple fact that once one crunches the mortgage numbers, then adds in the CDS and CMO/CDO force multipliers, it's impossible).

As a second course of action, if you're not willing to take my word for it, sit back and ask dixie to bring you strong, neutral, reliably sourced information. But don't chase your tail... here's what's going to happen if you do: You'll end up with 1,000 words of back and forth that will consume a lot of time and definitely won't end up in this article. Why? Because it will consist of about 200 words of background on the CRA, then 400 words of "some economists say it's irrelevant to the mortgage crisis" (never mind that they make up 90% of professional economists') and 400 words of "some economists say the CRA was the devil" (never mind that these economists only make up 10% of the profession). Tying all this to the Acorn article will be the true sentence: "Acorn advocated the CRA's passage."Bali ultimate (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you characterize a position held, you must do it accurately. People did not object because poor people would become home owners (which is what the article now says). THe sentence needs to be changed to something ( almost anything else). Are you arguing to keep it because you believe that the ones in question merely wanted to keep these peole out of homes?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you just hit on something that could probably be used to improve the article. That ACORN advocated for its passage would make a good addition to the section on housing, regardless of everything else. Have you got a good reference for it? If so, that's something that could go in pretty much immediately. It would be entirely non-controversial. --GoodDamon 03:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still in the article. I was kind of surprised that all mention might have been gone. At any rate, it's still there. Check it out.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed it. Thanks! --GoodDamon 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::: IT was in the article at some point. I can't remember how well sourced. But it proved to be a tedious little coatrack. At any rate, if you click on any past version from say before, mid-october, you should find sources and the nature of involvement. Hell, i'll look now and post it here, though i strongly urge against not going to far down this road.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, Dixie just opened a can of worms with this. As far as the CRA's involvement in our current economic crisis -- absolutely. And there are [many], [many], [many] sources, some with very distinguished free-market economist to back it up. And yes, liberals pushing for the CRA (ACORN included), forcing less stringent restrictions on mortgage underwriting criteria in poor urban areas especially, is responsible for the bulk of default loans now. In fact (I'll have to search for it), a guy who is regularly interviewed by CNN, CBS, and Fox for his economic views is Karl Denninger, and he released a report that showed something like 83%+ of the people who have defaulted on loans up to February of 2008 would not have received their mortgage, or mortgage amount if it wasn't for liberal sponsored housing policies (mostly, the CRA). And yes, liberals are tripping on themselves trying obscure the fact.

More so, Barnie Frank, the CRA mack-daddy who's "boyfriend" ran either Fanny Mae or Freddie Mac (can't remember which one), who happens to be on the head of the Financial Services Committee in Congress (democrat, CA), said this in 2003:

"These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis, said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."[3]

Wow! And what else does it say? That democrats raised all hell when Republicans wanted to establish a new government agency due to an impending implosion of the housing market. This is a topic in which I'm fairly well versed. Digital^NinjaWTF 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda slow. Are you saying they weren't objecting to ACORN because they didn't want poor people to own homes like the Wikipedia article says?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm slow, but what I'm saying is ACORN pushed to get these poor people into homes they couldn't afford, and the article doesn't reflect that. What was the question? I better just drink some orange juice :-D Digital^NinjaWTF 04:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever put in the "many "many" "many" links upthread, they're none of them reliable sources for anything (a website, an editorial, and another editorial). All i will say at this point: TO keep us on track, bring well sourced material, written as a proposal to be in the article, and we'll take a look.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article again, I think 99% of the POV issues could be cleared up by removing 99% of the cites that link back to ACORN themselves (e.g. ACORN offical quotes, website(s), etc.). Digital^NinjaWTF 05:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the present article uses ACORN press releases , Huffington post blogs, Politico Blogs disguised as CBS reports, and a myriad of other shady sources. I look forward to your reviewing some of the things that I have pointed out above ( you can use my user contributions) and changing your view publically on the neutrality tag issue. Ypu can't have it both ways,. hell you can't even get it that way at Burger king, Bali:)Die4Dixie (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)(edit conflict)[reply]

(ecX1)Dixie, I can already tell your a bad influence on me :) If your right, and they're using The Huffington Post, Politico guises, as well as ACORN press releases, I can completely understand why you want the neutrality tag kept.

Just to be clear though, I don't mind it if it links to trivial information (e.g. ACORN has 175 offices, source=ACORN.COM). However, if it's anything remotely non-trivial, these types of sources should not be used. I agree 100% there. I'll post my offical opinion, with links to suspicious sources in a little while. Digital^NinjaWTF 05:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using Bali's criteria outlined about what is usable means we will have to excise half the acrticle for the invasive cancer and a whole lot more balanced NPOV reliable sources examining this group can be infused as a proper Chemotherapia. Something must be done to save the patient article.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts:

• Any bad sources can be swapped out immediately for good sources once the editing lock is lifted. I have no problem with that whatsoever, and have championed getting the press releases out of the article myself. The only exception I can think of is if there is a need to cite what the primary source says about itself.
• This is the wrong article for a discussion on CRA and what involvement, if any, it had with the current economic crisis. ACORN supported CRA. That is enough for this article. Anything else can go to the CRA article. And please try to remember this isn't a forum, folks. This talk page is for improving this article.
• I'd rather avoid POV tags in favor of fixing the problems.

One issue at a time, folks. One issue at a time. --GoodDamon 16:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer tags. They were designed for a reason , and the reason is what we see in the present article. No one has suggested this is a forum, nor treated it as one. I have a problem with the lack of neutrality, and the way things are spun . I am advocating a NPOV article. Alas, it appears that others are not. Die4Dixie (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped we were going to work on one thing at a time. I guess that's not going to happen. A pity. All i can say is -- if you have text you want added to the article, why not write it up and propose it? If you want specific text removed from the article, why not propose it (specifically). Please, take it in small bites. There's been a lot of fighting here, and a lot of wasted ink spilled on this talk page. Up above someone seems to be seconding something i've proposed, though the connection to me is beyond my comprehension. Just so its clear: I've proposed nothing new up above, full stop.

So, if you have something new to propose why not make a new proposal? And why not make it a separate proposal from the NPOV tag thing and the voter reg thing?Bali ultimate (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You proposed a standard for reliable sources. I second that ,and look forward to your reviewing the article to excise the ones that don't meet your stated criteria. In the mean time would you consider changing you neutrality dispute vote in order to keep the tag? thanksDie4Dixie (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to keep the tag? thanksDie4Dixie (talk) 05:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear: I have proposed nothing. If you continue to insist that i have, i will assume you're seeking a conflict. Let me tell you now -- i do not think this is funny, i'm not participating in some tedious little game. I have proposed nothing. You don't have to acknowledge you understand this. That's up to you. But if you deliberately miscontrue a very clear statement of mine again (that i have made no proposals on sourcing, or on anything else) you will be demonstrating, beyond all doubt, that you are being deliberately contentious.Bali ultimate (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"they're none of them reliable sources for anything (a website, an editorial, and another editorial" Im'm agreeing about what is not a reliable source. The quote is from what you objected to the sources of Digital Ninja. I apologize if i thought you would want to be consistant and want to improve the article to remove the Neutrality tag. I won't make the mistake again to prove a point. Would you consider changing your neutrality vote in light of the sources used in the article now, please. If not, then I will assume that this is a case of WP: IDIDN'TKNOWTHAT and let it rest.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, easy guys :) It's just ACORN ffs. I knew what Dixie meant, he was referring to something you said, not necessarily "proposed". Don't take things so personal though, it makes one stressed. Trust me, after the day I had at work today and then driving home listening to Mark Levin, I can't handle anymore stress :) Digital^NinjaWTF 06:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of items that IMO sway POV towards a pro-ACORN, pro-left, pro-whatever way. Some of these are simply a conflict of interest (e.g. non-trivial fact linking back to ACORN). I'm not going to quote any policy because everyone here seems to be plenty intelligent and knowledgeable regarding procedure. So, here it goes...

• 1st section, lead in

The very first cite is here.

This is what the lead currently says, based on that citation:

'"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 neighborhood safety, voter registration, health care, affordable housing, and other social issues. 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."

This is what the citation lead in reflects:

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, began in 1970 as a spin-off from the National Welfare Rights Organization, founded by George Wiley, who enlisted civil rights workers and trained them in an Alinsky-influenced program at Syracuse University. From a base in Arkansas, Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado developed a replicable model of forming membership organizations and developing leaders in low-income neighborhoods -- relying substantially on young middle-class staff working for subsistence wages. ACORN has established local housing corporations to rehabilitate homes, and has successfully pressured banks to provide mortgages and home improvement loans in low-income communities. ACORN has led “living wage” campaigns in many cities, and has forged alliances with labor unions. The Institute for Social Justice serves as ACORN's training arm. ACORN claims some 350,000 member families in 850 neighborhood chapters in over 100 cities.

Issue: Vastly difference in tone, slightly POVish by leaving out examples of "successfully pressured banks to provide mortgages".

• Cite 2: Leads back to ACORN while giving a wonderful description of how they improve the world in the 2nd paragraph of the first section.

• Cite 9: I have a major problem with not this citation, but how it's content is presented in the article. It completely downplays the weight of the source content. Additionally, I think we should have two or three sources for this point since it's rather con traversal.

• Cite 8: Citation back to ACORN, adding more fluff.

• Cite 12: C'mon, the source leads back to ACORN with the headline, "ACORN two years after Katrina, still fighting and winning!"

• Cite 41: Politico, which I don't have a huge problem with. However, it reads like a coatrack statement throwing attention on the Republican party for trying and take away funding of the poor organization that provides homes for poor people.

• Cite 42: This entire sentence needs to just be removed, "In contrast, John Atlas writes in a Huffington Post editorial that ACORN has "accumulated many enemies" and has been "subjected to vicious attacks from business lobbyists, conservative politicians, and right-wing media." This same source alleges that the George W. Bush administration has sought to harass ACORN with accusations of voter fraud.[42]" It simply adds POV to the article in multiple ways. Of course the Huffington Post is going to blame conservatives. And then the piece about GWB "harassing" ACORN. Like I said, IMO the whole sentence needs to go.

Actually, this is about all that I think the neutrality can be improved on. The rest of the article is fairly well balanced and accurate IMO. But yes, these sections I have minor issues with. Citation 9 I have a major issue with now that it's be brought to my attention. Opinions? Digital^NinjaWTF 05:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider looking at source 3 and 4. One claims CBS, but is really from the Crypt blog (CBS states the source in the lede) of politico.Die4Dixie (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did check out 3 and 4. Although, I wouldn't normally be fond of those sources, the purpose they're used for in the article is acceptable to me IMO. For example, they mention that although they clam non-partisan, they slant to the left (true), and that so-called left slant has caused problems (true). What aspect of it is bothering you?

Oh, and I wanted to let everyone know I'm not just here to make this big ass section and not provide proposals for wording and sources. I'm actually working on proposals I'll post one at a time. I simply wanted to let you all know what I was working on. If someone else wants to do something else, or wants me to provide my opinion towards consensus on some of the thins up-thread I'm more than happy to comply :) Digital^NinjaWTF 06:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, per WP:RS we want to use secondary sources over primary ones for whatever we can. However, the recent flurry of accusations against the article for using citations to ACORN itself feels distinctly dishonest and partisan to me. For an non-profit organization like ACORN, and particularly one that has a purpose that is political or social activist, much of the purpose and goals of the organization are going to almost necessarily be defined in their own statements. And the truth is that there's nothing wrong with that for Wikipedia. Yes, we need to contextualize things here and there ("ACORN states its goal is...") rather than state what ACORN states as a bare fact, but a lot of the article should be of that nature.

I tried to think of a good comparison here (not to lean too heavily on WP:OTHERSTUFF, but just to make sure I wasn't crazy in my intuition). Some stuff like Republican National Committee or Family Research Council ran through my head as political non-profit organizations "on the other side". But the fact that those are so politicized made me assume there would be problems/contention with those as well (I haven't even looked). So it struck me to look at a group that is similar in having both an advocacy and service goal, a non-profit, and one that is actually more prominent that ACORN even (hence potentially more widely coverd by secondary sources), Doctors without Borders: Médecins Sans Frontières.

Please take a look at that article. Specifically, jump down to its footnotes. You'll notice that almost every citation is to MSF themselves. I've only now glanced at the article, so I am not claiming it's the paragon of good articles (but it looks good at a glance). One thing I'm certain of is that the same sort of contentious claims that the article is biased because of MSF cites simply would not occur to anyone editing that article. The reason is that such a claim is structurally flawed, and is only used here out of an anti-ACORN political agenda. LotLE×talk 17:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I've just looked at the FRC article. It's citations have a far higher prevalence of links to FRC itself than does this ACORN article to ACORN statements. The RNC article is shockingly thin, without any footnotes to anything. Actually, the RNC one is about as fluffy a puff piece as you can get (I'm surprised), but I wouldn't push any comparison simply because it's not fleshed out. FRC and MSF are pretty nicely developed articles that make for good comparison. LotLE×talk 17:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, well received. I agree that primary sources almost have to be used when describing ones own goal (as I mentioned something to that effect a few treads up). I can work on simply tweaking some of those cites. However, a lot of my points are still well addressed, like citing the Huffinton Post and it's associated paragraph that really adds nothing to the article, and misrepresenting sources or playing around with weight as citation 9 does IMO. I'm not saying we should do anything drastic, and in reality I just wanted to see what others thought. I think some minor tweaking and removal of the Huffington Post piece would probably suffice. Thanks for your thoughtful response. Digital^NinjaWTF 18:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say remove the Huffington Post reference and it's associated paragraph, remove the tag, and lets get back on track to 1 issue at a time. We had a very nice flow of dynamic article improvement going down...lets not loose it :) Digital^NinjaWTF 18:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do so, please remove the boehner info sourced via politico immediately above it.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, keep the boehner stuff and replace the atlas comment with this: Obama campaign counsel Robert F. Bauer said Republican complaints about Acorn were designed to "suppress the vote and unduly influence investigations and prosecutors through baseless allegations of vote fraud."[[4]]. I personally am happy with the current section, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think they both need to go. The less Politico/Huffington Post stuff, the more the article will improve. Digital^NinjaWTF 19:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they both can go ,along with the other blogs. I appreciate your and Lulu's more collegial tone and lack of attacks. I would welcome your opinions on the AP report about the revelations of the FBI investigation. The AP story is the epitome of balance and we could do a whole lot worse than they did ( and we have with loaded words like "leaked")Die4Dixie (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaks again (still)

"leaks" is not a loaded term. It's the best word for describing "leaks." There's a long discussion of this issue upthread. I'm not aware of an acceptable synonym for "leaks" in this context, and think the fact this information came through unofficial, rather than official channels, is germane.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bali ultimate is right that "leaks" is the neutral term most widely used by reliable sources. So I'm not actually pushing for a change. However, I had a phrase that I used earlier before "leaks" was settled on. Writing something like "Anonymous FBI sources stated..." is factual and avoids the false insinuation of official imprimatur that "revealed" has. LotLE×talk 21:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer "leaks." Much prefer it. But could live with "anonymous FBI sources SAID" (as a matter of plain writing, there is no instance where i wouldn't prefer "said" to "stated") if we're going to make a federal case over this.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confidential sources have indicated to me that this matter would fall under the jurisdiction of the FBI's Division of Enunciations and Assertions. LotLE×talk 21:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AP ( a reliable source) uses "confirmed". I think this is best , but would accept "said" as a compromise. Most other sources synthesized the AP report that i linked above. Good research dictates going to the original source; however, "said will do.Die4Dixie (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will strongly oppose any formulation that does not use either "leak" or "anonymous sources said" (can't remember if they were anon "DOJ" or anon "FBI;" whichever). Can't see any useful further contribution i can make to this discussion.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Bali. Ultra-strongly oppose apologetics on the leaks (but anonymous would be a distant second bearable version). LotLE×talk 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just say what the AP source,(the primary one)[[5]]. Your suggestion could even be interpreted as the janitor at the FBI building did this.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it this way: Absolutely no way, never, not a chance in hell, that we're going to distort sources to pretend this was officially released rather than leaked. The so-called "primary source" just means that it's the one D4D cherry picked to come closest to his spin since the large majority of others use the term "leaked." Of course, even so, what it says is: "Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Justice Department regulations forbid discussing ongoing investigations particularly so close to an election."... in other words, the leaks are explicitly illegal (or at the least, a violation of job obligations by the officials). LotLE×talk 22:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My , such hostility. I did not cherry pick, I searched under AP, FBI, ACORN , and Yahoo.( I'm to lazy to cherry pick). The rest of the sources are synthesized from this primary source. Don't be disingenuous, you have a Ph.D. and you ought understand what I'm saying about primary sources from your first term paper in English 1001 all those years ago. If you want to include the other words and form a separate section, that's groovy with me; however, your mischaracterizations of my actions and intents are unwarranted. Illegal is not reflected here. FBI guidelines are not law and I can think of a couple of FBI officials who have the authority to make those revelations without running afoul of agent level rules.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[6] another NPOV source, 1st one up with reuters acorn and FBI. These are the kinds of primary sources that we should be using. No spin, just he facts, ma'am.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we tone it down and just stick with the sourcing? If the majority of reliable sources say "leaked" it's leaked. If they say it's accused or alleged to have been a leak we can say it's been called a leak. If it's only bloggers, commentators, or synthesis to call it a leak then we should drop it. If there's a better word than leak that conveys an unauthorized / illegal but purposeful release of information for political purposes, then we should use that word (or spell it out). Very simple, really. Further, a party involved in disclosing or receiving the info is not a neutral third party source. The paper that broke the scoop should have less credence, not more, in characterizing what the scoop was. It becomes a primary source for that.Wikidemon (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TO which part of my tone did you object, or was that directed to LuLu? Yo may feel free to respond on my talk page.This source defines leak [7]. Leak is informal and not encyclopedic. It sets the wrong tone no matter how pleasing it is to the ears of the unwashed masses.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't objecting to you at all, just urging people to remain friendly. Lulu was being a bit harsh, don't you think? You are right that "leak" is slightly informal, although it does have a specific meaning and it is formal enough for the sources to use. I don't know if I would call it "loaded" but it is definitely a negative term. We could break it up, and say that an unnamed official told the paper, and if sourced add a few words to say that the release was accused of being improper / illegal / politically motivated. Sorry to be lazy hear but I have not looked at the sources so I don't have any opinion on whether it should actually say that, just that if the sources are there that is how it could be described. I'm mostly going to stay out of this debate, just offering some thoughts. Wikidemon (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting silly. Why don't we just write the sentence as "confirmed", then add a following sentence at the end that reads, "Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Justice Department regulations forbid discussing ongoing investigations particularly so close to an election". This way, we're simply almost quoting what the primary & secondary sources are saying. I think it's not a problem with the word leaked that others (including myself in a less profound way) have, but rather the fact that you are not using the same wording as sources. And yes, "leaked" takes weight away from the investigation, because a "leaked story" is a topic of and itself. Digital^NinjaWTF 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's really all I ever asked for. Is that so much?Die4Dixie (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually one small comment; It appears that we would be saying that there is a specific law against revealing investigations against ACORN near election time. We might have to teak the last part of it or remove it.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We still can't invent more generous interpretations of the "good leak" than the sources use:

• Obama lawyer wants Justice to investigate ACORN leak [8] (Boston Globe)
• "But the AP’s “FBI-is-investigating” leak has another historical precedent" [9] (Consortium News)
• Law Enforcement Used to Suppress the Vote ("On October 16, the day after McCain's comments in the last debate, "senior law enforcement officials" leaked news of an FBI investigation into voter registration allegations surrounding ACORN") [10] (MarketWatch)
• "John Conyers recently sent two letters to Attorney General Michael Mukasey deploring a news leak that the FBI is investigating Acorn." [11] (Wall Street Journal)
• "This was followed within 24 hours by a "leak" to the AP reporting that the FBI had launched an investigation to determine if ACORN was engaged in a national conspiracy to violate election laws." [12] (Nashua Telegraph)
• etc

I can't believe we're even talking about trying to spin away what actually occurred! LotLE×talk 01:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Globe mentions leak not once other than in head line. I f you want to discuss how head lines are made, we can , but it does not support your contention. I'll investigate the rest and post as I do. If the rest are like the first, they won't cut it. Obviously you don't understand how the informal tone of the word is absolutely inappropriate for wikipedia, but I will suffer you a little longer.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

second source is fringy and doesn't cut the grade either. Please refer to your earlier attack post about what I and other good faith editors were doing and see shoe/fit /wear.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the third links back to: [13]. It is only repeated there and is a company that makes press releasdes for people, not report news. So unreliable as to be laughable as well as pathetically contemptible. Quit try to make me chase the rabbit here and get some reliable sources like the ones I've offered.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AHHHHH> the WSJ. yep, a really reliable source, you saved the best for last. In facct I look forward to including that very balanced work extensively into the article. Thank you again. lots of little nuggets there about acorn. We agree that it is a reliable source.( did you read it? I'm guessing no)Die4Dixie (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last source uses " leak " in quotations, and highlights its inappropriateness and non encyclopedic nature. Any more "sources" ? this is bordering on disruptive.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with D4D (as I said above) that "leak" is too informal a word to be encyclopedia. There is a whole group of words - smear, con, set-up, and so on - that newspapers will use but that don't seem dignified or neutral enough for the tone of an encyclopedia article. On the substance, although it is certainly fishy, and probably is a politically-motivated leak, unless there is an investigation of the circumstances of disclosure of the investigation or something particularly solid, it is all speculation. If nothing ever comes of it, and unless there are a lot of reliable sources that conclude it is a "leak" or the equivalent, I think it gives undue importance to the way the press found out. Actually, by the same token, if nothing comes of the FBI's ACORN investigation we should drop that from the article. If something does come of it, FBI will make an announcement and we won't have to worry about how the story first appeared. So if people can be a little patient, all of this will be clear in a few weeks or months and any debate we are having now will be moot. Wikidemon (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a vote for striking of "leaked"? If so I would like to start working towards a consensus. I believe that is Digital , wikidemon, and Die4Dixie (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• opposed i will not oppose, though do not like, a shift of wording in favor of "anonymous sources said." I oppose all other wordings on this issue aside from the two just mentioned in my last sentence.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a very constructive attitude when trying to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps you could be more open to NPOV wording and some better style. TO state that you will automatically oppose anything that it not the exact two words in your sentence is disruptive. This is a colaborative project, and I would suggest a more collegial tone if you want to start contributing constructively to this discussion in order make improvements. Please state rationally your objections to the proposal intead of merely stating that you don't like itDie4Dixie (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petulant insistence on the use of unencyclopedic terms like "leaked" to change to focus away from the subject is one of the reasons that Wikipedia is only taken seriously by those who edit it and understand the non NPOV and loaded language that is used for purposes other than to build a true reference work. Unfortunately, most of the readers of the wiki don't have the critical skills to understand what happens and take it at face value, never knowing that there are discussion pages. The project should not be used to spoon feed readers. It tries to be an encyclopedia; however, hijacking it for propagandistic purposes is an abuse. It is disingenuous to ask for one standard of documentation from people trying to build a neutral, balanced article, and when it is given(AP, Reuters) come back with fawning Huffington Post and shady fringy "publications". When I use the word primary source, I am not using it in the sense that wikipedia does. Let's cut the crap. Almost everyone here is intelligent enough and has the critical skills to understand the problems with "leaked" here. Let's cut the posturing out, and the ones who don't like it, but understand, get with the editors who don't understand and help your friend out. You'll be doing him a service. Lulu, I know you are bright, we have had conversations on my talk page about semantics, pragmatics, connotations and denotations. If you examine this objectively, I believe that you will come to admit 'leaked" does not belong regardless of your personal convictions about the subject. I didn't come here to beat up acorn, I came for a balanced article, and the way it reads now it is not. I say we use the highest stands of documentation. I will shortly come with a balanced suggestion(IMHO) and put it up for a vote. You fellows don';t have to like my user page nor my convictions, nor I yours. This is not an ideological fight between Good and Evil, where we should muddy the water for strategic purposes, it's to build an encyclopedia. We have bogs for that cosmic battle, MSNBC and FOX. Let's check the rest of it at the door.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D4D is right about one thing: we must not hijack the article to try to push propagandistic apologetics for the FBI leak. Calling it something other than what it plainly is, and what the sources say, would be far too much spin, and highly unencyclopedic. Using a term other than "leak" (about which there is nothing informal), or perhaps "anonymous sources disclosed", would be a grave and political distortion of the plain meaning of the sources.LotLE×talk 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We agree, it would seem. I propose " Senior law enforcement sources anonymously revealed/diclosed/confirmed/acknowledged an FBI investigation...". At no time did I want to give the impression that this was an official anouncement through proper channels, and a quick look( maybe thorough) through my suggestions will show that. I agrre that it would be dihonest to imply that this was an official revelation, and I would be equally adamant if someone tried to do this.The article absolutely must say that this was done anonymously(or even on the condition of anonymity) . I think there is room for both our desires for neutrality. I do not believe that "leaked" will serve that purpose; however, if you believe that "anonymous" will ( which again, I have never opposed) then I see the bases of a collegial agreement.Die4Dixie (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal and conservative opinion

I feel that the Huffington editorial, or something similar to it, is important to include in the article. We have quite a bit on "conservative source blah criticizes ACORN for foo"... which is all good and proper, since the organization really has been subject of public debate, and that debate is significant to its notability. For the same reason, it is important to have a somewhat symmetrical "liberal source X defends/praises ACORN for Y" (which is what the HuffPo quote amounts to). Obviously, in both cases, we need to be clear that we are reporting an opinion of some particular person/publication rather than claim whatever fact they are claiming. But the fact the opinion exists is notable.

The BoehnerBauer comment above is OK. The Conyers comment that was given earlier in the discussion is also somewhat germane. However, both of those are pretty narrowly about this one election cycle and one (alleged) investigation during the election cycle. The Atlas HuffPo piece is a more general commentary on the (purported) political landscape of reactions to ACORN. I do not feel Boehner or Conyers can fill the same important point in the narrative flow of the article. LotLE×talk 20:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They appear to be proposing deleting all the back and forth, no criticism or defenses from any perspective. That's what they seem to be proposing, at any rate. I recommend waiting until there are actual proposals. Otherwise, we're just chasing our tales again.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, lotle if you read that article the bauer stuff ties into the history of complaints of politically motivated investigations -- he asks in a letter to mukasey for the stuff from this election cycle to be included in the broader investigation already underway of DOJ abuses of power. So if it becomes a fight over huffpost "is not a good source for left-leaning opininion" (which of course, is the one thing that it is uncontroversially good for) this article and info can more or less directly replace while keeping the sense of the article the same. I'm unfussed either way.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Delaware Online source that quotes Bauer, I think it reports a similarly general (liberal) opinion as the HuffPo article expresses. So there might be a substitute there (if one were needed, which I don't see). LotLE×talk 20:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this short paragraph over on Project Vote. It seems of borderline relevance over there, since it isn't really about PV, but that's a discussion for that other talk page. Looking at it though, it seems like it might be relevant in conjunction with the SD rejection rate. However, even though 17% and 1% are starkly different numbers, they are not really in contradiction. It would be consistent with our sources that 1% of SD registrations contained fictitious information, and the other 16% were duplicates of good registrations. It's also consistent that 16% had fictitious information in SD. Even if the latter, that could be because SD was highly atypical of national rates. Still, the sentence gets at a possible national rate (albeit from a biases source). LotLE×talk 19:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 2008, Project Vote's executive director, Michael Slater, said allegations of voter fraud against ACORN are "absolutely false"^[22]. In most states, groups such as ACORN are legally required to submit all registration forms they collect. ACORN flags suspicious forms. Slater estimated that in a recent voter registration drive about 1% or 13,000 registration forms turned in to election authorities could contain fictitious information.

The AP source on the FBI "investigation" that D4D praises reads (and I quote): "A second senior law enforcement official says the FBI was looking at results of recent raids on ACORN offices in several states for any evidence of a coordinated national scam.". The version he sticks in doesn't even make sense semantically ("investigating the investigations"?!). Can we just follow sources rather than try to find a word that spins the leak as more than it is.

It seems pretty clear from the source that the leak was intended to insinuate more than what actually occurred. Reading the source a bit more carefully, it says that the FBI asked to be CC'd on state investigations. What the leakers presumably hoped to get into voters minds before the election, and what D4D is hoping to convey to readers, was the idea that the FBI was launching its own special task force in some RICO-style manhunt. But the leakers were careful enough to avoid outright lying about what they were doing. LotLE×talk 19:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The FBI is investigating whether the community activist group ACORN helped foster voter registration fraud around the nation before the presidential election. A senior law enforcement official confirmed the investigation to The Associated Press on Thursday.

A second senior law enforcement official says the FBI was looking at results of recent raids on ACORN offices in several states for any evidence of a coordinated national scam."[[14]]

Please do not misrepresentt the source that I used before your last "good faith " revert. "Looked into" is unencyclopedic. If I were to buy a set of Brittanica and saw "looked into " instead of "investigate", I would want my money back. Please take this in the way I mean it , which is to say to improve the article. You have, for what ever reason, abadoned academia and academic writing in favor of journalism. The things that are written in newspapers are not always phrased in the same way that one would use in academia. The source says investigate. This is atributed to the first official. My assumption of good faith is being strained here and I fear that your actions are boardering on disruptive. Now, if this is going to abe an ongoing problem , I will have to concede your ownership of the article because I do have have a paper that I have to finish for an academic conference that will be peer reviewed.Die4Dixie (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting depressing. D4D is right, "looked into" isn't something I would stick into an encyclopedia. And quite frankly, neither is "leaked". Those are not quality writing material. Also, why can't we just start what the sources state? I don't understand why we can't just use a quotation or something. Digital^NinjaWTF 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What this all amounts to is that the whole sentence, in any form, still has no place in this article. The only reason it exists at all here is because the sock army wanted to try to get in material to discredit ACORN, and tried desperately to spin obviously partisan, and almost certainly illegal, leaks by the Bush Whitehouse into something they weren't. For whatever reason, D4D is still pushing that same agenda. If you read the actual sources, it's pretty darn clear that all the whole thing amounts to is requests for report copies from the FBI to local investigators... not anything remotely approaching actual encyclopedic significance. Until or unless there is something official, there's no way in hell that this reaches the encyclopedic "view from the future" that we're supposed to have. "Leak" is a bit more formal than "looked into", but neither are the problem: the problem is that we're trying to turn campaign slogans into historical material without any actual evidence or citations. All the rest of fake phrases that try to turn a leak into an official announcement are even worse than sloganeering, they are outright fabrication. LotLE×talk 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I yield, I give, it's just too big of a magilla. Let's just take the damn thing out until an investigation, not a "looking into", is officially announced. --GoodDamon 01:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Damon. At this point, lets just strip out all reference to the FBI thing until there's official confirmation (I had argued strenuously against this in the past, but it's become too much of a distraction.) One day soon, probably in the next 3 months, either the investigation will be squashed or something formal and official related to it will come out, and this issue can be dealt with then.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to comments by ninja in a lower section: In the recent past (starting a few days ago, and perhaps much earlier) lotle had argued strenuously for not including the FBI info and, if i remember correctly, GD had said he saw merit in that arguement, if not outright supporting it. I have been fairly consistent all along in insisting on describing it as a leak, or as a compromise position "anonymous fbi sources said" and have also said that I would not be comfortable with any mention unless described as above. I now support just pulling the plug on it because it's creating a lot of semantic confusion. This confusion/disagreement looks to me like a conesequence of the vague reporting on the nature of the sources (who are these folks really?) and what they really meant (a fed level investigation? An investigation of other, local investigations? Something related but different?). This has convinced me the best course is to wait until the reality becomes clear. For now, it seems the nature of what is going on is open to various interpretations, making consensus on this issue hard to reach. The good news is that there WILL be clarity on this in the not particularly distant future, and the correct wording can be dealt with then (i.e. either, "the DOJ said the reoporting was bad and there was no investigation," or "there was an investigation, but DOJ said it found no evidence of wrong doing," or "charges were filed on date xxx after an FBI investigation found ACORN had likely violated law x, y or z").Bali ultimate (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on several points. However, all that aside, doesn't this source put all that to rest? It even names the FBI spokes person who verified the investigation. Now, we can just add conclusive information that there is, in fact, an investigation, right? Digital^NinjaWTF 03:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says mclatchy confirmed what the AP had reported, via anonymous sources of its own. It leaves in the same place, as far as my views are concerned. Also, you must have closed this discussion while i started adding in my last comment. No opposition to closing, as this can be carried on elsewhere/later. Was just weird (I hit save page and saw i'd saved comments inside a closed thread, when i swore it was open when i hit the "edit" button).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely shouldn't have the information in here until it's actual information. FWIW, McClathcy seems to be the name of the publication, it has nothing to do with the name of the leaking agent. The source is badly written, but you should really read it.LotLE×talk 04:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as general information, [McClatchy] is an ownership group for a bunch of US papers that runs its own in-house wire/news distribution effort. This newspaper-linked news service used to be called "Knight-Ridder" (always called "Night Rider" in the trade) until McClatchy bought them 2 or so years ago.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's that about? While I confess minor annoyance at what I feel is POV-pushing by another editor, it's a pretty darn low-level thing in all truth. D4D and I each made a couple changes to a phrase in a couple different directions, but neither of us is close to 3RR, and basically it's being discussed on talk. It seems more civil than 95% of the pages I've edited over the years (yeah, yeah... I'm prone to a little rhetorical flourish, and I'm not alone in this, but hardly the attacks one sees on half of WP between editors who feel really deeply about just how many Power Rangers there are :-)).

On the other hand, I also do not feel any actual harm will come of the page being protected for a few more days. Still, it's slightly weird. Was there some admin report filed by someone to make this happen?

Hmm, I guess it has something to do with this 3RR report on Die4Dixie. The robot seems confused to me, FWIW. D4D made a number of entirely different edits, most of them non-controversial ones that I am perfectly happy with. Only one edit seems to be a reversion; and that's what the admin at 3RRBot reported (a page I had never heard of before just now). LotLE×talk 02:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Everyone here seems to be editing with improving the article as their primary concern, and I don't see anything even remotely resembling an edit war beginning. It's been nice and calm. --GoodDamon 02:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It looks to me like a series of vigorous, healthy applications of BRD in an effort to improve the article. The editors here are getting along, and nobody is edit warring that I can see. Especially if we can get Die4Dixie to confirm, we ought to approach Chase me ladies and ask if he (I assume) will lift the article protection. Wikidemon (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Someone should file a bug report on that bot. And about the conversation from above, I can't believe you're seriously considering leaving important, verifiable information out of the article until the information "changes" to less controversial wording. If leak is insisted upon by the majority of editors, then so be it. However, it was never a matter of serious discussion to leave the information out of the article. In my opinion, the problem isn't the wording, or the fact that the investigation wasn't been officially released, but more so being interpreting the context of the AP report as a "leak" when in reality, our business is only to tell it like it is; "An FBI spokesperson confirmed the investigation disclosed Thursday and released to the Associated Press alleging ACORN activity in federal voting fraud."[15] (summary). Can we please just update the article already? The report even mentions an FBI Spokesperson by name, McClathcy. Digital^NinjaWTF 03:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry ninja, but i just read that report (i'm assuming we're talking about the McClatchy wire report via the Miami Herald)... I see no mention of an FBI spokesman, named or otherwise. Perhaps i missed it?Bali ultimate (talk) 04:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is working fine, don't file a report! The problem is with me, the admin. I'll explain further, if you give me a minute or so to type out my reasoning. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RRBot is a relatively new invention, and one which is helping us admins an awful lot. It merely spots lots of edits made together, and thus alerts us to potential edit wars. A nifty piece of kit, and one which has no problems with it, as long as it's used correctly. I was alerted to the page by the bot, but did not protect over a 3RR, I protected over a possible' flare up of what looks to be a long-standing difference of opinions, particularly I thought that this edit might end up being reverted by Die4Dixie (talk · contribs), who seems to be an almost single-track, religious extremist editor with right-wing views and a block for incivility. You can see how an uninvolved admin might jump in to the situation, especially considering that the three main articles edited by Dixie are ACORN, Barrack Obama and Illegal immigration to the United States, along with edits such as this. However, on closer inspection, you do seem to have this all under control, so I'll happily unprotect - thanks for telling me, and sorry if I upset anyone or delayed edits! Regards, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]