Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Lead trimming

I'm going to trim the lead which is quite long. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully it is more readable now. There shouldn't have been anything deleted from the lead that isn't in the body of the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Six paragraphs down to two in the lede; sounds like an improvement to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Acorn behind the Occupy Wall Street Protests

I have added a reference from a media source (Hey, Fox is a media source, even if you disagree.. I don't always agree with them either) showing that Acorn is behind the Occupy Wall-street Protests, and is funding them. Any information on this should be collected and added to flesh out the page as I'm at work and cant do it atm. Belgarath TS (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Fox is probably not a reliable source here, as it is in full politics mode on this so-called exclusive story. If other less partisan sources were to confirm the truth (verifiability), relevance, and weight of the possibility that the apparently defunct ACORN is now lending its support to Occupy Wall Street then it is conceivably pertinent here in the ACORN article. However, if you strip away the hyperbole, what Fox actually sources is not what they conclude, that ACORN is "behind" OWS, but rather that former ACORN individuals are now supporting it. As these people are not banned from politics, it seems utterly unremarkable that associates once involved in an a now-defunct organization are now supporting a new political movement. What is perhaps more interesting and better sourced is the fact that Fox set out to do an expose on the topic (there is some reliable coverage on Fox's methods here), and that these claims about OWS are percolating through the conservative blosophere and press. For that we need some perspective. First, statements about what Fox is doing need to be verified by third party sources, not Fox. Second, there are a lot of disparaging claims about Occupy Wall Street being made by a lot of conservative groups, they would have to be put in context and probably not in this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• Earlier this year, I also heard from Fox News that Google, Facebook, and MTV, in collaboration with our State Department, were in bed with a coalition of radical Islamists and Communists, who were behind the Egyptian uprising against Hosni Mubarak. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
• So basically because it comes from FOX you will not include it. Got it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.68.33 (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • When any source acts as an advocate or operative rather than a reporter of news, no, it is not a reliable source. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

ACORN Did Not Disqualify The Votes, Election Officials Did

It was clearly written in that New York Times article that election officials disqualified some of the votes.75.72.35.253 (talk) 03:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

True. But the material you removed said that ACORN just flagged some forms forms for further attention. Once ACORN, or anyone else, gets a filled-out registration form, they can't disqualify it themselves. Else they might just throw away a lot of applications for the "wrong" party. Did you actually read what you reverted? PhGustaf (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Complaint

I am inquiring of this part of the lead. "selectively edited videos by two conservative activists using a hidden ". There is no proof that the videos were edited and I don't think testimony from the leader of the organization can be considered reliable in the case of something that could condemn him. And I also question the relevance of calling them conservative, what does that have to do with ACORN at all? I don't think that the things the Attorney general said can be sourced in the lead, and at the very least cannot be stated as fact.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello 174.49.24.190. The various criminal investigations involving the videos found them to be deceptively and selectively edited, hence we summarize that information in the lede. If you're looking for the source citations, you'll find them further down in the body of the text. Accordingly per WP:BRD, I'm reverting the text back to the prior version. You can continue discussing it here, while you might also want to check the archives for related discussions on this issue. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally read the entire article that was cited and the information that is sourced to the article is nowwhere to be found in the article. Hence, I replaced the information with what was ACTUALLY in the article. I am reverting your revert and I advise you actually read the article before further action.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to add that if you have legitimate sources that actually have information of the various criminal investigatoins and their results, then please add that information and source them. But the current source has none of the information which I deleted in it, which is why I deleted it, feel free to read it yourself and see that I am correct. The article says nothing of multiple investigations but says that a SINGLE ex-attorney, not even a current one, that was commissioned (PAYED) by ACRON, which in my opinion is very suspicious, concluded that no laws had been broken. But that wasn't even what the controversy was over and there were never any claims of criminality making that entire paragraph a 'Red Herring' fallacy.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You've stated that you personally read the entire article and that the article says nothing of multiple investigations except for "a single ex-attorney..." that was paid for by ACORN. I take it you somehow missed the sourced material in the body of the article which reported the results of the criminal investigations conducted by the District Attorney's office in Brooklyn and the California Attorney General, which both determined the videos were heavily edited and concluded there was no criminal conduct on the part of ACORN employees. It also covers the GAO investigation also revealed that there was no sign that ACORN had mishandled the money it had received. The information has the requisite source citations. Take some time to read them over and familiarize yourself with them. On the issue of reverting the revert as you did, please understand that when you come to an article and make a significant change (in this case, reframing the issue on the editing of the videos to your point of view), and then someone reverts the change back to prior long standing state of the article and asks that you discuss the change on the talk page, the normal practice under WP:BRD is to discuss the changes, not double revert the article back to the new version you just created. Doing so starts the process of edit warring, which as you can imagine creates entirely new problems. Also, it is important to try and set aside personal views when editing articles that perhaps you feel strongly about (especially when those feelings are negative). One of your recent posts to another article included the statement that ACORN is a "corrupt company that defrauds it's donators and sets up undercover prostitution and human trafficking channels across america as well as many other things." You might want to give Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View a read for more on this issue. Sincerely, AzureCitizen (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If the information referenced is actually in a link inside of the referenced article, wouldn't it be best ot make the reference the linked article? An editor's job is to make this easy reading, and not make the reader have to go looking in links to find the information sourced. And I did not read those articles because my natural response wasn't to go wandering around in hyperlinks to find material referenced.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

We strive for easy reading. Is there a particular reference (or references) you can point me to, wherein it points to something that's actually a link within another article? I might be able to help you get it fixed. AzureCitizen (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes there is, this entire section: "Following the publication of the videos, four different independent investigations by various state and city Attorneys General and the GAO released in 2009 and 2010 cleared ACORN, finding its employees had not engaged in criminal activities and that the organization had managed its federal funding appropriately, and calling the videos deceptively and selectively edited to present the workers in the worst possible light." is referenced to ten but none of it is actually in that source. I had edited it earlier and replaced it with what the article actually said about investigations, then it was reverted.--174.49.24.190 (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, 174.49.24.190 (may I call you Jacksoncw?). The text you quoted is not cited to source ten (10). This text is cited to that source: "Despite this, by March 2010, 15 of ACORN's 30 state chapters had already closed". The text you quoted is actually a lede section summary of content (with citations) contained further down in the body of the article. Hopefully that clears up any confusion. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If that is the case, wouldn't it be good to put the reference after the summary as well? Could you point me to the information that my quote summarizes so I can check out the reference?--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The information starts at word 4766 of the article. Also, you'll find that words 4766 through 4773 direct you to another Wikipedia article that covers that specific subject in more detail (and cites even more references). (...and thanks for the fix, TMCk!) Xenophrenic (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more elaborate, I have no idea which word that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.24.190 (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should remove selectived editing see fox news report http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,549903,00.html, also I would point out that Harshbarger was hired by ACORN so he is not independent.Basil rock (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that story by Fox; it describes only what the selectively edited videos showed. Later news stories, after investigations and careful, real journalism were conducted, revealed that the videos were indeed selectively and misleadingly edited. (See follow-up NY Post story.) And yes, Harshbarger was also hired to do an independent review (you should read the reliable sources), and his independent review came to the same conclusion as law enforcement investigations did. Also, I would point out that your link is to a "Fox News" piece. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fox is a legitimate source, as far as Harshberger he can't be independent when he is selected by the people being investigated.Basil rock (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The local landfill is also a legitimate source. The question is, "source for what?" You suggested above that we should remove the fact that the videos were selectively edited, and then you pointed to the Fox piece. That Fox piece doesn't dispute the fact that the videos were selectively edited. So perhaps you would like to provide a reliable source that does refute the findings of several law enforcement investigations, as well as independent investigations by Harshbarger, the Government Accountability Office, investigative journalists, etc.? As for Harshbarger, of course he can conduct an independent review when he is hired to do so. And since you fail to cite a single issue with his findings, which concur with the results of all other investigation, your assertion makes no sense to me. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Basil rock, I agree that Harshbarger was hired to conduct an independent investigation. Companies and organizations frequently hire outside firms to conduct investigations and reviews without oversight or control by the requesting entity, and it is normal and routine to refer to that investigation or review as being "independent." Since you are the one trying to institute the change here, the burden rests with you to convince other editors first instead of simply reverting it back. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Azure you reverted without discussion he was hired by the entity they can call him Independent but that definition does not fit. Mine is more reflective and does give a POV the way the previous edit did. Please go on talk page in the future before revetting another's edit. Thank you.Basil rock (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the discussion here beforehand and saw that you decided to delete "independent" without responding to another editor's opposition first ("As for Harshbarger, of course he can conduct an independent review when he is hired to do so."). It is more appropriate to try and get consensus for such a change before trying to revert the revert as you did; you might also want to give WP:BRD a read for some perspective. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Before you rentered the discussion it was 2-1 in my favor. now it is 2-2 so the nurden is on you to not prove your point to the majority.Basil rock (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is the other editor who you are saying supports your position that "independent" should be deleted from the article? AzureCitizen (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. For the record I don't believe any of the most recent discussion supports a change in the article or adds anything to the previous consensus discussions on the same topic. I would suggest not making any changes absent a showing of consensus, but if you want to take WP:BRD literally, that's fine too - just realize that others may revert changes they don't feel are supported. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

indeed, it's not a vote. However, if you wish to consider it to be a vote, you can add me on the "independent" side - independent auditors and reviewers are routinely paid by the target organization, and independence refers to control and/or oversight of the findings, not financial support. It's a basic principle. Kate (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as the Harshberger investigation independence it was debunked http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/08/covering-up-for-acorn, as Media Matters is ued as a source on Wikipedia do not discount a non liberal sopurce.Basil rock (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not finding that opinion piece very convincing, and I noted at the end that Mr. Vadum's book is titled "How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers". Perhaps you could try to find something non-partisan that we can seriously consider? Your argument above isn't looking very promising when it's 4-to-1 against. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't "discount a non liberal sopurce." We discount non-reliable sources. You've linked to a source that doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

According to you, you can't have it both way, Media Matter is a self proffessed propoganda site, Fox is a leading U.S new source.Basil rock (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take any concerns you have to WP:RSN, the reliable sources noticeboard. There, you can ask for commentary and guidance on your Vadum source, with regard to your opinion that he has "debunked" the investigation being "independent". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Selectively edited with intent to deceive

Editing a video (or anything else) is a selective process, it is essentially the definition of the word "edit", and it's what an editor does. So, "selectively edited" doesn't really add any literal meaning, we could go around all of wikipedia and change every occurence of "edit" with "selectively edit" without changing the literal truth of the articles. However, we native speakers of English can "hear" what is actually meant by the phrase "selectively edit", it's a POV that one employs to make an accusation of an opposite POV. For wikipedia to quote a POV is for wikipedia to take a POV. Wouldn't a better compromise be for the wikipedia page to point out that the video was edited (i.e. not an entire raw video) and that it has been characterized by some (even some ostensibly reliable parties) as "selectively edited", i.e. to describe what happened on a partisan issue, rather than to adopt a side of a partisan issue. 69.204.224.25 (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be confusing routine editing with the misleading editing performed by O'Keefe. There is no "partisan issue" about his selective editing; the article simply conveys what reliable sources tell us. You might also find the previous discussions (above) informative as well. Xenophrenic (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies in advance if this explanation is not in the right place or is formatted incorrectly. I am new to this process and simply want to explain my edits. Please advise on the proper way to do so in the future if I am doing this incorrectly. On to the meat of this entry: Edited Xenophrenic's revisions: Re: "return to wording per cited sources" - Disagree. "partially falsified" & "deceptively" does not appear in cited source; assertions beginning with "portray" & "apparently" removed and replaced with actual events recorded at the bottom of p.16 in cited CA AG Report; removed any mention of illegal activity per the cited sources; added back the negative findings of the report, which were, ironically enough, "selectively edited" out of the original edit of this article. The attention brought to weaknesses surrounding ACORN's accounting of finances, while not illegal, were enough to raise concerns which led to the defunding and loss of donors. This is a case of "two wrongs don't make a right", wherein the methods used to illuminate these problems were flawed and could be illegal, but legitimate problems with ACORN were raised nonetheless, magnified by the fact that part of its funding comes from taxpayer money. ACORN was only cleared of prosecutable crimes and of evidence of mishandling of federal funds; clearly, other negative concerns were raised, which are proven facts clearly recorded in all original reports cited (as opposed to biased news coverage OF the sources, which attempt to spin the actual findings of the report). This article should present both sides of the argument in an unbiased manner, and not insert subtle assertions as to whether ACORN was actually innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever. The reader can read both the good and bad aspects of this issue from the original sources for themselves, then make his/her own decision. DancefightTillDawn (talk) 23:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for registering an account. This is indeed the correct place to propose and discuss edits, and don't worry too much about the formatting. Since you are new, I should mention a couple things right off that may be of help. First, your edits are to the lead paragraphs of the article. The lead is primarily a summary of significant content covered and referenced in the body of the article, and as such, will have fewer citations, and will use summary language. This may account for your inability to find a citation for a specific word, or to find a word in a specific citation. Second, that section of the lead deals with events more thoroughly covered in the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy article, where you will find considerably more references on the matter. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Just wanted to add a thought: As it pertains to the video controversy, what I'm attempting to do is remove opinionated assertions and create an edit which only presents facts from original sources. This way, specifically on this issue, the article will be as unbiased as humanly possible. Original sources would mean original reports released, original court documents, official records, sworn affidavits, etc.--NOT news coverage of the original sources. News coverage should only be cited if it presents original, verifiable facts not found in original sources. We shouldn't be citing events which "allegedly" occurred if they are not verified as fact yet, for example. To this end, both positive and negative facts directly cited from these original sources should be given equal attention. Alternately, if other editors insist on using speculation and assertion to explain one side of the video controversy, then they should be clearly labeled as such, and not written in such a way as to portray them as actual fact. I.e., you may state that "so-and-so reported that the videos were partially falsified", but you should not just state that in fact "the videos were partially falsified". That wording does not appear in anywhere in the report cited and, in my opinion, is an assertion. I can only verify the "selectively edited" portion in the report, but nothing about falsification. In that respect, the opposing viewpoint should also be presented (i.e. that so-and-so stated that while the videos were edited, they did expose inappropriate behavior which was of enough concern to move for defunding). DancefightTillDawn (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a thorough reading of Primary and Secondary Sources might serve you well here. Wikipedia actually prefers reliable secondary sources over primary sources, which can be misused or misinterpreted. Opinions shouldn't be used in the article to support assertions of fact. As noted above, please read the more complete Wikipedia article on the controversy and review the sources. I'm sure you'll find that the videos were not merely selectively edited, but done so with the intent to deceive. A law enforcement source even noted, "Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister." As for your desire to insert an "opposing viewpoint", viewpoints are opinions. The article should cover what transpired, with proper weight and context. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)