Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

USA-centric/Not primary topic[edit]

ACORN is the name for a number of affiliated community unions in a variety of countries. This article's current focus on ACORN in the US is USA-Centric and not the primary topic for the majority of the world's readership. While maintaining the current content, I will edit the article to make it more reflective of ACORN. --Woofboy (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree strongly with the creation of a specific History of ACORN in the United States article. If the bulk of RS coverage of ACORN is about the US organization, then that's also what the article should reflect. There are certainly no size constraints justifying a FORK. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this assessment. The views established within the article primarily reflect US-centric issues which ACORN in other countries have not made official stances on, or otherwise do not necessarily apply globally, such as voter registration and gun laws. In Canada, ACORN is largely associated with tenants rights and is a very active and non-defunct organization. If one were to try and research ACORN Canada, this page would come up and would be largely unhelpful. I believe this page could be merged with the current page on the US history, and a separate page could be created about the organizations as a whole, including the global history. Averagecryptid (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Is Acorn Intentionally Structured as a Criminal Enterprise?" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Is Acorn Intentionally Structured as a Criminal Enterprise?. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is very partisan! There isn't any criticism at all. What is up with that? ACORN was caught red-handed stuffing the ballot box. That is what these people were all about. They are an arm of the Democrat Party. That is an out and out fact and yet the article attempts to minimize their criminal activity. Had ACORN not been guilty, they would still exist. 2600:1000:A110:9C0A:F926:CF53:9F21:DA4C (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please join us on 13 December 2020, 12:00-14:00 EST, as we update and improve articles in Wikipedia related to housing in the United States of America. Sign up here. -- M2545 (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So and so from ACORN said...[edit]

I removed "An ACORN official voiced support for a proposal Hillary Clinton made during the 2008 presidential primary election to create a federal fund for distressed homeowners." sourced to: because the story basically just reads "so and so from ACORN said...", so I don't believe it is due to just parrot what ACORN said. It was not a secondary source discussion about what ACORN's position is, but simply repeating what someone from ACORN said. Graywalls (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Project Vote estimated that 400,000 registrations collected by ACORN were ultimately rejected, the vast majority for being duplicate registrations submitted by citizens.

This statement is trivial evidence in search of a serious crime. It is misleading and not relevant. This statement follows the same pattern, being similarly neither relevant nor encyclopedic: "NYC has rejected 1,000 registrations to carry and conceal handguns, the vast majority for being already licensed to carry and conceal."

Persons who help others to apply for the right to vote are assistants in compliance with the civic mandate. Denial of application is necessarily beyond the responsibility of the assistant. Should every request be allowed, registration would be a needless formality. And rejecting an application to join the electorate because one is already a member is no cause for concern.

A person seeking to ensure that they are properly registered to vote is a responsible citizen. A person helping others to achieve this, to navigate the necessary administrative process, is similarly engaged in a civic activity that is beyond any legal reproach.

Those who submit redundant applications are easily understood as within their rights and dutiful in their obligation to register to vote. They responsibly engage in a process the government demands in order to ensure that that they are in compliance. When authorities determine that they are already fully authorized to in their duty and right to vote, this is clear validation and cannot be misrepresented as a condemnation.

To imply otherwise is misleading at best. Jerimee (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The statement you take issue with above is not the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, it seems to be an not-perfect representation of the matter as reported by The New York Times at the time at the link available in the source cited at the end. That's a decent benchmark for judging relevance for inclusion.
I read the cited material in the NY Times to provide context for understanding the issue you raised and the issue is more complex than is portrayed on Wikipedia. Allow me to quote the second paragraph of the New York Times article cited at the end of the statement you quoted above:
"The remainder are registered voters who were changing their address and roughly 400,000 that were rejected by election officials for a variety of reasons, including duplicate registrations, incomplete forms and fraudulent submissions from low-paid field workers trying to please their supervisors, Mr. Slater acknowledged.
In registration drives, it is common for a percentage of newly registered voters to be disqualified for various reasons, although experts say the percentage is higher when groups pay workers to gather registrations."
When something on Wikipedia strikes you as questionable, it's a good idea to check the referenced source material to see if the information was properly transposed by the editor from the cited source.
Neighborhood Review (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]