Talk:Move America Forward

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.227.181 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled

message: While this version's lead might be technically accurate, it does not (a) fit the citations, (b) follow the guidelines as found in WP:Lead, especially concerning accessibility. At best, someone has cherry-picked factoids from the weekly journal (Capitol Weekly) to support these statements. I recognize that this article covers a political organization; as such, it will be at times hotly contended. I propose the lead be kept to a "lighter", more accessible version.
Examples of what should not be in here. Statements like "advance a conservative agenda" followed by examples which are not, per se, conservative agenda: enforcing mexico-US border, for example. Also, the final sentence of the lead says
:: Move America Forward vocally supports and advocates the policies of the Bush Administration
And yet, the given citation gives counterexamples of that support: 
:: But [Move America founder, Howard Kaloogian] was critical of President George W. Bush long before it was acceptable for Republicans to break with their once-popular leader, taking him to task in January 2004 over his immigration-amnesty proposal. 
Also, the phrase/word "media-saturation campagin" never appears in the Capitol Weekly articles. I only see where they cite IRS returns stating $400,000 was spent on advertising. That amounts to something like 10 seconds of a super-bowl commercial, and a paltry sum compared to other agenda-based media campaigners (for example).  
For comparison of leads, see Moveon.org. While that lead might be a bit tad short, it certainly doesn't try to prove a point. 
--AnOutsider 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the lead 

message: This article has a more negative overall tone than the one on leftist mirror organuzation MoveOn.org and it's criticism section is roughly 3 times the size of the MoveOn.org listing. This article also lacks the MoveOn article's section explicitely detailing it's supporters and praise received from likeminded media outlets.
I'm so tired of the conservatives getting the short end of the stick on this website. Somebody fix this shit already and BALANCE IT OUT.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.242.164 (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments struck - that is the IP of one of Move America Forward's staff (Conflict of Interest)--Capitana (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait...how do you know that's the the IP address of on the Move America Forward's staff?!? 169.229.74.76 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unstriking out.  Usually, the poster of a comment should do the striking out, if they wish to change their comment.  Edits in the discussion section are not COI.  In fact, they are almost the opposite.  People with a vested interest in an article can post their thoughts in the discussion page, allowing non-vested people to decide whether or not the article should be changed.  On an aside, although wikipedia is not censored, as Capitana said, please don't swear unless it really is applicable.  --Bertrc (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not adequately NPOV 

message: This article has a more negative overall tone than the one on leftist mirror organuzation MoveOn.org and it's criticism section is roughly 3 times the size of the MoveOn.org listing. This article also lacks the MoveOn article's section explicitely detailing it's supporters and praise received from likeminded media outlets. 
I'm so tired of the conservatives getting the short end of the stick on this website. Somebody fix this crap already and BALANCE IT OUT. 
ADDITIONAL NOTES: Swearing removed. Sorry.
I do not now or have ever worked for this organization (If only I could, but they're a whole world away from my career path), and I suspect the Wiki user who struck this comment earlier is absolutely lying through his teeth about my IP address to censor a position he opposes.
This article is still a disgrace to Wikipedia's increasingly ridiculous claims of "neutrality".
-Troy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.162.119 (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is unbalanced, biased, compared to Leftist Mirror group's Wiki 

message: Edits I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Move_America_Forward&diff=191082223&oldid=191040581
Reason: to conform to the controversy section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveon The controversy section there is concise and clean.
I also think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FeloniousMonk has a conflict of interest issue, since he or she started the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Move_America_Forward&diff=14278855&oldid=13520089 From the very beginning, the page has been extremely controversy heavy; taking up at least half of the page when it first started out. And with the information mainly from "whatreallyhappened.com", which I have never heard about and I can't find it on Wikipedia, so I doubt that it is a reputable source.
I made basic copy edits to trim the page down in my original edits, but FeloniousMonk removed them. Please advise further course of action. 169.229.74.76 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Create an account and go from there. Also, FeloniousMonk is - as far as I can see a long standing respected editor with a high degree of neutrality. I think he has reverted to the long accepted version in order to stop this bickering and maintain a constant, reliable article that has been accepted by the community. Finally - if FeloniousMonk created the article - how could he possibly be biased against it's subject? He gave it it's first mention on WP! --Capitana (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, you need to discuss it first - and provide sources. But as I said if you create an account people will have far more respect for your edits because it shows you are committed to the changes you want to make. If you look through our policies it will become apparent that this is a consensus based project. You need people to agree that your changes are productive if they are disputed by other editors --Capitana (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:COI. Also, this article covers a controversial topic and has been the target of a determined campaign by its subject to whitewash it; we need to be very circumspect about significant changes to it moving forward. What specific changes do you have in mind? FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason 

message: I love conservapedia.  It is one of the most entertaining sites on the web.  Wikipedia is not entertaining, but it is (usually) informative.  One of my favorite pasttimes is looking up some polarizing topic on wikipedia, then comparing against the equivalent article in conservapedia.  That is why it distresses me when a Wikipedia article starts approaching conservapedia in terms of POV and blatant bias; innaccurate/unreliable/non-existant citations; poor, unencyclopedic phrasing; etc.  This article is approaching that.  I had made several separate changes, but they all seem to have been reverted under a comment "restoring sourced content"   That is an odd comment, since some of the changes were due to POV issues on text that was not sourced at all.
In any case, I will break up my changes here. Please feel free to add any additional sections you think need discussing. --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, since nobody seems to disagree with these edits, I am re-applying them.  Please discuss before reverting.  --Bertrc (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues for discussion 

message: Here was my change: 
I may think these people may have their heads up their rear-ends, when it comes to seeing the state of the world, but they are not invading private funerals, chanting "God hates Fags."  They are taking stands on controversial subjects, and I disagree with their positions, but they seem no more controversial than the RNC itself.  Calling them controversial seems very POV.  I checkecked all three links.  None of them call it a controversial organization.  Heck, two treat it as a respectable NGO --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial 

message: Here was my change: 
I would first like to point out what I think is obvious: this is not a sourcing issue, so reverting this change, claiming that it is sourced makes no sense.  I readily admit that this is opinion, but the term "agenda" has a . . . greasy . . . feel to me.  It is a term that Conservapedia loves to use to trivialize and simplify movements and groups that it does not like.  MAF supports several causes, but the group itself seems to disorganized to have what I would call an "agenda."  --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agenda 

message: ==== Edit 1 ====
Here was my first change: 
I'll take on the second part of the edit first, since it seems straight forward: When did Wikipedia start publishing rumors and conspiracy theories?  Let's get rid of them.  --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guardian Dispute Rumors 

message: Here was my first change: 
I'll take on the second part of the edit first, since it seems straight forward: When did Wikipedia start publishing rumors and conspiracy theories?  Let's get rid of them.  --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 1 

message: Here is the second: 
Go check the cited sources.  Nowhere does it say that the journalist had "moral reasons" for not "granting them publicity."  --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 2 

message: Here is the third: 
This was the most galling for me.  I read the source (well, searched through the cited source) and did not find the Guardian being called "far left" anywhere.  Please point out where "far left" is, in the cited sources.  --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit 3 

message: Here was my edit: 
Here is the quote from the cited source: Morgan, who is also co-host of the popular "Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan Show" on San Francisco's KSFO, explained the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" were meant to mock the cut-and-run politicians in Congress.
i.e., The term Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys applies to all politicians who oppose the war, not specifically Nancy Pelosi. --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys 

message: Here is my edit: 
This was another galling one to find.  Wikipedia should not speculate.  Go look at the source.  Nowhere does it say why she would not be appearing on the show again.  It could have been because she wouldn't answer questions; it could have been because she flipped off the audience; it could have been because of aprotest write in campeign.  My suspicion is that it was a combination of a lot of reasons, but even that is speculation.  All we know is that the producers said she would not be showing up again.  If I misread the source, and he gives reasons, somewhere, please let me know. --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Newshour 

message: Please let me know if you see something in the cited sources that I missed, and please discuss the opinion parts.  Going forward, please do not make massive reverts under a single edit comment that does not apply to all the reverts. --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, since nobody seems to disagree with these edits, I am re-applying them.  Please discuss before reverting.  --Bertrc (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: Bertrc's changes seem to have neutralized the tone a lot, but there are still a lot of elements that strike me as unbalanced.  To start with the lede,
* As has been noted before, "media-saturation" is a bit loaded; specifically, if taken literally, it implies an attempt to buy up all or most of the airtime and adspace in order to drown out the opposition.  The sources don't seem to suggest that, so I'm assuming it's being used figuratively here, in which case it's both rhetorical and misleading.  "Media campaigns" would probably suffice here.
* I don't see anything in the sources (at least at first glance, maybe I'm missing something) about campaigning for the recall of liberal governors.  The article on the recall of Gray Davis was published before the organization was founded, and only mentions Sal Russo.  Even if we accept for the moment that MAF is actually just the new name of the Recall Gray Davis Committee (a citation on that quote would be nice), I don't think having been involved in the recall campaign of one governor justifies the somewhat sweeping generalization made here.  This might be better listed as an accomplishment, à la MoveOn.org's fundraising efforts - "MAF grew out of the successful recall campaign against Gray Davis", or something in that vein.
* Nowhere do I see any indication that MAF advocates restriction of media or freedom of speech.  The closest I see is a very out of context quote ("restrict[ing] liberal and activist media") with a citation leading to an article that doesn't contain any statement of the sort.  At the end Morgan encourages "stand[ing] up and fight[ing] back against [Media Matters'] campaign of mayhem", but she gives no specifics regarding what that means, and certainly nowhere implies that her goal is broad government regulation of the media.
* Throughout the lede, "conservative" is written without quotes, but "liberal" is put in quotes, implying that the author considers the former to be an objective categorization and the latter to be highly subjective.  Also, the use of the word "deems" indicates a certain degree of disapproval and condescension.  The same facts could be conveyed less judgmentally, for instance, by saying "the recalling of liberal state governors" instead of "the recalling of state governors it deems too 'liberal'", or "opposition to liberal political candidates" instead of "opposition of what it deems 'liberal' political candidates".  If there is some controversy regarding the alignment of the people the group targets (for instance, if they've tried to unseat a self-proclaimed moderate), we could even drop the "liberal" altogether and just note that they campaign against people with whom they disagree on certain issues.
* The statement regarding support for Bush's policies is untrue as it stands, given their vocal opposition to at least some of his policies, and it seems unnecessary to the entry as a whole.  I think it's enough to lay out the positions the group holds on given issues; I don't see the purpose of tying them as a whole to the policies of an unaffiliated politician.
I'm a bit new to contributing to WP (my first edit with a registered username, actually =P), so I'm hesitant to make changes this significant myself.  I'd like some feedback, and feel free to take my points apart; I'm still figuring out how all this is supposed to work. --Aaronspook (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aron, be bold and make your changes.  This is wikipedia. We have an entire policy to help newbies.  If you feel your changes are objective and encyclopeadic, you should feel entitled to make them.  I particularly liked your point about the "conservative group deeming something too 'liberal'".  --Bertrc (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough, changes made :) --Aaronspook (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your changes to the article. They whitewashed sourced content and had serious NPOV issues. We must cover all views on the topic for a complete and neutral article when reliable sources exist, not just those favorable to the topic. Please do not make such unilateral changes again with a strong consensus from the regular contributors to the article. Odd nature (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I'm with Aron on this one.  The article body doesn't support the "media saturation" claim in the lead paragraph.  I think Aron's lead was a better introduction -- briefly saying how MAF started and high level about what it does -- I particularly agree with the removal of the quotations around 'liberal'.  Heck, I can even concede that the comment about supporting Bush is superfluous (It is already a given, and what about all the other conservative pol's MAF supports?) I don't think the changes were unilateral or overwhelming.  Aron was right to be bold and make them and he was right describe the reasons behind each change in this discussion.  Odd nature, can you please elaborate on your reversion, pointing out which aspects were white-washing (and why you feel so) and which aspects were sourced?  Your edit comment and your addition to this discussion do not go nearly into enough detail (IMHO).  I feel you should respond to his individual points and give him a chance to respond before making such a unilateral reversion.  FYI, be sure to read the BRD essay; it explicitly says not to except "consensus" as a reason.  I don't think his changes white-washed the article, they simply remove a bit of POV.  Wikipedia doesn't have to tell readers that these people are idiots; wikireaders will come to such a conclusion themselves from an honest unbiased description. --Bertrc (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Again, please stop removing properly sourced content under the guise of 'improving NPOV.' The pattern I'm seeing here is that any of the subject's controversial statements are being buried or removed altogether under the claim of improving NPOV and it's beginning to suggest other motives. An accurate and complete will present all relevant facts, that it is what's called for under WP:NPOV. I'm going to have to keep a better eye on this article it appears. Odd nature (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Furthermore, BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Were it more widely accepted it would be policy, but it's not, so let's not pretend it is. BRD was also originally crafted by someone I consider a chronic troublemaker, so I'm not likely to find it persuasive. Odd nature (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  As requested in my earlier note, can you please explain your revert by addressing the various points brought up above?  Also, can you improve the article by editting it to incorporate the various opinions, instead of hacking out an entire change with a revert?  I felt, Aaronspook was very specific in his description of what he felt was not sourced.  Odd nature has not really described the sourcing for the text he/she restored.  Additionally the term "by some in the press" is an example of weasel words; the phrasing was better before.  Much of the content Odd nature reverted had not been removed, but, rather, had been moved from the intro to the agenda section.  Moving the details of a group's agenda a section labelled "Agenda" should not be considered burying the content; the intro should give a broad description, not bullet point each and every initiative these people take.  Lastly, I agree with the earlier discussion: putting quotes around the word "liberal" is unencyclopedic.  --Bertrc (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aargh!  I must have hit "Preview" instead of "Save"  I had written quite a bit before making my change.  I will try to recreate it --Bertrc (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More NPOV Improvements 

message: Just reiterating the section above, as this is what I based my edits  on:
1) Is there a source for "Media saturation"?  Instead, let's describe their tactics, and let the reader decide.
2) Why are we trying to list out every one of their positions in the intro?  As it stands, we list many agenda items in the intro, and then more in the agenda section.  Instead, let's give a general summary in the intro and go into detail in the "Agenda" Section.
3) Why do we have quotes around the word "Liberal"?  This is unencyclopedic.  Let's remove the quotes.
4) Why are we highlighting their support for Bush policies? What about all the other conservative politicians out there whom they support and their criticism of Bush's budget practices?  Let's leave out the dated obvious info.
5) The phrase "Described by some" uses weasel words.  Instead, let's phrase the sentence without weasel words.
6) Why are we reiterating that their agenda goes beyond supporting the troop?  We already have explicitly said, earlier in that section that their agenda goes beyond supporting the troops, and we are explicitly listing all their propoganda that has noting to do with the troops.  Let's not be repetitive.
7) Punctuation goes inside quotation marks when it is at the end of a quote. Let's use punctuation properly.  
--Bertrc (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: We should be using good cites, non bias, based on facts descriptions. One editor pointed out bad cite and it was replaced with good one. That should be the way to operate not just change it all, the page should be about this non profit so people know what they are about. Lets stick to the facts and try to use real cites.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.164.18 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to page 

message: ==Spokesperson==
Debbie Lee, a Gold Star Mother, is the spokesperson http://www.c-spanvideo.org/debbielee<ref> of MAF.<ref>http://www.moveamericaforward.org/our-team/ Her son, Marc Alan Lee, was the first Navy Seal to lose his life in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Marc, 28, was killed August 2, 2006 in a fierce firefight while on patrol against insurgents in Ramadi. Debbie has toured the nation, speaking at pro-troop rallies, and helping to organize shipments of care packageshttp://rjay-militarynews.blogspot.com/2007/04/debbie-lee-mothers-call-to-action.html<ref>  to our troops serving overseas. She appeared onstage at the 2007 Country Music Association Awards where Tim McGraw presented to her and other Gold Star Parents his new song, “If You're Reading This”, which honors those in the U.S. military who gave their lives in service to this nation.<ref>
66.60.164.18 (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2014 

message: Saying an organization is supporting "right wing" efforts based on the hearsay of two blogs is not defensible in court and has no place here; stick to the real facts.  You need to keep your Liberal bias tucked away.  Thanks!
Rexpac (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The existing text appears to be supported by reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Move America Forward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101205924/http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail-pf.php?n=128734 to http://www.accessnorthga.com/detail-pf.php?n=128734
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141102094634/http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/06/09/Move-America-Forward-and-Breitbart-announce-7th-annual-Troopathon to http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/06/09/Move-America-Forward-and-Breitbart-announce-7th-annual-Troopathon
*Added  tag to http://www.radioink.com/article.asp?id=2946527
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101202942/http://www.freenewspos.com/news/article/c/1476084/today/exposures-i-care-gifts-bring-comfort-help-troops-make-friends to http://www.freenewspos.com/news/article/c/1476084/today/exposures-i-care-gifts-bring-comfort-help-troops-make-friends
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)