Talk:Move America Forward/Archive 1

message: Hmmmn.  Interesting stuff.... Move America forward?  By restricting the first amendment?  (RE: Farenheit 9/11) By ditching that tired old saw "Give me your weak, your tired, your poor"...  These guys are some patriotic aren't they?  I hope they don't get any mainstream media support, though with the PR machine behind them, who knows?  Thanks for posting the info/warning. Posthocergopropterhoc 02:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

message: :Thank you for all your efforts to be factual and non-political. Good job. That being said, I am concerned about the first line of the last paragraph, 'The non sequitur of supporting ...' comes close to crossing the line, but you all are dong such a good job, I will leave you to get on it.  Paul, in Saudi 15:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworked the line about non sequiturs - though I'm not sure it is any good. Rkevins82 03:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded it to note that there's a seeming disparity between MAF's mission statement and their actions, and that was what Siobhan Guiney was being asked to clarify. FeloniousMonk 21:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: non sequitur 

message: The language of this article seems to be strongly POV.
:It's NPOV. Take a look at the Move America Forward website:. Because Move America Forward uses such strong rhetoric and unsubtle tactics, any accurate and honest description of it is bound to reflect that. FeloniousMonk 16:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, the purpose of this article to inform, or to make a point? The existence of this article shows bias and POV... stop pretending, this article was obviously started for the sole purpose of criticising this organisation. You have strong feelings about this organisation-- which makes you a very poor candidate to write an accurate, unbiased article about it. 172.160.151.73 17:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article sure seems NPOV to me. I'm removing the neutrality warning. If someone wants to restore it, please offer a specific reason why on the Talk page. Or better, just fix the offending part of the article, so it can be made truly neutral, if you honestly believe it isn't. --John Callender 07:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong POV 

message: Not only was the language strongly POV (and I've even left some of it in despite its lack of substantiation at times - to represent what opponents of MAF think) but it makes allegations of criminal wrongdoing.
That places Wikipedia and its owners criminally liable which is not allowed on Wikipedia.
Move America Forward is a 501c3 organization, recognized by the IRS.  No challenge to the organization's status has been launched by the IRS.  The organization is in good standing and has properly filed its annual 990s and registration statement with the California Secretary of State.
It has not run campaign commercials, nor made any statements for or against any political candidates.  Some editors here at Wikipedia falsely made such claims.  It would be illegal for Move America Forward to do so.  But more importantly, it hasn't happened and one cannot make such an allegation of criminal conduct without at least a citation of proof or evidence.
:Hmmm, shouting and legal threats? Your rewrite of article is a whitewash that belies your motives. Where does the article say MAF has run campaign commercials? What specific objections do you have? FeloniousMonk 17:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV, UNSUBSTANTIATED ATTACKS, ALLEGATIONS OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT 

message: Additional controversy erupted in August 2005 centered around Move America Forward's "You Don't Speak for Me, Cindy!" campaign countering the protest of Cindy Sheehan. Observers and the press have noted that some pro-Bush activists in the MAF entourage were aggressively confrontational and verbally abusive, calling the anti-war protesters "communists", saying they are "aiding and abetting the enemy".
Yahoo says the article never existed, or it previously existed but was no longer indexed in their search engine.  It has thus been removed.
:Right. I've restored it. It took less than 1 minute to find an alternate source. Why the rush to remove the content? FeloniousMonk 17:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember you now, . Please do not start up with the partisan campaigning again here; the result will not be any different. FeloniousMonk 18:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Copy That Had Bogus Citation or Expired Link