Talk:MoveOn.org

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Organizations WikiProject This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] MoveOn and Schwarzenegger

Prior to my edit, this article previously stated that MoveOn "lost credibility" because it ran ads against Arnold Schwarzenegger during the California recall election. The opinion that it "lost credibility" is clearly POV; there is no evidence that MoveOn's base of supporters has shrunk or that its ability to raise funds has diminished as a result of the anti-Schwarzenegger ads; quite the contrary, in fact.

The previous version of this article also intimated that MoveOn was hypocritical to run the Schwarzenegger ad, since it was formed initially to oppose Clinton's impeachment over this sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This is also POV and inaccurate beside. MoveOn's position on the Clinton impeachment was that Congress should censure Clinton and "move on" to more serious issues facing the nation. A call to censure the president implies criticism of Clinton. Moreover, MoveOn's opposition to Schwarzenegger was not based merely on allegations that he has had sex out of wedlock; it was based on a statement Schwarzenegger made in July 2003, when he said, "How many times can you get away with this - to take a woman, grab her upside down, and bury her face in a toilet bowl?'" [1] Based on this statement, the MoveOn TV spot claimed that Schwarzenegger "has a problem with women." Of course, MoveOn's opinion of Schwarzenegger is debatable. Someone could interpret Schwarzenegger's comment as a joke rather than as a genuine demonstration of hostility toward women. Nevertheless, there is a difference between saying someone is unfit to be governor because he likes to shove women's faces into toilet bowls and saying that someone should be impeached because he had sex with an intern. A reasonable person might disagree with MoveOn's positions on both of these occasions, but the positions themselves don't necessarily contradict one another.

Finally, it is not true (as the previous version of this article stated) that MoveOn ceased to call itself "bipartisan" following the Schwarzenegger ads in 2003. MoveOn.org establish the MoveOn political action committee (MoveOn PAC) in 2000, and raised money then to support several liberal Democratic candidates. Its liberal Democratic leanings were well known long before the California recall election. Moreover, I'm not aware of it ever having called itself "bipartisan." --Sheldon Rampton 06:42, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sheldon and I discussed it, MoveOn started as Bipartisan. However, the Schwarzenegger stuff is not from a NPOV, so yeah. --ConradRock


According to the Wayback Machine, moveon.org's faq in 1999 said "censure and move on" _was_ founded as a "bipartisan" group. The obvious use of "was" in regards to the "censure and move on" campaign on the moveon.org, compared to everywhere else using "is" when referring to moveon.org is very weird. This is the proof you guys need that it was started as a "bipartisan" group in their own words. Since they have moved on (no pun intended) to other issues since then, I don't think they can claim to be bipartisan any more, but then again, I don't see them claiming to be anymore, either.

http://web.archive.org/web/19991013041438/moveon.org/faq.htm

Alan D.

[edit] Foreign Donations

"While technically it is illegal to accept foreign donations directly to a presidential campaign, moveon.org chose to stop accepting non-US donations to avoid the appearance of impropriety."

I don't quite understand the opposition: do they mean

  • "While technically it is NOT illegal to accept foreign donations directly to a presidential campaign"
  • "While it is illegal to accept foreign donations directly to a presidential campaign, MoveOn.org legally does not operate a presidential campaign and is thus immune from this restriction. However, MoveOn.org chose..."

David.Monniaux 11:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

It's the second option. I'll look at the phrasing to make it more clear. Thanks, Meelar 13:03, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Interesting. Is it also illegal to fund an American political party from abroad? How does this square with the American government funding foreign parties and unions through the so-called National Endowment for Democracy? David.Monniaux 13:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
It is indeed illegal for U.S. political parties to accept donations from foreign entities (I believe). Of course, this is counter to the NED, but then, why should U.S. law be applied to foreign countries, where it may be legal to accept foreign donations? Meelar 13:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Legally, there's of course no obligation to do so. "Morally", on the other hand... I mean, if a government think it is inacceptable that foreign countries meddle in its political process, consistency and reciprocity should indicate that this government should refrain from meddling into other countries' political processes. I find this pretty interesting. David.Monniaux 14:11, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Or it simply recognizes that other countries have different attitudes towards foreign involvement in politics, and applies to each country the standards which it desires, therefore respecting their laws, culture, and sovereignty. Meelar 14:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] MoveOn: Liberal? Left-leaning? Radical?

Why is MoveOn called liberal in the opening paragraph? Judging from the article text, a better description of their politics would be "radical". Liberal is to ambigious. Eric B. and Rakim 04:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So far as I can see, the only description of their politics in the article mentions that they try to encourage grassroots activity amongst their members, and that they're trying to defeat Bush, and also ran ads against Schwarzenegger. If that's radical, then call me Che Guevara. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:09, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hi Che! Nice to meet you. I'm Ronald Reagan. (Just teasing. I couldn't resist.)

--Hex 16 22:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


No, I would consider them to be an organ of the Democratic Party, and no more radical than the mainstream left wing of that party.--Drvanthorp 17:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

In all Europeian countries, liberal is categorized to the right of the center. In the US, liberal is to the left of the center. In other countries it works in some other way. Radical is more a measurement of the groups "distance" to the political center. And MoveOn seems to be very far from the mainstream US political establishment and therefore also radical. Btw, many other articles use liberal when they really mean "leftist". It causes great confusion to foreign readers. Eric B. and Rakim 17:53, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, "radical" has a pejorative, or at least extremist, connotation that I feel doesn't fairly reflect MoveOn's positions. Also, I'll quote the second paragraph of our article on liberal:
"In the United States, liberal is sometimes used as an antonym for Conservative or a synonym for left-wing. Here, it primarily refers to the New Deal variant of liberalism, emphasizing the positive role of the state. In most other countries, liberal may have quite an opposite meaning: for instance, in France a liberal is a right-wing or libertarian proponent of free markets."
Since MoveOn is an American organization, I think it's both fairer and more accurate to use the American terminology. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:04, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
P.S. How about a change to left-wing?
I think "left-wing" or "left-leaning" would be fine. "Radical" really doesn't describe them. They're not calling for the overthrow of capitalism or the government. The first issue on which they weighed in was their petition for Congress to "censure Clinton and move on" during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Their position was actually centrist in the American political context, and deliberately so. They made a point of criticizing Clinton in the same breath with which they opposed impeachment. The next issue on which they took a position was gun safety following the Columbine shootings, but here too they were carefully centrist. They didn't call for gun bans, just greater gun safety measures, such as required background checks for people who buy guns at gun shows. That's not exactly a "radical" stance on gun control. Subsequently they've come to occupy a space that can be fairly described as the left wing of the Democratic Party, but even so their positions aren't terribly radical. Opposing the war in Iraq? Opposing Bush, wanting action to address global warming? If that's radical, so's my aunt Elva.
FYI, I've been working on an article about MoveOn for the Disinfopedia. It's based partly on the Wikipedia article but contains substantially more detail. At some point in the near future, I'd like to move some of that information over here so that Wikipedians can chew it over and hopefully improve it, but since my article is considerably different from the current Wikipedia version, I thought I should give everyone advance notice. --Sheldon Rampton 19:09, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My only question is this, why would a mainstream organization in the Democratic Party allow itself to be endorsed by the Communist Party USA? [2]. MoveOn.org has never condemned CPUSA's endorsement or those of any other Marxist Socialist groups for that matter. Perhaps it's an argument from silence, but their failure to distance themselves from a group as controversial as the CPUSA is telling. It's a bit like George W. Bush getting an endorsement from the KKK and refusing to distance himself from their endorsement. If that happened the Left would have a field day. --146.145.70.147 19:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A 2003 posting from 'The Bat Lady' on a blog is not an acceptable source. (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources) There must be something better than this? Can we replace this with a attributable quotation from a notable person?Prospect77 02:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you cite a source for this?--Drvanthorp 17:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirin4 14:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Considering their history of personal attacks should we put in the opening paragraph that fact. Also the connections to George Soros have been documented by Fox News and WSJ 9before Newscorp purchase)Kirin4 14:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Progressive vs Radical. Progressive is a POV term, I could argue Bush is progressive by wanting to reform social security. I think the progressive should be removed.Kirin4 11:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PAC?

I don't think that political action committee fully captures the scope of MoveOn's activities. In the U.S., it has a very specific legal meaning; and it's mainly used to reference groups that primarily or only give money to politicians. MoveOn does much more than that. As far as the change to progressive, I'm indifferent. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I understand. But moveon.org describes itself as a PAC. And so while it may do more than a PAC it is for all intensive purposes a PAC. StoptheBus18 21:13, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From http://moveon.org/about/'

MoveOn is working to bring ordinary people back into politics. With a system that today revolves around big money and big media, most citizens are left out. When it becomes clear that our "representatives" don't represent the public, the foundations of democracy are in peril. MoveOn is a catalyst for a new kind of grassroots involvement, supporting busy but concerned citizens in finding their political voice. Our nationwide network of more than 2,000,000 online activists is one of the most effective and responsive outlets for democratic participation available today.

This doesn't sound like a PAC; in fact, it doesn't even mention money. Most of the mailings I've gotten from them haven't mentioned donating money (as opposed to spending it themself on voter registration, etc.) I think PAC is inaccurate, and as such I've changed it back to political group. If there is another term, please suggest, but PAC is not right. Best, 22:17, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I looked at that page and saw that unfortunately you missed another piece of information. Namely the link: What is the MoveOn Political Action Committee? That being said I think that upon closer inspection we are both right. MoveOn is both a political advocacy group and a PAC (I think). Check this out:
Many of our current national leaders actively disregard public opinion and common sense, recklessly placing the interests of their big-money donors ahead of the good of our society. For these politicians, our only alternative is electoral action. It's time for a change in leadership. We need more new talent and new vision. Broadening public support for congressional campaigns will be key in making this possible. Through the MoveOn Political Action Committee, more than 10,000 everyday Americans together contributed more than $2 million to key congressional campaigns in the 2000 election, and more than $3.5 million in 2002 election.
Then also check outMoveOn PAC. StoptheBus18 01:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah. See, I saw the political advocacy group as containing the PAC; that is, PAC described a part of their organization, but was by no means the whole. Sorry about the confusion. As such, I think the current wording is OK. Hope that satisfies. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think it needs to be changed, to reflect the fact that it is both a political advocacy group and a PAC, or maybe that it has a PAC wing? what do you think? StoptheBus18

How about adding another sentence to the lead paragraph? Something like "The group aims to promote grassroots advocacy by its members through various political activities including: running a PAC, voter registration drives, political advertising (especially in swing states) and other activities." [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:02, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds great. Go for it. StoptheBus18 15:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. Glad you like it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Meelar: I'm curious why you removed the passage which says that the MoveOn Voter Fund is the same type of organization as the Kerry/Bush campaigns or the Democratic National Committee. In your edit comment, you say "this is kind of misleading." To the contrary, I don't think it is misleading at all. If you look at a list of prominent 527 organizations, MoveOn is listed along with various political campaigns. This is precisely why MoveOn set up the Voter Fund as a separate entity from its other components. A 527 is allowed, under U.S. tax laws, to engage in certain types of political activities that are not permitted for other organizations. MoveOn itself has been up front about the fact that it set up its own 527 for the purpose of engaging in political activities. Why do you think it is misleading to say this in the article? --Sheldon Rampton 03:26, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Although they're incorporated under the same part of the tax code, different rules apply to them--for example (quoting from our article 527 group: A 527 group is permitted to accept contributions in any amount from any source...Because 527 organizations are not regulated by the Federal Elections Commission, they may not make expenditures to directly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate for federal elective office"). Since they're governed by such different rules, I didn't think it was strictly accurate--people might think that the same rules apply. How do you think we could rephrase this? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 12:54, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
Hmm... I looked into this a little more carefully, and while I think that the language that you removed from the MoveOn article needs a bit of further clarification, I think the 527 group article also needs correcting. Here is what MoveOn itself says about 527 organizations:
All that 527 status means is that the organization is exempt from federal income tax to the extent it spends political income on political activities. IRC 527 groups pay federal income tax at maximum corporate rates on net revenues unrelated to politics, such as investment income, and contributions to 527 organizations are not tax-deductible.
All federal political committees registered with the FEC are 527 organizations. So are the Republican National Committee and the Democratic National Committee. So are John Kerry for President, Inc. and Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. So is every candidate’s campaign committee right down to school board and dogcatcher. ...
Since July, 2000, all 527 political organizations must disclose donations and expenditures under a regime administered by the IRS that is virtually equivalent to the FEC disclosure system, unless they already disclose through the FEC or a comparable state agency. ...
IRC 527 is interpreted very broadly for tax purposes in order to capture the entire circle of candidate election-related activity at the federal, state, and local levels, from the most explicit express advocacy to elect or defeat candidates at the center to a whole host of marginally partisan voter education activities at the periphery.
What I take from this is that while 527 organizations don't all engage in "expenditures to directly advocate the election or defeat of any candidate," some do, including the Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards campaign, both of which are 527s. Moreover, MoveOn's 527 organization, the MoveOn Voter Fund, also engages in "expenditures to directly advocate the election or defeat of [candidates]." The home page of the MoveOn Voter Fund states that right now it "primarily runs ads exposing President Bush's failed policies in key 'battleground' states." It's no secret that they're working to defeat Bush (which I consider an admirable goal, by the way). Moreover, it isn't correct for the 527 group article to say that "527 organizations are not regulated by the Federal Elections Commission." Some are and some aren't, and it appears that the MoveOn Vote Fund is registered with the FEC.
Regards, Sheldon Rampton 17:50, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm. Good point--I hadn't realized that the campaigns and parties were 527s as well. What we need to find out is what differentiates MoveOn or ACT from the DNC--why does it get to follow different rules regarding, say, soft money? I can look through news stories from the FEC ruling about regulating them, maybe that'll help. I'll mention it here if/when I learn anything. For now, we should probably leave that out of the article. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:02, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)
Open Secrets had this to say about 527s:
527 Group – A tax-exempt group organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code to raise money for political activities including voter mobilization efforts, issue advocacy and the like. Currently, the FEC only requires a 527 group to file regular disclosure reports if it is a political party or political action committee (PAC) that engages in either activities expressly advocating the election or defeat of a federal candidate, or in electioneering communications. Otherwise, it must file either with the government of the state in which it is located or the Internal Revenue Service. Many 527s run by special interest groups raise unlimited "soft money," which they use for voter mobilization and certain types of issue advocacy, but not for efforts that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate or amount to electioneering communications.
Also, found in a May 14 article from Roll Call about the FEC's decision not to regulate them:
Toner and Thomas's [two FEC commissioners who want to regulate 527s] proposal would require that 527 groups that run ads promoting, supporting, attacking or opposing federal candidates register with the FEC as political committees.
I think that's the difference. Technically, MoveOn and its ilk aren't registered as "political committees", unlike the DNC or Kerry campaign. This means they can spend soft money, but can't directly advocate for or against anybody--i.e., they can say "96,000 jobs have been lost in Pennsylvania since Bush took office", but they cannot say "Vote for Kerry". [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:54, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)
In the 2004 election, Republicans filed a complaint alleging that MoveOn's 527 is skirting election laws. I believe their allegation was that MoveOn was coordinating its activities with the Kerry campaign, which would be illegal unless MoveOn was registered with the FEC. MoveOn responded by saying that the Republican charge was baseless, but I think they also decided at that time to register with the FEC as a way of avoiding any further legal challenge. (That's my impression, anyway. I could be wrong about some of the details. Comment, anyone?) Sheldon Rampton 02:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

I placed the NPOV on this article because I have serious concerns about this article's point of view, in particular the neturality of the article. I read and re-read the article, and I do not see where the article is being presented in a netural manner. Maybe my interpertation is off of this article, but I don't see anything critical of the organization in the main article.

JesseG 03:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Its name

The MoveOn family of organizations consists of three entities. MoveOn.org, a 501(c)(4) organization, primarily focuses on education and advocacy on important national issues. MoveOn PAC, a federal PAC, primarily helps members elect candidates who reflect our values. And MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527 organization, primarily educates voters on the positions, records, views, and qualifications of candidates for public office.

So I'd say that www.moveon.org is the name of the website, while MoveOn is the group's real name -- based on a quick read of their website. And while it may be trendy to refer to the organization be using the site name, I think our encyclopedia article should be called MoveOn. --Uncle Ed 21:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV header

Given that this page has seen no action since September 10, I'm going to remove the NPOV header. If anyone has problems, feel free to reinsert. Best, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 00:56, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Drudge report material

I have just removed an addition to the article, reading:

MoveOn.org were recently caught sending "talking points" to their operatives and possible convention attendees, telling them to cover up much of their nature . Specifically, attendees were told by Charles Fazio, "Oh, because a photographer will be here, might I suggest we put away our 'Bush is a Liar' t-shirts. Let's look like they do."

The link provided is to the Drudge Report (a highly partisan source of questionable repute), documenting that an individual hosting a MoveOn house party encouraged his guests not to wear such t-shirts. I see no reason to believe that such an occurence qualifies as encyclopedic material, and even if it did, this is a highly inaccurate and biased summary of the material (even assuming that Drudge presented it fairly and completely, which is itself unlikely).

RadicalSubversiv E 07:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

BULLSHIT.
Fazio's "house party" was a full-blown media affair with massive registration, which is why the Washington Post was sending reporters and cameramen there in the first place. I'll make some minor alterations but your bullshit deletion vandalism won't stand.Existentializer 15:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The problems with this material include the following:

  1. To say that MoveOn was "caught" doing this is POV. It assumes that someone was trying to hide the fact that talking points were sent to attendees at their house party.
  2. It is POV to describe the people invited to the house party as "operatives" (a term that insinuates some kind of skullduggery). Merely being invited to an event doesn't make someone an operative.
  3. The term "convention attendees" is inaccurate and misleading. MoveOn was organizing house parties, not a "convention."
  4. The tendentious nature of Drudge's "reporting" is evident throughout the original piece on which the above paragraph is based. To begin with, it is rather absurd to claim that Drudge obtained an "exclusive invite" to the party. Anyone can sign up to be on MoveOn's mailing lists or attend their parties. An "exclusive" party, as the term implis, is a party from which some people are "excluded." Moreover, Drudge's editorializing is evident when he refers to Charles Fazio's email as a "desperate bid to sanitize his house party." There is no evidence, other than Drudge's overheated interpretation, to suggest that Fazio was "desperate."
  5. Charles Fazio is merely one individual among more than 1,000 who hosted this particular MoveOn house party. He is not an employee of MoveOn, and there is no evidence that the organization ordered him to send out the email which Drudge is quoting. The fact that one individual out of the millions of MoveOn subscribers did something tells us very little about the organization itself, and it is misleading to attribute his action to the entire organization.
  6. Finally, the action that Fazio took is fairly innocuous. According to a recent opinion poll, 46 percent of Americans believe that Bush is "not trustworthy," compared to 49 percent who think he is trustworthy. That's virtually an even split. It's not exactly a shocker that MoveOn's membership includes many people who incline toward this opinion, and it's at all not surprising that some of their members might wear T-shirts that call Bush a liar. Given that this opinion is held by nearly half of the U.S. population, it's not the sort of "extreme" or unpalatable statement that MoveOn would feel any embarrassment about being associated with, so they really don't have much motive to feel "desperate" about "covering up" the fact that their members feel this way. Moreover, to suggest that Fazio was trying to "sanitize" his event by asking people not to wear that T-shirt is POV and runs contrary to the language of his actual email, in which he asks people to "stay on message" by focusing on reasons for opposing Bush's Supreme Court nominee. Asking people to stay "on message" is not the same thing as asking them to "sanitize" or "cover up" something.

By way of comparison, here's an example of an action that the Bush administration took a couple of years ago to sanitize one of its events:
http://thereitis.org/displayarticle286.html

The photograph you see if you visit that link shows Bush speaking about trade issues in front of a painted canvas that depicts a fake vista of cardboard boxes marked "Made in USA." He gave the speech in a factory where the real cardboard boxes were stamped "Made in China," but prior to the event, his handlers went through the factory, taping white stickers over the boxes to obscure the "Made in China" labels.

If we compare the MoveOn event to the Bush event, it appears that the Bush event is more appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry than the MoveOn event, for the following reasons:

  • Bush himself participated in the event by speaking in front of the fake canvas backdrop, whereas no MoveOn staff members were involved in sending out Charles Fazio's email.
  • The Bush incident was reported in the New York Times and other major news media, whereas the MoveOn event was only reported in the Drudge report, which is a partisan website with a poor track record for accuracy. (For example, Drudge falsely reported during the recent U.S. presidential primary that John Kerry had had an affair with Alexandra Polier.)
  • More work is involved in painting a fake canvas backdrop than in merely sending out an email. If the two events are to be evaluated as attempts at "coverups," the Bush effort was a more elaborate coverup.
  • Finally, the Bush event was unambiguously a "coverup," whereas the facts pertaining to the MoveOn event are open to other, more generous interpretations.

If Existentializer wishes to be consistent, he should support including a paragraph in the George W. Bush article about the Bush administration's coverup of Made in China labels at the factory where he gave his trade speech. Personally, I don't feel that the incident was significant to warrant inclusion in the Bush article, and by the same logic, the Drudge report's little "exclusive" about MoveOn isn't significant enough to belong in an encyclopedia article either.

Finally, Existentializer needs to learn some manners. Using profanity such as "bullshit" is contrary to Wikipedia editorial standards, even for talk pages. Wikipedia contributors are expected to treat one another with civility, even when they disagree.

--Sheldon Rampton 20:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Radicalsubversiv and Sheldon Rampton. I'll add that Existentializer's use of the term "vandalism" is clearly improper. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Wikipedia:Vandalism Obviously, the anon, be it Existentializer or not, is way out of bounds with an ES like "rv libfuck coverup". JamesMLane 03:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soros?

What is the connection with George Soros? I've often heard it said, mostly by critics that MoveOn is Soros' puppet, but I see no clear link.66.72.215.225

Here is the link. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268045,00.html The leading U.S cablet news channel is sufficent.Kirin4 15:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fox news is not a credible source. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.234.128 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Fox news not credible? Are you saying that because it is electronic media or because you disagree with it's editorial policy?Kirin4 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing the Soros connection to Moveon.org. It has been sourced. Please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirin4 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PSSttt. It's already in the article and it is well sourced and verifiable. What you are trying to add is duplicate entry and is also completely non-encyclopedic. Please desist.Turtlescrubber 15:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of George Soros, why do you object to his connection being put in?Kirin4 12:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MoveOn.org

MoveOn.org does NOT focus on educating people! it is a biased, radical, left-wing organization!

  1. These are not mutually exclusive statements
  2. "radical left-wing"? Funny. Guettarda 20:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon's edits

Please justify the substantial removal of text and wikilinks. Guettarda 12:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of any explanation, I am reverting the deletions. Guettarda 16:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Another anon IP (probably the same individual) has undone your revert, so I put it back. I think the anon edits also added some interesting material about criticisms of MoveOn by the DLC. I would support putting some of that material back in, but the unexplained deletion of other material is unacceptable. --Sheldon Rampton 09:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Once again, the second anon IP has made the massive revisions. Personally, I think he's right to delete some of it and it might be good to include some of those criticisms he adds, but since he offers no explanation for such a radical edit I'm reverting. There's also no reason to be removing links. Swegner 19:20, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article focus?

I think the focus of the article has gone off track. The anonymous IP user who keeps deleting massive sections without explanation may actually have some good reason -that the "Organizing Methodology" section is bloated and far out of proportion to it's importance within the overall article. I think we need to seriously trim down the long discussion of how and why MoveOn is "successful" and greatly expand on what they have actually done, specific campaigns they have run, etc. Unless anyone objects, I will begin condensing that section soon. Comments? Swegner 19:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think those changes are appropriate for your own reasons, I won't object, but if you're trying to accommodate the anonymous IP user, that's not a good reason. Until he/she posts some rationale for the edits that he keeps pushing, I don't think we need to take him seriously. This individual looks to me like a POV pusher. Examples:
  • The reference to George Soros putting "millions of dollars" into MoveOn is vague and merely repeats something that the article already covers with greater accuracy when it states that Soros put $1.46 million into MoveOn. $1.46 million is actually less than "millions of dollars," and the vagueness in this case seems to be an effort to exaggerate the role that Soros has played with MoveOn.
  • The statement that "others belive that MoveOn's agenda is alienating not only "middle America" but mainstream Democrats as well" is clearly POV-pushing. The anonymous contributor in this case deleted a statement by a woman who has written a study of MoveOn which states the exact opposite, namely that MoveOn appears to be successful at reaching middle America in addition to mobilizing liberal Democrats. In its place, our anonymous POV-pusher has inserted a claim by Al From, a political operative who represents a faction of the Democratic Party that thinks MoveOn is too liberal. Why is a conservative Democrat more of an authority than the source that our anonymous contributor deleted?
For the record, I don't object to including views like From's in this article, but the edits coming from our anonymous contributor push From's view to the exclusion of other perspectives, turning it into a conclusion of the article itself.

--Sheldon Rampton 03:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sheldon. Furthermore, with respect to the issue of space and balance, a Wikipedia article isn't like an article in a magazine, where the author has a certain limited amount of space and must make decisions about allocating it. Instead, in Wikipedia, one particular volunteer contributor may know a particular aspect of the subject, and write that up at some length. The resulting article, if viewed as a finished product, could be faulted for its space allocation. But it isn't a finished product. It's waiting for other contributors to add what they can to it. While we're waiting, we don't remove valid, encyclopedic information. If we trim section one of an article simply because it's "too long" oompared to section two, then, when someone does expand on section two, his or her work could be reverted because it makes section two "too long" compared with section one. Thus, all the information is lost.
Instead of deleting information, you might consider putting a "To do" box on this talk page, identifying parts of the article that you think need expansion. JamesMLane 05:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed all around. I didn't mean to suggest thinning the section down either to appease the biased anonymous deleter or because I felt the size of the article was out of proportion to other sections. I suggested it because I feel it's out of proportion to it's importance and relevance to the article. I also don't mean that we should delete hard information about how they organize from the section. Just make it more concise and remove some of the analysis and theory as to why it is successful. As it currently stands, the last section is not about MoveOn so much as it is a lesson in organizing strategy and marketing psychology. I think the article would be better served if we could get numbers on their growth or fundraising instead of quotes from the leadership merely saying that they were successful. Sound acceptable? Swegner 20:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I think I'll defer to your judgment on this (although I reserve the right to reconsider after I see the specifics of your edits). Personally, the analysis and theory as to why MoveOn is successful is precisely the part that I find most interesting about this article. Much of this section consists of material that I added myself, because I was trying to figure out why MoveOn has succeeded as an internet-based political movement while many other efforts at online organizing have been less successful. For the record, what I mean by "success" in this case is their ability to raise substantial amounts of money, mobilize volunteers in "meatspace," and build a large email list. I agree with some of MoveOn's political leanings and disagree with others, but I'm less interested in the positions they have taken on specific issues or candidates than I am in the undeniable fact of their success as measured by various quantifiable indicators.
It may be that my interest in these aspects of MoveOn have bloated those sections of the article out of proportion, which is why I think I should probably defer to others' judgment on this point. However, it's possible that other people may also be interested in MoveOn for the same reasons that I am interested in them, in which case deleting that material could be a disservice to those readers.
One way to have the best of both worlds would be to use SourceWatch (a wiki sponsored by my organization, the Center for Media and Democracy as the site for a version of the article that includes the extended analysis, while trimming the Wikipedia version in accordance with your concerns. SourceWatch already has a MoveOn article (indeed, much of the material that I added began there), and since SourceWatch is more of a political encyclopedia than Wikipedia, the extended analysis can certainly remain there. I've been curious to see how the SourceWatch and Wikipedia versions would diverge over time, so it's kind of fun for me to see this discussion taking place. --Sheldon Rampton 04:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I still think that deep analysis is not really the place of an encyclopedia article. However, I see your point so I'm not going to do anything substantial unless someone else chimes in agreeing with me. By the way, I'm a big fan -I've got two of your books and really enjoyed both. Swegner 16:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Aw, shucks, I'm blushing... :-) Another possibility, if you think the analysis section of this article is too long, would be to move some of it to a separate article -- maybe a subarticle, with a title such as "MoveOn/Organizing Methodology." I agree that deep analysis may not be the place of an encyclopedia article. However, Wikipedia does have a number of articles that are quite detailed. --Sheldon Rampton 23:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Financial contributers revert

I deleted an anonymous user's addition of Judge Robert Perkins to the list in the Financial Contirbuters section. Judge Perkins contributed a total of $200 according to all the sites that came up in a quick Google search. By that criterion, I and a few hundred thousand others should be on the list as well. Judge Perkins's contribution, while arguably important in terms of his ability to remain impartial in Tom DeLay's trial, is simply not important enough to be included in an article about MoveOn. Swegner 22:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Effectiveness" of MoveOn

I read in the article that this guy from the U of Washington chalked up MoveOn's "effectiveness" (but without the quotes) to being a trusted, credible entity.

What effectiveness? Most of the candidates supported by MoveOn have lost. Unless someone can provide references to why MoveOn has been successful (something a bit more convincing than a grad student at UW's study), I'm gutting that section. (Not to mention it reads quite a bit like a newspaper article, not an encyclopedia). Matt Yeager 23:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

MoveOn supports losing candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.157.231 (talk • contribs)

No, they support candidates who eventually lost. If they still support them AFTER their loss, wait, I guess they do..EAB 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I made the criticism section more factual and concise. Each point is now bulleted and has a summarizing sentence. All references kept. We don't need 500 words of back and forth threaded discussion in the criticism section. It should suffice to say "x criticized MoveOn for y reason. quote or link" Readers will look up the references if they need minute details on the criticism and the response of MoveOn, etc. Prospect77 19:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

FreeRepublic is an organization of grassroots activists, not just a blog. User:Pravknight--146.145.70.147 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the following bullet point that was just added to the "criticism" section:

  • In late August 2006, a major controversy erupted when a Washington Post opinion column [3] provided evidence that MoveOn.org's Action Forum was a hotbed of anti-Semitic slurs such as "media-owning Jewish pigs" and "Jew Lieberman" (for Joe Lieberman, D-CT).

Reasons for deletion:

  1. This was certainly not "a major controversy." I just did a Google news search and found only a handful of mentions on weblogs, and none in a major media outlet.
  2. MoveOn's action forum is a heavily-trafficked open forum where anyone can post, including people who are not MoveOn members at all. I took a look at it last night and found more than 50 items posted within the last 24 hours. Some were substantive and thoughtful while others were the sort of thing you might hear some ignoramus muttering on a barstool. The "Washington Post opinion" column (actually Washington Times) did its best to make it sound like MoveOn's action forum is a hotbed of anti-Semitism, but I couldn't find any examples of it, and I found several examples of people criticizing anti-Semitism. I did find several items posted by someone recycling conspiracy theories from Lyndon LaRouche, who is a con man and an anti-Semite, but the LaRouchians go anywhere they can find an audience. They've posted stuff on Wikipedia too, but that doesn't make Wikipedia a LaRouchian website or a "hotbed of anti-Semitic slurs."
  3. About 75 items down, I found a note from a MoveOn staffer stating that some anti-Semitic posts had been deleted and explaining that because the site is an open forum, sometimes objectiionable material appears there briefly before it can be removed.
  4. It's worth noting, moreover, that MoveOn's executive director, Eli Pariser, is Jewish.

--Sheldon Rampton 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's really not worth all the thought you put into it. Someone tried to misrepresent the Washington Times as being the Washington Post. That's about the lowest an editor could possibly go. Such intentionally misrepresentative, deceptive edits should be reverted on sight. Kasreyn 00:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This was indeed an error, for which I apologize. For some reason, Washington Post keeps sticking in my mind as the smaller newspaper. (I don't actually see either paper, except online, and it is hard to remember which is which.) However, MoveOn.org did have the power to moderate this forum any time it wanted but chose not to do so until the Washington Times op-ed appeared. I did not include the substantial evidence because it is original research as opposed to a verifiable link but I do not believe that Mr. Pariser is being entirely truthful.--Bill Levinson 17:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there has to be a mention of the anti-Leiberman/anti-Jew criticism. I think that the net effect of the changes is to suppress the issue and whitewash the organization. I concede that no major media outlets picked it up and agree it would be inaccurate to call it "a major controversy." I also concede that any ignoramus could post on the forum. However it was not the post itself, but the high approval rating that has some people concerned. To delete this criticism entirely is to pretend it never happened. Somewhat Orwellian as well. I think we need more objectivity here.

I have removed the following section due to WP:BLP concerns. as the above disussion mentions, this is a specious claim, held by a tiny minority, and was never reported in a major news source. all material on the Wikipedia needs to be well sourced and accurate. Considering the notability of the founders of moveon, and the fact that this article lists them by name, the intent of WP:BLP biographies of living persons applies here.
- *In September 2006, comments on MoveOn's open message boards were condemned by the Anti-Defamation League for their anti-Semitic content directed at Joe Lieberman. MoveOn responded by condemning the posts, those who made them -- noted that they were not made by MoveOn members, and removed the offensive comments. [4] However, the Action Forum was taken offline and has not, as of March 2007, been brought back online. [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boscobiscotti (talk • contribs) 17:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

I have a question about something I think is missing--when MoveOn took out the General Betrayus ad, didn't a Republican congressman say that they should be "thrown out of the country"? I seem to recall it was John McCain (which would be very interesting in light of his status as the Republican presidential candidate!) but I can't be sure. Does someone know why this is not included in the Criticism section where it talks about that ad??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.211.175 (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive?

The very term progressive is editorializing and subjective. It's in the same category as pro-life or pro-choice vis a vis the other side. Just call it a Leftist/Left-leaning organization. --146.145.70.200 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Leftist/left-leaning" is just as editorializing and subjective as "progressive"; it seems to me that if you choose any summary descriptor of political spectrum it's going to end up being editorializing/subjective. I've reverted it to progressive because that's what they describe themselves. Input welcome. Schi 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
"Leftist" is not making a value judgment. "Progressive" implies approval.Heqwm 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Progressive in the old days equalled Socialist, and Thesaurus.com still lists it as such.[6]--Pravknight 21:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Taken from the Wikipedia article on Progressivism:
  1. In the broadest sense, the label "progressive" may be used in self-description by anyone who advocates any kind of change in society. This could include the entire political spectrum with the exception of traditional conservatives.
  2. In a somewhat more restricted sense, "progressive" is a term used within left-wing politics to distinguish left-wingers who advocate moderate or gradual social change (called "progressives" or "reformists") from those who advocate larger and more rapid changes (called "revolutionaries" or "radicals").
  3. Finally, in the most specific sense, there is a political movement and ideology called progressivism that first began in North America during the late 19th century and the early 20th century. This ideology belongs to the moderate left, but not every moderate leftist is a progressive. Progressives support the continual advancement of workers' rights and social justice within the context of a mixed economy. They were also among the earliest proponents of the welfare state and anti-trust laws. It is this meaning of progressivism that will be covered in the rest of the article below.

It seems to me that while "socialism" may be considered "left-wing", and "progressivism" may be considered "left-wing", that does not mean that "socialism" and "progressivism" are the same thing and can be used interchangeably. Even if it were the case that "progressive" equalled (as in mapped entirely and exactly onto the definition of) "socialist", it's not entirely clear that the second, "left-wing" definition above is the one that MoveOn invokes when they use the word "progressive" to describe themselves. Whatever the case, it is certainly true that MoveOn itself uses the word "progressive" to describe themselves: [7] "realize the progressive vision of our country’s founders... brings real Americans into politics to fight for a more progressive America and elect progressive candidate". Obviously, this is colored by the fact that it's inherently self-promoting. A quick Google News search just now brought up this Associated Press article [8] that described MoveOn as "liberal". Schi 02:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberal only works in the US though, and should be called 'American Liberalism' or the like. For all the criticism the term "Progressive" has gotten, it is actually more accurate in geopolitics. Everywhere else in the world "liberal" means Libertarian. Khirad 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
If the word refers to a specific movement, then it should be capitalized.Heqwm 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of CPUSA link

I just re-removed 146.145.70.200's edit to the criticism section about extremist conservatives' allegations of a link to the Communist Party (which has been immediately re-added). Anon doesn't make clear how that entails a criticism rather than merely baseless redbaiting, but anyways: the WorldNetDaily article source [9] does not even mention MoveOn and the FreeRepublic post [freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1038128/posts] is not a reliable source. The Austin Chronicle article [10] about the Texas Citizen Action Network may be an admissible secondary source attesting that TCAN thinks MoveOn is the "activist arm of the Communist Party", although the article also describes that the allegation is really weak. The two links about the CPUSA's website and newsletter may be factual but are in themselves not a criticism of MoveOn. I will re-edit using the Austin Chronicle article, please do not re-revert. Schi 19:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The primary sources are legitimate. The only reasons for excluding them are purely political. Perhaps, what we have here is an extremist Left-wing bias that is scared of the concrete documentation of the Communist Party USA's support of MoveOn.org. Calling FreeRepublic extremist is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

Baseless redbaiting, indeed. (Besides, what's wrong with a little redbaiting? There are other's on Wikipedia who throw around the Theocracy canard in the biographies of Religious Right figures. If you ask me the NPOV rule=left-wing views only.) The evidence from CPUSA's Web site is there in bright colors. What it shows is MoveOn.org's aims and those of the Communist Party are aligned ideologically? Both groups want the same things, and if they don't, why is the CPUSA so laudatory of MoveOn.org? In case you didn't know, I never heard of MoveOn.org before I saw it advertised on the CPUSA's website in early 2003. I will reinsert the links to the Communist Party's website. The two links to the website are a substantiation of the argument. It seems to me removing those substantiations are in my view purely political. Also, FreeRepublic is an organization, not just a blog or bulletin board. It's the right's equivalent of MoveOn.org. I say it's fair game to include them. It seems their exclusion is more one of fear than of reason. Also, if you wish to describe the Texas Citizen Action Network as right-wing, then it's only fair to describe MoveOn.org as Left-wing. --146.145.70.200 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I described TCAN as "right-wing" because that is how it was described in the source that you provided, the Austin Chronicle article. This was presented as and looks to me like a reliable source, so I believed it. Please inform if it's not.
There are many reasons why I removed the other links and they are described in my earlier post, and they are not political unless you mean that they adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please do not project your assumptions of political bias on other contributors.
The Austin Chronicle article only describes the website link as the basis for the alleged relationship between MoveOn and CPUSA. It does not mention anything about the PWW, so as far as I can tell, TCAN based their allegations solely on the link. Unless you provide evidence that TCAN based their allegations on anything from the PWW, the edit that you made is factually inaccurate. Furthermore, while the PWW article you cite may treat MoveOn favorably, it does not include any "praise" (much less "frequent praise") from the CPUSA. Unless you come up with more verifiable, reliable sources, your links seem like original research to me.
As I indicated in my above post, you did not articulate the alleged criticism. Rather, you just pointed out that some people think MoveOn has an ideological alignment with the Communist Party. Alleging that two entities have an overlap in ideology does not constitute a criticism. For example: the Republican Party and the Communist Party are both ideologically opposed to strangling kittens, therefore they are ideologically aligned. Is this a criticism? Anything critical that may be derived from that comparison is formed on the part of the reader and is not presented in the argument. Similarly, while your argument that MoveOn and CPUSA are ideologically aligned may be suggestive of criticism, it does not present any criticism.
Also and as an aside, I don't know what you mean when you say that "Calling FreeRepublic extremist is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black." Are you saying that I, who you don't even know, am more extremist than the FreeRepublic? (If that is the case, you should refrain from personal attacks.) Or are you saying that FreeRepublic isn't extremist? Because while I did not explicitly call the FreeRepublic extremist, there certainly seem to be those who might do so. In any case, the FreeRepublic link does not look like a reliable source to me but I welcome more discussion on that. Schi 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Berkshirewoods has removed the bullet point at issue. I've thought about restoring it in some alternate version, but upon further reflection I think this qualifies as giving undue weight to a tiny-minority viewpoint. Schi 17:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not some tiny minority viewpoint, considering that it's representative of the views of many conservatives. Explain something to me, why would the Communist Party USA continually praise and urge people to support MoveOn.org if its goals were not the same? If you search the CPUSA's website, you will find large troves of articles supporting MoveOn.org. The CPUSA has engaged in the "United Front" tactic since the 1930s where it infiltrates non-communist organizations and radicalizes them, and the CPUSA isn't the only Socialist organization supporting MoveOn.org.

I would suggest the real reason here isn't that's it's original research, but it makes MoveOn.org members uncomfortable. There isn't one issue where the CPUSA and MoveOn.org part company ideologically. MoveOn.org's platform is definitely socialist, and it parted company with the Democrats after 9/11 by opposing the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11. FoxNews, for example, called MoveOn.org part of "the Global Socialist Movement."[11]

Just do a Google search about MoveOn.org and international Socialism, it's as plain as day.

FreeRepublic is an organization, not just a blog that has chapters all across the country that meet in brick and mortar buildings. I would consider MoveOn.org definitely extremist. Calling this group or that group extremist is a matter of POV.

Including the links isn't original research, it's representative of the views of I would say many on the right. Excluding it, as I see it, is more about protecting MoveOn.org than anything else. All that I know is that I never heard of MoveOn.org prior to early 2003 when their banner was up on the Communist Party's website.

I would suggest then, setting up a separate section to discuss the claims of MoveOn.org's affiliation with Global Socialism. Just because you never heard of it doesn't make it original research. Why not a separate section discussing the support MoveOn.org has received from Socialists and Communists? It's definitely verifiable.

The Austin Chronicle article actually was critical of the connection, and I consider it a double standard not to refer to MoveOn.org as a left-wing group while referring to the other as a right-wing group. --Pravknight 21:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Also, David Horowitz' FrontPageMag accuses MoveOn.org of being a CPUSA front.[12]--Pravknight 21:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Pravknight - you're barking up the wrong tree by linking communism/socialism to MoveOn. You're making statements as if they are fact, but they are really just opinion. You must understand the difference. Just because conservatives might think that MoveOn is communist doesn't mean they are right. Many conservatives during the McCarthy Era wrongly accused many people of being communist. And a majority of conservatives still think Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I have known personally the founders and employees of MoveOn for many years and I can tell you from first hand knowledge and experience that MoveOn and all of its employees have absolutely nothing to do with a socialist or communist platform or agenda. I've been trying to correct the MoveOn article on Wikipedia as best I can, there was quite a bit of incorrect information, especially about the organization structure. In the future, I also plan on adding more information, since I have a significant amount of first hand knowledge I think people would find interesting. --Berkshirewoods 05:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The people who were accused of being Communists in the McCarthy era were accused rightfully so, and the Soviet archives, Venona cables, and the KGB admitted as much after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Try reading the Mitrokhin Archive sometime. Mitrokhin, a KGB archivist and defector, attests to the fact the Democratic Party has been influenced by Marxist thought since the 1930s. Henry Wallace was so far to the Left that the Soviets secretly hoped he would win in 1948, according to Soviet records, and Wallace's presidential campaign was run by people these same records show were on the NKVD's payroll. I read Communist websites for fun, and I will attest that I NEVER heard of MoveOn.org prior to it's being advertised on the Communist Party USA's Web site.

Or when you're in D.C. take the Spy Drive and talk with fmr. KGB Major General Oleg Kalugin for yourself. He will attest to the fact the KGB planted and recruited folks in key places in American society where they could destabilize America. The 1960s demonstrations were led by Maoists. Try reading Max Elbaum's book "Revolution in the Air" [13]

They're just "useful idiots" to borrow Lenin's term for those who unwittingly parroted Marxist language. MoveOn.org's and the Communist Party's language and goals have become pretty much identical in recent years on everything from immigration to the obsession with Halliburton and big corporations. Sounds socialistic to me. Perhaps you should educate yourself about the ideological developments of socialism in the West since the end of World War II, especially the Frankfurt School. The FDR liberal doesn't exist anymore, and whether you realize it or not modern liberalism = Neo-Marxism. They don't have to be card-carrying Communists to be on the same side as the CPUSA or any other Socialist org. for that matter. Until MoveOn.org denounces the Marxist groups that are cheering it on, the cloud of suspicion will remain.

Those on the right, such as myself who oppose the war do so on strategic grounds; wheras, those in MoveOn.org and the CPUSA do so because they see it as a chance for war profiteering.(BTW, I opposed the war too, and so does Paul Weyrich. Mr. Weyrich had me attend a meeting with Karl Rove in Feb. 2003 where he planted me to denounce the war plans as ill-conceived. I couldn't post it on Wikipedia because it was a private meeting, and it was a first-person event. The adminisration was really too stupid and naive to lie about things, and I know from first-hand, inside info.) Read the CPUSA's website inside and out, and you will see how its rhetoric parrots everything the Democratic Party says. My conservative friends have a joke. "Either the Liberals have become Communists or the Communists have become Liberals." FYI, the CPUSA people deleted a section I wrote about its support for MoveOn.org. I don't see Joan Blades issuing a press release telling the CPUSA thanks but no thanks.

--68.45.161.241 03:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


Pravknight, this is original research. This is exactly a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position.
Please assume good faith -- I and other contributors are not trying to "protect" MoveOn or "censor" opposing views, we are trying to protect Wikipedia. Similarly, please stop referring to other contributors as MoveOn members -- it's an assumption that is entirely unnecessary to this endeavor. And please stop asking other contributors to "explain" the motivation and actions of groups like CPUSA and MoveOn. That's not what this talk page is for -- this talk page is for improving the article, not trying to analyze the subject(s) of the article.
That FrontPage link looks like an Internet user comment on an article, which I interpret as a non-reliable source.
The only reason I brought up "extremism" at all is to discuss the reliability of the FreeRepublic source you proposed. The Wikipedia guideline says to "never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources". That's why I said I welcome more discussion on using it as a source. It very well may not be extremist -- all I know is what I've read on the Wikipedia article about it, which suggests that it might be. I think we may use the FreeRepublic source as a primary source, but I think it needs other and reliable secondary sources, particularly to prove that this is a duly notable viewpoint. However, my understanding is that the use of the FreeRepublic source doesn't even need to be addressed until someone comes up with reliable sources that advance a relevant position without giving it undue weight. Schi 02:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
From what I've seen of Wikipedia, to be frank, most of it is original research that isn't anymore original than what I have posted here because everything I posted is in the public domain.--68.45.161.241 03:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United for Peace and Justice

The main article says MoveOn.org has collaborated with United for Peace and Justice, of which the Communist Party USA is a member and party leader Joelle Fishman is an organizational officer. That part's in the CPUSA Wikipedia story.--146.145.70.200 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's true that both MoveOn and the CPUSA are member organizations of United for Peace and Justice. So are dozens of other organizations, including the Green Party of the United States and American Friends Service Committee. As you pointed out, the current MoveOn article already indicates that MoveOn is involved in UFPJ. I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. Schi 16:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] MoveOn.org FAQ page showing prior knowledge of Action Forum hate speech

Jessup said in removing material on the MoveOn.org Action Forum FAQ, "Remove edit making an argument. If there's a Reliable Source that indicates they knew about it, cite it. The FAQ may have changed since, and does not prove MoveOn read the msg." The FAQ is a reliable source because it is from MoveOn.org itself as opposed to a hostile or even neutral (NPOV) source. MoveOn.org had no motive to change the FAQ to incriminate itself by saying (in at least three places) that MoveOn's moderators were reading all the comments and therefore saw the hate speech.--Bill Levinson 17:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe Jessup's point is that the edit amounts to original research, as a synthesis of published materials to make a point. The FAQ is a reliable source for what their policy is, but does not actually speak to the events that occurred (or did not occur). Schi 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Correct. The section I removed was making an argument that MoveOn knew the content of the posting and approved of it. Their FAQ indicates that they would read every post but a) we don't know if the FAQ changed since then (perhaps they instituted the read-every-post in response to this problem - I have no idea, and even if I did we'd need a RS); b) While the FAQ says they would read every post, we have no idea (and no RS) stating that they followed through and did so; c) MoveOn states that they removed them as soon as they came to the attention of MoveOn (the ref doesn't indicate how long after posting that was). Which is why I said any discussion deeper than the current version needs RS and V references, and avoid WP:OR jesup 19:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

The name of the two sister organizations are both "MoveOn.org ..." MoveOn.org only uses "MoveOn" without the ".org" in adjective form ("MoveOn members," the "MoveOn family," etc.). I think this is sufficient reason to move the article to MoveOn.org per WP:NCI#Self-identification. Any objections? Simões (talk/contribs) 19:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree; I'd wondered about that as well. Schi 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 election

If memory serves, MoveOn was the first to endorse Howard Dean in the democratic primary.. And Kucinich came in second.. Why is the year 2004 skipped over in the candidates section? LordBrain 04:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any particular reason 2004 is skipped; it wasn't there when I came to the page, and I added 2006 because that information was readily available on the MoveOn website. If you can come up with the list of candidates they endorsed in 2004, please add it. schi talk 08:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FactCheck.org

[edit] Comment removed

Removed a comment which is an insertion of an assertion/flamebait onto the Talk page. Talk is for discussing the page and editing of it, not for posting news, alternative or non-consensus content. If this item meets normal relevance, verifiability and neutral point of view standards, add it to the page or propose that be added. Adding 'facts' here is not a valid alternative to editing the page, nor is it valid to attempt to bypass normal standards for content by posting to Talk. When inappropriate content is added to Talk, it is valid to remove it (and in this case, I made sure to include a link to the content removed), otherwise it becomes trivial to bypass Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Note that the editor who left this comment has a history of posting bare news summaries from media outlets (mostly Fox News) into Talk pages. — jesup 05:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Factcheck.org is a nonpartisan site and just because they present a contrary view on this issue with MoveOn.org, that doesn't mean it is flamebait. Someone with a NPOV could read that article and see a different view from a nonpartisan source. I believe this issue (MoveOn.org attacks GOP Senators Warner, Smith, and Brownback for supporting an "escalation" they oppose) should be mentioned in the "Criticism" part of the main article. Crocoite 21:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
No dispute that factcheck.org is non-partisan (whether or not they're correct is a separate question, as is whether that would be a NPOV statement - I suspect it may not be without balance or rewording). Nor did I address the question of whether this assertion by factcheck might be relevant to the page. "If this item meets normal relevance, verifiability and neutral point of view standards, add it to the page or propose that be added." Adding it here raw (as if this were a posting board for news or opinions or as if this were the page itself) is what's wrong and can easily be seen as an attempt to inflame editors (on either side) and provoke controversy. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. Reporting on criticism (if done in an NPOV/V/relevance/etc way) is valid, as witnessed by the section on criticism on the main page. Whether this particular item-of-the-day rises to the level of Relevance is a separate question; I doubt this will be relevant a month from now, so it may not meet that test. But you didn't propose anything; you weren't discussing the editing of the page - you basically lobbed a bomb into a talk page to see what would happen (sorry for not AGF, but the edit history I saw showed you posting lots and lots of Fox News headlines to talk pages with no comments or apparent goal other than to stir things up). — jesup 23:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cointelpro

There has been a lot of talk that Moveon.org is a counter-intelligence program (like the guerilla news network). People have to sign up with the site and use their names/ addresses and so on. This has been viewed as data mining for possible 'left-wing' subversives, being as both Repubs and Dems are fairly moderate on an international scale. Not sure if this is worth including on the main page. --130.108.192.217 00:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progressive (internal link)

The internal link Progressive should point to a specific article rather than to general Progressive page, which is a disambiguation page. Can anybody fix this? I couldn't do it because I did not figure out which meaning of Progressive was assumed.

Ajgorhoe 16:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC), 11 June 2007

[edit] Organization Methodology

This section contains numerous dead links relating to Neils student homepage, and it is written like an advertisement. It needs to be cleaned up and either new references for many of the quotes or they need to be removed. Arzel 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added {{newsrelease}} in the hope that it will draw attention from someone who can copy edit it. --carelesshx talk 22:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I was going to try, but wasn't sure where to start. Arzel 00:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Written like an advertisement

I tagged the Organizing methodology section as advertisement because it features an undue amount of promotional quotes from MoveOn.org representatives in an unacceptably prominent way. Nearly all of these quotes skew the neutrality of the section, and only a minority of them introduce information that couldn't be paraphrased in a less celebratory way. Cg-realms 20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. It's really excessive. --Orange Mike 20:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I had debated for a long time whether or not to do that myself. It looks really over the top and reaching. I think the tag is appropriate. --Blue Tie 23:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Better?Kww 01:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Better, and thank you; but Be Bold! It still needs further tightening and shortening, if only to address the excessive attention paid to the topic. --Orange Mike 02:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The tag should be moved to the top of the article. This article reads like viral marketing as do most discussions of MoveOn. Try following some of the sources in this section. I followed one, and it goes to an article written by a conspiracy theorist at least one of whose other writings is as incoherent as it is libelous and farfetched. —joeFriday— {talk}  04:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems ripe for {{db-spam}}. Any thoughts? —joeFriday— {talk}  00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not technically spam as such; but it does need tightening and shortening, as I said days ago. --Orange Mike 05:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I finally gave it a shot, it is less like an advertisement, but may still need some work. Arzel 20:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] < http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html >.

Please, someone, do find an appropriate way to incorporate this weblink: < http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html >. David Howell Petraeus.

Thank You,

[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 20:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I just reverted this article back to a previous once since I noticed some vandalism. Hopefully I did it right. --Inaxdaze 20:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Neutral

This article seems to be weighted in the favor of MoveOn.org, many claims about it's success are unreferenced and seem to exist only to boost the image. Any others see this? LordBoreal51 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I just added the Senate's condemnation of their Betray Us ad. The info there was outdated. I was surprised to see that it hadn't been updated yet, considering that this happened yesterday. When something happens that affects a non-progressive article, the updates come within minutes. Interesting. - Crockspot 12:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree I would clasify Moveon.org as a radical group engage in political hate. I suggest we change progressive to radical.Kirin4 13:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just your opinion Kirin4, LordBoreal51. Doesn't really matter what you think. Facts please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MosEisley (talk • contribs) 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

By the same token progressive is not a fact either. IT's a POV that is favorable to Moveon.org. Can't have it just your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirin4 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This was hashed out over a year ago on this very page. To quote from the Wikipedia disambiguation page for "Progressivism":

"Any political movement (especially, but not exclusively, of the left-wing) which favours social reform, such as liberalism, social democracy or green politics or alliance thereof." The old Tory Canada, until recently, called itself the Progressive Conservative Party! The word implies no endorsement. --Orange Mike 15:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (reminding you to sign your posts)

[edit] Candidates Supported

The list is of course incomplete, omits 2004, and includes almost exclusively successful candidates (a fair number are not notable in this article, though they may be notable in themselves). The list should be trimmed to entries that add something useful to this article in particular. — jesup 05:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTRS

Anyone got a clue who could have found what so offensive in that section? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MoveOn&diff=160111948&oldid=160085879 Kww 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References...

Hey, thought I'd poke in, and say hi :) I'm working on this article's references, and, in the process of removing a few 404's, I came across a weird error, trying to get the information to cite http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2007/mar/09/030910456.html. I'm not sure what's going on, or, if it's just my machine... Could someone else check it, and let me know if it works for you? Thanks! SQL(Query Me!) 07:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Works fine here.Kww 12:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smear Tatics

With thier attacks on Senator Liberman and General Petraius should smear tatics be added to thier methodology?Kirin4 01:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Turtlescrubber 01:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I know it's hard for you but something a little more constructive.Kirin4 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is not constructive to begin with. You are not giving us much to work with. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a pov dumping ground.Turtlescrubber 04:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course they are, potraying a respected Senator in blackface calling a general a traitor those are smear tatics.Kirin4 09:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to that. It's like you are having a conversation with yourself. Your statement is factually incorrect in many respects and even if it wasn't, "smear tactics" is pov laden phrasing. Please take some time to think about what I just said and watch some other editors and see what type of information they add.Turtlescrubber 13:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It is you who needs to take the break. You are the one who is deleting valid edits. Kirin4 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not even what I said. Look, I am trying to help you here but you refuse to listen to anyone but yourself. Try to keep an open mind. Turtlescrubber 17:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • If there are fairly neutral reliable secondary sources that characterize what they do as "smear tactics", then I don't see a huge issue. (For example, AP ran a recent story quoting Juan Williams as defending Bill O'Reilly, and characterizing Media Matters similarly,[14] something like that would be more acceptable than statements from one of their smeared "victims".) If not, then it would be POV and probably original research to characterize them that way in Wikipedia's voice. Are there such sources? Cite them here, and we can see what the consensus is, and what kind of attribution would be needed. - Crockspot 15:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

How about Jane Hall of the American University on Fox News?Kirin4 12:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is an opinion that these are smear tactics. (It is an opinionated kind of statement.) I think that expressing opinions is ok as long as it is not in wikipedia's voice (it must be attributed) and as long as opinion content is kept to an overall low level in the article. I think that a reliable source is required. I do not think neutrality is required for an opinion but there should be some sense of fairness. And the opinion should be from someone noteable. --Blue Tie 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

so it Jane Hall a proffessor of journalism acceptible? I see Media Matters quoted all over Wikipedia and that is a Soros front.Kirin4 15:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hall of FOX News is clearly not a neutral source, but she is a notable source; as long as the opinion is clearly sourced to the critic and not attributable to Wikipedia or the article, that would be viable. (Obviously, we will need to spell words like 'tactics', 'acceptable' and 'professor' correctly.) --Orange Mike 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Kirin4, you need to calm down and stop this POV pushing. You base everything on Fox news and always push your views. You look at nothing other than your POV even if it incorrect or biased. You have been warned on your talk page already by an admin. [15].
As for Soros, again, you are basing everything on Fox, and it incorrect and Media matters has stated clearly as such. I have already corrected the article with the information and sources. --Statsone 20:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Statsone, I think you have erred. Kirin4 is not edit warring or being offensive. He or she is doing what they are supposed to do... take it to the talk page and work it out. It is inappropriate to chastize someone for doing so. --Blue Tie 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh?
Kirin4 has beed repeatedly warned about 3RR and POV by many others. The user tends to only insert POV into articles and has very poor or one sided sources, if any.
Kirin4 has posted on the talk pages of articles, but refuses to listen and or understand what others have posted in the discussion and continues the edits based on POV and on many times close to violating 3RR --Statsone 03:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Again you err. Look to what is happening now, assume good faith and consider that perhaps this is a new user who does not know how to do things correctly. Teach instead of chide. And try to let the past go in order to free the spirit. If the past is repeated, well we shall surive. But if a positive action helps another editor, good on us. --Blue Tie 03:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter; Kirin4 has been blocked indefinitely, and is believed to be a sockpuppet for a blocked editor using the name MagicKirin. --Orange Mike 03:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source

Regarding: diff: "Moveon.org has engaged in smear tatics against opponents notably General Petrarius and Senator Joseph Lieberman {NY Times Sept 10 2007}" — Please add the author and title of the news story you are referencing for verification. Thank you. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 02:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Material

Saw the following was deleted in a good faith effort to reduce the advertizing quality of the article:

----------------------------

MoveOn uses e-mail as its main conduit for communicating with members, sending action alerts at least once a week. According to Joan Neils, a graduate student at the University of Washington who has conducted a study of MoveOn, one of the keys to its effectiveness has been its status as a "trusted, credible entity".[citation needed] It achieves this status through a variety of strategies:

First of all, people who read a MoveOn e-mail or visit the site generally do so after receiving the message or link from someone they trust. ... This is because almost every e-mail MoveOn sends encourages recipients to forward it on to others who share an interest in the topic. This is how they build their membership and it provides a foundation of trust among the recruited. ...Every e-mail includes the opportunity for a recipient to unsubscribe from the list. This is in stark contrast to commercial e-mails and spam, which often (and irritatingly) exclude this minor but important option.

– Joan Neils

MoveOn also respects the privacy of its members and doesn't sell or share individuals' information with other groups.[citation needed] Finally, Neils writes, "Most fundamental to credibility is MoveOn's legitimacy through validation. All of the supporting information MoveOn provides via e-mail and the Web is easily validated. For instance, e-mails always cite sources at the bottom, most often complete with links directly to the source." The MoveOn website also uses multi-media, including videos, audio downloads and images. In addition to communicating via the Internet, MoveOn advertises using traditional print and broadcast media as well as billboards, bus signs and bumper stickers, digital versions of which are downloadable from its website. "MoveOn also uses the Web effectively for two-way communications," observes Neils. "One of the most interactive elements of the MoveOn.org site, and one that demonstrates the group’s non-hierarchical organization is the Action Forum. The Action Forum is much like a blog, in which members write in issues they think are important and suggest strategies for action. Members then vote on submissions and the highest ranked issues rise to the top, thereby establishing MoveOn’s priorities. It’s an incredibly fluid, bottom-up approach to decision-making, allowing MoveOn to adapt and change as they go."

"The site is organized in ways traditional political consultants might not stomach," reported CNN in January 2004. "Any member can propose priorities and strategies to which others can respond, and the most-supported ideas rise to the top. That means ceding control over much of the content to motivated online participants, producing interactivity that adds grassroots credibility."[1]

----------------------------

I think that, trimmed down, this stuff has valuable information. But I would think a better way to do it is perhaps bullet points:


Moveon (or whoever) credits its success to:

  • Viral email marketing
  • Respect for privacy
  • Strong validation of claims with links to data in emails
  • Two-way communication to include substantial decision making by members
  • Content creation by members rather than just by professional editors.


Something like that with footnotes that might contain some of the text that was eliminated. --Blue Tie 04:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation style tag

I added the citation style tag because some footnotes just give lengthy urls and need to be edited to show the name of the article cited and so the footnote doesn't bleed over into the next column.—joeFriday— {talk}  02:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding my removal

First of all sorry for not responding to the requests for clarification sooner, I've been busy with college and haven't been as active as of late (though that should soon change hopefully). As for the removal, basically the complainant questioned the neutral, factual accuracy, etc of that section. While I am not here to dispute that, I would rather you check the source against, say WP:RS and maybe re-write that. I have no problem with that section being inserted back in but do keep those points in mind and also remember that big brother is watching this article. Pilotguy 18:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the removal, BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MoveOn&diff=160111948&oldid=160085879 . I remain stunned ... in an article that suffers from cheerleading and quotationitis, I don't see that paragraph as particularly bad or unusual.Kww 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm as stunned and puzzled as you are, Kww. That's a pretty straightforward synthesis of what the sources say. --Orange Mike 20:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Then please feel free to re-insert it. OTRS is not a badge and if there is a consensus, go for it. Pilotguy 02:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I have supported a review on PilotGuy's userpage.--Blue Tie 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CafePress allegations

Michelle Malkin is an extremely ideological commentator, not a reporter. I'm not one for revert warring, but I'd really feel much more comfortable if we got some kind of independent verification that this incident even happened. --Orange Mike 16:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Why is this notable or important? Turtlescrubber 23:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Our goal is to record the controversies, not make judgments on who is wrong, who is right and who is partisan. Saying "Malkin is an extremely ideological commentator" so her criticism is not worth referencing is a POV. Let's try to avoid it. Would be nice to have some article defending MoveOne on this, but I couldn't find any. I think they are mum on this. Notability is a separate issue which must be discussed on this page first. Mhym 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm still looking for a reliable source that this supposed incident ever happened. Perhaps MoveOn is "mum on this" because it never took place? I haven't reinstated the "cite needed" tag, in the interests of civility and because I'm trying to maintain the ol' NPOV: but there is no evidence presented that it ever happened, just claims by two extremely partisan commentators. There's old posts on FreeRepublic claiming I'm pro-AlQaeda because I don't like FOX News; that doesn't make it true. --Orange Mike 16:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I must be missing something. Why is this notable or important? Turtlescrubber 21:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Why is anything that the do notable or important? Beats me. But people pay attention. So there it is.--Blue Tie 23:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
How very neutral of you. Turtlescrubber 23:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Gee TS. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure what your favorite 527 is. —joeFriday— {talk}  01:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You are not a rocket scientist evidently. Don't worry, you will probably never be mistaken for one. Oh, and your way off in case you couldn't figure that out. Turtlescrubber 02:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pov tag added

The cafe press section (see above) is not well sourced, notable or verifiable. Please prove the notability of this section and let's see it independently verified by a non-commentary based news source. I have no objections to this being added if these normal pieces of criteria are met. Please use the talk page to discuss, as I have tried to do. Turtlescrubber 23:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious ... when did commentaries stop qualifying under WP:RS? The story certainly isn't surprising or far-fetched, so I don't see a need for any extraordinary scrutiny..Kww 00:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Op-ed's for your news reporting? We don't know if this event actually happened. Please prove that it happened. Then prove that this is notable enough to include on the page. Then add reliable sources. Then the commentary is fine. Seriously this needs to be ndependently verifiable by neutral sources and have proven notability. Is that too much to ask?Turtlescrubber 01:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Looked closer at Malkin's work. I don't mind using op-eds as sources when appropriate, but I have to agree ... she's just a whackjob, and cannot be treated as an information source.Kww 03:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "Whack job" is unfair. She just sees through your friends. —joeFriday— {talk}  01:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a pretty conservative guy myself, and detest MoveOn. There are a few columnists and bloggers that deserve ridicule, and she seems to be on that list.Kww 02:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It's been a while since I followed her. Please explain. BTW my apologies for confusing your sympathies. But a person need not be conservative to be respectable. However, what gets peoples blood boiling about groups like MoveOn isn't just their politics, but personal attacks and willful dishonesty. I get carried away, and I'm the first to admit it but there are parameters for discourse in a democracy that we must strive for that I think MoveOn clearly does not share. —joeFriday— {talk}  18:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legitimate criticism

This is all very silly. The meaning of the word criticism is to indicate that someone notable has a negative comment on the subject. Malkin and Gutfeld are notable, witness their WP article. Thus so is their criticism. No one said what they wrote is fair or even happened. Determining whether or not this actually took place is not the purpose of WP as I understand it. If you guys do figure that out, that's fine, but we have NOR to prevent doing that. Somebody please return my two lines and refs back or carefully explain to me why do you think the legitimate criticism in the MSM is no longer notable. Mhym 05:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course the criticisms are relevant and notable. It's just a question of sourcing about the facts of the incident. An op-ed by Malkin is no more of a reliable source for third party information then Huffington Post or Media Matters is. Revolutionaryluddite 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't even know if this really happened. This needs to be proven with legitimate and reliable sources. This isn't a gossip rag where every piece of filth found floating around the internet, should be automatically added. Because it exists it's notable? That is not an argument. The burden of proof is on you. You need to prove it is notable, factual and worthy of inclusion, not the other way around. Turtlescrubber 12:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRS FORM 990 is inapproriate and disallowed

We can't include the contents of MoveOn.org's IRS 990 form in the article. While the information in the form is indeed "public information," it is also "private" in that it includes the names and addresses and some financial information of several dozen people. We're not in the business of exposing peoples' private lives here. --AStanhope 14:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that giving their addresses is inapproriate, many of the people on the form are public figures. Merely mentioning their names would not violate Wikipedia policy. If finacing is brought up on Swift Vets and POWs for Truth and other interest group pages, it certiantly should be mentioned here. Revolutionaryluddite 01:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Where is the wikipedia policy that disallows it? The standards as I understand it are WP:BLP, WP:VER and WP:RS. What standard says we cannot list public information widely available from a verified and reliable source? --Blue Tie 22:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Astanhope's remarks sound as though he may be one authorized to render a judgment as to what's disallowed or what we can't do. I certainly agree that there are valid arguments against the addresses. I would have been happy to remove them. Another editor suggested truncating the list to exclude smaller donors. I wanted to wait for comments first. Had you made those removals, it would not have received much protest. All these are matters for discussion. Unless you are an Admin or the like or we are in unambiguous violation of WP policy (such as was the case with the unsigned anti-semitic remarks inserted in the middle of my previous comments which I then removed from Talk:David Petraeus), please comment first and remove later. It avoids revert wars especially if it begins to appear as though you are simply removing evidence of MoveOn's dependence on super rich marxists. —joeFriday— {talk}  02:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the smaller donors shouldn't be mentioned; their contributions aren't notable in comparison. Revolutionaryluddite 05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The most notable donors should be linked to their articles; the small fry should not. Nobody's address should be put into this article, any more than they would in any other article. I will ignore the POV assertion about these guys as "marxists", as long as it isn't put into the article. --Orange Mike 18:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Define "most notable donors" and "small fry." My preference would include anyone who has their own WikiPedia article plus donors over a certain amount perhaps ≥ $10K. I agree re: addresses. I am trying to remove or at the least balance the POV in this article. This article reads not dissimilar to the MoveOn profile on the CPUSA site. —joeFriday— {talk}  20:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Including ≥$10K donors makes sense. Revolutionaryluddite 02:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • One of CPUSA's Action Alerts includes a "message from www.moveon.org"
  • CPUSA lists MoveOn.org under its Unity and Coalitions.—joeFriday— {talk}  15:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Joe, sometimes I think you're the only person left in America who takes the CPUSA seriously any more. Just the facts, sir.--Orange Mike 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
      • It's neither a fact that I take them seriously nor that others do not. What is a fact is that they don't agree with or respect a lot of political groups, so it's news when they reprint an appeal from someone else. To say one thinks they are foolish or trivial dodges the reason they are brought up, that if one can't condemn their platform, one shouldn't claim libel when others point it out. —joeFriday— {talk}  21:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've heard no objection to including the list of donors ≥$10K or with their own WP articles and excluding addresses. Going once, Going twice … —joeFriday— {talk}  15:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • if you object say so
IRS Form 990 for MoveOn.org Voter Fund for FY 2004 Excluding donors under $10,000 without their own WP articles
Name Contributions[2]
Peter Lewis $2,500,000.00
George Soros $2,500,000.00
Steven Bing $977,937.00
Jared Polis $200,000.00
Richard Foos $100,000.00
Lewis Cullman $100,000.00
Jonathan Soros $100,000.00
Virginia Fowler $55,000.00
Gail Furman $50,000.00
John Hunting $40,000.00
Jonathan Rose $25,000.00
Edward Evans $25,000.00
Matt Damon $20,000.00
Jean Stein $20,000.00
Scott Wallace $19,999.00
Adam Lewis $15,000.00
Alexandra Morgan $15,000.00
Andrew Tobias $14,660.00
Michael Kieschnick $12,530.00
Gloria Jarecki $11,500.00
Tony Crabb $10,500.00
John Harris $10,000.00
John Henry $10,000.00
Jay Sandrich $5,000.00
Doug Carlston $5,000.00

—joeFriday— {talk}  15:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though the last two donors have pages, they're paragraph-size stub pages. I don't think they're particularly notable. I think the table should finish with Gloria Jarecki's entry. Revolutionaryluddite 17:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Try this …
MoveOn.org Voter Fund FY 2004
Donors over $11,000
Name Contributions[3]
Peter Lewis $2,500,000.00
George Soros $2,500,000.00
Steven Bing $977,937.00
Jared Polis $200,000.00
Richard Foos $100,000.00
Lewis Cullman $100,000.00
Jonathan Soros $100,000.00
Virginia Fowler $55,000.00
Gail Furman $50,000.00
John Hunting $40,000.00
Jonathan Rose $25,000.00
Edward Evans $25,000.00
Matt Damon $20,000.00
Jean Stein $20,000.00
Scott Wallace $19,999.00
Adam Lewis $15,000.00
Alexandra Morgan $15,000.00
Andrew Tobias $14,660.00
Michael Kieschnick $12,530.00
Gloria Jarecki $11,500.00

—joeFriday— {talk}  14:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks about right. Revolutionaryluddite 01:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The L-Word

The term 'progressive' is used in the article, but the link itself goes to an article on modern American liberalism. This is ludicrous. What's so despicably wrong about calling Moveon.org liberal when it's been called that so openly and so widely in the media and by supporters/detractors alike? Revolutionaryluddite 04:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

?Despicable? If I wrote anything that carried such an implication, I deeply apologize. I merely felt that the term which was used before sounded natural and fluid, whereas the terminology which had been substituted sounded stilted and artificial, a sort of lexicographic Frankenstein's monster, with no immediate meaning to the reader more versed in modern American political language than in the semantic odyssey of the word "liberal." (I'm a historian, and an internationalist; I am fully aware that Americans and Europeans [and libertarians/minimalists] mean different things by the word.) --Orange Mike 14:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
This is an article about an American organization; why not use the specific American terminology? Articles about UK topics freely use terms such as 'devolution', 'loyalist', 'Republicanism', and so on. Also, the term 'progressive' is as ambiguous than the term 'liberal' in international poltics: Compare Moveon.org with Ireland's Progressive Democrats or Canada's Progressive Conservatives. Revolutionaryluddite 17:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The term progressive means one thing to self-described progressives and something totally different to those they are trying to persuade. It is false advertising. If you want to harmonize usage with Europe, then call the Republicans Neo-Liberals with Conservative tendencies, the Democrats a Popular Front, and MoveOn a United Front but truth isn't the point is it? —joeFriday— {talk}  20:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Please refrain from violations of our civility standards, joe. Nobody here has called the Republicans neo-fascists, even by implication; please refrain from implying that MoveOn is a Communist organization. --Orange Mike 03:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You overstate my remarks. United Front refers to a coalition of Communists and Socialists. It does not refer to a "Communist organization." But given the controversial nature of even association with communists, I withdraw the assertion pending documentation. Would it be accurate to say that MoveOn is a coalition of Left Wing tendencies consisting of Social Liberals, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, and Greens who have been endorsed by the CPUSA and whose repudiation of the CPUSA has not yet been located? —joeFriday— {talk}  00:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • 1) There are people in MoveOn who would certainly describe themselves as to the right of any of the tendencies you mention; the present regime has alienated a lot of folks. 2) The CPUSA has endorsed good things over the years; the fact that those idiots have endorsed a group (assuming, for the sake of discussion, that they have) creates no particular obligation of repudiation on the endorsed organization's part; mention of the endorsement, considering the size of the CP in the U.S., would certainly be undue emphasis on a trivial matter. --Orange Mike 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The present regime at MoveOn or the present regime in Washington? Using regime to describe a lawfully constituted democratic government is POV. What lefty doesn't complain that people overemphasize their leftiness? —joeFriday— {talk}  02:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Let's try to stay civil here. Political name-calling really does nothing to advance the discussion. I happen to be the user who directed that link, and since no objections were raised at that time I assumed the issue was settled. I wouldn't have a problem changing "progressive" to "liberal" if that is the consensus here, but a quick bout of googling reveals that MoveOn uses the term "progressive" to describe itself roughly three times more often than "liberal". That was the main reason I chose "progressive" as the label, but the organization's self-assertion is by no means a guaranteed fact. It would probably be best to apply the most commonly-used term in modern day, since progressivism most frequently refers to more antiquated causes and movements. Negative feelings associated with one term or the other are typically due to POV, which is not a valid cause for a change. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 04:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The term 'progressive' in this article immediately redirects to 'Modern liberalism in the United States'. The two are not synoymns; they mean different meanings based on their historical developments. Calling a modern day person or organization 'progressive' when most third party sources use another term is entirely subjective. Is Senator John McCain 'progressive'? If not, why not? He opposes child labor, supports women's sufferage, opposes the influence of money on politics, et cetera...
Moveon.org calls themselves 'progressive' in the same way Rock Against Communism bands call themselves 'anti-communist'. The articles should use third party sources rather than just taking their word for it. Revolutionaryluddite 02:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
After a little searching, it looks like Progressivism is the correct form of Progressive, so I changed the wikilink. MoveOn.org is listed on that page, so that should resolve this issue. Arzel 03:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
However, that article describes progressives as being disillusioned with political parties (see the section on relations to liberalism). MoveOn raises millions of dollars for democratic presidential candidates and campaigns every year. By looking at the organization's past and present relationship with the US democratic party, we can easily see that MoveOn.org is anything but disillusioned with the democratic party, while at the same time the progressivism article describes liberals in America as typically supportive of the democratic party. In that context, liberal is the more appropriate label. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MoveOn's assertion of Trademark with Google to prevent anti MoveOn ads

Please see the dispute on whether to include recent news on MoveOn asserting its Trademark with Google to prevent any anti MoveOn ads from appearing in adwords - other editor repeatedly removes this statement on the pretext that an official google blog is not a sufficient source. Please see the history of edits for context. TwakTwik 04:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, your first talk page message is an rfc. Looks like someones done this before. It took me weeks to learn what a proper rfc was, let alone initiate one. What is this, your first day? Turtlescrubber 04:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you've been editing for five hours. Quick learner. Turtlescrubber

So, just to let the RFC people know. All I want is a decent and verifiable source. NO blogs and NO editorial. User has refused to use this talk page (until the rfc) and has only been reverting. Not only is the source not of a decent quality the text user is trying to enter is pov. That's it. Turtlescrubber 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed one of my own unnecessary comments. TwakTwik 04:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand the normal objection to blogs as sources, and share it with Turtlescrubber. However, this is not a random blog: it's a blog page written by Google's public policy department, on a website owned by Google, discussing an action Google has taken. It fully supports the underlying fact of the deletion. The text in the article needs to be very neutral about the motivation, but I think the combination of Google's blog page and Fox News is enough to verify the basic fact: Google pulled the ads, cited trademark law as its motive, and others have indicated that they suspect that that application of trademark law was selective. Kww 10:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia considers Media Matters, salon.com, the Rolling Stone's politics section, The Nation, The New Republic, et cetera to be reliable sources, this is rather silly. Google's policy page made the announcement; Fox News reported on it. Revolutionaryluddite 17:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Could someone actually post a link to the source so it could be evaluated? And if it has been reported by more than one source, those would be good too. --Blue Tie 18:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301267,00.html and http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/10/our-advertising-policies-and-political.html Kww 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
These are good sources. The information can be included in the article based upon wikipedia's standards of verfiability.--Blue Tie 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Well it took you guys a couple of days to add a legitimate source. Now could you work on making it npov as it would have took three minutes to make sure it meets wikipedia standards. To bad it's not really notable or encyclopedic or I would work on it myself. Turtlescrubber 20:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
What are you complaining about? The Google source is exactly the one I took from the portion of the article you deleted.Kww 21:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but now the section has been readded, rewritten and properly sourced. Thank you, but how can you ask what I was complaining about when you just fixed it? Turtlescrubber 21:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Because you are complaining about the sourcing, and those are the same.Kww 22:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My complaint was actually about the lack of a rewrite and proper integration of sources. Unless of course you are looking at my initial complaint. Turtlescrubber 02:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just realized you guys didn't even add the proper source. Put in Fox news, put in the Google source, npov it up or this does not go into the article. Removed for now. Get to work. Turtlescrubber 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MoveOn's association with other organizations

MoveOn.org's website is associated with Michael Moore [16] - This should be mentioned on the related organizations. The way current article is written portrays only the most positive image possible - by highlighting MoveOn'e stance on current issues, it may be possible to make the article more balanced. TwakTwik 14:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Not with so many editors who behave like MoveOn activists. Any reference to media matters has the same effect. —joeFriday— {talk}  01:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. Kettle pot black. Turtlescrubber 02:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Clearly I've walked into this. It seems time to pull back, but I do think you've been quite aggressive. I should've said so rather than being snarky about it. —joeFriday— {talk}  00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Walked into it? You started it. Turtlescrubber 00:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
How very neutral of you. Turtlescrubber 23:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC) —joeFriday— {talk}  21:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Did I say that to you? No. Did you attack me personally and for no reason? Yes, you did. My comment is just that, a comment. Yours is a accusation. A false one I might add. Rocket scientist indeed. Turtlescrubber 14:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
TwakTwik, what do you think you mean or intend to convey by the sentence "MoveOn.org's website is associated with Michael Moore"? The link you provide goes to a page with a link to the Michael Moore movie Sicko. So what? That page has links to lots of things. What is your point? --Orange Mike 05:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There was a time when various neo-nazi organizations campaigned alongside the Minutemen (another article in need of dire cleanup), but that does not entail by any means that they made or maintain a formal connection. If a more noteworthy connection can be found between Moore and MoveOn, such as a collaborative project or one sanctioned or officially praised by the organization's leaders, then this might warrant inclusion. But until then, it doesn't really have a place in the article -- least of all in the lead. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 06:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with S0CO, although I'm mystified by how this dicussion is going-- what do "rocket scientists" have to do with anything? Revolutionaryluddite 21:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMike, there is no point to prove or express an opinion. MoveOn, a leading liberal organization is promoting a leading liberal movie maker and I thought its worth a mention. It is not negative on MoveOn or its not positive, its just a fact - they are working to promote Michael Moore's work and their positions seem to match more or less with that of Michael Moore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TwakTwik (talk • contribs) 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And many of us, including conservatives like User:Jc-S0CO, agree that it is utterly trivial and not "worth a mention" in an article of finite length. It is only worthy of mention if you feel that approving of a Michael Moore movie proves some point about how "radical" or "leftist" the group is. (I know some real radical leftists; they think Mike Moore's another hapless white liberal-reformer weenie.) --Orange Mike 19:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fair - may I suggest we remove all the other organizations in the section also, since there is no "proof" that such a link exists, and even if it did, there is no significance for the link. That list currently looks like selective visibility. TwakTwik 19:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
At your suggestion, I will do so, since I concur that the section is rather pointless. I expect, though, that somebody else will restore it. I hope they look here before doing so, though, to understand our reasoning. --Orange Mike 19:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Orangemike that a 'Friends of Moveon.org' section is spurious. Revolutionaryluddite 02:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV section tag

The recent section added on google needs to be written to conform with wikipedias npov standard. Both sides of the story need to be displayed and phrasing such as "double-standard" being written as fact, should be discouraged. Turtlescrubber 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Proposal to rewrite the History section

To make this article little more balanced, I suggest replacing the History section with this following text. Currently, it it bit long and reads like an autobiography of MoveOn. It also uses controversial terms like 'invasion of Iraq'.

MoveOn was started in 1998 by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd to urge congress to move away from impeaching President Clinton. After the 911 terrorist attacks that killed over 3000 people, the founders of MoveOn started a petition against the United States response that involved bombing of AlQaeda in Afghanistan. MoveOn has also opposed the 2003 war of United States against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

In 2004 presidential elections, MoveOn has supported the losing Democratic candidate John Kerry by raising millions of dollars.

Thoughts? TwakTwik 21:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, no way. Reasons:
  • Invoking memory of the 3000+ deaths on 9/11 doesn't belong here.
  • The citation does not back up the line that the petition was "against the United States response that involved bombing of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan." The citation says the petition "[called] for a restrained and multi-lateral response to the attacks."
  • "2003 war of United States against Iraqi dictator Sadaam Hussein" is more POV than "invasion of Iraq." First off, Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq, not a dictator. Check his page. Secondly, the war wasn't against him. That was just what the war was spun to be about after other reasons failed (ie. weapons inspectors, WMD, terrorist links, etc).
  • The line about the losing Democratic candidate John Kerry is trying to associate MoveOn with losers. It could be rephrased without the word "losing" to drop the POV. Better yet, it could say that MoveOn has a history of supporting Democratic candidates.
  • Finally, what you've written is certainly not anywhere close to a condensed version of what is on the History of MoveOn page.
I agree that the history section could use a little work, but this edit would make it worse. Bbrown8370 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I made a minor change to include reference to 9/11 attacks. I don't think linking to wiki's article on 9/11 would be POV. Secondly, we should consider removing the History section all together and just link to the History of MoveOn article. TwakTwik 02:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Moveon.org's opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan is notable enough to be mentioned on the main page as well as the history page. Revolutionaryluddite 01:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bot Archiving of the Talk Page

Since the talk page is getting pretty long, I think archiving should be set up. Revolutionaryluddite 01:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good idea TwakTwik

[edit] Relevance to other organizations section should be removed or marked AD

The current text is POV. It links to a POV article ( an OpEd piece ).

I propose either we tag the section as an Ad for MoveOn or remove it completely:

MoveOn is not connected with MoveOnForAmerica (now known as Move America Forward), a conservative organization with a confusingly similar name that was set up by Stephen Marks, a Republican political consultant, and which was criticized for the falsehoods in its advertisements attacking John Kerry.[4].

TwakTwik

removed my own comments here - my bad for misunderstanding edits. TwakTwik 21:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No biggie; I've misunderstood a thing or two in my time! --Orange Mike 21:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest removing Organizing Methodology section

I think this whole section does not add much value to the article - the problem is this section is written like an advertisement and there is no easy way to make it NPOV. The organizing methodology of MoveOn is no different than many other modern day organizations, thus adds no value to mention it in the article. TwakTwik 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Giuliani ad.jpg

Image:Giuliani ad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)