Talk:Move America Forward

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Move America Forward, has edited Wikipedia as
66.81.15.226 (talk · contribs)

Contents

[edit] NPOV

I tagged this with an NPOV tag for the following statements which need citations at the very least.

  • "ultra right-wing"
  • "its actions have been almost wholly partisan and hence restricted to the political arena."

The controversy sections comes across as soapboxing with regard to the claims made by whatreallyhappened.com. The article as a whole suffers from a lack of citations and references. Madcoverboy 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The above comments, while very appropriate and applicable, do not begin to reflect the obvious bias of the article. I do not intend to go through such a long-winded, one-sided piece of work pointing out blow by blow its bias but will simply prove the point by noting the huge difference in tone, approach, and "validity" when compared with the article re moveon.org. It is recommended that this article be scrapped in its entirety and redone.

A beginning: Move America Forward is a self-described non-partisan, not-for-profit charitable organization committed to supporting America’s efforts to defeat terrorism and supporting the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. (From the website.) If the existing set of prejudicial statements are to stand, then please modify the moveon.org article to reflect similar tone and attitude. Here's a little guidance: Moveon.org is composed of three ultra left-wing organizations: one, a civic action group, two, a political action group and three, a voter fund (527 org) that will turn out liberal voters. Moveon.org espouses extreme positions on all matters. A prime example is their anti-capitalist stance which, in 1999, enabled violent protests to take place in Seattle. The political action group and voter fund are dedicated to the support of any and all candidates whose views largely coincide with their philosophy. Moveon.org is heavily funded by George Soros, a Hungarian immigrant who made billions (he ranks #80 in the rich list) from successfully speculating in the stock market. (an unsigned comment from User:Sense&Sensibility)

I agree and I've restored the long-standing description in the intro. The other passage you voiced concern about is supported by this source: Iraq war backers proudly pugnacious But critics say Move America Forward may abuse nonprofit status by Todd Milbourn, published in the Sacramento Bee on September 9, 2006. Its available at the sacbee.com website for a fee or through Topica, here: [1]. FeloniousMonk 05:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the lead

While this version's lead might be technically accurate, it does not (a) fit the citations, (b) follow the guidelines as found in WP:Lead, especially concerning accessibility. At best, someone has cherry-picked factoids from the weekly journal (Capitol Weekly) to support these statements. I recognize that this article covers a political organization; as such, it will be at times hotly contended. I propose the lead be kept to a "lighter", more accessible version.

Examples of what should not be in here. Statements like "advance a conservative agenda" followed by examples which are not, per se, conservative agenda: enforcing mexico-US border, for example. Also, the final sentence of the lead says

Move America Forward vocally supports and advocates the policies of the Bush Administration

And yet, the given citation gives counterexamples of that support:

But [Move America founder, Howard Kaloogian] was critical of President George W. Bush long before it was acceptable for Republicans to break with their once-popular leader, taking him to task in January 2004 over his immigration-amnesty proposal.

Also, the phrase/word "media-saturation campagin" never appears in the Capitol Weekly articles. I only see where they cite IRS returns stating $400,000 was spent on advertising. That amounts to something like 10 seconds of a super-bowl commercial, and a paltry sum compared to other agenda-based media campaigners (for example).

For comparison of leads, see Moveon.org. While that lead might be a bit tad short, it certainly doesn't try to prove a point. --AnOutsider 21:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not adequately NPOV

This article has a more negative overall tone than the one on leftist mirror organuzation MoveOn.org and it's criticism section is roughly 3 times the size of the MoveOn.org listing. This article also lacks the MoveOn article's section explicitely detailing it's supporters and praise received from likeminded media outlets.

I'm so tired of the conservatives getting the short end of the stick on this website. Somebody fix this shit already and BALANCE IT OUT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.242.164 (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments struck - that is the IP of one of Move America Forward's staff (Conflict of Interest)--Capitana (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(also please don't swear)

Wait...how do you know that's the the IP address of on the Move America Forward's staff?!? 169.229.74.76 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article is unbalanced, biased, compared to Leftist Mirror group's Wiki

This article has a more negative overall tone than the one on leftist mirror organuzation MoveOn.org and it's criticism section is roughly 3 times the size of the MoveOn.org listing. This article also lacks the MoveOn article's section explicitely detailing it's supporters and praise received from likeminded media outlets.

I'm so tired of the conservatives getting the short end of the stick on this website. Somebody fix this crap already and BALANCE IT OUT.

ADDITIONAL NOTES: Swearing removed. Sorry.

I do not now or have ever worked for this organization (If only I could, but they're a whole world away from my career path), and I suspect the Wiki user who struck this comment earlier is absolutely lying through his teeth about my IP address to censor a position he opposes.

This article is still a disgrace to Wikipedia's increasingly ridiculous claims of "neutrality".

-Troy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.162.119 (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reason

Edits I made: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Move_America_Forward&diff=191082223&oldid=191040581

Reason: to conform to the controversy section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moveon The controversy section there is concise and clean.

I also think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FeloniousMonk has a conflict of interest issue, since he or she started the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Move_America_Forward&diff=14278855&oldid=13520089 From the very beginning, the page has been extremely controversy heavy; taking up at least half of the page when it first started out. And with the information mainly from "whatreallyhappened.com", which I have never heard about and I can't find it on Wikipedia, so I doubt that it is a reputable source.

I made basic copy edits to trim the page down in my original edits, but FeloniousMonk removed them. Please advise further course of action. 169.229.74.76 (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Create an account and go from there. Also, FeloniousMonk is - as far as I can see a long standing respected editor with a high degree of neutrality. I think he has reverted to the long accepted version in order to stop this bickering and maintain a constant, reliable article that has been accepted by the community. Finally - if FeloniousMonk created the article - how could he possibly be biased against it's subject? He gave it it's first mention on WP! --Capitana (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this issue is important enough for me to create an account. If it gets really hairy, then sure.

I think it's some sort of logical fallacy to conclude that a person who first created a page on wikipedia is inherently not biased against against the subject. If a person was not especially fond of a particular subject matter, he or she would have more of an incentive to create the page in the first place in order to paint the subject in a negative light, thus ensuring that anyone who search for the subject on wikipedia will receive a biased and negative view of the subject. For example, if a hard-core vegetarian came on wikipedia and found out that a page did not exist for "meat", then he or she will probably create a page extremely critical of meat.

Anyways, you didn't really address any of the issue I brought up. I want to make changes, but there seems to be a lot of resistance to change. 169.229.74.76 (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you need to discuss it first - and provide sources. But as I said if you create an account people will have far more respect for your edits because it shows you are committed to the changes you want to make. If you look through our policies it will become apparent that this is a consensus based project. You need people to agree that your changes are productive if they are disputed by other editors --Capitana (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Please read WP:COI. Also, this article covers a controversial topic and has been the target of a determined campaign by its subject to whitewash it; we need to be very circumspect about significant changes to it moving forward. What specific changes do you have in mind? FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)