Talk:MoveOn/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

• Do you mean progressive as in the Progressive Labor Party? —joeFriday— ^{talk}  23:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

MoveOn's association with other organizations

MoveOn.org's website is associated with Michael Moore [1] - 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)

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)

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)

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

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..

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)

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)

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)

Source suggested

I'd suggest that someone who is working on this article should read and probably cite some material from Christopher Hayes, "MoveOn At Ten", The Nation, August 4/11, 2008, p. 11–18. Online version dated July 16, 2008. A rather rounded discussion of MoveOn from a left/liberal point of view, including both criticism and praise. In particular, has some criticism from people who are to MoveOn's left, something that is missing from the article as it stands. Among others, it quotes John Stauber to the effect that MoveOn has become "primarily a money-raising and marketing arm of the Pelosi wing of the Democratic Party." It also gives what seems like a pretty balanced account of the group's origins, and of both what has remained constant about the organization and what has changed. - Jmabel | Talk 04:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Too many criticism sections

After reading this wikipedia page, you'd think move-on sucks, theres too many sections dedicated to spelling out its alleged criticisms. I suggest you move it all into one section and sum it up more. You can't critizise them in details on every 'controversial' ad they've put out, or else both current candidates would have entire paragraphs dedicated to 'controversial ads'. It needs to all be summed up and put in one paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.96.238 (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"See also" links

It's not clear what most of the links under "See also" have to do with MoveOn.org. I suggest deleting most of them or even eliminating the section completely. Otherwise it'll just keep attracting additions of random political activist groups. —KCinDC (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Controversial

The Move America Forward page leads off with "Move America Forward is a controversial conservative non profit political action group ..."

Is MoveOn.org not an equally controversial, if not more so, liberal organization?Lowellt (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, no; but I've removed the adjective (a highly subjective one) from both articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Catholic judges controversy

I noticed that there was a controversy in 2005 about an ad criticizing Supreme Court judges for being members of the Roman Catholic Church. This affair is perhaps comparable to other ad scandals that have plagued MoveOn.org. There were related problems with forums denouncing the alleged cabal. [2] ADM (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

---

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)

It seems to me that in this context (in American politics) liberal and progressive are two words for the same thing, especially in regards to this political organization.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But both are subjective opinion so we cannot state either as fact. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Membership should be stated as a claim for all others

I added this section due to the infighting between myself and 2 other members. I will not post in this section unless requested to by another author, or DD2K or Dayewalker post her first.Bikeric (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the above and "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" stands out to me. I think there is reasonable doubt. I do not doubt there may be 5M email addresses in an email mailing list, but there is reasonable doubt all of them are members. I'll bet most are just interested in seeing the mailings. I'll bet that applies to any group, not just MoveOn. I'll bet actual membership is far, far smaller.

Even the AP story says, "MoveOn.org says it has 5 million members," as if not even the AP believes it to be true. The ALA has 64K members. The AP reports the ALA has 64K members. It doesn't report "ALA says it has 64K members."

I like the way the wiki says, "As of 2009, MoveOn claims a membership of 5.2 million, with 20 full-time and 20 part-time staffers," but I do not like the infobox saying 5M when that is most likely not true, as the AP skepticism reflects.

By the way, I was invited to comment here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Membership should be stated as a claim between DD2K/Daywalker/Bikeric

The reference for the "Membership" number in the box has an inappropriate reference. The reference, number [1], is nothing more than a link to the Huffington Post which reads that the MoveOn.org membership is claimed to be 5 million. Is this all that is required to be used as a legitimate reference? I do not think so. If, as many will state, that there are a number of groups here on Wikipedia that self report there membership size, than why this useless link? It appears to me to violate the the rules with regard to self promotion. I have tried to remove the useless link, but got into a WP:3RR with 2 members, so I had to lose that one. Looking for some guidence from the group here. Let's get the discussion going.Bikeric (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I will restate this from this users talk page.:

...membership by organizations are almost always self-reported. Except organizations where the lists of it's members are reported to the Government(unions like the SEIU, AFL-CIO). As one can see by looking at the NRA, the Boy Scouts of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Conservative Baptist Association of America, to mention a few, organizations self-report their membership numbers. If you have a specific criticism of the numbers, you need to find a reliable source and take it to the talk page.

And WP:SELFPUB

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

And lastly, I think we would have to see a reliable source that disputes the membership numbers to even consider any kind of change. Per NRA, the Boy Scouts of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Conservative Baptist Association of America, who are but a few who self-publish membership numbers. Also, I would like to make clear that the Huffington post link has not been there for some time, and it was from an Associated Press article about Moveon.org, that has since been replaced by a MSNBC link that is now dead. The new link(which I will update, can be found here. Which is just a news source stating the fact that MoveOn states they have 5 million members, with no dispute followed. DD2K (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Your link to the MSNBC article is non-existant. It is in this discussion talk that I am calling for a dispute. Please check your link for yourself. It says page does not exist. You may have entered it in wrong. As you stated that many groups self report membership numbers, then why this "unduly self-serving;" 1. citation?Bikeric (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice try? Anyone can click the link from Google's cache to see that it's been there. In any case, I switched it back and it seems to be working now. Whether it does forever, I have no idea. But any reasonable person could easily click the cached link from Google and see it. DD2K (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, this(membership numbers) is not categorized in the manner you are trying to suggest. It's definitely not 'unduly' self serving, and many organizations(as I have listed some above) self report membership. Now, on to you. Your edits reflect a WP:SPA, starting with your first confrontational edit to another user here, and then onto your edits to Moveon here(1 2 3 4, trying to use WP:OR and inserting your own comments into the article. I would suggest you leave your own research on these articles to another website, and try to find reliable sources to back up any changes you want to make on Wikipedia. Myself, I could care less if MoveOn has a membership of 5 million or 3 million. Whatever it is, I assume they count every person that gave them any money or answered one of their polls. It's probably based on accumulated email addresses. Which is much the same methods the NRA, Boy Scouts and almost all organizations use. I don't understand why you want to make a huge deal of this here. DD2K (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice try? Just helping you out DD2K. Here is the quote from your NEW link. "MoveOn.org says it has 5 million members. Liberals such as Howard Dean have widely criticized the Senate bill." What proof of membership is that? It is not. Could this link be used for saying that Howard Dean is a Liberal? You have proven my point with this claim. Of course we all see that MoveOn.org says they have 5 million members. They say that on their own website. You are attempting to have the article look as if that claim is verifiable by inserting your link. I feel that a link at this point violates the rule number 1: It is unduly self serving. You, DD2K, have displayed a negative attitude to any of my previous points. I would appreciate it if you could cool down and review your motivations. Bikeric (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I Just read your point accusing me of being SPA. Very interesting. What you have just done has a name. It is called "projection". I have a concern on how to correct Wikipedia. I make mistakes initially, but have now found the proper method to do so. Who stands in the way? Yourself DD2K. Who is SPA? Should I simply just go away and forget everything? Let you trample on this fine encyclopedia? If I appear to be SPA it is because I have met the unbending wall, which is DD2K, who is unable to see past the end of the keyboard. You seem to take this quite personally. I keep the write-up of Bob Mifune as a badge of honor. That individual is no longer making a mockery of Wikipedia and I would like to think that I had a hand in that. Are you next, or are you Bob Mifune with a new email address? Bikeric (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Could someone else besides DD2K or Dayewalker please comment here. This is the second time those two have come in on me. A 3RR occured between myself and DD2K, __Edited Out preceding statements__Bikeric (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's twice in this same section that you've accused me of being a sockpuppet. Which I find rather ironic, for the reasons I listed above(coming in 'new' like you did). If you are going to accuse me of being a sock, do so at the Sockpuppet investigations page. Otherwise, cease and desist immediately. DD2K (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. How about the over-riding issue at hand? The reason this whole thing started concerns your insistence on what I consider a useless link. Is it really needed? You say many sites self proclaim their membership. That is fine. Why insert a link which gives the impression to the lay user that it is a fact? Bikeric (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll ignore the redacted baiting above. I agree with DD2k here, policy seems pretty clear about allowing non-controversial self-reporting for organizations. Is there a reliable source somewhere casting doubt on that number? If not, why would an encyclopedia article do so? Dayewalker (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I had asked for other input besides the two? of you, but let me try my previous argument again. Have you seen the NEW citation inserted by DD2K? Do you think it is a valid use of citation? Please explain to all readers including myself how it is needed in this article. I feel it is "unduly self serving" for a link to be next to a "claim" that does nothing more than say "MoveOn.org says they have 5 million members." Please somebody besides DD2K and Dayewalker explain to me that this citation is not unduly self serving, and is a perfect example of how citations should be used on Wikipedia.

The citation also claims that Howard Dean is a Liberal, but if you check the Howard Dean article, it is considered an accusation to call him a Liberal and is in question. Could this magical link here be all the proof I need to also modify the Howard Dean Article page and call him a Liberal? I think not, but the arguments from DD2K and Dayewalker seem very solid and airtight that this link is proven and reliable. Bikeric (talk) 03:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask again, do you have a reliable source disputing the self-reported numbers? Otherwise, all you're saying is that you don't believe the organizationDayewalker (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll state again, this link is "unduly self serving". Could I find a reliable source to dispute the number? Not when the only proof to the claim is a restating of the claim by MoveOn themselves as reported by MSNBC. That is not encyclopedic. Please, as a courtesy warning to all Liberals, if this link is approved and considered reliable and verifiable for this article, it will be that way for every other article on Wikipedia. I will be able to carry the results onto the Howard Dean page and remove all references to him being a moderate. I should not have informed you of that fact, but I am a flexible man. I can see beyond these keystrokes and view the pedia' in a wider light. We are creating precedence here. Are you willing to deal with the unintended consequences of your link to a "quote" being equivalent to proof? This might very well effect your "Admin" application Dayewalker.Bikeric (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Making threats is not a good way to build consensus, and if you want to go around and disrupt Wikipedia in the manner you are insinuating, you will more than likely just wind up blocked. That's up to you. As of now, unless you can produce a reliable source that disputes the membership numbers, I consider this issue resolved. Good night. DD2K (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) So, no, you don't have a reliable source disputing the claim. You find the link self-serving, but you can't show any reliable sources that dispute it. Why is it an issue, then?

By the way, what you're doing above is giving notice that you intend to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point about the link if you don't get your way. I'd strongly advise against that.

I have no admin application at this time, but thanks for making vague threats against it. Dayewalker (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No threats made, just an observation of how citations, proven to be reliable, are referenced here. Do you still stand by DD2K or your link? You, DD2K/Dayewalker and I, will not be able to finish this ourselves. I am still awaiting other input before making any modifications to any article. If some other members join the discussion we can proceed from there. I have invited two others, but no response yet. FYI, one member I invited was EdJohnston who blocked me last week and corrected my revision making. I find him to be reliable, and will listen to his reasoning, but not your DD2K/Dayewalker own reasoning. As far as any application to be an admin, I found that reference on your home page. I learned that trick from DD2K searching my personal history and complaining about it previously. I am a quick learner and simply hope to improve the accuracy and reliability of Wikipedia. I would hope all readers could join my effortBikeric (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Referring to something you found on my home page in a completely unrelated discussion doesn't really inspire good faith, as I'm sure you understand. Please leave any discussion relating to my page on that page. As for ignoring the reasoning of others, we all will have to live with whatever the consensus on this article turns out to be. Again, if you could give some kind of reason to dispute the self-reported numbers that's not a personal opinion, it would help everyone see the other side of the discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me restate my issue here. This link is "unduly self serving". It gives the impression, on the article page, that it is a fact which it is not. An unsubstantiated claim requires more to be substantiated than a simple re-quote of THE unsubstantiated claim by the CLAIMANT on MSNBC. The link also has no author unless "AP" is good enough. Is that all that is required? Please, sombody besides DD2K/Dayewalker let me know. I have found articles on the net which would dispute your own, but out of courtesy I will save the hassle of arguing over something from 1998. I understand that your link is more recent and would not waste the time here. In my opinion, to substantiate the MoveOn membership claim would require a use of the Patriot Act to get the true info. Good talk, lets continueBikeric (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If there is nothing more to say, then I may correct the error on the page.Bikeric (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The article makes it quite clear that this is a claim by the organization, rather than a fact it is stating. I made a proposed edit.- Sinneed 03:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

You really should read the whole talk page and history of what's happening here before making a 'proposed edit', which is the edit that has been rejected here already by several editors(1, 2, 3. The questions posed here need to be answered, or there has to be a reliably source that questions the membership numbers, in order for there to be a change. DD2K (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mother May I

Actually, no. WP does not work by "mother may I", it works by wp:Be Bold. I agree, the claim does not belong in the infobox. Perhaps it belongs in the body, but I won't add it there. I will tag it POV if readded in the infobox as before.- Sinneed 05:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Restored, and pov-tagged it.- Sinneed 05:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well sure, WP:BRD is the usual way to go about editing articles, but when one makes a comment on the talk page, and then makes the same edit that a user who was already warned for edit warring, it seems as if it would be more prudent to read the whole section on the talk page and get familiar with he current issue than to re-ignite an edit war. No? I would not be opposed to adding the citation to the article in a neutral manner. I don't see a POV tag in any of the other organizations that self-report their memberships, where is the questions raised by a WP:RS about their membership? Has there been some controversy reported that I haven't seen? It's possible, but I think that's the job for the editor that wants to make the changes to do. No? DD2K (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The internal conflict within your argument... that if you read the history of the article you would know you needed to read the history of the article... is mildly amusing. Moving right along.- Sinneed 05:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And yes, if you want to look at it that way: It is your job as the editor who wants to make the edit to do the work you believe is required.- Sinneed 05:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, added a quote= param with the source of the 5 million number... headlines are not sources.- Sinneed 05:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm ecstatic that you find the irony amusing. I was thinking that same thing. Why would someone comment on the talk page without reading what they were commenting about? Very amusing. In any case, we can use MoveOn.org for the source for all I care. That's not the dispute here. It's known by all participants in this discussion that the membership numbers are self-reported. As are the many other organizations that have Wiki articles that have their membership reported in their info boxes. As one could see if they read the comments in these sections. I would ask again, as has been asked many times here, do you have a source that disputes the membership numbers? If not, you need to remove your POV tag. DD2K (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? To avoid wp:edit war. Lampooning me for communicating, after complaining about edit wars past is also ironic: I hear you saying: "Don't communicate if you don't read everything! Don't edit if you don't read everything!" And I again point out that WP does not work by "Mother May I", we work by editing.

"dispute" - The Article itself, as I read it, though "dispute" is too strong a word: It simply caveats the number. It reports the claim, not the number. Thus the usage in the infobox is misleading. No worries, it is properly flagged, for the moment.

Switching it to a selfpub source seems best. That way, however the organization defines membership, that is it. If I have a website and claim that everyone who views it is a member of my group, cool: I am the one who defines membership. I can simply also admit all living humans and claim 6 billion members: it will be true, since I define the term.- Sinneed 06:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I will restate this once again, since you don't seem to want to read the discussion on the talk page of about the article you want to edit, on the issue you wish to discuss. Membership by organizations are almost always self-reported. Except organizations where the lists of it's members are reported to the Government(unions like theSEIU, AFL-CIO). As one can see by looking at the NRA, the Boy Scouts of America, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Conservative Baptist Association of America, to mention a few, organizations self-report their membership numbers. If you have a specific criticism of the numbers, you need to find a reliable source and then make your edits. Not just insert your own opinions on what you think is right, or "the way things are". See WP:SELFPUB

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field

DD2K (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I reread the post you replied to, and I think I just said that. *shrug* - Sinneed 06:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Infobox self-published membership number proposal

I propose that we remove the reference that is causing a concern, and replace it with a self-published source (the organization web site). Since "membership" is defined however each organization chooses, this avoids abusing the AP/MSNBC by making it seem that THEY say the size of the organization, and lets the organization make its statement of membership.- Sinneed 16:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with that and think that it would match the other organizations that I listed too. I only changed the link to the MSNBC version of the AP story because the old one(of the same story) was dead. I think it's a lot more uniform to give the link directly to the MoveOn website. I would also suggest that any discrepancies in the membership numbers, if there is a WP:RS disputing them, should be noted in a footnote(claimed) or another sourced link in the body. But only if there is a dispute by a source. DD2K (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, I would argue that any such dispute, unless the MoveOn organization explains how they count membership, would be specious. If I accept all members of humanity as members of my organization, then the membership *IS* the population of the planet. No one's opinion but mine matters: it is my organization.- Sinneed 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, any such discussion would belong in the body, with appropriate wp:BALANCE and avoiding wp:UNDUE weight, rather than banishing it to a footnote.- Sinneed 18:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections. Implemented. Removed flag, dropped source for claim, added wp:SELFPUB statement of membership.- Sinneed 19:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and my apologies for not WP:AGF the other day. Good day. DD2K (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome, and no problem at all, apology not needed but happily accepted, and I hope other interested editors are either content with this or will add their ideas/"voices".- Sinneed 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, kudos to both of you guys for working this one through. This discussion has been a nice example of what WP should be. Well done! Dayewalker (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Works for me as well. Thanks so much for the learning experience. Bikeric (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

MoveOn Organization

Regarding the recent edits on the article(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), the sources all say 'organization', both the MoveOn.org website and the IRS website. Frankly, I could care less what the organization is labled, legally or description by the media. But there has to be a reliable source specifically indicating that the MoveOn organization is an organization, or a corporation. And every source I have seen refers to them as an organization. As well as the explanation of what a "501(c)(4)" is from the IRS website. Which mentions 'corporation' one time, and that is not referring to the 501(c)(4)--"For example, an organization that restricts the use of its facilities to employees of selected corporations and their guests is primarily benefiting a private group rather than the community and, therefore, does not qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization". While the IRS website mentions 'organization' 25 times, all in describing the 501(c)(4). Now, I don't have expertise in this area of tax structures, but I do know that Wikipedia guidelines state that articles have to be sourced from reliable sources, and not WP:OR. DD2K (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Corporate Structure

I've tried several different approaches to the "Structure" section to note that MoveOn has a corporate structure with a non-profit status. Under U.S. law, a 501(c) must first become a corporation and then apply for non-profit status. So, MoveOn has a corporate structure.

This addition has been repeatedly deleted by an editor (or more than one) who seems biased against an objective disclosure of MoveOn's structure. (This may be because MoveOn takes up issues that oppose corporate influence in politics and the editor or editors are invested in blocking the fact that MoveOn is a corporation). I am a subscriber to MoveOn alerts and a long-time supporter.

I would appreciate someone suggesting some way of noting the structure of MoveOn under the Structure section in a way that will stick. Otherwise, this section is tainted by subjective selection of facts that protect MoveOn's interest but do not inform the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talk • contribs) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Diffs and sourcs? Woogee (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added a description of how a 501(c) is created with a link to NoLo describing the process and structure of a 501(c) but this was deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And what sources did you provide not only to support your contention that it is a corporation, but that it has to be due to its corporate structure? Woogee (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The same source I used to create my for-profit sole proprietorship: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30228.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the source that says that MoveOn's structure doesn't match the requirements that you claim it must? Woogee (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A 501(c) is a non-profit status given to a corporate entity. There is no source saying a 501(c) may apply to a non-corporate entity because such an exemption wouldn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You have to prove that with a reliable source, no wonder you're being reverted. And please sign your Talk page posts with four tildes. Woogee (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So if I linked to and/or quoted MoveOn's nondisclosure agreement calling itself "a California nonprofit public benefit corporation" at http://www.moveon.org/volunteer/nondisclosure.html, that would be sufficient? Their articles of incorporation aren't online, though their page itself describes its board of corporate directors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talk • contribs) 23:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. Woogee (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll try it and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanumanthemonkey (talk • contribs) 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

No change after my edit so far. Incidentally, any legally incorporated entity is a corporation. To incorporate under the law, for any reason, is to form a corporation. We're accustomed to thinking of corporations as for-profit organizations. MoveOn's corporate structure makes it interesting when MoveOn screens a movie like The Corporation that blasts the legal fiction of the corporation itself.

Anyway, I'm practicing my tildes with this (hopefully) last note. --Hanumanthemonkey (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ben Brandzel

I encountered a reference to Ben Brandzel and came to Wikipedia looking for information about him. Ben Brandzel is a redirect to this article but he's not mentioned in the article. Can someone either add the information or start a separate article in lieu of the redirect? JamesMLane t c 07:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)