Talk:People United Means Action

sexism and misogyny vs perceived sexism and misogyny

Relatively small matter, but right now the article reads:

"Finally, PUMA members are angry about the alleged failure of Democratic Party leaders[10] to speak out against sexism and misogyny directed at Clinton during the primary campaign by the media."

I added "perceived" but this was removed. While I personally feel that both sexism and misogyny were present to some degree during the primaries, this statement also seems to me a clearly contentious claim that needs qualifying (see WP:CS) to avoid POV. Black Platypus (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and I've restored the word "perceived". An alternative would be "what PUMA members perceived as" but I think in the context it's clear whose perception is being referenced. JamesMLane t c 13:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not just PUMAs who said there was sexism. This article indicates other people saw it as well. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I am taking 'perceived' back out. It is a properly referenced assertion using mainstream news sources, and I will also add this additional NYT link by Seresin. I could have added Katie Couric's comment on CBS News, NOW's Hall of Shame, or several others but I didn't want to add a zillion refs to this sentence because that doesn't seem to go along with the citation conventions. Use of 'perceived' or 'claimed' implies that that the opinion that sexism occurred is limited to PUMA, when it was recognized by national groups and news sources. That seems to be more POV (it didn't happen, just this group thinks it did) than making a statement and referencing it.

An alternative to the use of 'perceived' would be to add a separate section on sexism where both sides of the argument (it happened/it didn't) could be presented, or the same thing just put under the 'Criticism' section. Or perhaps create a separate wiki page altogether. Valhalla08 (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That other people share PUMA's opinion doesn't make it more than an opinion. Note that even the New York Times article that you've added respects this point. It begins: "Angered by what they consider sexist news coverage of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the Democratic presidential nomination...." (emphasis added) Wikipedia is not going to assert, as a matter of fact, that Hillary Clinton was the victim of sexism and misogyny in the media, any more than we would assert as a fact that she'd be the nominee today if she'd voted against the Iraq War Resolution. Each of those opinions is defensible but neither can ever be established as a matter of objective fact.

To say that PUMA leaders hold an opinion doesn't imply that no one else holds it. Our articles about politicians or advocacy groups typically set forth the subject's opinions without trying to list everyone who agrees or disagrees. (By the way, we don't quote all the adherents of the point of view that PUMA is at best misguided or at worse a Republican false-flag operation. If you think we're thereby implying that that opinion is limited to the cited sources, plenty more can be added.)

Getting into an analysis of why Clinton lost would be going too far afield for the article on PUMA. We would, just for openers, have to acknowledge the substantial number of Democrats (of whom, I admit, I'm one) for whom her continued support for the Iraq invasion and occupation was a deal-breaker, regardless of her sex. We'd also have to balance the discussion of alleged media sexism by noting the respects in which she benefited from gender issues. None of that is particularly relevant to PUMA.

I've tried to recast the passage so that it's clear that charges of sexism came from quarters other than PUMA, without implying that the charges were accurate. JamesMLane t c 02:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this version is good. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

please read WP:CITE#QUALIFY, specifically the section regarding contentious claims. Black Platypus (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I edited JamesMLane's edit because although I thought the reword was an excellent way to resolve this issue, it was somewhat ambiguous (ie, could be read as that the charges were that Clinton practiced sexism and misogyny, rather than the media. Before you laugh, I've seen that argument made in many places). Also added 'speak out against' to 'responded appropriately' because the criticisms go very specifically to silence by DNC leaders -- Cocco's piece etc. Valhalla08 (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

We can't refer to "reports" of sexism because that implies that the statements were true; they were expressions of opinion, not reports. There've been plenty of "reports" that the members of PUMA are idiots, but we wouldn't say that in the article, for the same reason. JamesMLane t c 08:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The NYT article, which has a title including the word 'charges' does report on instances -- at the bottom of the first page of the link and continuing on to the second. Even Keith Olberman, who is a reporter/newsperson, states there was sexism (he just doesn't think it was important). I'm not sure what would constitute a report, if text describing instances in a newspaper article don't qualify. If the NYT had an article describing the damage done during Katrina, would that be a report of damages or charges of damage? Would it be charges if the headline contained the word 'charges', but reports if it didn't? On the NAACP page, the word 'discrimination' multiple times without qualifiers such as 'reports' or 'claims' or 'charges', as well as with very few references overall. Pls note I have not reverted 'charges' to 'reports', I've just stated my objections. Valhalla08 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why, then, can't we make mention that PUMA members seem to focus a lot of attention on Barack Obama's race? If this article plays the misogyny card, then can it not also play the race card? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.144.159.74 (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you have a prominent spokesperson criticizing PUMA on the basis of an alleged focus on race, then we can certainly consider it for inclusion. My own observation, based on my limited visits to the PUMA site (there being only so much I can take), is that there's very little discussion of race. JamesMLane t c 00:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to add some information on Harriet Christian, star of the YouTube sensation filmed at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murialhardt (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Denver Group

Can anyone explain what The Denver Group, which is apparently just two bloggers, has to do with the subject of this article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I named The Denver Group founders and added a reference to Heidi Li Feldman's blog, which has front page links to both PumaPac and one of several Puma logos, and is extenisvley concerned with TDG's work. I could make it more explicit in the text, but since none of the other associated movements have explicit connections in the text, I couldn't figure a way to make it not read awkwardly. Valhalla08 (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Simply blogrolling each other doesn't mean there is a connection. This article is on PUMA, so if the DG is not part of PUMA it doesn't belong, and neither do the other loosely associated groups. We might mention that there are other groups and list them, but we shouldn't go into details that can only be found on blogs. If there's no other information that can be found in reliable, non-blog sources connecting them then I'm going to trim the entry substanstially. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 15:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not simple blogrolling; putting the PUMA logo on a site is the symbol of the association. I'm reinserting some of the external references because they are officially part of PUMA; under the WP:EL the first external links to be considered for this section is official sites. I've added a 'reliable, non-blog source" connecting PUMA PAC to JSND, as well as the official alliance site (not a blogroll list).

The "best" source I can find connecting them is this article written by Nancy Spannaus: "Will the Democratic Party Learn the Lessons of 1932?" that appeared in a LaRouche movement publication. Perhaps that explains why it is being added here. Until such time as we find some reliable sources for the connection I'm going to delete it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting some of The Denver Group stuff back in because I came across a reported connection to PUMA in The New York Observer, which I think counts as mainstream.Valhalla08 (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If the source connects them then it's appropriate to mention the connection. But this article isn't about the Denver Group so we don't need to list their activities and their member's blogs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: this isn't worth a thread of its own, but Category:Political advocacy groups in the United States does not belong on the article because it's already categorized under Category:United States political action committees. All PACs are politial advocacy groups, so it doesn't need to be in both, per WP:CAT. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

thank you for the clarification on WP:CAT edit. I put TDG back in with cites and worked it into the main text instead of as a standalone under the organization section.Valhalla08 (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Popular Vote

I undid the addon line about Obama winning the popular vote in the opening paragraph because it is unreferenced, the popular vote totals is an extremely contentious issue, and does not belong in the opening definition paragraph in any case. If anywhere, it belongs in the criticism section. However, I think the issue of the popular vote total is separate from this article since vote totals are not mentioned within the article. Time's "Real Clear Politics" has 4 separate entries for the popular vote totals, 3 with asterisks because totals from 4 states are only estimates, and major news sites also show different totals depending how calculated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valhalla08 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Contentious how? The primary results, including those you show, clearly show obama winning hands down. But I guess it's contentious in that he may lose, if you include the state where she was the only actual candidate on the ballot, not including floridas similar situation. I guess if you let a group complain loud enough with bad data, it becomes true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.192.102 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Two of the four popular vote totals on the RCP page show Clinton with more popular votes. ABC News gives Clinton the edge in popular votes; CNN gives it to Obama. If the popular vote totals are not contentious, then do your own research and find references showing that, instead of skulking in the comments and throwing out insults. Thanks. Valhalla08 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

She Is a PUMA, logic does not apply with her. ain't that right Kristen?77.103.106.205 (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is really bad form -- was using my first name supposed to be some sort of threat that you know who I am? If you can refute it with evidence and reason, then do so. Your comment is an ad hominem attack, which is against Wikipedia protocols and generally disfavored in civilized, reasonable circles.Valhalla08 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No edits?

Sorry if this is amateurish since I'm new at editing articles, but the "edit" icons don't appear on the page. I assume there's some reason for this and I'm not just missing something, but I don't see any indication that the article is locked. I want to add information from the FEC website disclosure search (http://fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do - click on Clinton's name and type in "darragh") that indicates all of Ms. Murphy's donations occurred on or after 3/20/08. Otherwise the criticisms section statement "Murphy has donated $750 to Clinton's presidential campaign through Q2 2008" is misleading because the assumption is that Murphy donated to Clinton when most people would, i.e. when she had a chance of winning.

RS57 (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The article was temporarily semi-protected to deal with a vandal. I've removed the protection, so feel free to make edits. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

FEC info

Removed the following: The FEC Presidential Campaign Finance Search lists the earliest donation as March 20, 2008, at which point most Democratic primaries had already been held..

The citation goes to the main FEC search page, and searching on 'Murphy' does not bring up any results at all. The fec search also does not bring up any donations I've made, although they show up on Huffington Post's Fundrace site (as do Murphy's). I think it's a problem with their search engine, the sort and 'see all' functions produce some very odd results. I've also tried searching OpenSecrets.org, but again, no Murphy records and no records on my name, either. Valhalla08 (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Democratic Pundits

Removed this line: "Democratic pundits have accused persons associated with PUMA and media stories about them as Republicans disguised as Hillary supporters, looking to divide the Democratic party."

The accusations of being Republicans is made in the Criticism section with more specificity and better referencing.Valhalla08 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well Darragh Murphy did donate to McCain in 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.29.232 (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which is discussed in detail in the 'Criticism' section. Did you read the page before commenting in the discussion?Valhalla08 (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Formal Blogroll

this is essentially what this entire article is about —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.106.205 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

POV shining in article

Too many points are made by directly quoting PUMA talking points, giving the article a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.174.47.70 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 1 December 2008

Update needed

I think this article could do with an update, on what the PUMA group have been doing since the election. How did they respond to Obama's victory, and what if anything have they done since then? Does the group no longer exist? Robofish (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that a Google News search for "PUMA" shows zero current activity of enough significance to attract any attention from news media. At the moment, the top Google search result for "PUMA" is puma08.com which is still broadcasting but has dropped the pretense of pro-Hillary to promote the typical right-wing GOP talking points against "socialism." I am sure there are still actual Hillary-supporting PUMA's out there, but unless they do something newsworthy it is hard to see how we could report on their actions in Wikipedia. betsythedevine (talk) 11:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done a brief update, adding two chapters. Evalpor (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why the picture of David Van Os?

In the article there's a still from a documentary, picturing someone not referenced anywhere in the article (the documentary itself is discussed). What is the point of this?--NapoliRoma (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. The documentary is referenced in a different section, but David Van Os seems irrelevant to the article unless somebody explains in the text why he is in there. I took the picture out. betsythedevine (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Audacitydarraghriverdaughter.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)