Talk:Move America Forward

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.227.181 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I flagged this NPOV as there is an obvious bias tot his article. Firstly the tone is completely inappropriate for an unbiased article. Secondly, while there are numerous questionable things this group has done, there is very little emphasis on the good things it has done, even to benefit parties which the author(s) do not agree with.

NPOV[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The NPOV issue doesn't seem to have been sufficently resolved. The only word I can think of offhand to describe how biased this article is is "apalling," to the point that this article would be better off if deleted. Terms like "ultra-nationalist", "media saturation campaigns", etc. should be used very carefully if at all. Direct criticism of the organization should not be in the introduction. In fact, the bulk of the article belongs in the controversy section. Subjective assessments should all be cited and quoted if they get in the article at all. Consult the MoveOn.org page's criticism section. All criticism of the organization is limited to this section. All of the criticism is attributed to specific people, not an IP address. Wikipedia is not the forum for political flaming. Also, WhatReallyHappened.com seems to be an unreliable source at first glance. It doesn't have the kind of reputation that would make mainstream readers consider it a reliable source. 65.43.208.65 (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the lead[edit]

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)[reply]

Not adequately NPOV[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]
Unstriking out. Usually, the poster of a comment should do the striking out, if they wish to change their comment. Edits in the discussion section are not COI. In fact, they are almost the opposite. People with a vested interest in an article can post their thoughts in the discussion page, allowing non-vested people to decide whether or not the article should be changed. On an aside, although wikipedia is not censored, as Capitana said, please don't swear unless it really is applicable. --Bertrc (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Reason[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Maybe people wouldn't feel so compelled to edit articles about themselves if the articles weren't such biased garbage. And no I'm not affiliated with this group. I've never heard of them till today, and came here to find out what they were all about. And immediately I see they are "controversial" and use "media saturation campaigns" in the first two sentences. Note of course that references 1,2,3,4 are cited for those opinions, but don't give them. Whatever. Anyway that's as far as I got. I hunted around a while but couldn't find a liberal organization that gets called "controversial" at the very start. For that matter, not even NAMBLA or terrorist groups. I guess that tells you where conservative groups rank among editors here. The wikipedia is really just sad when it comes to political topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.124.28 (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issues for discussion[edit]

I love conservapedia. It is one of the most entertaining sites on the web. Wikipedia is not entertaining, but it is (usually) informative. One of my favorite pasttimes is looking up some polarizing topic on wikipedia, then comparing against the equivalent article in conservapedia. That is why it distresses me when a Wikipedia article starts approaching conservapedia in terms of POV and blatant bias; innaccurate/unreliable/non-existant citations; poor, unencyclopedic phrasing; etc. This article is approaching that. I had made several separate changes, but they all seem to have been reverted under a comment "restoring sourced content" [2] That is an odd comment, since some of the changes were due to POV issues on text that was not sourced at all.

In any case, I will break up my changes here. Please feel free to add any additional sections you think need discussing. --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial[edit]

Here was my change: [3]

I may think these people may have their heads up their rear-ends, when it comes to seeing the state of the world, but they are not invading private funerals, chanting "God hates Fags." They are taking stands on controversial subjects, and I disagree with their positions, but they seem no more controversial than the RNC itself. Calling them controversial seems very POV. I checkecked all three links. None of them call it a controversial organization. Heck, two treat it as a respectable NGO --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agenda[edit]

Here was my change: [4]

I would first like to point out what I think is obvious: this is not a sourcing issue, so reverting this change, claiming that it is sourced makes no sense. I readily admit that this is opinion, but the term "agenda" has a . . . greasy . . . feel to me. It is a term that Conservapedia loves to use to trivialize and simplify movements and groups that it does not like. MAF supports several causes, but the group itself seems to disorganized to have what I would call an "agenda." --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian Dispute Rumors[edit]

Edit 1[edit]

Here was my first change: [5]

I'll take on the second part of the edit first, since it seems straight forward: When did Wikipedia start publishing rumors and conspiracy theories? Let's get rid of them. --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the first part of the edit. a) I do not consider The Guardian to be one of the U.K.'s most respected newspapers. It is popular, yes, but I view it as I do the Daily News. b) Even if I did consider it to be one of the U.K.'s most respectable newpapers . . . Who cares? The phrasing is unencyclopedic; it sounds as if we are afronted that they dared to inpunge the credibility of our cherished national symbol. If somebody called the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal "Far Left" then wikipedia should not say "They called one of the most respected newspapers in the U.S. far left." Just say they called the newpaper far left, and let the wiki-reader decide if they were being idiots. --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2[edit]

Here is the second: [6]

Go check the cited sources. Nowhere does it say that the journalist had "moral reasons" for not "granting them publicity." --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 3[edit]

Here is the third: [7]

This was the most galling for me. I read the source (well, searched through the cited source) and did not find the Guardian being called "far left" anywhere. Please point out where "far left" is, in the cited sources. --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys[edit]

Here was my edit: [8]

Here is the quote from the cited source: Morgan, who is also co-host of the popular "Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan Show" on San Francisco's KSFO, explained the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" were meant to mock the cut-and-run politicians in Congress.

i.e., The term Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys applies to all politicians who oppose the war, not specifically Nancy Pelosi. --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Newshour[edit]

Here is my edit: [9]

This was another galling one to find. Wikipedia should not speculate. Go look at the source. Nowhere does it say why she would not be appearing on the show again. It could have been because she wouldn't answer questions; it could have been because she flipped off the audience; it could have been because of aprotest write in campeign. My suspicion is that it was a combination of a lot of reasons, but even that is speculation. All we know is that the producers said she would not be showing up again. If I misread the source, and he gives reasons, somewhere, please let me know. --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion[edit]

Please let me know if you see something in the cited sources that I missed, and please discuss the opinion parts. Going forward, please do not make massive reverts under a single edit comment that does not apply to all the reverts. --Bertrc (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since nobody seems to disagree with these edits, I am re-applying them. Please discuss before reverting. --Bertrc (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More NPOV Improvements[edit]

Bertrc's changes seem to have neutralized the tone a lot, but there are still a lot of elements that strike me as unbalanced. To start with the lede,

  • As has been noted before, "media-saturation" is a bit loaded; specifically, if taken literally, it implies an attempt to buy up all or most of the airtime and adspace in order to drown out the opposition. The sources don't seem to suggest that, so I'm assuming it's being used figuratively here, in which case it's both rhetorical and misleading. "Media campaigns" would probably suffice here.
  • I don't see anything in the sources (at least at first glance, maybe I'm missing something) about campaigning for the recall of liberal governors. The article on the recall of Gray Davis was published before the organization was founded, and only mentions Sal Russo. Even if we accept for the moment that MAF is actually just the new name of the Recall Gray Davis Committee (a citation on that quote would be nice), I don't think having been involved in the recall campaign of one governor justifies the somewhat sweeping generalization made here. This might be better listed as an accomplishment, à la MoveOn.org's fundraising efforts - "MAF grew out of the successful recall campaign against Gray Davis", or something in that vein.
  • Nowhere do I see any indication that MAF advocates restriction of media or freedom of speech. The closest I see is a very out of context quote ("restrict[ing] liberal and activist media") with a citation leading to an article that doesn't contain any statement of the sort. At the end Morgan encourages "stand[ing] up and fight[ing] back against [Media Matters'] campaign of mayhem", but she gives no specifics regarding what that means, and certainly nowhere implies that her goal is broad government regulation of the media.
  • Throughout the lede, "conservative" is written without quotes, but "liberal" is put in quotes, implying that the author considers the former to be an objective categorization and the latter to be highly subjective. Also, the use of the word "deems" indicates a certain degree of disapproval and condescension. The same facts could be conveyed less judgmentally, for instance, by saying "the recalling of liberal state governors" instead of "the recalling of state governors it deems too 'liberal'", or "opposition to liberal political candidates" instead of "opposition of what it deems 'liberal' political candidates". If there is some controversy regarding the alignment of the people the group targets (for instance, if they've tried to unseat a self-proclaimed moderate), we could even drop the "liberal" altogether and just note that they campaign against people with whom they disagree on certain issues.
  • The statement regarding support for Bush's policies is untrue as it stands, given their vocal opposition to at least some of his policies, and it seems unnecessary to the entry as a whole. I think it's enough to lay out the positions the group holds on given issues; I don't see the purpose of tying them as a whole to the policies of an unaffiliated politician.

I'm a bit new to contributing to WP (my first edit with a registered username, actually =P), so I'm hesitant to make changes this significant myself. I'd like some feedback, and feel free to take my points apart; I'm still figuring out how all this is supposed to work. --Aaronspook (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aron, be bold and make your changes. This is wikipedia. We have an entire policy to help newbies. If you feel your changes are objective and encyclopeadic, you should feel entitled to make them. I particularly liked your point about the "conservative group deeming something too 'liberal'". --Bertrc (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, changes made :) --Aaronspook (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your changes to the article. They whitewashed sourced content and had serious NPOV issues. We must cover all views on the topic for a complete and neutral article when reliable sources exist, not just those favorable to the topic. Please do not make such unilateral changes again with a strong consensus from the regular contributors to the article. Odd nature (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm with Aron on this one. The article body doesn't support the "media saturation" claim in the lead paragraph. I think Aron's lead was a better introduction -- briefly saying how MAF started and high level about what it does -- I particularly agree with the removal of the quotations around 'liberal'. Heck, I can even concede that the comment about supporting Bush is superfluous (It is already a given, and what about all the other conservative pol's MAF supports?) I don't think the changes were unilateral or overwhelming. Aron was right to be bold and make them and he was right describe the reasons behind each change in this discussion. Odd nature, can you please elaborate on your reversion, pointing out which aspects were white-washing (and why you feel so) and which aspects were sourced? Your edit comment and your addition to this discussion do not go nearly into enough detail (IMHO). I feel you should respond to his individual points and give him a chance to respond before making such a unilateral reversion. FYI, be sure to read the BRD essay; it explicitly says not to except "consensus" as a reason. I don't think his changes white-washed the article, they simply remove a bit of POV. Wikipedia doesn't have to tell readers that these people are idiots; wikireaders will come to such a conclusion themselves from an honest unbiased description. --Bertrc (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please stop removing properly sourced content under the guise of 'improving NPOV.' The pattern I'm seeing here is that any of the subject's controversial statements are being buried or removed altogether under the claim of improving NPOV and it's beginning to suggest other motives. An accurate and complete will present all relevant facts, that it is what's called for under WP:NPOV. I'm going to have to keep a better eye on this article it appears. Odd nature (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, BRD is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Were it more widely accepted it would be policy, but it's not, so let's not pretend it is. BRD was also originally crafted by someone I consider a chronic troublemaker, so I'm not likely to find it persuasive. Odd nature (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As requested in my earlier note, can you please explain your revert by addressing the various points brought up above? Also, can you improve the article by editting it to incorporate the various opinions, instead of hacking out an entire change with a revert? I felt, Aaronspook was very specific in his description of what he felt was not sourced. Odd nature has not really described the sourcing for the text he/she restored. Additionally the term "by some in the press" is an example of weasel words; the phrasing was better before. Much of the content Odd nature reverted had not been removed, but, rather, had been moved from the intro to the agenda section. Moving the details of a group's agenda a section labelled "Agenda" should not be considered burying the content; the intro should give a broad description, not bullet point each and every initiative these people take. Lastly, I agree with the earlier discussion: putting quotes around the word "liberal" is unencyclopedic. --Bertrc (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh! I must have hit "Preview" instead of "Save" I had written quite a bit before making my change. I will try to recreate it --Bertrc (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

. . . Okay, since there has been no further discussion or explanation, I am re-implementing the text. Please give detail about issues you have with it -- preferably beyond simply saying "Sourced" since most of the changes do not dealing with cites and sourcing (ie. the issues raised also deal with making the language encyclopedic, improving the format and placement of information, removing weasel words, etc.) If you haven't bothered reading the earlier topics, I will try to summarize:

1) Is there a source for "Media saturation"? Instead, we have described their tactics, and are letting the reader decide.

2) Why are we trying to list out every one of their positions in the intro? Instead, we are giving a summary in the intro and going into detail in the "Agenda" Section.

3) Why do we have quotes around the word "Liberal"? This is unencyclopedic. Instead, we are removing the quotes.

4) Why are we highlighting their support for Bush policies? What about all the other conservative politicians out there whom they support and their criticism of Bush's budget practices? Instead, we are leaving out the obvious.

5) "Democrat Governor" is incorrect wording. Instead, we are using "Democratic Governor".

6) The phrase "Described by some" uses weasel words. Instead, we are phrasing the sentence without weasel words.

7) Why are we reiterating that their agenda goes beyond supporting the troop? We not only already detail all their additional causes, but we already have explicitly said, earlier in the article, that their agenda goes beyond supporting the troops. Instead, we are not being repetitive.

--Bertrc (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

Just reiterating the section above, as this is what I based my edits [10] on:

1) Is there a source for "Media saturation"? Instead, let's describe their tactics, and let the reader decide.

2) Why are we trying to list out every one of their positions in the intro? As it stands, we list many agenda items in the intro, and then more in the agenda section. Instead, let's give a general summary in the intro and go into detail in the "Agenda" Section.

3) Why do we have quotes around the word "Liberal"? This is unencyclopedic. Let's remove the quotes.

4) Why are we highlighting their support for Bush policies? What about all the other conservative politicians out there whom they support and their criticism of Bush's budget practices? Let's leave out the dated obvious info.

5) The phrase "Described by some" uses weasel words. Instead, let's phrase the sentence without weasel words.

6) Why are we reiterating that their agenda goes beyond supporting the troop? We already have explicitly said, earlier in that section that their agenda goes beyond supporting the troops, and we are explicitly listing all their propoganda that has noting to do with the troops. Let's not be repetitive.

7) Punctuation goes inside quotation marks when it is at the end of a quote. Let's use punctuation properly.

--Bertrc (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this page being changed back to lies? whoever is making the changes is doing a disservice to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.164.18 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to page[edit]

We should be using good cites, non bias, based on facts descriptions. One editor pointed out bad cite and it was replaced with good one. That should be the way to operate not just change it all, the page should be about this non profit so people know what they are about. Lets stick to the facts and try to use real cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.164.18 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a charity that sends packages, or a lobbying/astroturf group? It's like the article is about two different groups; or one group using the charity as a front for their politicking. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is charity that send care packages. I dont know who put in all the political stuff but it doesn't have anything to do with care packages for the troops and shouldnt be in there I don't think.

I just tried to put in refs that did not come from the non profit or Debbie Lee http://www.c-spanvideo.org/debbielee, but you blocked me from doing so. This article is supposed to be about Move America Forward not somebodies politics. Do you realize you are putting in refs and links that have nothing to do with the non profit?

I put in links to Debbie and the non profit themselves saying she was the spokeswoman, you said it was a poor or not good ref, then you put in one from broken links and pages that don't say anything about the Non profit. You just delete it, I have seen Debbie Lee on CNN and heard her on the Move America Forward Radio commerical during the holidays

This non proifit is register non partisan, and I have called them, to make sure Debbie was the spokeswoman, how is it that wikipedia can be blocked from peopell putting in accurate facts abotu a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.164.18 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just wrote the above comments03:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)66.60.164.18 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2014[edit]

==Spokesperson==
Debbie Lee, a [[Gold Star Mothers Club|Gold Star Mother]], is the spokesperson <ref>http://www.c-spanvideo.org/debbielee<ref> of MAF.<ref>http://www.moveamericaforward.org/our-team/</ref> Her son, [[Marc Alan Lee]], was the first [[Navy Seal]] to lose his life in [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Marc, 28, was killed August 2, 2006 in a fierce firefight while on patrol against [[insurgent]]s in [[Ramadi]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Marc A. Lee|url=http://navyseals.com/nsw/marc-lee/|publisher=Navyseals.com|accessdate=6 April 2013}}</ref> Debbie has toured the nation, speaking at pro-troop rallies, and helping to organize shipments of care packages<ref>http://rjay-militarynews.blogspot.com/2007/04/debbie-lee-mothers-call-to-action.html<ref>  to our troops serving overseas. She appeared onstage at the 2007 [[Country Music Association Awards]] where [[Tim McGraw]] presented to her and other Gold Star Parents his new song, “[[If You're Reading This]]”, which honors those in the U.S. military who gave their lives in service to this nation.<ref>{{cite web|title=Review: Tim McGraw, “If You’re Reading This”|url=http://home.countryuniverse.net/?p=742|publisher=countryuniverse.net|accessdate=13 April 2013}}</ref>

66.60.164.18 (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC) This is sites of debbie as spokeswoman that logged in people have been deleting, i dont get this, you can cite the spokeswoman, you can sidte the nonprofit it doesnt make sense it like this one user wants to prevent an accurate description of the non profit.[reply]

  • Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Technical 13 (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2014[edit]

Saying an organization is supporting "right wing" efforts based on the hearsay of two blogs is not defensible in court and has no place here; stick to the real facts. You need to keep your Liberal bias tucked away. Thanks!

Rexpac (talk) 04:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The existing text appears to be supported by reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Move America Forward. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Move_America_Forward&oldid=1204098426"