Talk:David Petraeus/MoveOn Ad Side Bar

( This topic has been moved to its own subpage. It is a current topic and is being moved due to its great length. ) -- Joe Friday (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC) The sidebar detailing the MoveOn ad is not objective. It provides a cite to an ABC article with incorrect information about the cost of the ad. And the sidebar states (subjectively) that the the NYT charged MoveOn "36 percent of the average rate." While that may be true, details need to be stated that clarifies WHY the ad was at a lower cost (ie it was on "standby"). A source detailing this can be found here:. Wanderluster 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)wanderluster


 * If there's a factual dispute about the ad's cost between two or more reliable sources, then the sidebar should report both sides. But I don't think qualifies as a reliable source since it's a blog and not a news article. Revolutionaryluddite 03:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This reference is a statement by the director of advertising acceptability for the New York Times and is published by the Times. It's not a blog. The caption is POV pushing and inflammatory the way it reads, and the comment about the 36% rate that implies moveon.org received preferential treatment is false. Right wing ads, such as Guilliani's receive reduced ad rates if they are placed on standby also. Just like flying standby, no more, no less. Furthermore, an image caption is not the place for political partisan statements. It should be an extremely short, simple, NPOV, and accurate caption of what is pictured. No more. no less. Most of the caption has to be removed. — Becksguy 08:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The 36% is based on the ABC article and sourced. I chose to express it as a percent because it is more compact than the actual numbers. The New York Times response is titled a blog. Is it official? Is the person writing it the official who would have the answer? If so, I see nothing wrong with including their response. One should note that the New York Times has a history of bias and unreliability but if it is the official position of the New York Times, I don't see a problem with saying that the Times disputed the favoritism claim. The Times produced Walter Duranty and Jason Blair. For an example of the Times's important contributions to Wikipedia, see Wikipedia Scanner and more specifically George W. Bush and again George W. Bush. We should probably counter the Times explanation of the pricing with an elucidation of their history of bias.-- Joe Friday (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wanderluster's reference may be a blog, but mine isn't (and there is news story reference following). It, as I said, was published in The New York Times (NYT). However, there are still several objections to the caption as it is. First, the 36% is misleading and implies something not true, that a preferential rate was given to this ad not given to other ads due to it's political message. That's POV.  A spokesperson for NYT said that Moveon paid a standard “standby” rate as reported in a NYT news story here.  Second, the caption states that Moveon.org is a anti-war, liberal, interest group.  None of those are established facts. They should be stated with reliable sources as to whom has said that MoveOn.org is anti-war, and/or liberal and/or an interest group.  As they stand, they deserve  or similar  tags. Third, the NYT is biased in what way? Overly conservative in that it supported the invasion of Iraq and the existence of WMD there?  The Walter Duranty issue happened before WW2 and has absolutely no relevance to the current NYT (besides he kept his Pulitzer). People born then would be in their late 70s and those from that generation in their late 80s or older.  The Jason Blair wikilink points to a TV show.  Is that relevant?  I have no idea what the scanner reference or the two wikilinks to Bush mean, other than being sophomoric comments totally unrelated to any claimed bias.  Fourth, the caption is not the place for partisan comments or complex issues. The caption should identify the image with something like:  MoveOn's ad about Gen. Petraeus that appeared in the NYT on [date]. Period. That is squeaky clean neutral, and totally factual, as we need to be in this article.  Anything else, such as comments about the political leanings of MoveOn, if any, and comments about who voted for/against, or didn't vote, in Congress, all belong in the article body.  Especially as this is a controversial and contentious issue and also complex what with all the pro-war/anti-war coverage appearing in the press about it. It's also a matter of style. It's like showing an image of the Constitution in an article and including the Federalist/Anti-Federalist arguments about it within the caption. And finally, there are two editors here that believe that the caption/sidebar is not objective as it is. — Becksguy 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What an utterly ridiculous example of blatant POV-pushing. Dlabtot 22:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing on the sidebar that is factually disputed by reliable sources is the ad's cost. Since two reliable sources disagree, both should be mentioned. The rest of the sidebar's content is factual, notable, and relevant to the picture. Revolutionaryluddite 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for agreeing with me. The one sided nature of the ad cost comment was my main point. — Becksguy 08:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that the NYT has admitted that they made a mistake. Revolutionaryluddite 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If the ad was paid under the reduced "stand-by rate", why did it run on the sxact same day as the General's testimony? Revolutionaryluddite 01:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to BecksGuy, I'm not nearly as bad faith as you fear. I did not include the anti-war description originally. I put it back in after it was removed with the implication that it was somehow untrue/unproven or the like.
 * The caption already cited the ABC article which described MoveOn as an anti-war group. Who inserted the liberal interest group, I don't know. I would not have described MoveOn thus.
 * Without a reference, I would hesitate to describe it at all. As far as the NYT blog issue, you are correct. I thought you were disputing the claim that a particular source was a blog.
 * I didn't realize you were referring to an additional source. As you'll note in my post, I described an appropriate source which it seems you had used. Thus, we have no dispute.
 * The suggestion that the NYT is overly conservative is extreme. I am not pushing a POV. Where I may be less circumspect is on talk pages in my responses to what I see as other's pushing a POV.
 * I try to undo the POV I think others are pushing, and in doing so I may occasionally go overboard. You may note that before the quote which I believe has yet to receive any support as not violating WP:BLP, my contributions to the article were primarily I think in formatting the bibliography. Regarding Jason Blair, had I spelled it Jason blair or Jayson Blair it would have landed properly.
 * As it was, the link did not point to a TV show but rather was redirected to a TV show when it should have been redirected to a disambiguation page instead. As for Walter Duranty, yes he kept his Pulitzer. Do you mean to suggest that the Pulitzer excuses his work?
 * If you read his Wikipedia entry, you'll see that his keeping it is more an indictment on those who didn't take it from him. While he wrote in the thirties, his Pulitzer was reviewed again in the 1990s and later in 2003. The NYT has not chosen to return the prize or call for its revocation or make public its recommendation to the Pulitzer committee.
 * Have they unequivocally renounced Duranty as did the historian they hired to review the matter? The scanner found the two links to the Bush article which was vandalized by someone at the Times. Your suggested caption is reasonable though I question the appropriateness of including the ad at all.
 * It's sort of like the Times saying it wasn't defamatory because it had a question mark. Who responded to the ad was included because someone kept putting in that some Republicans and a few Democrats were opposed to it. That was clearly an effort to conceal the truth that we can't seem to find any Republicans that didn't condemn it, and there were one or two Democrats that did as of my last edit on the caption if you count Joe Lieberman.
 * The remainder of your post seems agreeable though the last sentence is unclear. How is the caption not objective? The statements are true if unflattering and negative and perhaps straying into POV or as you say inappropriate to a photo caption.
 * However, the statements have not been refuted with sources. You make some good points, and I have conceded several. That one will have to wait until you can source it.
 * Regarding Dlabtot, it seems that his persistent habit of attacking other editors or their comments is becoming tiresome. The RFC and NPOV controversies are clear examples of his violation of WP:GAME. I am quite restrained in all but my response to the use of Wikipedia to attack one's political opponents.-- Joe Friday (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would appear that the Times has changed its story on the StandBy rate defense. New York Times Says It Violated Policies Over MoveOn Ad, By Howard Kurtz, Washington Post, September 24, 2007, p. A8. Betraying Its Own Best Interests, By CLARK HOYT, New York Times, September 23, 2007.-- Joe Friday (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that you are a very good faith editor, JoeFriday. Even when we disagree on points, you have been civil and I have learned from you. And you have taken the time to respond in a thoughtful way to the points raised. I have come to respect you, even if I don't always agree with you. You have made some good points also. So the process of hashing things out has apparently worked here. I hope you feel the same. Responses to follow, but I wanted to get this out up front. — Becksguy 08:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The latest caption now says that "The paper admitted to improperly charging MoveOn.org the standby rate..." That not what NYT said. Both the Washington Post and the NYT article (using the two references in the standby defense comment above) quoted Catherine Mathis, the spokesperson for NYT, as saying "We made a mistake."  That's the reliably sourced statement and the more neutral statement. I think the sentence in the caption should read: The paper said "we made a mistake" in charging MoveOn.org the standby rate...  Do you agree? — Becksguy 10:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the wording "improperly charging" differs from "made a mistake in charging". They mean the same thing. If a cashier charged me $15.00 for a $1.50 donut, he or she both "made a mistake" and "improperly charged" me. Revolutionaryluddite 15:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a difference. Mistake implies that an unintentional error was made, and that is what the NYT admitted to. Improper includes unethical conduct as a meaning, and does not exclude intentional behavior. This is POV. Using your example: If the cashier over charged intentionally, that's improper. But if the overcharge was unintentional, that's a mistake. Big difference in implication. After reading the caption, readers might walk away thinking NYT admitted that it gave Moveon a reduced rate as a result of agreeing with their message, rather than just making a mistake in not being clear that the run date was not guaranteed.  NYT said mistake, not improper.  The word improper is unacceptable in this context. — Becksguy 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To BecksGuy, thank you for your kind words. Come Grasshopper, and I will show you the power of the Dark Side. ; )
 * You have me on the word improper. That word is mine and not NYT's. However, the word mistake implies good faith which can't be known. Perhaps, the appropriate word would be incorrect/inappropriate or even undercharged. While most will reasonably believe that NYT admitted to impropriety, there is no need for us to give them a shove in that direction.-- Joe Friday (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see Becksguy's point. I think that the word "inproper" should be replaced with 'incorrect' and un-bolded. Revolutionaryluddite 00:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While I still think using the NYT quote is using a reliably sourced quotation, and the most neutral, I will agree in the spirit of building consensus to using incorrect per Revolutionaryluddite and JoeFriday. I have a concern in keeping WP from getting embroiled in the political sandstorm swirling around the ad, and that includes avoiding the perception of editorializing. Thank you. — Becksguy 00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, why is all of this information about MoveOn and this ad included in the Petraeus article? If there's this much discussion about the MoveOn ad, shouldn't a separate page be made for the ad?  I also don't think the descriptions of MoveOn (ie anti-war, liberal, interest group...) belong in the caption of the Petraeus ad on Petraeus' page.  Shouldn't MoveOn's link be enough for people to figure out what MoveOn is?  Not to mention that MoveOn isn't a pacifist organization, and it is not explicitly anti-war.  MoveOn is anti-this-Iraq-War.  There's a difference.  Next is the ad's pricing.  Again, it doesn't really belong on this page.  If you want to make the accusation that NYT intentionally charged MoveOn less because they're on the left with political views, then add it to the NYT page, not here.  It doesn't add to an article about Petraeus.  Then we get into what other people think of the ad (presidential candidates, senators, etc).  It doesn't add anything to an article on Petraeus.  The whole block reads like a slam on MoveOn, NYT and more generally, just a multi-faceted ramble of information very weakly related to Petraeus. Bbrown8370 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My advice would be that a lot of this information needs to be cut. First, the adjectives for MoveOn don't need to be included.  MoveOn is linked, and people can draw their own conclusions about MoveOn from that page.  Move the pricing disputes for the add to the NYT page, or make a new page for the Petraeus ad and include it there.  The criticisms of the ad by lawmakers and presidential candidates should be cut from this page.  If a new Petraeus ad page is created, they could be included there.  Bbrown8370 17:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why delete the information? Why not move it to the report's page? Revolutionaryluddite 17:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. I just think it detracts from a page about Petraeus.  The info doesn't belong here, but easily could go elsewhere.  Granted, I still don't like liberal and anti-war describing MoveOn, because anti-war is not exactly accurate, and the word liberal has turned into a label since a lot of people have a negative connotation with the word liberal.  Progressive would be a better word.  Still, that's just semantics.  My main point is that the info is superfluous here and is obfuscatory here. Bbrown8370 18:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A lot of anti-war liberals do not consider "liberal" or "antiwar" to be insulting. What's wrong with those terms? Revolutionaryluddite 18:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, antiwar is an easy one. My complaint is not that anti-war is insulting, it is that MoveOn isn't antiwar.  MoveOn has opposed the current US war with Iraq.  That does not make the organization anti-war.  Opposition to a particular war does not make an entity anti-war.  If that was the standard required for the term anti-war, virtually everyone would be anti-war because there have been a lot of pretty bad wars waged throughout history.  I would reserve the use of anti-war for pacifist entities that oppose war in all cases based on the criticism of war itself, not just war's use in a particular conflict. Bbrown8370 19:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As for liberal, it's really a semantics issue. It's not that liberal people have any problem with the word.  The issue is that conservative people use the word as a way to associate past objections to liberal ideas with new ideas (that have yet to be judged on their merits as liberal or conservative or progressive or whatever).  The word has turned into a label, and I'd refrain from using it here.  Besides, it doesn't add to the Petraeus article to call MoveOn liberal. Bbrown8370 19:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But there's a double standard here. Organizations such as focus on the family, Concerned Women for America, the National Rifle Association, Citizens Against Government Waste, and so on are labeled "conservative" or even "ultraconservative". Organizations such as Moveon.org are generally left without adjectives. This kind of slient, uninentional bias is frustrating as a reader. Revolutionaryluddite 02:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to Bbrown8370, I disagree regarding the terms anti-war and liberal.
 * First of all, the common connotation for anti-war is not pacifists who oppose all war. Most people associate that with the actual term Pacifists. The common connotation for anti-war is in fact accurate for MoveOn if not what you had in mind. That is a leftist movement aimed at weakening the resolve of the U.S. and other Western Nations in their struggles with Communist/Islamist countries/movements that have announced an intent to destroy us or a perception of us as their primary enemy. There were no anti-war demonstrators during the Bosnian affair because the U.S. was defending Islamists and destroying their enemies and permanently alienating Russia all things that the left needs, wants, and works for.
 * Secondly, Liberal is a confusing term because it meant something entirely different historically and outside the U.S. The present day use of the term Liberal to describe an American political movement/ideology stemmed from the efforts of Socialists to change their image via the use of political framing. The same practice is done when the Soviets referred to themselves as Socialists rather than Communists. The term progressive should be not be used as it properly refers to Teddy Roosevelt's progressives of a century earlier. While it is certainly related to todays Liberals, it is substantiantly different. Those who call themselves Progressive like those we refer to as anti-war are Socialists in a broader sense. The Europeans might refer to them as Social Liberals but their essence is to paraphrase Galbraith "the leftmost viable option." The choice of the word progressive may be an effort to escape the pejorative character that liberal has assumed. However, liberal has only become pejorative after being associated with leftists. The same is true for words like gauche or sinister which simply mean left. In 20 years, we will be debating the pejorative nature of the word Progressive. If you change your name frequently, because you think it is pejorative, the problem is you not the name.-- Joe Friday (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to even respond in a polite way. If I could I would.  That being said, the bulk of what you wrote is complete fiction.  Okay, so there's a disagreement about the words anti-war and liberal.  They are words with different meanings, and I feel that they do not accurately describe MoveOn.  What in the world are you talking about when you refer to leftist movement aimed at weakening the resolve of the U.S. and other Western Nations in their struggles with Communist/Islamist countries/movements that have announced an intent to destroy us or a perception of us as their primary enemy?  That's one of the biggest POV sentences I've seen in my life.  Weaking the resolve?  Are you serious?  I mean, really, are you serious?  This is absolute POV.  There were no anti-war demonstrators during the Bosnian affair is also complete fiction.  The degree of protests were lower for that war than for the Iraq War, but there were still protests from the left. Veteran anti-war campaigners such as Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, Justin Raimondo, and Tariq Ali were prominent in opposing the campaign [Kosovo_War].  Then you further reach by concluding that because the U.S. was defending Islamists and destroying their enemies and permanently alienating Russia all things that the left needs, wants, and works for.  Complete fiction.  Complete POV.  Are you serious?  Again, I'm not joking, are you serious with this kind of POV statement?  Do you honestly believe that defending Islamists and alienating Russia is all the left needs, wants and works for?  First off, I have to point out the obvious problem that Russia under communism is considered way left.  Secondly, I'd say that the political right in America has done a lot to alienate Russia in recent days.  Note the anti-ballistic missile shield we're deploying in Europe and Russia's reaction.  By the way, check out Wiki's article on Left-Right_politics.  I read a lot of things that the left is in favor of on that page, none of which are defending Islamists and destroying their enemies.  Should we rework that article, or are you complete incorrect?


 * *On the liberal issue, how about we take a look at MoveOn's wiki article? MoveOn is a progressive public policy organization is how it starts.  Does that page need rework, too?  The page contains the word liberal once (talking about contributors).  MoveOn's webpage also does not describe the organization as liberal.  Their website uses the term progressive.  The adjective liberal is POV.  We aren't calling MoveOn gauche or sinister.  When words evolve into labels, they become less descriptive and more categorizing.  Besides that, these adjectives simply are not needed on Petraeus' page.  It's a debate about how to describe MoveOn.  This belongs on the MoveOn page.  Not Petraeus' page.  The MoveOn sidebox caption doesn't need to describe MoveOn.  It does not add to an article about Petraeus. Bbrown8370 16:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the claim of a double standard isn't necessarily true. Moveon.org is often labeled liberal or anti-war in the press. For example: in The New York Times as "a liberal antiwar organization" on 9-26, in Editor & Publisher as "the liberal organization" on 9-24, in The Seattle Times as a "overzealous liberal group" on 9-24, and in Fox News as a "liberal antiwar group" on 9-10.  — Becksguy 07:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good edit, Bbrown8370... I don't know who decided that the caption for the picture should be turned into a 'sidebar', but a simple caption is more appropriate. Dlabtot 16:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Moveon.org is often labeled liberal or anti-war in the press. Wait: If the New York Times calls moveon.org a 'liberal anti-war organization', why can't we? Revolutionaryluddite 20:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * An AP story from today also uses the L word. Revolutionaryluddite 21:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am singularly uninterested in whether or not Move On should be labeled as 'liberal'. Such a debate seems more appropriate for Move On's own article. But the unending nature of this debate, as well as the infinite number of similarly pointless ways spin could be introduced through what should be a simple caption, by both sides, shows how every photo caption in a controversial article could be expanded into a 'sidebar' in which endless POV debates are rehashed, if the editors are unable to exercise restraint.  FWIW, I would go with an even more neutral wording, changing "A full page political advertisement by Moveon.org in The New York Times accusing the general of cooking the books for the White House." to "A controversial full page political advertisement by Moveon.org in The New York Times."Dlabtot 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, you got your edit in before me. I wrote:
 * Well, it's not on MoveOn's wiki page. I haven't read the discussion over on that page to know why not.  That is the appropriate place to have that discussion.  If there aren't objections over there, then I guess it would be an available adjective to use here.  Still, it's superfluous here.  We don't need to include MoveOn's whole wiki article in a sidebox on Petraeus' page.  Or any of it.  Bbrown8370 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm changing the caption to what you suggested. Bbrown8370 21:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like you and Revolutionaryluddite are in danger of getting in an edit war. I'll just add that mentioning that they are 'liberal', or 'anti-war', in a photo caption is like mentioning 'democratically-elected' in a photo caption under a picture of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - it's true, but obviously mentioned in order to push a certain POV. Unlike the Ahmadinejad example, though, it's also so well known that it's like reminding people that water is wet. Which is why I don't care one way or the other - the whole article is so hopelessly POV that I don't think many people are gonna take it seriously. With time - let's say after Petraeus has retired for a few years - it will eventually be an  encyclopedic article.  Dlabtot 21:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you on the point that the whole article is wayyy POV. It seems that as long as Petraeus remains so closely linked to politics, this article will remain a battleground for political views and will be saturated with political spin.  Perhaps after the current administration ends the page can be rewritten.  In the mean time, I will try to remove the most blatant POV comments and interject relevant information that I suspect will withstand the test of time.  (ie. he was in charge of an operation that lost track of hundreds of thousands of weapons that are likely being used on both sides of a civil war and against us).  Bbrown8370 16:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an "established" user so I can't change this myself. In the main article under 2007-Present, there's a sidebar that contains a picture of the MoveOn ad, and the caption says it was printed September 20th. I believe this date should be September 10th... 24.13.250.171 04:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeFriday (talk • contribs)