Talk:MoveOn.org ad controversy/Archives/2012

Title and Article Wording
Article could use expansion from information in Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq. Otherwise, could deal with some 'fleshing out' and a nicer format. Possibly a picture of Petraeus once this article is long enough to support two of them.... TaylorSAllen 00:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I cut out the info from Report to Congress on the Situation in Iraq and placed it into this page. Revolutionaryluddite 18:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article really needs to expand on the specific points made by the ad. It also needs to include references to those explicitly supporting Moveon.org. Revolutionaryluddite 04:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone actually support it? I'm not aware of anyone (of any consequence) at least willing to support such a blatant, patently false assault on one of our nation's heroes. Also, I'd be happy to expand the specific points made myself, but unfortuneately I'm not aware of where to find a copy of the advertisment which is published online. The example on Wikipedia is low-resolution, I can't read it. 69.138.125.215 21:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See : It's the ad with extra footnotes attached. Revolutionaryluddite 16:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The negative response to the ad has been criticized by Bill Clinton. Revolutionaryluddite 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The above was me. One question, I think that the title needs redone. I'm quite sure, especially after this, that Moveon.org is likely to pull another sick stunt like this. Also, I don't think 'Ad' is correct at all.... TaylorSAllen 21:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If moveon.org creates another political advertisement that brings about another big controversy, than I agree that this article's title should be changed. Until then, though, I think the current wording is the best. Revolutionaryluddite 16:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

My main complaint is that I don't think ad sounds correct. It should be advertisement. TaylorSAllen 22:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of article wrong
It should be "MoveOn.org ad controversy" - note the capital 'O'. - Jarn 02:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to, go ahead and move the page. Revolutionaryluddite 02:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to move pages. - Jarn 02:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I found it. :) - Jarn 03:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the exact rules for OR, but I think some of the stuff here might count as OR
The bullets under the points of the ad that attempt to refute them. I'm pretty sure that it would come under | Synthesis of Published Material. - Jarn 03:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The bullet points underneath the ad's statements aren't intended to refute them. Moveon.org later specifically cited those articles for each point; the content of the articles are fairly presented. In some cases, a point has been criticised and the criticism is noted. Revolutionaryluddite 03:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See . Revolutionaryluddite 03:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I misspoke, I did not mean the bullets - I meant the things underneath them, such as "The group later referred to an editorial by liberal columnist Paul Krugman. Petraeus' report included data about car bombs" which are sometimes for refutation (which I think falls under WP:SYN) and sometimes just additional information. - Jarn 03:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post has linked those two points. Anyways, even if the Post didn't, the section seems to me to be just additional information and not a synthesis of anything. Revolutionaryluddite 03:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I used that as a source instead. With that it wouldn't be WP:SYN. I also removed some stuff that didn't belong in the article (information about other articles does not belong here) and added some stuff that probably should be here. - Jarn 04:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted your changes. If Moveon.org cited an article in support of one of their points, can't the actual article be quoted? Revolutionaryluddite 04:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that for what they said it can be quoted but extra information is beyond the scope of this article. It would belong in a page about that article, if there was one. This page is about the MoveOn.org ad controversy, not about articles it talks about. - Jarn 04:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The first and second ones were changed to The Washington Post because elsewise it is WP:SYN. The third was beyond the scope of this article (not about MoveOn.org's ad, but about that report). The fourth just seemed relevant - you shouldn't say it was criticized without saying WHY it was criticized. In case you weren't aware, you're one away from violating WP:3RR. - Jarn 04:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I would appreciate it if you would not misrepresent what I did as wholesale deletion. I deleted one thing, added one, and changed the wording and sources on two so they did not violate WP:SYN. - Jarn 04:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the first change. The second change said "According to The Washington Post, the military explictly denies the assertion." But the military has denied the assertion independently of the Post or anything else. Putting the military's words into the mouth of the Post doesn't change the synthesis if it is present. The third change makes no sense to me at all. If the articles cited by Moveon.org are beyond the scope of this page, then all the quotes of those articles should be removed. By removing half of the quotes and inexplicably leaving the other half, the renaming quotes are now taken completely out of context and misrepresent the words of the actual articles. In the fourth change, "As of September 19, the group has not cited any sources to support this statement" was removed. I suppose it's too sudden; I agree that it makes sense to leave the text out since Moveon.org may post something soon. The fifth change said "Petraeus only said that the average length is ten years". That cut out three of his words. Petraeus said, as the Post link reports, that the average length of a counter-insurgency is nine to ten years. Revolutionaryluddite 04:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I phrased it the way I did because the military didn't even say that (I was also going to change the word "military" to MNF-I with a wikilink to it, but forgot). They did not say that the MoveOn.org ad was wrong. They said "our policy is this" - the reference you have makes absolutely no mention of MoveOn.org. WE would be putting words into THEIR mouth if we said otherwise. Now, we could say that "The military's policy is x" but then we are coming DANGEROUSLY close to, if not at, WP:SYN. It is MUCH cleaner to do it the way I had done it. I agree that I may have been a bit too hasty removing the quote in the third part. As for the fifth change, I could use the exact words of Petraeus. I just thought the way I had it was a little bit cleaner. I will make these changes forthwith and then you can see if you agree with how I have it. - Jarn 04:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The current wording looks good. Revolutionaryluddite 05:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I made a bunch of minor edits. Anyways, since we agree do you think the tag should be removed? Revolutionaryluddite 05:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and done. :) - Jarn 05:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Kudos. On a side note, do you think the statement "American newspapers generally offer discounted ad rates for repeat advertisers, for open ad placement, and if a paper can hold an ad if space is not available" should be removed from the article? Not only does it have no source, but the information also seems obvious (why wouldn't they offer discounts to repeat customers?). Revolutionaryluddite 05:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that it should. It also appears to be irrelevant. Oh, and I like the information about other adds much better where it is now - on the main MoveOn.org page. :) - Jarn 08:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the info about the counter-ads should stay in this article since the ads were made in direct response to this ad, not as a criticism of Moveon.org in general. Revolutionaryluddite 23:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

JoeFriday
Unless you can find a source saying that that is ironic, it violated WP:SYN. Also, it seems a bit out of place - this is not an article on MoveOn.org or their donors, this is an article on their ad. You could try adding it to MoveOn.org, but it seems VERY out of place here. - Jarn 17:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed Ironic. How can you not think it's ironic following Pariser's comments. —joeFriday— { talk }  00:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether I think it is ironic or not has NO bearing on whether or not it's included (for your information, I do). If I had added it in because I think it is ironic, that would be a clear example of POV. - Jarn 03:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Content - Arguments
While the section is NPOV and properly sourced, it doesn't look right as far as style goes. Maybe each line of arguement should be broken off with it's own heading added. Revolutionaryluddite 23:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom's Watch Counter Ads
While the two videos made by Freedom's Watch are indeed counter ads, the ad attacking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems out of place. How is this ad relavant to this MoveOn.org ad controversy? I removed the following text, but my edit was undone: On Spetember 24, Freedom's Watch ran a full-page ad in The New York Times attacking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad-- calling him a "terrorist". What does everyone else think - is this info relavant to the subject at hand? ~ Homologeo 23:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As stated by the reference, the Mahmoud ad was made as a direct response to Moveon.org's ad. Revolutionaryluddite 00:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All the referenced article says is that this was the "next move" of Freedom's Watch. Even if this ad was published in response to MoveOn.org recent actions, this cannot be considered a counter ad to the "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad, since it does not address anything within that ad or even MoveOn.org itself. ~ Homologeo 00:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article says: "The day after the Senate voted to condemn MoveOn.org for its full-page New York Times ad attacking Army Gen. David Petraeus, a coalition of conservative organizations met to plot their next move. Brad Blakeman, head of the new group Freedom’s Watch, proposed another full-page ad in the paper of record. But he suggested taking on a slightly less risky target than an active four-star general: the Iranian president." Freedom's Watch's ad was explictly made in response to Moveon.org's ad. Both ads are on the same subject-- the War in Iraq. Freedom's Watch attacked the Iranian President because he's been responsible for the deaths of Petreaus' soldiers. Revolutionaryluddite 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, this sentence has nothing to do with the MoveOn.org ad controversy: Eli Pariser has stated that "Freedom's Watch is a few mega millionaires." I think it should also be removed from the article. ~ Homologeo 23:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's not that relevant. Revolutionaryluddite 00:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since we agree, I have once again removed this sentence. ~ Homologeo 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as its in there, the fact that MoveOn is a bunch of billionaires. —joeFriday— { talk }  00:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * JoeFriday has just added a different yet very similar sentence to this section, this time talking about MoveOn.org. After it, the editor put a table detailing the wealth of major contributors to this organization. Once again, unless someone can explain what the economic status of these organizations has to do with the the MoveOn.org ad controversy or the Freedom's Watch's counter ads (the focus of this particular section), this info doesn't belong in the article. Also, why is the word billionaires in bold font? It definitely seems that all of this violates the Wikipedia NPOV standard. ~ Homologeo 00:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How is Freedom's Watch even relevant to this article? How is the quote from Eli Pariser that "Freedom's Watch is a few mega millionaires" relevant? As long as the article is being turned from one discussing the controversy surrounding the BetrayUs ad into one attacking conservative groups airing less controversial ads, then its reasonable to highlight the falsity of the implication of Pariser's statement that MoveOn's opponents are just a bunch of rich people. The hypocrisy is blatant and the willful blindness to it is disquieting. It seems that there is in Wikipedia a very large contingent of MoveOn, MediaWatch types agressively attacking any edits that don't tow their party line. I'm not pushing a POV but I won't sit idly by while others do so in attack mode. —joeFriday— { talk }  02:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Pariser's statement is factually incorrect, blatantly hypocritical, and not relevant to this article; Homologeo and I support its removal. Revolutionaryluddite 02:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * JoeFriday, I guess you may not be aware of this, but the sentence that you're referring to - the one stating that "Freedom's Watch is a few mega millionaires" - has already been removed from the article. In fact, Revolutionaryluddite and I were in support of its removal. ~ Homologeo 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just throwing in my two cents, but I don't think the counter-ads are relevant, either. They were made in response to the Betray Us ad, yes, but they do not deal with it at all. - Jarn 03:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How do the ads "not deal" with the Betray Us ad? They may not be persuasive, but the Betray Us ad wasn't intended to be persuasive either. Revolutionaryluddite 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't talk about the ad or MoveOn.org at all. They are only another ad that someone ran because MoveOn.org ran their's. - Jarn 05:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But the ads on the same subject- the war on Iraq. Freedom Watch's ad criticized the President of Iran since he is responsible for the deaths of Petreaus' soliders. Revolutionaryluddite 18:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But this isn't about the War in Iraq. It's about the ad. - Jarn 22:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All the ads are about the War; the others were made in direct response to the first one. I don't understand the point you're making. Revolutionaryluddite 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is not about the War in Iraq. It is about the ad. Though those other ads take on a similar subject, they are beyond the scope of this article. It would be kind of like putting Stargate in the article about 2001: A Space Odyssey - both are movies about space, but there is no relation beyond that. Though 2001: A Space Odyssey pioneered the genre, you don't see them mentioning Stargate in that article, even though you could say it was derived from 2001: A Space Odysser - it would be thoroughly out of place. - Jarn 01:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the creators of Stargate hated the film '2001:A Space Odyssey' and explicitly created Stargate just to show their disgust for that film, then the information would be relevant to the '2001:A Space Odyssey' space. Again, just because you or I think that Freedom Watch's ads don't seem persuasive or don't seem like a good rebuttal to Moveon.org's doesn't mean Freedom Watch's ads are not relevant. Revolutionaryluddite 02:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please cristalize for me the argument for asserting that the ad critical of the Iranian President produced by Freedom's Watch is a "counter ad" to the MoveOn.org's ad criticizing General Petraeus. More specifically, what source states that this is a counter ad to the "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" ad, and in what ways is the substance of this ad "countering" statements made within the latter? Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo 07:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This story by the Politico states that "The day after the Senate voted to condemn MoveOn.org for its full-page New York Times ad attacking Army Gen. David Petraeus, a coalition of conservative organizations met to plot their next move. Brad Blakeman, head of the new group Freedom’s Watch, proposed another full-page ad in the paper of record. But he suggested taking on a slightly less risky target than an active four-star general: the Iranian president. “Ahmadinejad Is a Terrorist,” blared the resulting creation." As far as the content of the counter-ad goes, it's not specifically related to Petraeus or the surge. At the same time, the Democrats' "I didn't see you there" counter-ads about the George W. Bush military service controversy were not related in substance to the swift boat ads, even though they were made in response. Revolutionaryluddite 22:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They do not call it a counter-ad in the portion you quoted. If anything, it sounds more like "Well, if they got away with this, we can too". Also, it's two against one which sounds like it's been voted for removal. - Jarn 21:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The exact term 'counter-ad' wasn't used, but Freedom Watch's ad on the President of Iran was made in response to Moveon.org's ad. I don't know what you mean by "Well, if they got away with this, we can too." The article explictly states that Freedom Watch's ad was "their next move" against Moveon.org.
 * Also, why did you delete the entire 'counter ad' section instead of just the one part that's in dispute? Freedom Watch's two television spots and Guiliani's print ad criticize the 'Betray Us' ad by name. Revolutionaryluddite 04:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Political Response
I added a bunch of statements by liberals in support of the ad. Right now, though, the section is certaintly unbalanced. Comments from the other side need to be added. Revolutionaryluddite 04:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I changed the word "Minnesoda" to "Minnesota." Hildenja 08:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The section seems balanced now in terms of content and tone, but it seems rambling and disorganized. The response by elected officals should be seperated somehow from the editorial response. Revolutionaryluddite 05:38, 5 October 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 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 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Who came up with that pun anyway?
Hopefully no one's suggested this one. It would have been far better to have the title go "Will Petraeus betray us?" Much snappier. --Athcnv (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PetraeusNYTad.jpg
The image Image:PetraeusNYTad.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Origionality
Should it be noted in the article that MoveOn ripped off the idea for Betrayus from Limbaugh? See | this articles to see how Limbaugh created the Betrayus slur to call Senator Chuck Hagel "Senator Betrayus." Politico also | reported that MoveOn lifted teh Betrayus slur from Limbaugh. TharsHammar (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, what the hell is "origionality"? Secondly, I highly doubt Moveon.org was borrowing something from Rush Limbaugh. I think the more likely explanation is that the name Petraeus, and the fact he is a general,  kind of lends itself to being changed to Betray Us.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.145.181 (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this really deserve its own article?
Seems like a paragraph in the main article space would be plenty. --Blue Tie 20:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think that the info belongs on the report's page, but a majority of editors disagree. Revolutionaryluddite 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it merits it's own page either but, since it has one, I'm going to work on it. - Jarn 22:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It does deserve its own article, if we go off of most of the critera. General Betray Us gets over three million hits in Google, and was widely noted in news reports throughout the US, and probably internationally to a more limited extent. I argued that the section needed to be expanded on the GEN David Petraeus page, but no one was interested. So I created this (under a different title) so that people would actually contribute to it. If anything, we are at least recording this information for posterity. TaylorSAllen 22:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the life of me I can't figure out why Moveon.org supporters would oppose an article simply because it details Moveon.org's libelous ad directed at Gen. David Petreaus, one of the most well-respected and influential men in the United States. It's not as if it  makes them look like a bunch of unpatriotic, anti-American kooks.  Oh, wait...  The ad is definitely noteworthy enough to constitute its own entry and it is pretty obvious, as I make clear with  my sarcastic opening sentences, what the motives behind opposition to the entry are.
 * Not so well respected anymore, eh? The real controversy should be why U.S. society apparently considers senior military commanders above any reproach or criticism.  So a general was mocked by the ad?  Big deal. 84.139.121.218 (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)