This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
People United Means Action article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Relatively small matter, but right now the article reads:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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. [1].
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
People United Means Action article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 28 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Relatively small matter, but right now the article reads:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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. [1].
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)