Talk:People United Means Action/Archive 1

Archive 1

Alternate Names

My understanding was that old or alternative names for something go at the beginning of the articles, so why when the article admits that "The PUMA acronym as originally coined stood for "Party Unity My Ass";" and this is what I think most people who followed the election but not *that* closely know it as; should it not be put in that alternate name spot? 208.66.212.230 (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

References

The creator of this article is using the reference section irresponsibly. They are not even citations in the article to support the links in the references section. Please do over.

I empathetically emphatically disagree with the POV of this group, but it should not be speedily deleted since there has been some press coverage, notability, and importance. Numerous issues raise issues of salvagability, but raise them on AfD. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If there has been press coverage and you want to take the time to salvage it, go ahead ;) NuclearWarfare (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the author of this page and the PUMA group is an actual network of disaffected voters taking action against recent actions by the DNC. As Madcoverboy mentioned, they have been interviewed by several well known news organizations which I've listed at the bottom of the page. The bios are the only part of this article i think that can be construed as promotional. How am I supposed to indicate who the organizers are without describing them? I'm happy to change the bios if necessary, but this is a real political group, so I believe the article should stay up. cc83 ([[talk:cc83|talk}}) 05:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You could go a long way towards salvaging this article by wikifying it (create links to other articles by bracketing topical words like DNC, Hilary Clinton, etc.), using citation templates, and adding categories. Look to MoveOn.org or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for examples. Madcoverboy (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have done much already to clean up this article. I have removed the promotional slant of the founders' bios that were originally included. I have created numerous links to other wiki articles by bracketing topical words. If I don't have the references formatted correctly, I can rework those as well. I am also reading up on the citation templates. As for the question of notability, I think it's obvious the PUMA group is notable and worthy of an article because they are continuing to make the news and orchestrate events nationwide to impact the outcome of the presidential primary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cc83 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly believe Hillary has been slighted by the DNC I honestly think you need to get your head checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.163.172.6 (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

To quote Ben Affleck spoofing Keith Olbermann, "HOW DARE YOU, HOW DARE YOU", imply that Hillary Clinton was not eviscerated by the media and her own party. Statistical evidence exists that shows Barack Obama cheated in the caucus contests. Barack Obama's eleven highest winning percentages were ALL caucus contests, NONE were from his primary wins. The statistical odds of this just being a coincidence are over 10,000 to 1, yes Barack Obama cheated in the caucus contests and violated the very tenet of the democratic party that calls for "fair reflection".

The final popular vote, not counting Florida or Michigan, put Barack Obama at 50.00% and Hillary Clinton at 49.99%. However, Hillary Clinton actually won MORE pledged delegates, even when Florida and Michigan were not counted. These are seeds of discord that were sown prior to the name PUMA being created. On top of that, Barack Obama IS NOT a natural born citizen because his father was never naturalized nor, per World book Encyclopedia 1962 edition, would have violated at least one morals clause that all newly naturalized citizens are required to honor.

Barack Obama is probably the only president to not have a naturalized father, and therefore Barack Obama is NOT a natural born citizen, he is a naturalized citizen, and as is clearly stated in the constitution, not eligible to be either president or vice president. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.68.69 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominate for Speedy Deletion/Rename & rewrite

This thing should either be deleted or renamed (the PAC's own blog calls it "People United Means Action" while acknowledging the other meaning) and give a THOROUGH rewriting. It's very sloppy and almost devoid of any sources. RoyBatty42 (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

you know...I'm really starting to get the impression that the folks who want this article deleted are simply Barack Obama supporters who don't want to admit that an group of disaffected voters has garnered multiple national media hits and is NOTABLE, and definitely want to prevent others from knowing this group is legitimate or exists. to RoyBatty...the original article is NOT sloppy writing and you know it. I have noticed that these same people also just want to add the negative criticism of this group to outshadow what the group is truly about. Cc83 (talk) 07:34, 28, June 2008 (UTC)

Please see There is no cabal and Assume good faith before launching unfounded accusations against other editors. You can improve the article to meet minimum Wikipedia criteria or it can be deleted. It would be exactly the same for any other political view. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He's got every reason to say what he says. We've all seen how the Obamabots up here have slanted and skewed things all along. I have just reviewed this article and it's totally in order. Well written. Cheerio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.221.29.97 (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Madcoverboy, but perhaps you should have posted the links to WP:NPOV and whatever policy that discourages those who are part of a subject to refrain from writing about it. Red flags always go up for me when a user has no user page. Cc83 also failed to rebut the charge about a lack of sources. Perhaps if this user hadn't been so busy making accusations about conspiracies of Obama supporters, user might have noticed I actually removed some vandalism, added source notes and replaced a section that the subject of that section removed. But, we all know some people aren't happy unless they feel like martyrs. RoyBatty42 (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not politicize this entry!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.35.74 (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

roybatty42..no one if feeling like a martyr here so you can forget that lame charge, the problem is the PUMA group is notable, has garnered national attention on numerous fronts and continues to be referred to as an ever growing activitist organization, look at Ed Rendell recently forming a group HOUND to oppose PUMA efforts. So if the media is talking about PUMA, nationally known DEMS are talking about PUMA, why do all these wiki folks complaining want the entry to be deleted? I can see adding more sources, fine, but deleting the entry is TOTALLY uncalled for. FURTHERMORE, from the founders themselves this group is called PARTY UNITY MY ASS...the PUMA pac group is People United Means Action..whoever changed the title shouldn't have done that. Cc83 (talk) 18:33, 30, June 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be better to title this article "Party Unity, My Ass," since that is what the group is popularly known as. --Buster Capiñoaz (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The PUMA movement in general seems noteworthy, the PAC is just an offshoot and is clearly not noteworthy by itself. An article called "Puma (politics)" might make more sense. EvWill (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Malicious editing - deletion of sourcing/references

I am not associated with the PUMA PAC, but on Sunday 6/29, I spent considerable time putting in links to sources and references for the PUMA page. I would say I had it close to 50% sourced for the various propositions/assertions made in the article.

Today, 6/30 I see that virtually all of the references and sources I added have been deleted. I suspect that there is a malicious effort underway to cause this page to meet WIki's criteria for speedy deletion.

No quarter is a racist hate site. Not a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.66.233 (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources of criticism

I'm going to keep adding the sources criticizing PUMA until good reason is giving to me as to why they shouldn't be there. "That is not a reliable source" is irrelevant for two reasons: (1) we can document that criticism exists without necessarily saying the criticism is valid; and (2) in this particular case, I was citing a blog post which pointed to publicly available, easily sourced information to make an argument. There is no reason this can't be included here. --Soultaco (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We should document criticism when it is said by people/organizations whose opinions matter, and have their facts checked. That website is not consequential. Anybody can create a website and criticize something on it. I could go create a website right now, and on my blog allege Barack Obama supporters are truly anti-Americans who want to support the worst possible candidate so that America is destroyed. Would such criticism be appropriate to even mention on the Barack Obama article? No. The website you are citing is a blog that is not a legitimate source of criticism, and should not be linked. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The author of that blog post is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia entry, which "Pandagon" redirects to. It is not just "any source"; it's a fairly high-traffic site. --Soultaco (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering all the negative response to her and her "criticism" (even in our article), I still don't consider that hysteric to be reliable source. However, if the link is to remain, it would be best to note that she made the allegation, and let the reader make his own inferences as to the rationality of the claim. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Seresin, your attitude is not consistent with WP:NPOV. We report facts about opinions. We wouldn't try to catalog everything anyone has said about a bio subject; the test is whether there's a "prominent representative of the view". You can diss Pandagon all you want but she's prominent. JamesMLane t c 03:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I know. That's why I didn't object to the mention once we clarified who was making the allegation. When I originally objected, there was no indication as to who was making the claim, but rather "critics". seresin ( ¡? ) 06:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that logic and I am working on restoring criticisms that follow Wiki rules. Seanosul ( ¡? ) 2 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 09:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Vallhalla, why have you reverted my extrapolation on documented criticisms of the PUMA blogosphere? Your suggestion that the edits are a smear is laughable. I find the additions quite balanced. Do you have an agenda here? Oxfordden (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are mixing my edits up with someone else's. The only deletion I made was of undocumented POV, not documented criticism. I don't think that 'extrapolation on documented criticisms' is Wiki standard, particularly without any documentation. I have read the WP:NPOV section carefully and do not see support for extrapolations without citations. If there is documentation, then 'documented criticisms' more appropriately go under the Criticisms section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valhalla08 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

PUMA is REAL

This site, Wikipedia, is meant to be a living, evolving encyclopedic style informative colloboration, correct? As such, this entry has every right to be here! PUMA is a legitimate organization made of of thousands of memebers who are outraged at the proceedings of the 2008 presidential canditatorial elective process heretofor. There is absolutely no grounds for deletion of this entry as every word within is correct and verifiable. Is it not disgusting the lengths some people and parties will go to to write history, OUR, history, according to their own agendas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.206.55 (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read up on the deletion policies of wikipedia. PUMA may be a real, legitimate organization, but very few articles link to this page, and this page covers a very wide variety of issues. Thomas1617

There is no proof that PUMA has "thousands of members." Founding members have been interviewed live on the news, and they could not refute accusations of low membership, lack of support, etc. The PUMA PAC itself has only raised about $50,000 while Obama raises millions every month. This article should have to point out that PUMA, Just Say No Deal, Clintons4McCain and numerous other "groups" are, for all intents and purposes, the exact same limited group of people. Their websites share talking points with the RNC and McCain campaign, and they post "news" like Obama is a secret Muslim, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.38.113 (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Editing the title of the whole article

I am trying to clean this article up in repsonse to this discussion and some comments from the deletion discussion. The overall title of the page 'Party United Means Action' is incorrect. The official name is 'People United Means Action' while the unofficial name is 'Party Unity My Ass'. The two have been conflated. However, when I go to the edit page, the title of the overall article is not available for editing. Is there something special I need to do to make it available for editing, or do I need special privileges somehow? Any help would be appreciated, as I'm still learning wiki edit protocols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valhalla08 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You want to move the article. There is a function for that, but only autoconfirmed editors (account four days old and ten edits) may use the function. I tend to agree with you about the title, but let's see if anyone else has an opinion. I'm not really sure what the title should be, as this article is about the movement, and I'm not sure PUMA is fully representative of the movement. So we'll see before moving. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about the movement. I can try to edit the article to clarify that PUMA is just part of the movement, not the whole movement. However, my concern about the title is primarily that searching for 'puma', which is the name most people hear, does not turn up any articles. I'm guessing it is because the title is incorrect. It looks as if I may be able to edit the Disambiguation page for 'puma' though to correct for that. Although I feel fairly strongly that the title of the article should be corrected since it mangles the meaning of either the official or unofficial name. Thank you for explaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valhalla08 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the mistake in the title a couple of days ago: it just remains to be determined what the final title should be.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that you had changed the title. Thank you. I'd argue that it should remain 'Party United Means Action' because that is the name of the PAC and that is the name people are organizing their political actions under (whether members of the pac or not). Valhalla08 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of section describing group's founding

The latest revision was to remove a line describing how PUMA was founded on a particular blog site because it lacked a third party source. I understand why most information would need third party sources, but in this case, the information is the reference; going to the blog the user can see exactly where it was founded and on what day. I can look for a third party source to replace the now-deleted one (I'm pretty sure I've seen it in print somewhere besides on the blog), but it very likely to be an interview of the founder describing what is on that blog page. It seems like that wouldn't be any better in terms of credibility (which is why I'm assuming there's a preference for third party sources). Any advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valhalla08 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to find articles that argue PUMA was created through Blog entries, until an actual article can be sourced, it can only be a claim, so I have added "it is claimed" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanosul (talk • contribs) 09:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove External Reference

Removed this link Yes to Democracy a "Blog critical of Puma PAC and it's supporters" from the External link section. The tutorial says the external links section should be used for websites with significant and reliable additional information on an article's topic. This link is to a random blog critical of PUMA PAC owned by no one of note -- 90% of the posts are by one author and are a series of gripes and complaints about PUMA. The owner seems to be the same person spam-sniping a number of PUMA sites. It seems likely that they added their own site to External Links in an effort to drive up numbers to their blog. The person who added the link should incorporate criticisms, along with reliable references from notable sources, to the Criticism section rather than using an external reference to drive traffic to their blog.

I removed it from the External Ref list and added to this discussion to see what other (neutral) editors think. Valhalla08 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly neutral, but your characterization of Yes to democracy is inaccurate. The proprietor of the site, Christina Cedeno, has done a lot of original research and warehouses documentation supporting Republican infiltration, if not control, of PUMA, and debunking PUMA smears against Barack Obama.Homertojeebus (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Grassroots

I removed the 'says'; added reference here. I also checked out several similar movement pages, including History of MoveOn.org and Emily's List for comparison. MoveOn's history page has a considerable amount of unreferenced material; most of the references establishing history are to one interview with one of the founders, yet none of the text is qualified by 'says' or 'claims'. Emily's list has almost no references and no qualifying language concerning its mission or its activities. The NRA has a section entitled 'Grass roots shooting support' without references or qualifying language. Progessive Maryland references only its own website to support its description as grassroots, without qualifying language on the page. Earth First claims grassroots actions with no references and no qualifying language. The last three I just randomly clicked on under the [[List of grassroots organizations|Grassroots] orgs page on Wikipedia. I'm not sure I understand the insistence on qualifier language for PUMA but not other organizations of the same genre.Valhalla08 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that this assertion is contentious as to PUMA. There is a significant body of opinion that disputes PUMA's self-description. In light of the good-faith dispute over this issue, Wikipedia is not in a position to assert either side's view as if it were an undisputed fact. JamesMLane t c 10:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that if you are going to assert contentiousness about grassroots, then it should be more than just a generic opinion or a random blog to support that. While there have been negative reactions to the organization itself (a simple Google search shows that), that doesn't mean that the 'grassroots' part is in contention. (I'd be very surprised if I couldn't find some blogs or even mainstream media articles that dispute much of the contents of MoveOn's descriptions of itself.) Could you indicate some of the reliable sources for a 'significant body of opinion' Neither I nor anyone else can evaluate whether there is a 'good faith' dispute or a 'significant body' without some concrete indication of the sources of the dispute.Valhalla08 (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Grassroots" implies the movement has a certain level of support in common parlance. It should be up to the ones supporting the use of the term to prove that the group has a certain level of support to justify its use. For example, a small number of bloggers would not constitute a "grassroots" movement regardless of how the group describes itself. PUMA PAC has only raised $50,000. Together4US has only received 8,600 online signatures (no way to verify each is a real individual). The facts do not support that this organization has any major support, but they are receiving a disproportionate amount of media coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.38.113 (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We appear not to have a reliable source describing PUMA as "grassroots". If we don't have a source for it, it doesn't go in. It's not my burden to show that there's a dispute. The burden is always on the person who wants to include an assertion in the article. If all we know is that PUMA says it's grassroots, then that's what our article states. Only if we have reliable third-party sources giving that description could it be stated as an undisputed fact. Then the burden would shift to anyone who wanted to dispute or qualify it. With reliable sources contradicting the assertion, we would go back to reporting the different views instead of adopting one of them. As it is, though, we don't even reach that stage.

I don't regularly edit the MoveOn article. If you think an error's been made there by accepting a characterization of the organization as "grassroots", take it up there, not here. If there's an error in that article, that doesn't justify repeating the error here. (Nevertheless, I just looked at the MoveOn.org article. I found three instances of the word "grassroots". Two of them describe a particular forum on the organization's website. The third is more generally descriptive, but it's not stated as a fact. It's included in a quotation attributed to Eli Pariser, who's already been identified as the Executive Director. In other words, it's made clear to the reader that this is the organization's self-characterization, which is precisely what we should do here.)

The main point, though, is that, regardless of what does or does not belong in the MoveOn article, this article has no basis for characterizing PUMA as "grassroots" except PUMA's own assertion. We can present that assertion, properly attributed, and let the readers judge for themselves. JamesMLane t c 21:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I edited around the 'grassroots' thing this afternoon but seem not to have saved them -- maybe they got lost when whoever recovered the article from the vandalism to the acronym. But I can't find it in the history now.

Your original point was that we had to use 'says' because the claim was contentious. I'm not arguing that statements should go into the article without attribution. I'm trying to understand what constitutes contentious beyond a blanket assertion by any editor that a point is contentious.Valhalla08 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Partly it's the nature of the assertion. When it's a laudatory self-description that's not supported by any outside source, I'd say it should be attributed, not accepted as fact. Any laudatory self-description is suspect. For example, if an officer says that an organization is incorporated in a particular state, I think we could go with reporting that as fact, unless and until someone presented evidence of a dispute. On the other hand, if the officer says that the organization has more than a million dues-paying members, that would be a "Joe Blow says" unless we had outside confirmation. If Murphy were to give an interview in which she said that more than a million supporters had registered with PUMA and added their names to a petition demanding this, that, and the other, do you think we should simply report as a fact that the petition had garnered a million signatures? I think that would be a "Murphy stated" item.

In this case, we have in addition some comments voiced about the bona fides of the organization's claims. At least two are quoted in the article -- Pandagon (a prominent spokesperson) and the Alaska party chair. Those aren't overwhelming. If there were multiple MSM sources saying one thing, and only that much of an indication of a dispute, then the dispute might not even be worth mentioning. How much it takes to create a genuine dispute depends in part on how much support there is for the other side, though. Here we don't have multiple MSM sources (or any, AFAIK).

A final point is that the "PUMA says" wording doesn't deprive our readers of any information. Someone who reads that sentence will know exactly what we know. JamesMLane t c 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the distinction about laudatory self-description, that makes more sense. I can't help pointing out, though, that the Pandagon and Alaska chair comments weren't aimed at the 'grassroots' assertion but the 'Republican' issue, which is different (Republicans can be grassroots too). But you may have seen I changed the langugage anyway and if add any 'grassroots' back in will attribute it to people's statements unless reported in a major media source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valhalla08 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)