Talk:Moneybomb/Archive 1

Archive 1

Concerns

I have pointed out, many times, that when an editor deletes (or advocates deleting) entire sections of information purely because he claims some technical or partial factual error exists -- rather than simply fix it or mark it with some tag like or whatever -- it usually means he has some specific, POV motivation, and actually just wishes to censor the information in question.

If the objection is simply that this footnoted article on a heavily-used[1] term seemed to be worded to make it sound like it had expanded to other candidacies beside Ron Paul, why not just fix the article? Why nominate it for deletion? The latter is far more involved...and makes no sense, whatsoever. The Neologism protest does not apply when a word is incredibly well-documented, producing 32,000 references on Google.

Ironically, by the time the AFD countdown finishes, money bomb may well be in the world record books, which will certainly render this censorship effort quite comical. --Kaz 16:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your remarks are grossly incivil. This is a nomination made in good faith by a fiercely anti-censorship editor who has labored to keep the Ron Paul article free from vandalism and POV pushers. Wikipedia has a policy against creating articles for neologisms (32K googlehits or not); and "it's gonna be famous some day" is not a valid argument. Please remember that (to paraphrase and quote)Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary; a short burst of present news coverage about a topic is not objective evidence of long-term notability. While topics that do not meet the notability guidelines at one point in time may meet them as time passes, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.--Orange Mike 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Orange Mike, please tone down the rhetoric a bit? I don't find Kazvorpal's remarks "grossly uncivil." If you think that's uncivil, you need to go hang out on WP:ANI more.  ;) I think it's better to try to assume good faith. However, I do agree that this article, as it stands, doesn't look like it's currently meeting Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. Aside from the primary sources and the information that's circulating in the blogosphere, are there any actual mentions of this in mainstream press? If not, I'd support either deleting the article, or perhaps merging the information elsewhere. If more sources become available later, the article can easily be re-created. --Elonka 16:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How about ABC News as a primary source...including the use of the term "money bomb" in a way that could imply they are assuming it exists outside of the Ron Paul campaign. --Kaz 01:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

As the son of a (libertarian) newspaperman, and a writer myself, I consider the accusation of "censorship" to be one of the most uncivil accusations that can be made against an editor. I'll cheerfully agree, however, that the article should be the focus of all our efforts. (Please examine my latest edits.) --Orange Mike 16:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As I started to say before my power went out, your changes seem fine to me, although I'd have thought you'd want the article to focus more on Ron Paul, whereas instead you actually removed the change I made specifically to address your objection. Since today's money bomb is on track to raise about 4.5 million dollars, making it one of the top single days for any candidate and THE top grassroots fundraising day, I suspect that the worst that could need to happen would be for the article's focus to become the historic facts of the money bombs, at least until the plans I've heard for other candidates to immitate the process proves that the name has entered the broader vernacular.--Kaz 20:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If the article is ever going to be appropriate here (I think the term will end up in the dustbin of neologisms, myself) it will be because it passes into general currency. To focus the article's lede on Ron Paul is to say that it's merely a fadword among Paulistas: which I don't think you want, Kaz. --Orange Mike 15:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

News coverage does appear to be expanding today. When I search on "Money bomb" at Google News, I'm getting a lot of hits. The term seems to be more in use at political "agenda" sites than mainstream press, but the mainstream press is starting to pick it up (ABC News). I've gone ahead and done a major rewrite of the article, moving the primary source (personal website) links down to the bottom. I recommend that we focus on including reputable secondary source (major news sites) links in the body of the text, and then the article should be quite a bit stronger. --Elonka 17:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the Associated Press and ABC News links count as primary, and setting the single-day presidential fundraising record, plus leaping into third place for overall fundraising in a single day probably counts as significant enough as a historic event, whether or not it'll enter the permanant common vernacular, to justify the existence of the article. As per the AFD box's own suggestion, I'm going to remove the tag. --Kaz 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean secondary sources. I do agree that the ABC News story uses the term, but I'm not seeing it in the AP story. And we still don't have any source that says "the term was coined in 2007". That appears to be original research unless you can find a source that says, "the term was coined in 2007." --Elonka 05:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's doubt, then we should remove that statement, or qualify it...certainly, the term was used in a completely different way in reference to Clinton's corruption, or the predicted economic failure of the British Pound, in the nineties and eighties. But I think it can be pretty easily verified that the guy who set up the Guy Fawkes thing did so in 2007, and he was referrring to Guy Fawkes day in choosing the phrase "money bomb", so that's the origin of the usage in this article. --Kaz 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This usage was coined in October 2007 per WP:RS FreeMarketNews.com and confirmed by WP:SPS RPMB.com as registered to Nordstrom. However, besides the Stuart and Clinton applications, I have also found it used for commercial googlebombing and for what Helicopter Ben wishes to do by printing new fiat money. It's easy to put two words like that together, but it's not easy to get 250,000 Google hits. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Money bomb or moneybomb

I just overhauled the article (have fun). I saw that moneybomb (closed form) redirects to money bomb (open form). I would argue for the reverse on the following grounds: 1. Since the single-word form is taking root (17K google hits today on a previously nonexistent word), it seems it should be preferred over the phrase, which can have other applications. 2. Dictionaries prefer closed forms to open when both are current. 3. Over time the tendency will be toward favoring the closed form, given typical folk etymology. 4. The closed form is the true neologism, not the phrase. Since the redirect has already been done, I will not make the change until I'm sure that I can do it cleanly and have fielded any objections. -- John J. Bulten (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yay, it's done, thanks admins. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I support this rational. We might as well agree on a spelling of the phrase while we are here. Unless another argument produces itself, This seems persuasive. 216.165.4.92 (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bloat

I trimmed the article back very slightly, and wish somebody would take a more vigorous machete to the thickets. There's just way too much trivial detail crammed into the article now, and I suspect it's less useful than it would be without so much trivia. Could somebody else have a look at it with an eye to some judicious pruning? --Orange Mike | Talk 23:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have trimmed the article back considerably. I do appreciate the amount of work that went into gathering the information here, but I must insist that Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of data-gathering. If someone wants to collate the charts and timelines of this term, a better place is on a personal website or blog, not on a Wikipedia page. Wikipedia should only be used to summarize data after it has been published in major reliable sources such as books and newspapers. It should not be used to aggregate information from campaign websites, and it should especially not be used to try and make a case that a term was "coined" on such and such a date, when the only source is someone's blog. Please, let's keep the article pared down to RS information only. --Elonka 15:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I respect those concerns. As you review my edits, which I have attempted to base entirely on WP:RS, keep in mind:

• Registrations at NetworkSolutions, Yahoo, and YouTube are reliable sources for early use of a word; these are experts in the field of tracking registrations of words as identities.
• Per WP:SPS, the RPMB.com material (with site registrant Nordstrom) is acceptable since Elder's and Nordstrom's expertise in moneybomb history has been published by other reliable sources. The policy cautions us to determine whether other sources would be preferred; but the site material is only used for the explicit statement of purpose, which has been otherwise published but is best expressed in the site's own words. Same is true for Sugra data (added).
• Date of coinage is confirmed by FMNN (which we've treated as WP:RS forever at Ron Paul) and backed up by the admission on RPMB, registered to Nordstrom-- not a blog.
• RonPaulGraphs is a published synthesis of information published by Paul's and Huckabee's campaigns, info which is also required to be reported to the FEC in due time.
• The table is the single most effective way to present a great deal of desired info with the least fuss. Much of it I have deleted from the inline text where that text did not add much, and I have dropped the table to article's end. The newsfeed is still growing virally and interest in this topic is not ::::::vanishing, and having the historical table of actual results is important to capture as it happens so it can be polished later (i.e. comparing with FEC official results in Jan).
• Digressive prediction: I think one can be certain that TeaParty07 will be another $10 million in media coverage.
• I have not restored everything when I did not see a good WP:RS argument. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

John, I very much appreciate the work that you're doing here, but we need to make a clear distinction between primary sources and secondary sources. I also strongly recommend that you review Wikipedia's policy on No original research. You cannot use a "NetworkSolutions registration" as a reliable source. Ditto with Yahoo and YouTube. Please remove any information which is sourced to unreliable sources. Please also remove any claims of notability that are sourced only to Paul's own website. --Elonka 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to concur with Elonka: there's a heck of a lot of current news coverage here, John: more suited for WikiNews than for Wikipedia. You are pushing the envelope both with regard to reliable sources and with regard to synthesis/Original Research. Newsfeeds are no substitute for the judgment of history. "I'm gonna want this stuff later" (for another article entirely?) is no excuse for letting it bloat up the current article now. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have trimmed or resourced some further material which I can see as not WP:RS, or as notable only due to Paul's PR. I have retained Paul's campaign's comment on Hillary's fundraising as a balancing POV in that section. Please indicate specifically whether or what items still constitute OR or synthesis and what guideline or policy they break (as I am having a hard time following exactly what concerns you two), or else please remove one or both tags. John J. Bulten (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

John, I don't mean to be rude, but let me very direct: Currently, this article reads like an advertisement for Paul's campaign. Wikipedia gets thousands of attempts at spam each day, most of which is deleted on sight. You've gotten a bit lucky here, since Orange Mike and I are a bit more forgiving than most, and we're trying to work with you to improve the article rather than just delete it, but the more that this article looks like spam, the more I'm leaning towards outright deletion. I already tried editing the article once, and you just basically reverted my changes and put the information back in.[2]

To repeat: If you want this information to be on the web, you can move it to a personal webpage, but Wikipedia really isn't the place for it. Please remove everything that is sourced to unreliable sources. That means removing the information that is sourced to Paul's site, to blogs, to YouTube videos, to Network Solutions registration info, to Paul "fansites", etc. The only information that should be in the Wikipedia article is information that has already been published by secondary sources such as major news sites. A certain small amount of info can still come from Paul's site, but his site should definitely not be used to source anything such as specific dollar amounts or anything that implies a claim of notability. The Wikipedia article should be used only as a brief encyclopedic synopsis of the term "moneybomb", meaning information about the specific term that has already been published in secondary sources such as CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. The article is not to be used for campaign purposes, nor should it be used to provide a comprehensive database of amounts raised. We can definitely include a link to some other site where this information is provided, but we shouldn't use the Wikipedia article as the collection point. See also What Wikipedia is not. --Elonka 03:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have been the primary provider of non-Paul info for this article IMHO. There is no info sourced to blogs, videos, or fansites. There is the one Clinton-response sourced only to Paul which you seem to permit. There are the links to NetSol et al., which are primary sources, which policy also permits somewhat, which is the degree to which I've used them. Everything that seems sourceworthy has been sourced. You could make an argument that some dollar amounts are notable and some not, but that's like saying some cricket games are notable and some not (and my how WP loves cricket), and I think a tabular presentation is not untoward. A brief synopsis of a term is proper to a dictionary, which (as you remind me) WP is not. My encyclopedic presentation proceeds along the same lines as coverage of debates, straw and phone polls, in/out horserace announcements, and other campaign events I've been editing.

In short, please indicate specifically whether or what items still constitute OR or synthesis and what guideline or policy they break (as I am having a hard time following exactly what concerns you two), or else please remove one or both tags. For a hypothetical example of what I mean by "specifically", you could say, "The statement 'the term has also been seized by several other 2008 presidential candidates' relies on a article which has been withdrawn from its site, so is now OR"; or you could say, "Policy WP:NONESUCH says, 'Info from Ron Paul requires twice as much verification'". You have not given me these kinds of specific answers to my request. Thank you for your consideration. John J. Bulten (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how you can say in good faith "there is no info sourced to blogs or fansites". The article is full of info that's sourced to blogs and personal sites. Right in the lead, the "coined" claim is sourced to http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017091.html That is not a reliable source for such a major claim as when a term was first used. Other sources that should be removed from the article:

• Anything with "blog" in the URL
• ronpaul2008.com
• ronpaul2008.typepad.com
• ronpaulforpresident2008.com
• networksolutions.com
• youtube.com
• ronpaulmoneybomb.com
• craigslist.org
• slact.net
• fredsgivingday.com
• nov20forthechildren.com
• barackobama.com
• thisnovember11th.com
• thisnovember5th.com
• rudysreadinglist.com
• december7thformitt.com
• teaparty07.com

Sites that can be used as sources:

• nytimes.com
• washingtonpost.com

Sites that should be used with care:

• Baltimore Sun political blog
• Washington Post political blog

Anything else that I haven't mentioned specifically, does not mean that I think it's okay, it just means that it didn't jump out at me on a first pass. Hope that helps, Elonka 04:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:OR (which also covers synthesis), "If there is a source, but the source or claim is disputed, that is not original research but rather of a question of reliable sourcing or undue weight." Since this echoes your area of concern, I am accordingly changing the tag to "refimprove" which refers to RS rather than OR. Reviewing your list, I am still upholding my statement in good faith, but I intend to address the details tomorrow. John J. Bulten (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You might also want to explain what you mean by "padded in preparation for another fundraising effort" on your talk page, so I know what other behavior to avoid. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed several of the sections that I had concerns about. Let's try to avoid adding any further information unless we have a solid source for it. --Elonka 06:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The seemingly endless rows of non-encyclopedic "This is next week's/last week's moneybomb" tabulated figures seemed to carry a breathless tone similar to a United Way drive or similar "Can we top the last one?" challenge. It is my strong belief that this is not deliberate on your part or that of other Paulistas, John; but that's what it was getting to look like, with seried ranks of tabular data taken from Paul's and his supporters' websites (or, occasionally, those of his opponents; this is about the tone, not about Ron). I think folks were just getting carried away by how much data can be mined nowadays online. This is not supposed to be an article about how much money Ron Paul or Fred Thompson or whoever raised last week; this is supposed to be about a particular style of fundraising drive. (I'd also advise you to lose or trim the Rollins quote, which has been selected for the best quote about Paul supporters, not the best description by an outsider of the moneybomb phenomenon. (The cited article, unlike the quote, is in significant part about the moneybomb; but you couldn't tell that from the extract chosen.)--Orange Mike | Talk 06:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am still failing to understand your objections. For the third time, my request is that you both please indicate specifically whether or what items still constitute OR or synthesis and what guideline or policy they break (as I am having a hard time following exactly what concerns you two), or else please remove one or both tags. You have not done so.

Here's what I've heard. (1) Elonka's long list constitutes unreliable sources in her opinion. (2) The table is OR to Elonka (without elaboration) and breathless to Mike (thereby "not supposed to be" in the article). (I have no problem with your objecting to Rollins, I thought you'd like him.) But that's all I'm hearing as objections and rationale for deletion.

I have been rereading and quoting and alluding to the policies regularly and have failed to find your concerns therein, even after asking for them repeatedly. Here are (mostly repetitions of) my specific reliances on policy; I'm not quoting, due to length and trusting you to follow. (1a) Nine of your links are moneybomb sites, which it is perfectly appropriate to mention and/or link (especially buried in the table rather than explicitly "External links"), due to WP:SELFPUB. (1b) You yourself break your own rule "anything with 'blog'" immediately. The proper use of blogs is "with care", and, of course, if they meet the classic description of WP:SOURCES. (1c) RonPaul2008.com is cited only for the Paul campaign's opinion of Clinton, per WP:UNDUE. Typepad.com is not cited at all now except to back up other sources. (1d) RPFP (like RPMB) is cited as a self-published source (Sugra) whose work (the 10/15 YouTube video, via screenshots and clips) has been displayed several times in reliable media coverage, and mentioned many more times. WP:SPS. Both his involvement and his purpose are sourceable elsewhere, but his quote is better retained as a more direct statement of purpose than those sourced elsewhere. (I said the same about RPMB. However, I let go of Nordstrom's longer statement of purpose because it was from a blog where proof of his authorship is not reliable.) (1e) NetSol and YouTube are primary sources, which may be used sparingly per WP:PSTS; they are cited for their expertise in registering identities, which is singularly helpful in tracking down neologism use. CraigsList is a primary source provided for exactly parallel reasons. (1f) Slact provides exactly the same kind of reporting as RonPaulGraphs and the FEC's nictusa.com, to which you haven't objected on first pass. (To single out Slact as unreliable when it agrees with the others is to say that the campaign is providing unreliable numbers against FEC regulations, which violates WP:BLP.)

Now your identities suggest you both can handle a little humor, which seems useful in fielding your second objection. What exactly are the "unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories" in the table? Everything in that table appeared in a reliable or self-published source. To be sure I didn't cite RonPaulGraphs.com or another site every time because there is no controversy about the bare figures, but I suppose I could lard the table up with more sources! And what exactly carried a "breathless tone similar to a United Way drive"? Was it the title, "Chronology"? Was it the enumeration of which candidates had done which moneybombs? Maybe the reference to Pearl Harbor was breathless. Whatever the answers are to these questions, can you see how I'm having trouble discerning your policy objection in their midst, that would specifically warrant double-tagging this article? There is no difference between this table and the list of every opinion poll or debate or personal event any candidate has appeared in. I believe you will discover that your true concerns lie elsewhere than what you've been able to state here so far.

Since you have not made any OR or synthesis arguments, and are continuing to argue RS, I am undoing the tag revert and restoring the "refimprove" RS tag as the most appropriate description of this debate. If you can tell me what appeals process or policy you are relying on as authoritative for settling this, it would be very helpful. I also have a couple new bits, and will continue to justify all my adds with reliable sources per policy, as near as I am able to. Please have the courtesy to justify your deletions by policy (which are so much easier to make). Thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

And Elonka, this second time, I really must call attention to how your deletion without reflowing the original text again destroys much prior continuity and does not appear an improvement. This time, beginning "Origin" with Hiler and jumping disconnectedly into 11/5 results, and "see below" for other nonexistent efforts, particularly jumped out at me. Further, since you are open with your suspicions, let me point out that, even if well-intended, removing every reference to any other candidate's moneybombs (as you have apparently done) is not distinguishable from a malevolent first-phase approach where the second phase is to mark AFD due to it being only about Paul. This strikes me as POV for obvious reasons and the thoroughness of deleting my non-Paul adds does not seem consonant with your original objections. In good faith, it would help me much more if you would take your pruning shears to I Got a Crush... on Obama and Amber Lee Ettinger, for which I will next make a merge request. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of text flow, you have a point. I did notice that some of my deletions left the text a bit disjointed in places. Feel free to copyedit to try and improve the flow, but please don't add any other information unless it comes from reliable sources.

In terms of your argument about other articles being poorly-sourced, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Or in other words, it's not effective to ask me to edit other articles before editing this one. Right now my attention is on this one article (and several dozen others that I am working on simultaneously, especially in relation to the Crusades, the Mongol Empire, and a Featured Article nom at Pauline Fowler). I'm not here at this article because I have any interest in politics, I'm just doing my volunteer "helping out as an uninvolved editor" routine. If there are other articles that need similar cleanup, I may or may not have time to go work on them, but if it turns out that they are poorly-sourced, you are also free to clean them up yourself. If you find yourself disputing with someone about whether or not a source is a reliable one, you can post about it at WP:RSN.

In terms of appeals process, see WP:DR.

Lastly, please rest assured that I have zero interest in promoting any particular candidate, so there is nothing "malevolent" about my edits. My #1 priorities here are just keeping Wikipedia clear of spam, ensuring that any claims of notability are sourced reliably, and that theories are not given undue weight. If you'll look at my contribs: Elonka (talk · contribs), you can see that I work on a wide variety of subjects and have been on Wikipedia for years. Whereas your contribs: John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) show that you've only been around for a couple months, and that you're very focused on political topics, particularly related to Ron Paul. In other words, you're not doing yourself any favors by fingerpointing at me about having an agenda.

Bottom line: If you want to further expand this article, please only use information from reliable sources. If it hasn't been printed in a reliable source, don't put it on Wikipedia. If you still want to get it on the web, I recommend creating a webpage. You can make a free one quickly and easily at http://geocities.yahoo.com . --Elonka 16:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have consulted WP:DR as Elonka asks and selected WP:3O. As a third party, you should also consult Talk:Moneybomb#Source question, Talk:Moneybomb#Comment from E. Nordstrom, the edit history, User:John J. Bulten/DR1, User:John J. Bulten/DR1#Unreliable sources, and [3]. I don't want to describe either the old dispute (again) or new issues at length yet, but so far I see de-facto edit war, serious distortion in Elonka's latest edit set, danger to Wikimedia, edits nearly inexplicable by good faith, and various repeated behaviors that dance the border of disruptive editing. I am finding myself unable to reply dispassionately to Elonka directly at any length. Beyond that guidance, please make your own call. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I'm sorry, but Elonka is right on this one. Her latest string of edits seem okay to me, as they were skewing this page away from WP:SOAP. Furthermore, I don't believe that freemarketnews.com is a reliable source. While it may not be a campaign site, they're certainly pulling for Ron Paul. To this end, I'm a bit annoyed by the image here, as it doesn't really explain the topic from a neutral standpoint. John, it's not that Elonka last few edits were distorting, but rather bringing the article back into focus. The article is about the concept of moneybombing, not about Ron Paul specifically. If you'd like, go over to the Paul page and make a section there about moneybombing, and deal with the editors there; on this page, though, the concept needs to remain neutral. It's fine to mention the fact that this concept worked well for Ron Paul's campaign, but the page needs to give even time to other moneybombing occurrences. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response (may I call you Ann?), and I see that you've been helpful to others. Now in the form of asking you to help me understand, I'm going to ask you a set of subtle questions which are intended to suggest there is more to this dispute. For instance, I have deliberately let her last edits stand so as not to bias you. However, in the interests of civility I'm not supplying my own answers yet-- but I am getting ever closer to unleashing a full-bore assumption of bad faith against Ms. Dunin. I am using the WP resolution methods and am getting consistently angrier (no fault of yours, of course). But for now, in the interests of mediation, please help me understand:

1. In relation to your comments: Specifically what edits of mine, reverted by Elonka, were not NPOV objective reporting about this topic (which may have a recruitment component that should not be echoed by unobjective reporting)?
2. Why is FMNN relevant, since I did not source from it after Elonka objected (except to verify one date)?
3. What would you say to my preferred caption for the photo here and based on this?
4. When you say it's about "the concept of moneybombing", do you believe this article is about the concept of short notable fundraising spikes, or about uses of the phrase "money bombing"? Wouldn't you agree that the latter would be more suitable for a disambiguation page?
5. In relation to "even time to other moneybombing occurrences", presuming you mean fundraising occurrences, did you have any observations on my characterization of my view on even time here, and my characterization of Elonka's view here?
6. In referring me to the Paul page (and presumably to his campaign page), are you suggesting that my edits seem directed at talking about Paul's moneybombs rather than moneybombs in general? If so why?
7. In relation to the edits and links so far: When and where did Elonka answer my specific, repeated request for specific violations of OR, RS, or any other policy, aside from her citing FMNN?
8. How did she attempt to build consensus in relation to my objections?
9. Do you have any comments on the edit history, specifically, my 20 edit summaries 18:33-22:52 11/27 and her 5 edit summaries 20:53-23:18 11/28?
10. When she says, "There is dispute about the origin of the term", does she mean the origin of the phrase "money bombing", or the origin of the usage a political fundraiser? In either case, what is her reliable source for the dispute in the origin of the phrase, or the origin of the usage?
11. What did you think of my idea of putting disputed passages in comments tags temporarily for issue resolution, so that it would be easy to track where compromise had been reached and where dispute remained outstanding? What did you think of Elonka's idea of not taking advantage of this idea?
12. Do phrases like "the chosen fundraiser date in 2007" and "the 2007 moneybomb" imply there was only one 2007 moneybomb event, and is this implication true? Why or why not?
13. How would you rate the propriety of the following topics for this page: early citations of forms of the term "moneybomb"; claims of coinage of the term and explanation of who the claimants are; examples of moneybombs other than the 11/5 moneybomb; sequence of events leading to national exposure for the term; stated purposes for moneybombs from any campaign?
14. New issue: can you help me understand why these edits, which seem to me to reopen questions already decided by consensus, are not described by WP:STALK?

Ann, this is just a start of this thorny issue. I hope you have looked at all the links I provided, and recognized who made which edits. I don't want to "lead the witness" by directing your research unless absolutely necessary. I am using this method because being direct would appear too vindictive. Thank you for your help in answering these questions. John J. Bulten (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

First off, call me by my full name. Secondly, that's a lot of questions to respond to - and I don't have the time to do so right now. Maybe within the next day or so. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's rather presumptuous of you to demand answers to all of these questions. It reflects poorly on you to ask all of these questions to achieve your point. To that end, I'm going to respond to only a handful of them. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, HelloAnnyong, and I crave your pardon, no demand was intended. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Kay, let's see what I can do here.

• First, it was your original overhaul that skewed the page towards Ron Paul. Perhaps NPOV was not correct to use in this case, but rather WP:BIAS would be better. The entire MB3 section is biased, or failing that, at least WP:PEACOCK.
• As to the image caption, it's irrelevant; I think the image in itself is biased.
• This page should explain what moneybombing is, plain and simple. Examples can be given to help explain the concept further. I'm not sure what you mean by a disambig page for uses of the phrase; do you mean having articles like "Moneybombing (Ron Paul)", "Moneybombing (Mitt Romney)", etc? I'm almost positive that those would get deleted.
• And yes, I am saying that your edits are biased towards Ron Paul. Your original overhaul edit generates at least five paragraphs on Ron Paul, while only giving other candidates a few sentences.
• As to the question of origin, it means the origin of the term: where it was first coined. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time with the use of "dispute:" it clearly says that two differing origins have been given - one in 2004, one in 2007.
• I'm not a fan of leaving comments all over the page.
• As to your question of stalking, I'm not in a position to validate a claim like that. If you think that Elonka is following you, then register a claim elsewhere.

Does this help? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Very much, thank you, this returns some of Elonka's concerns to the realm of sensible discussion, and also indicates how my edits read to a new pair of eyes. I would, of course, refer you to my later edits rather than my first (and keep in mind that the comments were stated as temporary for resolving the consensus issue). My second complete cycle was here, and my third incomplete cycle was here.

Here are the facts. (1) As of today, there have been ten events designated as moneybombs: seven for Ron Paul and three for three other candidates. (2) Almost all media attention was directed at the 11/5 moneybomb for Paul (MB3), very little to any other-- and no other campaign had any moneybombs at the time of this coverage. (3) Most articles about events of the Presidential campaign use tables to demonstrate neutrally which events happened, including which favor what candidate. Given that, it seems rightly weighted NPOV for the article to describe Paul somewhat more than other campaigners, to mention MB3 somewhat more than other events, and to make an impartial list of each event, as well as currently scheduled future events. Now, it might be well-advised to say this article should be about the concept and a different article should be about "Moneybombs in the 2008 United States presidential campaign", but that distinction should be made much later, and only if moneybombs start arising in other campaigns. Right now there is no reason to exclude the chronology and examples, in parallel with almost every other campaign article here.

(4) When the topic is a solicitation, demonstrative images, which may very well advertise that solicitation, are perfectly good illustrations if used cautiously. (5) We are, of course, limited to those ads which are demonstrably free images, which may not come from every campaign. (6) A free image from one campaign (especially if captioned with reference to another) is better than no image. Given that, it seems better to use the image, to search for free art from other campaign as possible, and to caption the current art with reference to Romney as well.

(7) The phrase "money bombing" for one concept, bumping up Google ratings, occurred in 2004. (8) The word "moneybomb" (occasionally "money bombing") for another concept, a one-day fundraiser, occurred in 2007. (9) Terms similar to "moneybomb" have also been used to mean (a) the collapse of the British pound, (b) Fed chair Bernanke's printing of fiat money (a bit related to (a)), and (c) corruption charges against Clinton. (10) This article is only about the fundraiser, which was not conceived of until late 2007. Perhaps Elonka's phrasing may have misled you. It seems reasonable for the article to disambiguate sense 9a (which it does, undisputed), and perhaps to mention sense 7 in text, while concentrating on the origin of the use of those words for the fundraiser. That origin is not in dispute. For Elonka to pretend that there is dispute by confusing commercial googlebombing with political fundraising, easily disambiguable, is to introduce error. These are not "two differing origins" of the same usage, they are two different concepts entirely, and there is no "dispute" about how "moneybomb" came to be identified with fundraising-- nor with googlebombing, in fact.

Compare my last edit (which was only partial) with Elonka's current. Note how she gives two sentences to other candidates (which I provided), while I give three, plus an intro sentence, a caption, and one full tabular line for every campaign's moneybomb individually. Note how I caption moneybomb advertising neutrally, while she captions it the way a pro-Paul editor would (though she claims to be neutral). And did you note how, in her second revert cycle, she deleted every reference to every other candidate? Note how I stick to the fundraiser topic, mentioning commercial googlebombing only for disambiguation, while she lets the two be confused, apparently deliberately.

But most important, by what process should the two of us resolve our disagreement? Now that it's serious, she has begun to suggest BRD, but when I requested discussion of her rationale for deletion four times, I got only vague, generic answers, so the time for simple BRD had passed. She is free to reopen it by discussing that rationale, if she so chooses. In short, HelloAnnyong, I would greatly appreciate it if you would please either mediate until we are on safe footing, or support my view that the case should be submitted to a wider audience at RFC/U. If neither of these are likely, please let me know. Thank you. John J. Bulten 17:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If the term "money bombing" has several different meanings - all of which can be verified - then the opening paragraph needs to be changed to explain that. I would think that a disambig page would only be applicable here if all of the newly disambig'd pages (e.g. "Moneybombing (campaign)", "Moneybombing (collapse)", etc) would be of sufficient length that they wouldn't be deleted. If all that can be said is that moneybombing can also mean x, y, and z, then I'd be fine with just tossing it in the opening paragraph.

Yes, I see that Elonka removed some of the paragraphs on the other candidates, and I think they should be added back in.

As for the caption, again, I can't really speak to that. I don't like the way the caption is right now, and I don't like the image either. Then again, the caption right now does describe what's in the picture, and does so neutrally, so.. I don't really know.

You keep pointing the finger at Elonka, which is an action that I can't recommend doing. You need to chill out and stop being so openly hostile. People get into discussions - that's just how it is. Should this issue extend to a higher level of DR, you're both going to come under investigation, and your words will come back to bite you.

I don't understand why you want to take this further up the DR chain. I'll state my original opinion again: that Elonka's edits, by and large, have removed bias (and POV) from this page. If you have a problem with Elonka as an editor, that's one thing; for that, probably WP:WQA. But in terms of the content on the page itself, what are your issues still? What would be the best outcome for you? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks HelloAnnyong, I appreciate the time that you're taking on this.  :) Regarding the "paragraphs on other candidates", to my knowledge I only removed information that came from unreliable sources. I'm totally fine on adding in other information about other candidates, provided that it comes from reliable sources, and is related to the "moneybomb" concept. If you could be more specific about what you think needs to be re-added, I'll take a look.  :) --Elonka 19:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I see that I was a bit hasty in my judgment. You really were just removing unreliable sources. On this edit, you removed a link to nictusa, and now I'm wondering about that. Is the site biased or something? Aside from that, I think the rest is fine. My apologizes. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I think nictusa is okay as a data source, but I see it as a primary source that's providing raw data. In my opinion, this Moneybomb article is better served by sticking to information from reliable secondary sources, rather than trying to make any particular point on its own, from primary sources. The source was used for the claim, "On January 8 2007, a one-day call center organized by the Romney campaign raised $3,143,404."[4] but I don't think the source[5] confirms that. It confirms that on January 8, the Romney campaign reported contributions of $3.143 million, but the other info about a "one-day call center" that was "organized by the Romney campaign" wasn't anywhere in that source, so I just removed the entire sentence. If there's a reliable secondary source that confirms the other info, the sentence can definitely be added back in. --Elonka 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was a primary source. That's fine, then. Thanks for clarifying that. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, thank you for your help in mediating, and I totally agree that finger-pointing should never be done without probable cause which can be revealed at the proper time. To answer directly, the most important immediate outcomes are (1) to get Elonka to answer my question, or to drop the tags of OR and synthesis in favor of the "refimprove" tag; and (2) to get her to discuss why she thinks the sources are unreliable beyond the immediately disproved claim "campaign site". (Due to edit conflict, I see a first attempt at this.) Did I mention that she deleted a link to the New York Times (the first link among these deletions) as "more info from unreliable sources"? For the fifth time, my unedited question is: "Please indicate specifically whether or what items still constitute OR or synthesis and what guideline or policy they break." The question applies similarly to whether she thinks they are unreliable. The items in dispute that I "think need[] to be re-added", which she might object to, are all clearly delineated in comment tags at this version. Her refusal to answer, and to continue to proceed on these BRD-style lines, is the primary issue now. She cuts the D out of BRD. Don't you think it's excessive for her to insist on these two tags and not provide a single rationale for them for several days?

There is that other issue, whether this article should be about all uses of the phrase "money bombing", or whether it should be about fundraisers. It is clear that the only other WP info, at The Money Bomb, is a stub added only for disambiguation by the original editor here, Kazvorpal. The proper answer is that this article is only about fundraisers, as the book is only borderline notable and the other usages (including the googlebombing) have just come up in passing. There is no dispute that people have put the words "money bomb" together in the past, nor is there any dispute that the notable and ongoing media coverage is a result of only one meaning of "moneybomb". In the hopes that this issue really is as simple as I make it, I will make a presumably noncontroversial change to correct what I see as misinformation, along the lines you suggest (and I can also make a change based on her input about the government site nictusa); but I would like to ensure Elonka's approval as well on these and many other edits, and that's why I need a mediator. John J. Bulten 20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason that I deleted that New York Times link, was because the only thing it was referencing was a jazz performance by a musician.[6] It had nothing to with the moneybomb term (and wasn't even a very reliable source on the musician, either): "JESSE ELDER QUINTET (Thursday) Jesse Elder, a pianist in his early 20s, leads a cohort of his gifted peers: Tatum Greenblatt on trumpet, Jeremy Viner on tenor saxophone, Matt Brewer on bass and Tommy Crane on drums. At 8 p.m., Bargemusic, Fulton Ferry Landing near the Brooklyn Bridge, Brooklyn, (718) 624-2083, bargemusic.org; $35, $20 students." --Elonka 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh. John, if that's the page you meant, then yeah, it has no place here. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I propose we do. I've created a new subheader just under here, called Sources. I'd like you to list all of the sources that were removed, so that we can discuss them individually. As for the claims of OR and SYN, Elonka, can you speak a little as to what you think still needs to be improved? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will in a moment, but let me first register the point that I already considered doing exactly that days ago. Due to Elonka's history of noncomment and the length of such a method, I considered it would be much more efficient to put the list in edit summaries instead so they could be reverted individually if need be. Elonka declined to take advantage of it then. But we'll see if we get better results this time. John J. Bulten 20:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

While we're here, I'd like to direct you to WP:CIT. Please improve your citations; just putting the link between ref tags is insufficient. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think your latest addition is walking the line of WP:PSTS. I don't get why you need the primary source in there. Don't the primary source and the secondary source contradict each other in terms of how much money was raised? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the cite, which was being fixed while you spoke; it was a holdover from when nobody cared about this article. Of course FEC is a primary source, and is used for exactly the occasional purpose permitted by PSTS. There is no contradiction, because there was a raised amount and a pledged amount. But how in any case could a news article trump an FEC report??? If it was actually a contradiction, the media would be accusing Romney of lying to the FEC and fall prey to WP:BLP. John J. Bulten 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My edit states exactly what is true from a UPI source- it is legitimate news from United Press. The previous one does not mention Romney or Obama in any form whatsoever in the National Review, and should have been replaced. Monsieurdl 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What? You removed this page, which says "Some supporters of Republican hopeful Fred Thompson have paid the ultimate tribute to Paul by scheduling their one-day Internet fund-raiser - on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving. The event, organized outside the Tennessean's campaign, is billed as Fred's Giving Day." How is that article from the National Review? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Monsieurdl, you have walked into an existing content battle. I respect your edit about the Thompson-Paul conflict, though it will need weight consideration by each of us; but please bookmark it for now and we will get a consensus version of it in due time. BTW Romney and Obama were mentioned because of other deleted sources, and it would be POV to exclude them as well. John J. Bulten 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohh OK- naturally when I went to read about them, I saw no mention of them. That's why I found it that way! I just wanted to point out that I had no malice intended whatsoever here, and if there was disputed content and it is restored, then it probably would make sense. That's what I get for getting involved in politics... now, back to nationalist battles! lol Thanks Monsieurdl 21:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Um.. alright. That wasn't really what I had in mind for sources; I meant actual links to the articles. But I guess that'll have to do. I'll create another subheader for discussion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's really hard to comment on these unless we can see how they're being referenced. I'm going to use this edit as a guide for what these links direct to. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, HelloAnnyong. Would you comment on whether reintroducing the disputed texts within inline comments, only temporarily until resolution, would be permissible? It is a far easier method of maintaining an open dispute list than ferrying around the various diffs (and far easier to close disputed items, either by deleting the item or by deleting the comment tag). And not to seem impatient, but rather than her answering my question about OR (now your question), Elonka has decided to stir up changes to the Ron Paul lead (apparently against WP:CON) at Talk:Ron Paul. Given her decision to continue elsewhere, would you mind changing the OR/synthesis templates to the refimprove template when you feel enough time has elapsed to demonstrate OR charges are unsupported? IMHO four days is enough. Or perhaps no template, unless you like my inline comment proposal. Thanks. John J. Bulten 13:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of these texts don't even apply anymore. The NYTimes and All About Jazz ones, for example - that's not in the origin section anymore, so it's unneeded. Are you saying that we should totally revert Elonka's edits and go back to the version of the page before them? That would be a resolution that I cannot condone. This version of the page is unacceptable, as it contains a great deal of bias and SYN.

And I'll say it again: stop being openly accusatory at Elonka. This is the moneybomb talk page; if you have a problem, take it to her talk page. Or to another page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, thank you, but I have taken it to her talk page with an edit war warning. I have taken it to another page, the third opinion page. As I see it the next page is RFC/U. I apologize if I have misplaced a comment in the process. So (1) do you have a better suggestion of what page to go to?

This war has always been about resolving two versions, my good-faith edit of 11/10 and Elonka's reversion of 11/16. I can see we have both backed off on a couple issues in the interests of dropping less essential disputes to achieve compromise. But yes, where I have provided good-faith RS reasoning for every edit I wish to put back in, and have had no real reasoning in response, under BRD or any other policy I would expect Elonka to discuss why she thinks they're unreliable on a point-by-point basis as I have. I would certainly hope you're not suggesting that something is "unneeded" solely because it doesn't appear in Elonka's edit which I have purposely let stand-- especially when that something is the identity of the only claimant for coining this usage. What other process would build consensus? That is (2) are you willing either to mediate until we are on safe footing, or to support my view that the case should be submitted to a wider audience?

Finally, I'm glad you see perceive bias and SYN in that edit of mine, which is something of a breakthrough, because no one is arguing those questions to me on their merits. I don't mean to be rude by phrasing it this way, but (3) please indicate specifically whether or what items still constitute OR or synthesis and what guideline or policy they break. That is, specific sentences from policy, and specific demonstrations of OR/SYN. There were a couple sentences in the comments in that edit that I could drop, but everything in the clear was either Elonka-approved or RS-demonstrated. John J. Bulten 00:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because something is demonstrated by RS doesn't mean that it's not biased or NPOV. The larger issue here is that the page is biased towards Ron Paul. He's mentioned in the opening paragraph, all of the Origin section, the first paragraph in Followup, and in the last paragraph under Analogues. Around half of the sources are Paul-centered. You admit that there's bias in the edit, so why is it so hard to understand that that is what makes that version of the page unacceptable?

We can talk about OR for a second. For example, the following: "On October 14, 2007, he registered the previously nonexistent identity "RonPaulMoneyBomb" at YouTube to solicit donors," with a reference to the YouTube page. There's nothing on the page that says that that's why he created the account, so how can you say that? That's OR. "Eric Nordstrom registered the domain "RonPaulMoneyBomb.com" to assist Elder in the process," with a link to a WHOIS page. Just because the WHOIS page says that it's registered to him doesn't mean that he did it to assist in the process. That's your own speculation. Whether true or not, you cannot specifically state that without a source. If you can find a statement by Eric Nordstrom saying "I registered RonPaulMoneyBomb.com to Assist Elder in the process," then that's one thing. That's just two things I can find right off the bat.

By the way, this page is being reviewed for deletion. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you-- now if you and Elonka think my edits were biased or NPOV, then we can discuss your thoughts toward building consensus on that new, untagged topic. However, you have not listed bias or NPOV, you have listed two "OR" statements. Well, what they really amount to is misplaced clauses. We could easily delete "to solicit donors" and "to assist Elder in the process" and move them elsewhere, or move the footnotes and add other footnotes. But isn't it interesting that if that had been Elonka's concern, she could have deleted just the clauses instead of the whole sentences? Have you read User:Kazvorpal#Truth, not silence?

Also, as I will point out at AFD, the simple facts are that this usage was created entirely by Paul supporters, it received prominence solely due to Paul supporters, and upon reaching prominence it has been used by six campaigns. Your description of Paul's placement is precisely proper weighting for these facts. Also, I did not admit bias, as my refactor above makes clearer.

But most important, I thought third opinions were a form of mediation. I need you to answer questions (1) and (2) just above so that I know whether this process should continue or what other process I should invoke to build consensus. Elonka and I have seriously different intentions for this article, and that difference should be worked out by discussion. I have politely refused to encourage edit warring, to the article's detriment, and to fulfillment of my warning that Elonka's actions improperly encouraged AFD. Since you have also voted for deletion, I am having trouble understanding the meaning of "third opinions" and your place in this discussion; please answer those two questions. John J. Bulten 07:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinions serve as a way of getting a bit more consensus when it's just two users going back and forth without any real consensus. I joined the discussion when the page was listed for a third opinion. My place in the discussion is irrelevant; it's no different than if I had randomly stumbled upon the page and joined the conversation. Wikipedia allows all editors the ability to do that.

If you want somewhere else to go, try RfC. I'm not really willing to moderate, as this whole page is incredibly frustrating to me. To be honest, John, you're not being helpful. Weren't you just banned for 24 hours for disruptive editing? I'm sorry, but I can't work with an editor who's not willing to work towards a compromise. I've gotten so lost in the endless debate that I don't even know what the original focus is anymore.

But that's neither here nor there. I'm going to wait to see how the AfD is resolved. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I respect your input and your WP contributions, and we'll talk again. I'm sorry you feel I was unwilling to work towards a compromise, seeing as I haven't reinserted any of my older edits in a week (11/28 01:19) without explicit reliance on your or Elonka's talk. If you can point me specifically to the alleged disruptive editing diff and what clause of policy it breaks, I would be further thankful. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't block you, so I can't speak to that. Go talk to the right people. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Please list all sources that were removed as unreliable, so that they may be discussed. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of these are from edit summaries reformatted, so they are quick versions and susceptible to improvement (be merciful). Recall that it's not the reliability of the source alone, but its reliability for the use stated. Quotes are from policy and my own text. I will be back to discuss later.

1. The New Republic: TNR interactive column "may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control" WP:V. TNR also sources "Moneybomb advertising often makes use of inverted political messages, as in the cases of ads for Ron Paul".
2. The New York Times: NYX is obviously WP:RS. Used to identify Elder, the coiner (i.e., only alleged coiner) of the word, as "a New York City jazz pianist, composer, and bandleader". (ADD: I fail to understand how Elonka's comment that NYX "wasn't even a very reliable source on the musician" could be taken in good faith, especially when combined with the fact that she well knows 'the musician' is the only alleged coiner of the fundraising usage and yet she indicates the source has no relation to a section about the term's coinage. Again, she provides no rationale for her prejudgment about reliability, which contradicts her earlier blanket acceptance of NYX. I inserted this because it was a ready RS about Elder's occupation and even that is questioned? How can I not suspect agenda? John J. Bulten 13:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC))
3. All About Jazz: AAJ might be questioned as promotional, but is used only for support of NYX.
4. Free-Market News: As backup of Politico magazine for the term being recently coined, by Elder. FMNN is a "third-party published source[] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". (After writing that, I have added that there is a WP:COI issue with FMNN; but to cite it as backup of a larger source or to supply an undisputed date should be acceptable.)
5. Lew Rockwell: Thomas Woods is Contributing Columnist to LRC, so is a permissible blog (see WP:V cite above). This cite is also open to WP:COI questions, but is acceptable as backup of UPI, and to demonstrate that there was early moneybomb activity on Paul-friendly sites.
6. TechPresident: Joshua Levy, Associate Editor of TechPresident, is a permissible blog. Used as backup for there being other moneybombs. Among these last sources, I got the sentence "After November 5, independent sites were also created by volunteers for Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson."
7. YouTube, only as WP:PSTS for use of words within its identity registrations: Consensus at WP:RSN stated by Anomie 11/14 is "it is not Wikipedia:Original research to cite DNS and WHOIS databases"; YouTube identity registration is precisely parallel as a primary source (WP:PSTS).
8. December7thForMitt blog, only as WP:SPS: 12/7 blog may be cited even as QS or SPS because meets WP:SELFPUB criteria as listed.
9. RonPaulMoneyBomb.com, only as WP:SPS: Source RPMB purpose to Palm Beach Post and provide backup link to Elder's original purpose statement.
10. NetworkSolutions, only as WP:PSTS: Add another whois result per previous demonstration of reliability as primary source.
11. Baltimore Sun: acceptable blog if used with caution.
12. RonPaulGraphs.com, only as WP:PSTS: Backup of Sun.
13. TechNewsWorld: acceptable magazine.
14. RonPaul2008.com, only as WP:SPS: Backup of TechNewsWorld.
15. Craig's List, only as WP:PSTS: Cited only to say Elder originally advertised through Craig's List.
16. RonPaulForPresident2008.com, only as WP:SPS: Not for Paul content, but only for verifying date of Sugra's entrance (mentioned by Palm Beach Post), and for a quote of his statement of purpose.
17. RonPaul2008.typepad.com, only as WP:SPS: Backup of FEC numbers, and to demonstrate when Paul campaign sent fundraiser emails.
18. There will be a cite, probably SPS, for the fact that Paul mentioned the 11/5 bomb in stump speeches.
19. NolanChart.com, a libertarian news site, acceptable with caution. Used to significantly reference today's moneybomb (11/30, $340K at this moment, "Rudy's Reading List").
20. The other moneybomb sites, only to mention which and whose they were, to back up FEC in verifying numbers, and to provide balance among campaigns. ThisNovember11th, BarackObama, Nov20ForTheChildren, FredsGivingDay, RudysReadingList, TeaParty07, etc. AnonEMouse just pretty well approved this one. BTW, if TeaParty07 has 22000 pledges, I think that's notable on population also, isn't it?

Other edits which are not RS disputes:

1. Mentioning Romney/Obama bombs: they are notable lesser events, and WP:NPOV trumps WP:RS. JWales says, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." RS not required as strictly. (That is, even if Romney/Obama events are not called "moneybombs" in any reliable source, it is still noncontroversial that they are the same kind of events as those mentioned, so they are suitable to include as examples for NPOV purposes.)
2. Organizing 12/7 blog material within inverted political imagery is source-based research. A couple other obvious source-based research edits will appear.
3. Another editor's statement, essentially the term partly arising from a "natural heuristic association with sending large amounts of money at once", was unsourced but I haven't decided if I want to source it, accept it as an obvious reading, or dump it.

Source question

On digging deeper into freemarketnews.com, I have concerns about whether or not we should regard it as a reliable source. Looking at the mainpage, it seems to just be a "Ron Paul" website: http://www.freemarketnews.com/index.asp Unless someone can provide info that this is a "real" news site as opposed to just another campaign site, we should pull info that's sourced exclusively to it. --Elonka 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a complex question and I will need to answer tomorrow because I am meeting Ron Paul in St. Petersburg tonight. :D Thank you for your patience. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

May I ask the exact nature of your relationship with Ron Paul? Are you by any chance one of the maintainers of the freemarketnews.com website? --Elonka 16:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I am nothing more than a donor and volunteer, and have no formal relationship with FMNN or its site, though of course I read it and occasionally comment. I will answer the source question shortly after I am sure I have the policy correctly stated, and I appreciate your patience. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Judging by their own words, these people have a strong ideological bias which conforms to Paul's; but this is definitely not a campaign website. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Orangemike has judged rightly that implying FMNN is a campaign site is misguided.
2. FMNN is a "real" news site in the sense of having accepted journalistic standards and meeting Google News's (admittedly looser) standards of reliability.
3. The issue with FMNN is not reliability, but conflict of interest. They do publish Ron Paul, so should be handled more carefully. In accord with WP:COI, it is a "close relationship" between them and Paul in which their possible bias should be guided by the judgment and commonsense of editors.
4. But you're making this academic by your edits, aren't you? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The more I learn about freemarketnews.com, the more it appears to be little more than a glorified blog. It seems that the latest tack is that there's an "analysis" page on freemarketnews which is attacking Wikipedia for the "defacement" of the moneybomb page.[7] This seems very suspiciously timed, and just reinforces my opinion that we shouldn't be sourcing anything to freemarketnews. --Elonka 19:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It surprised me too, but the fact that they chose to attack "someone", meaning you (not Wikipedia at large), should cause you to consider recusal from making this judgment. What happened is that Nordstrom, whose blog-commenting history shows he's ever-alert to coverage relating to his site, noticed your reversion and complained at his site; and FMNN, whose history shows they're ever-alert to Ron Paul news and headlines including Nordstrom's site, sympathized and quoted him at length. Simple and, incidentally, unrelated to my desire to improve Wikipedia's Ron Paul articles (until now). And I'm not concentrating on rebutting you by analyzing the wide array of news articles at FMNN right now. John J. Bulten 20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment from E. Nordstrom

Hello guys, nice work on the content of the 'moneybomb' article, I can see some real though and effort has gone into it. I have been contacted by (ABC News) for an interview. I am not sure what questions will be asked, but if the origin of the term 'money bomb' or 'moneybomb' is asked, the truth to be told is:

Jesse Elder, a Jazz musician from New York coined the phrase "MoneyBomb" or "Money Bomb", September of 2007, for the use of an opt-in email listing of Ron Paul supporters who wanted to make a weekly donation to the campaign. Registering the email address, ronpaulmoneybomb@yahoo.com for pledgers to 'enlist'.

On October 16, 2007, Eric Nordstrom secured the internet domain 'ronpaulmoneybomb.com' to assist Elder. The Ron Paul Money Bomb website, the eventual outcome of the original opt-in email listing, was constructed by Eric Nordstrom, an active duty serviceman, stationed in England.

Elder and Nordstrom have been vastly uncredited for the popularity of the term 'MoneyBomb' or "Money Bomb". The original opt-in email address was promoted by Elder and the general Ron Paul support community. Nordstrom, having created the website for Elder, continued to advertise the website and used the term 'Money Bomb' in all references to the website. Popularity of the term 'moneybomb' or 'money bomb', was vast and by October 18th, advertisments, blogs, comments, etc, could be found readily on the internet, all refering either to the original opt-in email address or to the ronpaulmoneybomb.com website.

Trevor Lyman, who registered the domain thisnovember5th.com also on the 16th of October, saw the potential of the popularity of Elder's and Nordstrom's 'money bomb' concept and soon adapted to add the term 'moneybomb' or 'money bomb' to his own fundraising event advertising, further propelling the 'Guy Fawkes' / 'V for vandetta' theme of thisnovember5th.com. It soon became apparent to Elder and Nordstrom that their original concept and keyword(s) had been 'borrowed' by Lyman.

Elder and Nordstrom were content to know that their original concept of 'moneybomb' or 'money bomb' was in good use by the Ron Paul support community. It has been suggested that the 4 million dollar success of thisnovember5th.com would not have occured were it not for the already seeded popularity of the original opt-in email list of Elder's and the already growing use of the term 'moneybomb' and 'money bomb' prior to Lyman's registration of thisnovember5th.com. As it stands today many if not most donation campaigns continue to use the Money Bomb theme first set in motion by Elder.

86.157.186.206 (talk) 09:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If Jesse Elder's and I's hard work promoting the term 'moneybomb' and 'money bomb' is to fall off the map due to Wikipedia's regulations regarding corroboration of facts with "perceived" authorities of truth, so be it. We know who did what and we are happy that our work has legs. I would guard against promoting any single person as the sole promoter, creator, or responsible agent for the popularity of the term 'Money Bomb'.

The main page article comes out booming with Guy Fawkes and Trevor Lyman information. It gives the impression that the success of November 5th was the catalyst for the popularity of the term. Subsequent reporting of the success of the November 5th event, by commercial news and media, is absolutely not what caused the popularity of the term 'moneybomb' or 'money bomb'. The truth is that the term(s) already had popularity among Ron Paul supporters prior to October 16th and the grass roots community for other candidates only took notice after the 5th of November. Unfortunately, the term 'moneybomb' or 'money bomb' shares the same fate as Ron Paul's message to the country. Everyone wants to twist it to their benefit.

I am further concerned, as are many, that Ron Paul's campaign needs money now, to be effective in the early primaries. ronpaulmoneybomb.com has been trying to get the public to donate weekly to maximize contributions without the large lag times. In contrast Trevor Lyman's projects are long term oriented and have massive lag times between drive dates. Long term promotions keep money from flowing into the campaign. One could argue that because you have included Trevor Lyman's name and the name of the previous November 5th drive, on the main page, without including the Actual origin (Jesse Elder) and ronpaulmoneybomb.com, one could surmise that you want people to follow the Trevor Lyman bread crumbs, and eventually locate the future December 16th 2007 event. Waiting until the 16th of December to provide a big 'money bomb' for Ron Paul is Lyman's concept. By urging people to wait until the 16th of December to donate, he is asking people to choke the main campaign of funds needed now for the early primary advertisements. Elder's and Nordstrom's concept is to donate now and to perform a regular weekly donation. My point is that it may come to pass that Lyman and followers may end up suffocating the main campaign of funds so as not to be effective in the early primaries which could domino effect the remainder of Ron Paul's bid for the Presidency, by posting Trevor Lyman and his projects on the main page it reinforces to the general public that the long term, campaign suffocating, donation drives are the way to go and therefore would make Wikipedia an accomplice of sorts to the potential demise of the Ron Paul bid. Previous versions of the main page included a history of 'money bombs' from all campaigns, and future 'money bombs' containing weekly (low lag time) and mass donation drives (giant lag times). At least with that there was a sense of choice or a balance between the two. Lyman is a small portion of the 'Money Bomb' story. A story still forming. - E. Nordstrom 86.157.186.206 (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am honored you would favor us with your thoughts, and pleased you chose exactly the right page (this talk page, "Talk:Moneybomb") to lay out your concerns. (They were actually worthy of their own section, so I have promoted them to the bottom of the page, the newest content.) As you've probably noticed, editing articles themselves by those directly concerned is discouraged until one learns the types of appropriate changes one may make to articles about oneself, such as at the links WP:AUTO and WP:SELFPUB; so you have taken the right approach with this site. You may also be interested in creating a new account and user page and contributing to Wikipedia improvement as you are able.

And it's a special honor and thrill to be able to participate in moneybombs and then to see my name show up on Paul's site shortly followed by that of "Eric Nordstrom, APO, AE" and the other usual suspects. (Paul used his status as #1 troop-supported candidate in military donations to great effect in the debate last night. Thank you for everything.) Both pride and honesty require me to admit hitting every target since my deployment with MB2 and committing to continue until personal supplies are exhausted.

My approach with this article was simply-- like every other item I edit-- to add significant info, which I had received often due to my interest and participation in connected events, and which I had verified reliably to my satisfaction. I am particularly interested in stubs and short articles when I can add useful (and often further improvable) sources. The first author here and primary editor was User:Kazvorpal, who with collaboration produced this version, listed 11/10-11/16. It was a good start after the 11/5 coverage, but I saw improvement possible: nonpartiality among all events from all campaigns which have been cited as "moneybombs"; removal of nonneutral characterizations such as saying MB1-2 "weren't extremely successful"; and verifying much more about the coinage, early history, and mainstream acceptance of the term, which are of exceeding interest in neologism articles (which I can say as a writer for some print dictionaries). All my edits to this article have been along these lines, though as you know I have faced resistance as to the reliability of my info, which is being worked out along Wikipedia resolution lines. I was especially gratified when your site and Free-Market News Network took notice of my work.

You have taken the absolutely correct steps for an involved party interested in fair presentation of a subject on Wikipedia: you have provided the detail on your personal site; have contacted news organizations like ABC and FMNN; and have expressed your concerns properly here. I am confident the Wikipedia community will, over time, deliver a clear consensus on what should be the notable, verifiable description of moneybombs. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It is now 22 December 2007 and I still do not see, on the main article, the origin of the word 'moneybomb'. It is quite simple. Jesse Elder registered the youtube channel ronpaulmoneybomb and the yahoo email account ronpaulmoneybomb@yahoo.com by or on October 14th 2007. To help Elder, Eric Nordstrom registered the domain name ronpaulmoneybomb.com on October 16th 2007. Elder and Nordstrom collected 1000 or so names by October 20 2007 and on October 20 2007, the first of the weekly moneybombs took place raising $30,000 for the campaign. Trevor Lyman registered thisnovember5th.com on October 16, 2007 using the V for Vendetta theme. The ronpaulmoneybomb.com site was increasing in popularity and the word 'moneybomb' was circulating, our weekly 'moneybombs' continued. By the second weekly donation drive, Trevor Lyman, and associated promoters of the V for Vandetta donation drive began to (USE) or (BORROW) the term 'moneybomb' from the Original ronpaulmoneybomb.com site as it fit in with the Movies theme, people began to associate the ronpaulmoneybomb and thisnovember5th as one in the same and the word 'moneybomb', previously used exclusively to ronpaulmoneybomb, began to be used in conjunction with thisnovember5th.com. After the success of thisnovember5th, media outlets reported on the November 5th donation drive using the term 'money bomb' and word 'moneybomb'. Lyman, the V for Vandetta donation drive, and the word 'moneybomb' became somewhat famous, leaving the original creators/coiners of the term in the shadows. Multiple attempts have been made to correct this oversight on wikipedia, however Jesse Elder, Eric Nordstrom, and the ronpaulmoneybomb.com weekly opt-in donation drives continue to be dismissed. This is the factual origin, it can be corroborated by consulting yahoo, youtube, and whois for domain name registration and if you want an 'Old Media' aka 'Main Stream Media' aka 'Politically Motivated Media' source for corroboration then see ABC News, top of article, this link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=3965657&page=3 I was interviewed by Mr. Wolfe of ABC News, for about 30 minutes, I even provided him with the complete story behind the MoneyBomb, my inclusion into the news article is wacky as the subject matter goes from 'the blimp' that I loathe to a small excerpt of my text that is poorly injected, then back to 'the blimp' again. The whole thing is rather frustrating, but at the same time fascinating to watch people scramble for the facts, even after the facts are given. I would add in conclusion, if you simple report the facts, there can be no political motivation or spin. Including a websites domain name as the origin for the word 'moneybomb' cannot be seen as politically motivated if it is the fact. Oh, and if you use google and look up the keywords "ronpaulmoneybomb@yahoo.com" you will see blogs and articles going back to October 14th or earlier I believe there is one or two going back to early September. One last comment, if Wikipedia's policy is to use the 'Main Stream Media' such as CNN or MSNBC etc, as sources for (FACT) then Wikipedia surely needs to understand that much of what is reported by these entertainment industry quasi-news outlets are in (FACT) false or misleading information. Strange how corporations are trusted as (FACT) providers but individuals are not. Just tell it like it is. Or perhaps Wikipedia isn't so truthful either. Merry Christmas to you all. Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let me defend the editors here who have put forth a lot of effort to make sure this article is done right. Wikipedia is based upon five pillars that I think make it a place for getting it right rather than just becoming user pages. You don't know how hard a lot of people work around here to get the best and most accurate information possible- we have high standards. I know you are dissapointed and frustrated that places on the internet don't get the same treatment a lot of times as mainstream media or other sources, but Wikipedia:Reliable sources is our guideline and we can't say that many sites have this history for fact checking and accuracy- if Youtube or other internet sites that are non profit got lambasted for inaccuracies, they would not be damaged. If media outlets were, they would suffer a damage in reputation that affects them.

This is merely a discussion and a consensus builder, not an inquisition... we all have good intentions, and want to get it right. Thanks for listening. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 15:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There may be allot of hard work going on, but the hard work has created a chaotic assembly of various occurrences. Although the article states the event(s) which gave the word household 'fame', the article has little to do with the origin, definition, and intent of the word.

The origin: Jesse Elder coined the (neologism) /slang-word/ "moneybomb" while creating a new opt-in internet donation drive. The intent of the drive was to collect email addresses from Ron Paul supporters. These supporters would be sent an email from Jesse Elder letting them know the time and date of the weekly donation. The weekly donation would occur within a one hour window to ensure a spike would occur on the graphs produced by Dan Bachelder, responsible for the ronpaulgraphs.com website. I helped him out with a website. The first weekly 'moneybomb' occured on October 20, 2007. $30,000.00 dollars was generated for Ron Paul in one hour. Other origins stem from a book entitled "The Money Bomb" was written by author, James Gibb Stuart. Published in 1983, the book was boycotted and blocked by the book distributive trade in the United Kingdom. The author has a website, www.jamesgibbstuart.org/moneybomb.php. Although Elder had no former knowledge of the book, the book is strangely aligned with Ron Paul's economic message.

Definition: The (word) 'moneybomb', is defined a large sum of money earned or generated in a brief span of time, or an explosion of wealth. The (term) 'the money bomb', from James Stuart, would indicate "a ticking time bomb" by way of the eventual collapse of our governments and societies due to zealous borrowing of money from privately owned central banks.

Intent: The intent of the (word) 'moneybomb' is a battle cry for the Second American Revolution. It is the first wave of dissent against an anti-sovereignty based, globalist worldview; a shot across the bow. The ideology is based on fighting fire with fire, or rather, fighting the influence of the central bankers, special interest groups, corrupt politicians, corporate agendas, and a biased/politically active press with the same currency that influences changes within Washington. Ron Paul just so happens to be carrying the flag for the Revolution and the people needed a way to raise their collective voices in protest, at the same time providing beneficial capital to Ron Paul's bid for the executive branch.

The fact is guys, you don't have the origin, you haven't provided an adequate definition, and lastly you are missing the intent all the while passing up history in the making. Your article is a hodge-podge of nominal factoids that provide no insight. I am sure much work is being poured into the article by many people. Unfortunately truth is once again being sucked under by artificial authority (by the corporate press) and legal bureaucratic tendencies (fear of the law by wiki). My frustration is not with Wiki and certainly not with the individuals working on the MoneyBomb article. Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 10:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Three pieces of advice.

1. If you want to write an encyclopedic article on 'moneybomb' wait until the general election is over, then write it. No one can claim bias or political agenda at that point.

2. If Wikipedia is using Corporate Media Outlets as it's primary source for "fact", then future history is being molded by corporate media. The assumption that modern news sources are 'truthful' or 'accurate' is absolutely frightening.

3. I personally think it is smart to place it into campaign financing. As for the inclusion of my name in the record. Not required or desired. When I decided to help Jesse promote the concept, which spawned the entire thing, including this Wiki-article, my only goal was to serve my country. Jesse Elder coined it, Eric Nordstrom promoted it, Lyman and Ron Paul supporters popularized it. Time will tell if the 'moneybomb' was effective in helping to change government. Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

James Sugra came up with a concept of a one day fundraising event and posted a video to youtube.com on October 15th 2007, this inspired Trevor Lyman to register the domain thisnovember5th.com on October 16th 2007.

Strangely a post was made on the Politics of Liberty website on October 14th 2007 about the moneybomb - see link: http://ronpaulosopher.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html

Stranger still is the fact that Trevor Lyman began to use the word "moneybomb" in advertisements for the November 5th fundraiser.

As I have stated before, the story behind the moneybomb is being written in reality by ongoing events. I have compiled a list (for you) to see where the MoneyBomb came from and where it is going.

The 'Moneybomb' should be viewed as the collective efforts of all grassroot internet based Ron Paul fundraising events and the initial symbolic unified action of the Second American Revolution.

From the original moneybomb to the present:

ronpaulmoneybomb@yahoo.com <- October 20, 2007 (Raised: $30,000.00) Jesse Elder-Eric Nordstrom http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com <- October 27, 2007 (Raised: $36,000.00) Jesse Elder-Eric Nordstrom http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com <- November 05, 2007 (Raised: $15,000.00) Jesse Elder-Eric Nordstrom http://www.thisnovember5th.com <- November 05, 2007 (Raised: $4,300,000.00) James Sugra-Trevor Lyman http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com <- November 11, 2007 (Raised: $3,000.00) Jesse Elder-Eric Nordstrom http://www.thisnovember11th.com <- November 11, 2007 (Raised: $230,000.00) Robert Krzyzanowski http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com <- November 17, 2007 (Raised: $5,000.00) Jesse Elder-Eric Nordstrom http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com <- November 26, 2007 (Raised: $8,000.00) Jesse Elder-Eric Nordstrom http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com <- November 30, 2007 (Raised: $7,200.00) Jesse Elder-Eric Nordstrom http://www.rudysreadinglist.com <- November 30, 2007 (Raised: $530,000.00) Trevor Lyman http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com <- December 07, 2007 (Raised: $2,300.00) Jesse Elder-Eric Nordstrom http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com <- December 16, 2007 (Raised: $1,300.00) Jesse Elder-Eric Nordstrom http://www.teaparty07.com <- December 16, 2007 (Raised: $6,040,000.00) Nathaniel Yao-Trevor Lyman http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com <- December 23, 2007 (Raised: $7,728.00) Jesse Elder-Eric Nordstrom http://www.ronpaulspayday.com <- December 28, 2007 (Raised: $9,395.00) Troy Fisher http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com <- December 31, 2007 (Raised: $21,000.00) Jesse Elder-Eric Nordstrom http://www.donate2008.org <- December 31, 2007 (Raised: $148,100.00) Vadim Guchinskiy http://www.ronpaulspayday.com <- January 04, 2008 (Raised: $9,085.00) Troy Fisher

Total Raised by the Moneybomb as of January 4th 2008: $11,403,108.00

I should mention that as of the date of Troy Fisher posting his video, promoting his concept of weekly donation, entitled "Stop the Moneybombs", the previously succesful method of fundraising known as a moneybomb, has become non-functional and may be a thing of the past. Attempts by both Eric Nordstrom and Trevor Lyman to revive the concept are being met with reluctance. Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Room for compromise

There seems to be room for compromise here. It looks like the real disputes are:

1. Whether the term "Moneybomb" (or "money bomb" or "money-bomb", etc.) was originally used by the Ron Paul campaign in 2007
2. Whether the article should give a detailed account of all the Ron Paul Moneybomb campaign events

Those are the important things. Whether or not a given source is reliable is really only important in terms whether it can be used to back information to be used in the article. Am I right?

Let me propose a compromise. It does seem as if the term got a lot of publicity tied to its early use by the Ron Paul campaign (lots of first class sources for that). Also, it seems as if no one else has either claimed to have originated the term, or has claimed that it was ever used before the Paul campaign. Therefore, it does seem as if its use by the Paul campaign is unusually notable, and it is probably OK to use the semi-official Ron Paul campaign sources that talk about the term, like http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com/ . We can stick in some words like "The Ron Paul Money Bomb web site claims that..." but it does seem likely that this is a term originated by supporters of the Paul campaign, so Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves seems to apply. These are partisan sources, and we can't use what they say about Mitt Romney, but we should be able to use what they says about the word Moneybomb. And claims to have originated the word, and the history of the word does seem to be important.

For the second part, the article is supposed to be about the term, not about Ron Paul fundraising in general. Details about each event that aren't directly linked to the use of the term do seem to be uncalled for. Since, as stated above, the use of the term by the Paul campaign does seem to be an unusually important use, it probably does make sense to have a sentence mention how many Moneybomb events the campaign has held, or a few about any particularly important Moneybomb events, but not a table listing each one with goal and date and amount and so forth. Again, if a particular event is determined to be important, we can use the semi-official Paul campaign sites as a reference for additional details on it, but we need to be able to show that other sources, say the NYTimes, or the Washington Post, covered the event to show that it was particularly important. The first (or third?) event, for example, does seem to be important from the impressive coverage. The others probably aren't.

Does this seem like a reasonable compromise that everyone can live with? That's what we call Wikipedia:Consensus around here, by the way. Not something that everyone likes, just something that everyone can grudgingly accept in the interests of getting something done. (For what it's worth, I am a Wikipedia:Administrator, but that's not a threat to use the tools, and it doesn't make me automatically right. Hopefully what I'm writing makes me right. :-) ) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. John, Elonka, Kaz? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mouse! The first question is almost exactly what I'm arguing. On the second, here's what I was about to add elsewhere in this talk:

Whether we should include a table of all moneybomb events, which I've pointed out is precisely similar to many other tabular and chronological presentations of this campaign's events (i.e., debates, polls, activities). Data in this table was drawn mostly from SPS and PSTS already mentioned. It is the most neutral way to demonstrate who had what events with what success, as well as to indicate the significance of the dates chosen for each bomb. Without the table, there is a clear article bias toward the 11/5 event, which is only one of 10 current and 3 or 4 scheduled moneybombs.

Note for example that you, Mouse, were misled by the article (as Elonka edited it) into thinking that the 11/5 was "the first event". It was the third (MB3). But I hadn't by that time found an RS to Elonka's satisfaction that said "third". A tabular presentation is very very neutral. Without it, there would be too much focus on Paul and not enough on the other 4 campaigns which have used the term "moneybombs" (reliably or not). John J. Bulten 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Nor enough on the non-11/5 moneybombs in general. John J. Bulten 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, the table, at least in this revision makes the information about the individual specific events take too much space. Same for much of the text in that revision, really. The article is about the term, not about individual fundraisers in one US presidential election. If the term truly is notable, then we will soon start having Moneybombs in other elections, and even other countries, we can't make a line for each one. The ones held by other candidates deserve a sentence or two specifically because they show that Moneybomb is not just a Ron Paul thing, but an idea in itself. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, then all I need to do is move the details to Fundraising for the 2008 presidential election with a link, which is an article that could use expansion. This will be great (unless the controversy follows me there). John J. Bulten 23:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That one seems to be sorted by quarter rather than by fundraising event, but the idea is probably good; we certainly need a link from this article to that one, as they're related. In any case, I'm going to stick to one article controversy at a time! :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In adding on to that, I think the Mike Huckabee For the Children fundraising day was called a money bomb by several of its supporters. If someone can find a reliable source for their usage of the term that would be one way of satisfying the talk of it being only a Ron Paul matter. I should also note that if there is no mainstream media coverage calling other events money bombs it is more because those have not really succeeded than anything else. I believe Kucinich supporters also have used the term "money bomb" to describe their own events. I do expect the term to gain a little more traction with December 16th and if the Kucinich one manages to garner a lot for him, it's gotten more backing than the Huckabee bomb, it might get that one some coverage too. I think money bomb came up a lot because of November 5th and the huge amount it brought in so if another one happens the term will be more commonplace and accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Devil's Advocate (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that "money bomb" could be tied to "google bomb" as well. Dfrazier 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's in the disambig part at the top of the page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"Penny drive" edits

I reverted this edit for a number of reasons. First, the two links given are not notable: the first is a link to a PDF from a middle school explaining about their honor society; the other is a link to a PDF about some school's fundraisers. Neither of these are notable links by any means. The original contributor has reverted my edits, and added a new link to "penny drive"; however, this link has no way of claiming notability. I'm not going to revert the edits again, but if someone else could chime in, that'd be great. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Again?

I can't believe this article is up for deletion again!! I thought this was resolved. And if you ask me, the older version of this article was much better. 76.20.37.122 06:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Major Rewrite

I've finished making quite a few changes to the page at 00:02, 3 December 2007 which I felt were needed to make it cleaner and flow better, as well as cutting out a lot of the clearly biased information and wording. I got rid of most Guy Fawkes talk since it seemed completely pointless and left only a sentence or two talking about it. I tried to emphasize the usage of the term outside of Ron Paul's campaign by giving information on the Dennis Kucinich December 15th drive since it seems a lot of them are using the moneybomb term to describe their event.

I think I've effectively dealt with most of the issue, bit it might need more work. Some of my sources and references might need to be replaced or reworked, but I tried to basically capture that this is not just a Ron Paul thing and emphasized in addition that it can be a helpful way of grassroots backing a perceived longshot candidate.

I added in a whole section for the explicit purpose of talking about how effective a moneybomb is, since I think that will be an issue coming up soon when the primaries roll around.

Hopefully this will save the article from deletion as I believe it is actually going to be a long-lasting term. I certainly don't think it belongs in the Ron Paul section, but really is significant enough to merit its own mention.--The Devil's Advocate 17:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)The Devil's Advocate 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the fourth time I've had to do this. Can you start signing your posts? Just add four tildes (~~~~) after your comments. It's not difficult. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

And don't revert other people's posts. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can We Even Trust the New York Times?

It's ironic that there's this authority worship regarding commercial "journalism", where we imagine them to be trustworthy secondary sources almost without question, while dismissing automatically secondary sources that simply are not some obvious corporate venture. For example, I have yet, to this day, to find ANY serious reference to Clinton's alleged all-time one day fundraising record, EXCEPT the New York Times' claims in reference to the November 5th money bomb. I do not trust that this happened, at all, and if we can't find some additional support for its existance, other than a mainstream newspaper playing down an anti-mainstream event, it should probably be changed, at least with a caveat as to its credibility, if not removed entirely. --Kaz (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox News affirms the Clinton fundraising mark at [8]. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I still wish we had SOME direct reference to that number. We have two different establishment media sources mentioning it solely in reference to Paul's fundraising, none actually covering the Clinton fundraiser directly, and quite possibly Fox only repeating what it got from the NYT. --Kaz (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Point of View Issues

Since the admin has brought back this article I think it is important to deal with problems that came up over it. In particular fixing problems with bias and point of view. I believe editing the article is the far more respectable way of dealing with these issues as opposed to trying to get it deleted.

I'm putting this up for people to bring up any specific point of view issues they have with the article so they can be reasonably dealt with and edited to insure neutrality of the article. However I would like to remind everyone that talking about Ron Paul more than other candidates is not itself bias as long as it is important to the subject and reliably sourced. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To start, please delete any information that is original research, or is promotional information from primary sources. This means get rid of anything sourced to Paul campaign sites, blogs, message boards, or YouTube videos. Unless it's already been discussed in a major news source such as a mainstream newspaper or magazine, it probably shouldn't be in this article. --Elonka 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit that my patience with this page grows thin, mostly due to all the Wikilawyering and nitpicking that I had to deal with above. But I'll second Elonka's idea to remove the OR. I'd also throw in that the sections need to be overhauled. Followup efforts and Analogues - what do these even mean? The Origin section needs to go. The V for Vendetta/Guy Fawkes thing is totally offtopic. The first line about the penny drive and its links (which I tried to remove, but it was reverted) is ridiculous. Has anyone even looked at those links? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few edits now trying to deal with most of what popped out to me. I changed Origin to Description and then included the information from Followup Efforts in that area. Right now there's only one source related to Paul, the Daily Paul, but I only used it to cite information on the weekly money bomb since I couldn't find any more reliable sources and didn't want to use the actual site. If someone can find a better source for it that would be great. As far as Analogues I'm not sure how to approach it as the information seems relevant, but the mentions of Hillary and Romney seem to be placed there mainly to relate it to November 5th, which is not supposed to be the main focus of the article. However, I think both have a place somewhere in the article. I hope I've satisfied most problems with it now, though.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Better, I guess, but I still disagree with the inclusion of this link. Whatever. I think I need to take a break from this page. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The following sources do not appear to be "reliable secondary sources" and they, and any information sourced to those locations, should be removed:

* Daily Paul

* nov20forthechildren.com

* newsandpolicy.com

* december152007.com

* barackobama.com

* pollingreport.com

As for YouTube, I see one link that is archiving a CNN segment, and one that is an obvious appeal for funds. The second one should be deleted immediately. The first one, should source not the YouTube video, but the actual CNN report. Try using the {{cite news}} template.

To be clear, I do not mean to imply that the information on the above sites is wrong. However, they all appear to me to be primary sources, and I would like to see this Moneybomb article stick to secondary sources. Further, the article is often trying to make claims based on the primary sources, that are not stated on the primary sources. For example, we can't link to a polling site and say, "Ron Paul experienced a surge in the polls," because that's us interpreting the data. That would be us doing original research, which is not appropriate. For a statement like that (which is clearly a promotional statement), we would need a secondary source that used the "surge" language. For more information on the difference between source types, see WP:PSTS. Secondary sources should be used instead of primary sources. --Elonka 05:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not interpreting the primary sources, but merely stating what is said in them. However, I have found a reliable secondary for Barrack Obama. I kept the December 15th and November 20th sites because it was all I could find that gave the information cited, except Daily Kos had something on December 15th. If there was another better source for it I would definitely use it, same with Daily Paul.

I'm really not sure what your issue is with news and policy.com or pollingreport.com, though, as newsandpolicy.com seems to be a news source and pollingreport.com just gives poll results from several weeks back. The claim of a "surge" or a big increase is easily verified by looking at the polls the site gives. Many news sources use the term surge to describe a sudden rise in the polls so I don't see how this can be considered "promotional", but if you'd rather the word "surge" be changed that can obviously done, but I think readers would understand the meaning.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Newsandpolicy.com is not a news source, it's a blog. And pollingreport.com, even if we take its information to be accurate, should not be used as a "raw data" feed in this way. Right now, the Moneybomb article is using pollingreport.com site as a source for the statement, "Also, while there is no definitive link, the period after the November 5th fundraising drive has also seen a surge for Ron Paul in the polls, showing the potential ability for a moneybomb to improve a candidate's place in a political campaign." Sorry, but no. That's a classic violation of no original research, and should be deleted unless we can find a reliable secondary source which makes that kind of interpretation. --Elonka 06:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Where are you getting that newsandpolicy.com is a blog? It has a blog, but it also has plenty of news. On the polls, I've found two sources that specifically talk about the increased poll numbers in relation to November 5th.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I went and made a post on RS/N about whether or not newsandpolicy.com is a reliable source. It seems to be a blog to me (and a politically skewed one at that), and their about page doesn't seem to indicate to me that they're a truly reliable source. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to toss in that John's latest edits have turned this page back to POV. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

In good faith, where is the POV? I made several changes, including deleting "penny bomb" as you wished and correcting two sentences as you guided; so I don't know what you refer to, and wish to reach consensus with you. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's restoring all the stuff about who registered which domain name first, etc., etc., in wearying and unencyclopedic detail. It all adds up to undue emphasis on the Ron Paul campaign, which is apparently the only thing you edit Wikipedia about. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Mike, I only restored two sentences, I suppose a case could even be made for one; but see D.A.'s intro above, because this is not undue weight on Paul. This is the first electronic print appearance of the usage of the term (said due to absence of counterexample), which is quite significant for any article. Readers want to know who first used the term and this is reliably documented. The first fundraiser was for Paul. What is the issue? (Digressive example: Obviously Ron Paul Girl (0 articles) is a copycat of Obama Girl (2 articles). I could captiously argue that there is undue weight here on Obama girl-activity for that reason and that Obama Girl should redirect to an article about political "girl" videos. I could try to obscure the fact that the meme of putting "girl" after a candidate name was coined by the Obama video makers. But that'd be silly. RPG was deleted because there is a bit of notability gap; e.g., she doesn't seem to release her full name, which might help her. I should have no animus toward WP revealing that Obama supporters originated the "girl" video idea, with details.) John J. Bulten (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Description, first paragraph. It's got all these intricate details that don't need to be there. Again, a reference to a YouTube page and a link to WHOIS for RonPaulMoneyBomb.com aren't acceptable sources. The Effectiveness of a moneybomb section is entirely about Ron Paul. Just because it works for Ron Paul doesn't mean it works for all candidates. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Some of them do need to be there; as I've said, YouTube name registration is a reliable primary source for the dating of the use of words, and Whois was approved as such at WP:RSN; And I didn't write Effectiveness. How would you like to address how the term originated? John J. Bulten (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not being respectful of consensus. OrangeMike, Elonka and I have all spoken up against this, yet you still continue to ignore what we're saying. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Effectiveness of a moneybomb section goes, I put that in, and obviously right now the only notable examples of its effectiveness will be with regards to Ron Paul. If there were other examples I would quickly use them, but I don't expect any non-Paul examples until after December 15th, since that Kucinich drive looks to be getting a lot more support than any previous drive set up for a candidate and has a lot more time. I'm sure if Obama supporters set up a moneybomb a few weeks before a date, rather than a few days, they'd have some astounding success as well. However, right now November 5th serves as the best example for it being effective.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

John, while I do agree with some of your edits, I think some of them clearly show a bias. For one your edits on the December 15th moneybomb and in the Effectiveness sections. You put on December 15th that their goal was "the same goal as the November 5th event" which may be true, but it gears the discussion back to Ron Paul and makes it sound like Kucinich supporters are just copying. Even if that's true, it is for the reader to decide. You also removed "in a largely unknown candidate" from the Effectiveness section. You may have felt that was a slight against Ron Paul, but I put that in there and I also support Ron Paul. Whether you like it or not, Ron Paul was and still is a largely unknown candidate. That was in fact, part of the reason the event was organized in the first place. I understand from witnessing it myself that many Ron Paul supporters are absolutely enraged by anyone calling Ron Paul a fringe candidate or longshot, but there has to be a degree of realism here because Ron Paul has been exactly that for months. Trying to keep that out of the article not only has an impact on neutrality, but also takes away from the strength of the article as well. The potential for a moneybomb to get interest in an unknown candidate is exactly why this is being replicated and will be replicated in future elections. Which is why I vouched for this article in the first place.

I'm not going to get myself muddied in whether there should be a mention of Jesse Elder or not, but I certainly don't get the point of mentioning specific information about James Sugra making a YouTube video, especially considering several videos used the references to V for Vendetta and/or Guy Fawkes Day. It certainly seems like some of your edits, even some subtle changes like changing "to get as many as" to "brought" are more like you're trying to make this article for Ron Paul supporters, as opposed to making it for general readers. You did make several good edits to this article, but there was a hint of bias in some of your edits.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I much appreciate your help; those were good-faith attempts to improve balance. I thought that one candidate's high goal-setting should be balanced by another's, and I also felt that removing the "unknown" made the purpose of moneybombing less Paul-centric. For instance, the Thompson bomb generated negative attention for a known candidate. I think Huckabee did well, Romney will announce something decent this weekend, and Kucinich will do well next weekend and (with Paul) get significant shared coverage. I would agree that technically the whole chain of custody Sugra to Lyman to boom is not as important; and maybe so with Nordstrom as well, though that depends on the whole of the article; but every WP article, when it has any ability to explain the who, what, where, and why of the origin of a word, does so. There is simply no fact dispute that anyone used "moneybomb" as fundraiser before Elder did on 10/14; it's verified repeatedly; so what would be the problem? But at any rate, I'm so happy we're back to normal editing cycles. John J. Bulten (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I undid the deletion of the Obama mention because the source provided is coming from a journalist for Wired Magazine. Even if it's in her blog, it's still written by a journalist for a legitimate news site. A journalist's blog on a news site is basically an opinion page, so it certainly is reliable information and directly cites the source of the information as well.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

An opinion piece is not a reliable source. Please stick only to reliable secondary sources. If we don't have a reliable secondary source for some information, it probably shouldn't be in this article. -Elonka 06:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Their opinion isn't accepted as fact, but it's not an opinion that Obama's fundraiser raised a little over $4,600. Surely a journalist, especially one providing the exact source of the information should be taken to be a reliable source. While I would say the primary source itself is reliable, especially when all you're doing is saying what the source says which is exactly what WP:PSTS says to do with primary sources, certainly a journalist for Wired magazine is considered a reliable secondary source for factual information.

Also, it would be nice if you were specific about the problems you have, specifically what you see as original research. For a while you've been pretty vague about this matter, basically saying it's there and telling someone else to fix it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been very specific, multiple times, and I have tried editing the article to neutrality and verifiability, and just gotten reverted. So to repeat: Everything in this article that does not come from a reliable secondary source, should be removed. This means remove everything that's referenced to a YouTube video, or a non-news website. It means don't make original research conclusions based on poll results. It means don't use opinion pieces as sources. It also means, please stop reverting the good faith changes of more experienced editors. It's gotten to the point where you're even reverting administrators now. To repeat: Everything in this article that does not come from a reliable secondary source, should be removed. --Elonka 07:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You can not simply dictate what can or can not be used and then go after something which violates what you personally dictate. There are only three primary sources being used in this article and all are being used according to policy and only being used due to a lack of reliable secondary sources citing that information. You're asking me to defer to you and others on this only because they either have been editing longer or because of their status in Wikipedia. However, whether an edit from any person, established or not, is made in good faith or not is irrelevant. I explained on the talk page why I reverted the edit on the Obama source. It was a journalist from a reliable news source on that news source's page, citing factual information from a primary source all of the information was descriptive and easily verifiable by any reasonable reader. Removing it simply because it was a blog by a journalist, as opposed to an article by the same journalist, is ridiculous. In fact the policy provides an explicit exception for this kind of case. One revert I made I ultimately did because I provided citations and the other I changed the wording so that it would be verifiable by the sources already in the paragraph. With regards to the Kucinich YouTube video, it was not being used as a source of information, but specifically to note a case of viral advertising being used for the December 15th money bomb.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not me "dictating" a personal request. This is me explaining Wikipedia's core policies. There are certain things on Wikipedia that are recommended guidelines, which may or may not be followed. There are other rules here that are inviolate policies that must be adhered to. One of the core pillars of Wikipedia is that of verifiability. Any promotional or contentious information that is added to Wikipedia, must come from a reliable source, otherwise it can be considered original research, which is against Wikipedia policies. Multiple longterm established editors have tried explaining this, but there seems to still be confusion on this point. You say that primary sources are being used "due to a lack of secondary sources." Well, that's exactly the kind of information which should be removed from the article. It's not about putting in information, and then keeping it hanging around until sources show up. It's about only putting in information, for which you already have a reliable secondary source. If you don't have a source yet, then the information shouldn't be in the article yet. If a source shows up later, then you can add the information to the article.

Where there's a dispute about the reliability of the source, well-meaning editors may of course differ. And everyone does get a say. But the opinions of editors of editors who have a clear Conflict of Interest, and who are behaving in a single purpose account manner, do not carry very much weight. I realize that you think you have a case for why this information should stay in the article. I, and other editors, disagree with your argument. So, we should remove the information from the article, and bring the discussion to the talkpage, and talk about it. If we can develop a consensus that the information should go back into the article, then it can go back in at that time. But when you are just resisting the opinions of other editors, and forcing information back into the article over strong objections, this is called Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and can lead to being blocked from the project. Now please, the best way to proceed here, is to remove all information from the article that is controversial. We can definitely keep talking about it, but let's talk about it from the point of view of "Whether or not it should go back in," not "Whether or not it should come out." --Elonka 08:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It is you dictating because primary sources can be used as long as all they're used for is descriptive purposes, that's clearly stated in the policy and that's all they are being used for, nothing more. Using reliable secondary sources is preferred and I myself would prefer it, but it is not policy itself. Generally I would think primary sources would only be used in a case where there was no secondary source, since the secondary source would be preferred over the primary every time. I do agree that secondary sources should be used, but they don't have to be used. Also I made some of those edits to provide balance and neutrality. If you get rid of them as you clearly want, that would seriously take away from the neutrality of the article because all there would be is mention of November 5th's success, contrasted with the failure of Fredsgiving day.

A promotional video or site when used as a reference for information on that site is clearly a valid reference and a reliable source, though a secondary source would be preferred, it is not required.

Honestly, why on earth are you accusing me of tendentious editing? There is absolutely nothing to discuss here for what I reverted. I showed where to look exactly for why I reverted the information on Obama. The policy clearly creates an exception for a case where a blog is written by a professional journalist and especially when it's on the site of their employer. The other two reverts I made were prior to or after edits to deal with the reason for those edits I reverted. I did not revert any other edits, even if I disagreed with them, because they were issues of particular contention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Move info to new Grassroots Fundraising article

Originally when I vouched for this article I did so for two reasons. One, I felt the information it contained and the phenomena it described was significant to future political campaigns and two, there was no legitimate place to move the information were the article deleted. However, I also realize a lot of the information here doesn't truly belong in the article. The article is specifically about the term moneybomb, but I was using it to talk about the technique it's named after. Several of the efforts here, like from Romney and Obama are only called "money bombs" by Ron Paul supporters or the media. Because of this I felt unsure about what really should be done with the article, but opted for keeping it. Today, however, I realized that not all of them are called moneybombs, but every last one has something in common, grassroots fundraising. So, I started a new article called grassroots fundraising and put it in the Politics series under campaign finance. I only have a few short paragraphs in the article mainly just to give an idea of what it's about.

I'm suggesting that most of the information in this article be moved to the new article and only leaving information here that specifically relates to the neologism. That way we can leave the stuff about Jesse Elder in this article since it relates mainly to the origin of the term. If any objections are raised to this article then we could merge the two in the future and have a section specifically on the term moneybomb in the grassroots fundraising article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Toward removing tags

The original research and synthesis tags were put up last week I believe by Elonka, and the neutrality tag by Coredesat on first closing. Since these are for temporary use and there have been many sharply different versions, I would like to know if anyone has specific examples of these 3 categories that still remain, so we can reach consensus. I've deleted a couple obvious ones and so have others. Of course, if no one removes the tags but the items below are all addressed and new ones are not forthcoming for awhile, I trust it should be safe to drop the tags. Please number cases to keep discussions separate, thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is still chock full of original research and unreliable sources. I've already elaborated on the points above, I'm not going to go into them in detail again. Please fix my above concerns first, and then I'll take another look. --Elonka 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded on Elonka's comment. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll list here what you flagged. Some are not mine. I'll comment later and see if others have individual opinion first. John J. Bulten (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Since then similar efforts have been organized for other 2008 presidential candidates.[citation needed]
   1. Sample comment: This seems to be a fine summary statement, reliably sourced in the article such as by UPI. We can just copy the footnote refs to it. John J. Bulten (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

      The fact that you are trying to convey may be verifiable, but the wording is not. Two sources refer to "Fredsgiving Day", referencing "Money Bomb", but neither posits a trend, and both describe an unauthorized effort not endorsed by the campaign. All sources for this article appear to aver "Money Bomb" as a Ron Paul "brand"; even the Wired blog --- hardly a good source for mainstream political reporting --- suggests only that Obama's supporters aim to mimic Paul's fundraising success, not the individual tactics. --- tqbf 00:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

      How would we change the wording? Even assuming your view, it doesn't say moneybomb is not a Paul brand, but that the effort is similar to that described. (But even so, Geraghty at National Review has twice described other campaigns' attempts as "money bombs".) Where is the problem? John J. Bulten (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

      That's not what Geraghty said; he's drawing a comparison, but strongly associating the term with Paul. I've revised the article with neutral wording. --- tqbf 04:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

      On this point, while I don't yet agree with your wording (and we are not usually neutral about our own neutrality), it can stand until I think of exactly what issue I have with it. However, I am more concerned that you seem to be taking your view, that "moneybomb" is a Ron Paul brand, and reading it into sources where it is not explicitly there. These two Geraghty pieces make clear that he believes similar events may be called "money bombs" and that he recognizes they are calculated to rival Paul's money bomb. To make those bare facts say that Paul trademarked the term does not work for me. Similarly, it is clear that some Obama followers do indeed wish to mimic the same moneybomb tactic; even if the individual website starter denies it, the methodology is identical. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

2. The popular usage of "moneybomb" to describe a coordinated mass donation drive for a political candidate can be traced to a weekly donation drive, the Ron Paul Money Bomb, which aimed to raise $1 million each week for Ron Paul's presidential campaign.[2][citation needed] (Daily Paul)
   1. Sample comment: It's a primary source and is only being used descriptively.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

      It's the words "popular usage" there that are a problem, along with the implication that a campaign brand has actually entered the lexicon, which it has not. --- tqbf 00:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

      So, delete "popular" and we're done? John J. Bulten (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

      Ahh, the Assumptive close (can that not be an article?!) It definitely improves the neutrality of the article. No idea when "done" is. =) --- tqbf 04:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Jesse Elder, a New York City jazz pianist,[3][4] registered the new identity "RonPaulMoneyBomb" at YouTube;[5][citation needed] (New York Times, All About Jazz, YouTube)

   1. Irrelevant detail that should be left out of the article. This is not a 500 word news story written in inverted pyramid, and we are not out to capture all the human interest elements of the story. If Elder is notable, make an article for him, bluelink his name here, and lose all details about him. Right now it reads like an appeal to celebrity. --- tqbf 00:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

      First I'd heard Elder is a celebrity, I was just trying to prove he exists. So drop the bio and this is OK? It is the first usage in print, and sources showing the word was thus "coined" (Politico, Free Market News) are still in dispute or they'd be here too. John J. Bulten (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

      I don't have a good suggestion here; maybe someone else can chime in? What I'll say is that on first read, the "Jazz pianist" stuff with the news cites made it seem like the article was appealing to celebrity to bolster the notability of the term. --- tqbf 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Eric Nordstrom then registered the identical .com domain.[6][citation needed] (Network Solutions)

   20 years from now, when students are dissecting the 2008 election, why on earth are they going to care about this detail? If it's controversial, just lose it. --- tqbf 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   I can drop this in exchange for consensus that mention of Elder, the coiner, will remain. John J. Bulten (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   If you think both belong, say that. I think the domain registration detail is extraneous. --- tqbf 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

   Of course I think both belong, but this is called suggesting useful compromises. Thank you for participating. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   You and I are playing different games; I'm playing "write an encyclopedia that will be valuable 20 years from now", and you appear to be playing "devise a committee to get as much pro-Paul material into that encyclopedia as possible". Things are verifiable or not, and neutral or not. --- tqbf 22:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

   I missed this comment when it appeared. The purpose of WP is not "value in 20 years", but value over the entirety of the 20 years and more, so your stated purpose is inaccurate. Further, my attributed purpose is an appearance you derive without stating your evidence. I believe the coiner of "moneybomb" and the operator of the first moneybomb website are both notable, I have compromised by permitting one to be dropped, the info is verifiable and neutral, and yet from that you derive your appearance of a "committee" (is this a canvassing accusation also?). John J. Bulten (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Supporters of Mike Huckabee organized a moneybomb on November 20 to commemorate International Children's Day, which raised nearly $225,000, well over the pledged amount, bringing Huckabee's monthly total to $1 million as of November 20th.[11][citation needed] (Nov20ForTheChildren)
   1. Sample comment: It's a primary source and is only being used descriptively.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

      Extraordinarily disingenuous to assert that the article's sources verify that Huckabee organized a "money bomb". Defending claims like this costs you credibility. It's the attempt at branding all effective online grassroots fundraising with a Ron Paul campaign term that is most objectionable here. --- tqbf 00:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

      So, change "moneybomb" to "similar event" and we're done? John J. Bulten (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

      Already done, but that begs a question; why isn't this article merged into Grassroots fundraising? The sad thing here is, you're doing all this work to source and explain other candidates grassroots efforts, but they're getting shot at because this article attributes that work to Paul. Something like 35% of this article doesn't even apply to Paul, and another 20-30% is redundant with Grassroots. Why is this even here? --- tqbf 04:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

6. Supporters of Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign are also using the term "moneybomb" to describe their own major fundraising drive aimed for December 15, 2007, the anniversary of the Bill of Rights coming into effect.[12][citation needed] (News and Policy)
   1. Sample comment: This one is currently being discussed at WP:RSN.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

      Venue shopping much? This is a statement sourced to a group blog. Per WP:SPS and WP:V, if it's controversial (it is), and you can't find better sources, it should go. --- tqbf 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

      Where was that controversy? I'll grant that the use of the word was limited to the editorialist, not the Kucinich supporters, but fixing that, what remains? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

      In the context of WP:V, the "controversy" you're looking for is this talk page, which is something like 12 times larger than the article. The Kos cite has to go. --- tqbf 21:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Proposed on November 6 on Daily Kos, the drive has an ultimate goal for 100,000 pledges of $100.[13][citation needed] (December152007)
   1. Sample comment: It's a primary source and is only being used descriptively.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

      It's an WP:SPS that doesn't even refer to the term in the article, intended to boost the credibility of the neologism by putting a major candidates name and a large dollar figure next to the term. Any collection of 10 people online could declare, say, a "Hilary Clinton money bomb", and it appears you'd add a graf for that too. --- tqbf 00:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

8. Kucinich supporters are using viral advertising techniques to promote the drive by putting up YouTube videos and circulating them throughout the web.[citation needed]
   1. Sample comment: If you don't mind a YouTube video being used as an example of this specific claim it would be fine.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Along with generating a significant amount of donations for a political candidate, a moneybomb can also generate significant media interest in a largely unknown candidate.[citation needed]
   1. Sample comment: I changed it to say low-polling since all the sources in that paragraph and section make this clear.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
10. In addition to the media coverage, the November 5 drive was able to get 21,000 new donors to the campaign, over half of the donors on that day.[18][citation needed] (AP)

    I see no objection to this. John J. Bulten (talk) 02:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

    I object. This article is sliding midway down a slippery slope from documenting a notable neologism to becoming a more general article about Paul's fundraising successes. The detail in question is unneeded to explain what a "money bomb" is. What you might do is cut all the numbers out of the article, write a short sentence to the effect of "early in the 2008 campaign, money bombs were an effective tool in the Paul campaign", and retain the sourcing to fend off objections.

    The irony is, this content would be less POV in Grassroots fundraising, where they would be describing the general trend of online fundraising more than the successes of the Paul campaign. --- tqbf 04:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

11. While there is no definitive link, after November 5, Ron Paul saw a measurable rise in the polls, showing the potential ability for a moneybomb to improve a candidate's place in a political campaign.[20][21][citation needed] (TransWorldNews, NBC4)
    1. Sample comment: Both sources clearly state a link between the two and both mention a significant rise in the polls, since both sources are not definitive on that link, but suggest there is one, I see nothing wrong.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the synthesis tag can definitely be removed. It would seem the main issue in dispute here is neutrality and original research/unverifiable claims, even there it seems this is more a debate of whether the sources are appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The SYN tag is just a more helpful version of the OR tag. An editor less helpful than the ones here have been would just revert. Most of the OR we've removed this evening has been SYN. If you want to remove the tag, that's fine (someone may put it back on), but if your ultimate goal is to scrub all the OR out, removing the tags may just slow things down. --- tqbf 04:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's keep the OR tag and delete the SYN tag. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert it back in, but someone else might; you haven't addressed the SYN concern. --- tqbf 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In good faith, I and the other editors have now attempted to address each of these tags above according to the concerns raised here. As anyone spots additional OR or NPOV issues, please state them here so they can be addressed. This is scheduled to be a big weekend for this article, so I will particularly be patrolling it against obvious vandalism. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The link between polling success and "money bombs"

Couple problems with this graf:

1. Presumes a link between fundraising success and polling numbers at this stage of the election; the link between fundraising and polling is itself contestable, and the implication of poll results that far in advance of the election is widely attributed to name recognition.
2. None of the sources for this graf use the term "moneybomb". This is not an article about Ron Paul. Nor is it an article about Grassroots fundraising. Indeed, that's the biggest problem with the article: what is it doing here? Why isn't it a subhed under Grassroots?
3. Is an advocacy statement for a campaign tactic.

I'm not going to revert this change; I'm just going to tag it. If you're wondering why the tag is there, now you know! --- tqbf 22:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Both sources say it is connected or suggest a connection explicitly:

1. "They pointed out that the higher poll numbers in the second week of November was inflated due to the boomlet and backed up their claims with a few other polls in New Hampshire showing Ron Paul's support at just 2% and 4%."
2. "Coming in fourth for the first time was Ron Paul, who has seen a surge of interest, partially sparked by a one-day online fundraising record of $4.2 million."

Both are suggesting a link between the two.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the "boomlet" they speak of? Do they mean the moneybombing? The fact that the edit says "While there is no definitive link" means that it shouldn't be included. Unless a definitive link has been established and can be verified, the use of two sources to come to a conclusion counts as WP:SYN. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also not enamored of the fact that USAELECTIONPOLLS.COM, the origin of the "boomlet", is cited only by TRANSWORLDNEWS.COM in the entire history of the g-news archive. Who are these people? This is a dubious graf with bad sourcing that isn't even directly related to the article itself. Why are we arguing over it? Let's just lose it. --- tqbf 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

When did NBC become a bad source? They're actually more explicit. They don't say there is no definitive link, but that it is in fact partially responsible. They're clearly referring to November 5th, which is basically used as the model of a moneybomb here, in the NBC article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently we agree about TRANSWORLDNEWS.COM; excellent. NBC is a decent source. It simply doesn't seem to verify the claims made in that graf. Again, the issue here is, this isn't an article about Paul's success. It's an article about a neologism. This graf is not about the word, but rather about Paul. WP:COATRACK. If you care about how credible the article is, or how likely it is to be merged, you either want to find better sourcing (one that says "CAMPAIGN + MONEY BOMB = HIGHER POLL RATING") or lose the graf. --- tqbf 03:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's more about what word is used for. Which, if you look, that's why I brought up the grassroots fundraising article in the first place.--The Devil's Advocate 03:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Devil's Advocate (talk • contribs) --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Due respect, but you're dancing around my question. Neither of these sources use the word "moneybomb". The article is about the word. What's the graf doing here? --- tqbf 06:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The article could be changed to refer to both the word and the technique if that would make it better and then it wouldn't just be an article about a neologism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it can't. Respectfully, I don't think you're reading what I'm saying carefully. The article you propose already exists. You and John should work on merging this content into that article, and into the Ron Paul articles. --- tqbf 19:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've said before I'm for doing that and started that article because of that. However, I'm not going to doing anything unless I get more support for it, simple.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Dumb question, re "analogues"

Doesn't this section, by asserting that single-day fundraising records have been set by many other mainstream candidates (clearly none of whom called their drives "moneybombs") strike a blow to this article's claim to "notability"? --- tqbf 02:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's part of the problem; indeed, perhaps the biggest part. This is going to be a footnote in history, I suspect, that only the most diehard of ex-Paulistas will remember in 4 or 5 years. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Per lead, the article is about grassroots efforts to create fundraising spikes. The idea of such grassroots spikes indisputably came into the mainstream on 11/5 and was widely adopted by many grassroots supporters and countenanced by several campaigns. The "analogues" were not efforts at creating fundraising spikes, except for Romney's, which was not grassroots; they are provided as historical precursors for background. Grassroots spikes themselves are notable separately from generic grassroots fundraising activity, because of having set the record and drawing media attention to many similar events. The term to describe these spikes ("moneybomb") is used for convenience according to demonstrated widespread usage. Again, though there are a couple reliable sources calling the non-Paul events moneybombs, there are many many other sources calling them so also. The article is not about "historical use of phrases like 'moneybomb'" per se, it is about fundraising spikes, and as such has a brief overview of how they came to be named moneybombs most commonly. And Mike, please put away the crystal ball. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the claim that "grassroots fundraising spikes" "came into the mainstream" only in 11/5 dubious at best; I certainly don't see that assertion sourced. More importantly, as you just summed up this article, it appears to be little more than a nuance in the Grassroots fundraising article. Why does this article exist? I'm starting to take your lack of response to that question as a concession. --- tqbf 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My friend, your argument is from silence. Clearly on 11/5 and 11/6 there were ~50 news stories about a record-setting grassroots fundraising spike. Clearly every spike attempt since has been admittedly responsive to that event (Obama-fan brashness notwithstanding). If you have evidence that such a concept hit the mainstream earlier, please provide. I also apologize that my prior answer ("Grassroots spikes themselves are notable separately from generic grassroots fundraising activity") was not clear enough. Simply, if we put all this content into the grassroots fundraising article, it would become a coatrack, because the article would suddenly be "all about" spikes, instead of a balanced description of its topic of grassroots fundraising. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Signing off...

Tried my best to help, hopefully I succeeded on balance. This article should be merged into Grassroots fundraising; I'm also a reliable delete if this goes up for AfD again.

--- tqbf 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sick of this.

Okay, I'm sorry, but this has to stop. These latest edits are adding more bias into this page. Seriously, are we just going to keep adding bias to this page? When is this going to stop? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, please be specific. Is it bias to mention that Paul had more than one moneybomb? Is it bias to attempt to keep everyone's fundraising numbers trimmed back to about the same level of reporting? Is it bias to mention the disparity in Clinton's numbers? Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This page is on RfC now. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Statements from current editors

One of the biggest issues we're currently facing on this page is whether or not the page is biased towards Ron Paul, and by how much. Additionally, the reliability of some sources, or the inclusion of some links (such as YouTube) have been questioned above. Accusations of WP:TEND have been thrown around, and users have been hostile. Just a little help would be appreciated. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From the start I've said that it would be natural to expect a bit more weight to Paul simply because no other campaign adopted the practice until after Paul's supporters had gotten mainstream notice on 11/5. I believe there may be probably two sentences too many on Paul at this point, but over time we are balancing that out. I have made some edits that reflect poorly on Paul which have been deleted as well. Discussion is appreciated but all specifically stated bias concerns have already been addressed. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Of the 9 grafs preceding "Analogues" (an atypical psuedo-"See also"), 6 are dedicated entirely to Paul's fundraising success. The remaining 3 attempt to impute the successes or failures of other candidates to how well they adopt Paul's fundraising strategy. --- tqbf 18:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be counting the lead among your "dedicated entirely" paragraphs, which does not appear to fit; and your idea that someone is imputing success or failure to others based on how well they imitate Paul does not appear to come from anywhere in the article (unless you want to rely on well-sourced statements since deleted, like the Palm Beach Post attributing Thompson supporters with paying the highest compliment by imitating Paul). I have inserted several other sentences on Thompson and Romney that have been deleted and that I have not currently fought for reinserting due to climate. The 3 paragraphs of "effectiveness" is where I've granted trimming and balancing is desirable. Given those points, the article is close to proper weighting right now. But it'd be more proper for us to discuss specific fixes please. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is miles better than it was previously, and a lot of great work has been done to it. I think in its present state it is a good article for Moneybomb, and I don't really see any significant biases. To be accurate with regards to the reporting of the efforts of other candidates is important, and if they really failed then that is truth. Just because someone is very successful and others fail does not mean it is an automatic bias or slap in the face to the others. Once the fundraisers are sourced, then I think it will need little editing. Monsieurdl (talk) 12:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Choosing my words carefully, at this moment, it seems very difficult to verify the assertion that other candidates are adopting a fundraising tactic from Ron Paul. It is less difficult to verify that unauthorized efforts by two candidates --- Thompson and Kucinich --- have been inspired by Ron Paul fundraising. But that's not what the article reports. I also think that undue weight applies here; we can't predict who will win the '08 GOP primary, but all the verifiable indicators in reliable sources suggest that it will not be Ron Paul. To suggest that the other candidates are looking to Paul for guidance seems unbalanced. --- tqbf 17:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If the sources say that the others have been directly influenced this Ron Paul approach, then by all means it should be included. Influences are obvious here in my mind though- a lot of copycat things go on, and it doesn't reflect a bias for Paul as it does a recognition of his success and the art of imitation. Proper sourcing will bear this out hopefully! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 17:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. For what it's worth, I think this will be a far easier article to discuss in 2-3 months, and that's not a long time to wait. I dove in to try to help, but I don't have strong opinions about the article. --- tqbf 17:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't have opinions either way as I'm not allowed to get into US political beliefs, and even if I did I'd approach it the same way. I just happened to stumble in here and thought I could help. Maybe it just needs a rest from editing as you suggested! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 20:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No real issues for me after a quick read. Raggz (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Other candidates

This article needs to stop imputing the Ron Paul "moneybomb" to Obama. Romney, and Thompson. I ask specifically: is there a single credible reference that connects Obama to the term "moneybomb" without reference to Ron Paul?

It's one thing to live-and-let-live until after Paul loses the GOP primary. It's another for this article to metastasize into yet another hagiographic comparison between Paul and the mainstream candidates.

--- tqbf 15:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for betraying your crystal-ball POV that Paul will lose the GOP primary (you mean nomination?) and your OR that Paul is not a "mainstream candidate" (whatever that means). Please take warning that such statements can be deleted under WP:BLP. Now, umm, your question seems to be: is there a reference to Obama supporters using the neologism "moneybomb" that does not mention the origin of the neologism (which happens to be Paul supporters)? Wow, tall order, but I'll take a look. However since a reliable source does recognize the event as copycat behavior, your question may be moot. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely have a POV on Paul. What's your point? Having a POV doesn't disqualify me from working on the article. It's the article that needs to be NPOV, not the editors. --- tqbf 17:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've told other editors, when your POV rises to the level of your confusing it with NPOV by stating it as a bald assertion or implication, you are in danger of breaching BLP even in talkspace. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't even know what the preceding paragraph even means. I'm going to disregard. Feel free to take to my talk. --- tqbf 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As for my issue: unless you can find a source that specifically shows the Obama campaign calling their fundraising drive a "moneybomb", you can't write about Obama's fundraising in this article, at least not without making the difference clear, and not without making sure you don't give undue weight to the successes of mainstream candidates in an article about a fringe candidate. --- tqbf 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is about attempts at fundraising spikes; it is not about a fringe candidate (nor about Paul for that matter). A reliable source described Obama's fundraising spike attempt and classified it as one of the fundraising spike attempts within the scope of this article-- in fact, noting its obvious inspiration from other attempts. Your statement that one can't write about Obama without meeting your criteria (using "moneybomb" without Paul reference?!) does not agree with these facts. But what compromise can I offer when you still believe, against basic WP classification guidelines, that the topic of this article is a fringe candidate instead of a fundraising method? John J. Bulten (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this article is about the term moneybomb. --- tqbf 20:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wherever did you get that idea? Is the article sudoku about the word "sudoku"? Or is this true of any other neologism? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What a mess.

After this latest string of edits, the Description section is a huge mess. These edits were interjected basically in the middle of other sentences, so now the references don't line up. I know I'm infringing on being revert-heavy, but the quality of the page is being compromised by an SPA. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit blanked out a section that maintained this article's neutrality, so I'm reverting everything I'll leave it to someone else to deal with; it's just one editor's opinion, after all. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 16:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the constant edits. I've added in some info about the Boston Tea Party event, and restored some references that were altered by the other editor. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

moneybombs -> polling

Pretty hard to support with Gallup showing him polling 3%, alongside Alan Keyes. Alan Keyes. Heh.

Assertion: there's no verifiable source that shows his polling numbers improving as a result of moneybombs.

--- tqbf 03:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

There had already been one. Why wouldn't it be there now? John J. Bulten (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Because it was wrong? Paul's fundraising success has improved, and is inversely proportional to his polling results. --- tqbf 17:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My friend, you are relying on one alleged poll drop, where many other polls (both drops and spikes) could be mentioned. But I observe that the source referred more generally to "interest" than to polling numbers; let's try it that way? John J. Bulten (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Gallup poll. Gallup has Paul polling neck and neck with Keyes, even after setting fundraising records. There is no current verifiable link between moneybombs and polling success. --- tqbf 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded on the verifiability of that link. Unless you can find a reliable source to definitively say that there's a link, it can't be added. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, TQBF, you are relying on one alleged poll drop. Please see the source you deleted for a clear link between a reliably observed poll rise and the moneybomb. However, you could easily make a much better case, namely, that sources may disagree about whether there was a mid-November rise, irrespective of your alleged mid-December drop. But do you have a source that denies that Paul rose from 4% to 8% in WMUR-CNN from Sep to Nov? Or perhaps that denies that NBC linked that rise to the moneybomb? Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm citing the most recent Gallup. It's not alleged. There is no verifiable link between moneybombs and polling success. --- tqbf 18:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me help you: Here's all the polling reports. What verifiable conclusion do you propose to draw from them? --- tqbf 18:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you! There's plenty of data there for the verifiable conclusion that Paul is rising in the polls. However, that fact is already backed up more directly by plenty of reliable sources, and (as a general observation) is also not directly relevant to the article. What is a relevant verifiable conclusion is, as I said, that NBC noticed a doubling in WMUR-CNN polls and attributed it partly to the moneybomb, which is now reflected properly in the article.

Here's the raw data you linked (in every set of polls a general rise is detectable by purely mechanical trendlines): USAT/G 1220012032314251543 Diageo/FD 227 ARG 1011111245 ABC/WP 11221333 CNN/OR 1211221256 CBS/NYX 4 AP/Ipsos 3 LAT/B 25 AP/Pew 4 R/Z 31235 Fox/OD 120232213 Cook/RTS 01122036 NBC/WSJ 22224 Newsweek 223 WNBC/M 102 Quin 10122 Pew 213 ABC/WP 1111213. If you wish to be specific, you could say that Gallup showed Paul jump from 2 to 5 when his impressive 3Q figures arrived, then drop to 1, then jump to 5 again immediately after the moneybomb, and then drop slower to 3. But please don't disingenuously pretend the recent Gallup drop to 3 is related to the 1-to-5 rise immediately after the moneybomb, as your seriously POV/UW "inversely proportional" statement suggests. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Gallup shows a drop in the wake of the most successful "moneybomb". Hence, no verifiable causal link. Note also that extrapolating trendlines is fine in a talk page, but is the definition of WP:OR in article text. --- tqbf 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

tqbf is right - that's OR, plain and simple. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I know very well it would be OR in this situation, which is why I said it's irrelevant and tried to engage you on the relevant issue. My position is unchanged that relying on the one untimely poll with a drop of 1% is math abuse-- plain and simple. The Gallup poll actually "in the wake" showed a 4% rise, mirroring the WMUR-CNN. Your use of the late poll in the text was not untoward, however. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It's "math abuse" to report, as you did, that a candidate "doubled" their results between two polls in which the results were within the MoE. As you are pointing out, there is no verifiable link to be reported. I am not making a case that Paul's support is dropping; there's no need. I'm simply pointing out that there's no verifiable increase. Therefore, graf ejected. --- tqbf 21:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I withdraw the word "doubled". However there is a verifiable sourced link on a verifiable temporal increase in the CNN data. Your dismissive responses do not appear to be addressing my and Devil's Advocate's concerns or seeking consensus with us. I am giving you a chance to try again at the topic below. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are citing a source that reports no statistically significant increase. What do you want me to say? You have no source that verifies a link between moneybombs and poll results. Perhaps instead of trying to cajole me into pretending that there is one, your time is better spent finding such a source. --- tqbf 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Polling stats

We can't report that Paul "doubled" his polling results from 4% to 8% in a poll with an MoE of 3.5%.

--- tqbf 20:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, we should strike this whole graf. There's no conclusive facts to report here. Note that reporters are notoriously crappy at reporting statistical events; NBC4 didn't even report the MoE.

Takers?

--- tqbf 20:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me. It's adding extra bias, at the very least. The last sentence in the paragraph doesn't even have to do with effectiveness. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

(conflict) Your edit seemed fine, if wordy. The conclusive fact is that an NBC affiliate is attributing a poll rise partly to moneybombs. Alternative POVs are fine too. Your contention that it contains no "conclusive facts" is, well, contentious. NBC reports something reliably, though admittedly lacking the MoE, and all of a sudden they are disqualified as unreliable with an obscenity? Let's use common sense here. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that I don't know what "unreliable with an obscenity" means. --- tqbf 21:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added wikilink brackets to your comment as the simplest form of illustration. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You think the word "crappy" is obscene? I wasn't referring to NBC as "crappy"; I was referring to mainstream media coverage of statistical events as "crappy", an opinion you could find readily acknowledged in CJR. Hopefully that resolves this thread. --- tqbf 21:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Stricken. The NBC article didn't even use the term "moneybomb", and it reported a statistically insignificant increase. No statistically significant trend is observable in any polling reports since the money bombs (the UNH poll had a typical MoE, and reported the largest increase, and was still reporting a "trend" with overlapping confidence intervals). The most recent credible poll, from Gallup, reports a drop. There's no verifiable link to report.

All this graf can do is argue over the issue of a link between "moneybombs" and polling results. However, no reliable source reports any such controversy, largely because Paul polls neck-and-neck with Alan Keyes and therefore isn't a focus of MSM attention.

--- tqbf 21:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How to respond calmly? Without dwelling on what I regard as your various errors, and without escalating into edit war, I have two issues with your strike. I believe that NBC reliably perceiving a poll rise and attributing it partly to a moneybomb is important to the topic "effectiveness of a moneybomb". Second, I believe the campaign's offhand comment about value of free media coverage is also important to the same topic. (But on that second, I'm going to presume your only dispute there was sourcing and simply see if you will accept that statement restored with a source later (obviously a self-published one).) The proper WP response is to say (exactly as you did) NBC sees an attributable rise; other sources suggest no rise; end of discussion. The proper WP response is not to strike a well-sourced, well-balanced description. Again, if I were to continue arguing "was there a rise or not", it would be irrelevant and would be dwelling on errors I perceive in your analysis. Instead of arguing, we should simply say NBC considers this a case of (temporal) effectiveness and here's other facts as to why it may not be.

Now, under WP's famed reliance upon consensus-building rather than asking for a second and immediately deleting, would you please tell me how you wish to address my concern that deleting sourced, relevant material about moneybomb effectiveness is not an improvement to WP? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Easy. Rewrite the graf so it doesn't make unsupportable assertions about a link between polling results and "moneybombs". Don't cite statistically insignificant polling differences in that graf. --- tqbf 21:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I strongly urge you to reconsider whether you want to fight this particular fight on this particular article. Paul is setting fundraising records; why don't you simply wait until a reliable source reports about the link between fundraising and his polling results? The one source you've cited reported no statistically significant increase (the peril of reporting on candidates who poll at or below the MoE, as with Paul and Keyes and Tancredo). --- tqbf 21:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make the "unsupportable assertion": NBC did, and Devil's Advocate introduced it. Ordinarly we would hold that NBC was reliable in making that link and we would not try to second-guess them with our views of what polls we can see. From the polls NBC could see with their fact-checking apparatus (cough), they chose one as representative, and their selection process is taken to be reliable and proper. I will happily take you up on your suggestion to rewrite the graf (later). Naturally, it will say NBC reported a CNN-sourced rise, NBC linked it to moneybombs, and Gallup reported a later fall (also well within MoE as you know), because these are the verifiable facts. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am confused as to what you're trying to accomplish. We agree that a "4 point rise" from 4 to 8 percent with an MoE of 3.5% is statistically insignificant. The article spends virtually no space on Paul relative to other candidates. What do you hope to report? Are you suggesting that WP is obligated to cover the statistical mistakes of second-tier news outlet short stories? --- tqbf 22:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Again: I'm nonplussed that you're advocating so zealously over such a scrap of an argument; the balance of sources currently seems to be reporting almost the opposite of your argument; that Paul, while successful at fundraising, has failed to capture significant political momentum. Why include a graf about that?

--- tqbf 22:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that would be excellent! Put in all those majority sources that say outright that moneybombs don't affect polls (and don't confuse polls with momentum). Then NBC could be put in as a minority view, and we'd all be happy. All sarcasm aside, this would easily resolve the problem. If the majority view is as you say, it should be easy to source. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey look! He lost a point in CNN/WMUR, in the wake of his record-breaking moneybomb! Does a single poll support your argument anymore? --- tqbf 04:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I decline to comment further here on the irrelevant topic of whether Paul is gaining or losing in landline polls, other than to note that he is currently tied with Giuliani in Iowa at 8% (several sources). Your comments in this vein are no longer related to improving this article. I am, of course, still open to discussion on what reliable sources say about any connection between moneybombs and observed poll data. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Landline polls" is code for "I don't believe in the validity of any poll results that don't benefit my candidate" (note that you cited a landline poll previously). That's fine --- I don't agree, but it's irrelevant to the article. If we agree that the polls don't mean anything, we remove the article so we can stop bickering about it and get on with editing. --- tqbf 17:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has degenerated into arguments over polling numbers, and edits which venture into original research. You cannot connect poll numbers to moneybombs without verifiable sources saying that it is so. Like I have said prior to this in Pontic Greek genocide, if there is no mention of the actual term, then the information presented is worthless. I would hope that you all consider that in any edits here- just my .02. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 16:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong predictable agree; I've again removed the offending graf, which said pretty much nothing and was based on a single sentence in a news short. --- tqbf 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverted under WP:BRD. You may not have noticed the additional source which demonstrated there was a mid-Nov rise in "the polls". More sources are available. If your POV is that "pretty much nothing" was said, you have no reason to favor deletion or inclusion because both are the same; you should defer to those who think something was in fact said. Please discuss. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Add: you said you'd permit the paragraph reinserted if two criteria were met: support assertions about a link between polling results and "moneybombs", and don't cite statistically insignificant polling differences. The new source (AP) found the differences to be statistically significant because it reported them as an unqualified "rise in the polls". We've all agreed the 11/5 event was in fact a moneybomb; coverage of it is not limited to articles which use some form of the word moneybomb. NBC linked the poll results and the moneybomb. Where in the chain do you object? I am having a harder and harder time understanding your editing behavior. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your desire to regulate this discussion as if it was a court case, with "findings of fact" and "findings of principal" that will deterministically predict what content is "allowed" and "disallowed" into the article. But the fact is, this isn't a court case, it's an encyclopedia, and the article we have struck damages the encyclopedia: it creates the misleading impression that there is a link between something called "moneybombing" and polling results in a major election. The rest of your argument is a syllogism that you yourself have devised; it is original research, and, as you have noted to other people in their talk pages, WP is not a venue for original research.

The second source you cite does mention a "rise in the polls". However, there has been no rise in the polls, and your source doesn't cite the poll it claims is rising. Moreover, it discussed Paul in general, not the concept of a "moneybomb". Take that source and apply it to an article about Ron Paul. Please stop trying to write about Ron Paul's successes (however short lived they will be) in this article. You argued for this article in AfD as something that had a life independent of the Paul campaign. This is the result of that argument. We'd all be more comfortable if this clumsy, marginal article wasn't here. --- tqbf 18:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

tqbf is right on this one. The paragraph skews this article towards Ron Paul. John, you have three people who believe that the paragraph is excessive. Please respect WP:CONSENSUS. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Then help me to understand. (Remember, this is Devil's Advocate's point, I'm only running with it because I find it so well-sourced.) The question is: can moneybombs contribute to poll results? DA brought one weak source to show they can. TQBF is using uncited original statistical arguments to argue they can't. Let me try again with a few more sources pro and con, and with less focus on the fact that the poll results affected happened to be Paul's. Then please let me know whether a good-faith attempt to answer DA's question neutrally is "skewing" simply because Paul is the only example we have. It's a perfectly appropriate question for "effectiveness of a moneybomb". As I've said before, a slight bit of extra focus on Paul is proper weighting due to the relative prominence of his connection compared to the others'. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just for what it's worth, it's not:

• uncited --- it's extremely easy to cite polls, since they're collected at pollingreports.com, as I showed
• original --- I'm not analyzing the polls, I'm simply pointing out what they say. You seem to think it's OR to observe an MoE, or to declare movement "statistically insignificant" when it falls entirely within the MoE. It's your argument that the polls depict:

• a trend --- they do not, on their face; all of Ron Paul's polling has been below the statistical noise floor, and varying only within the MoE.
• connected to moneybombs --- leave aside the fact that no reportable movement is occurring, there's no overt connection to moneybombing to report inside of them.

Also, you can call me Thomas! --- tqbf 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My answer was simply that polling results can contribute to polling results if it is sourced as such. Let me give you some examples:

EXAMPLE: A moneybomb was done December 23rd.

1. Source: Ron Paul's poll numbers increased by 5% during the week of December 24th-30th in the state of Iowa

Not appropriate for the article as it shows no correlation, and it would constitute WP:OR if mentioned with moneybomb, and it would be incorrect to put it in the article if it did not relate to moneybomb.

2. Source: Ron Paul's poll numbers increased by 5% during the week of December 24th-30th in the state of Iowa. Many election pundits have attributed this increase to his new moneybomb drive of the 23rd.

Appropriate for the article because it directly correlates the moneybomb with his polling numbers.

To me, it is so simple... and yet I still do not understand why there is an argument... Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 18:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Monsieur! Would you care to comment on whether several of my latest sources demonstrate such an appropriate mention?

GOOD The L.A. Times article is indeed a good source- it correlates directly his polling to his fundraising, i.e. moneybomb.

GOOD The NH article is bare, but it does recognize interest levels are being partially equated to his fundraising.

BAD The HuntingtonNews.com source isn't relevant.

BAD The Nation is a bad source- no correlation.

BAD The AP article is a bad source for moneybomb- no correlation, only about the message, very unclear.

BAD The Cafferty article is a bad source- no correlation.

You already have 2 sources that correlate- note the others are just overkill. That's my unbiased opinion, and I hope it helps! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Maybe Thomas will agree that those 2 sufficiently prove the correlation and we can work on what words it can be stated in. The Nation and AP were only added to prove there was a bump when that was in question, not directly for the correlation itself. Cafferty seems to me to make a negative correlation, which is also useful. Offhand, I had restored your comments from UPI about the Thompson event, but much of that is now gone; do you think the current coverage is appropriate for Thompson? John J. Bulten (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thomas, I don't believe I have ever held my POV of a long-term trend to be relevant to the article. What is relevant is the short-term bump noted by (now) NBC, LA Times, HNN, AP, and The Nation. Four of these five mention the moneybomb, and the LA Times (Pulitzer nominee Andrew Malcolm) does use the term "money bomb" itself. Your primary sources, once interpreted by these 5 secondary sources, reveal a bump; interpreted by Cafferty at CNN, the bump is not denied, but the position is characterized as "stuck in the single digits". Your analysis of the primary sources does not agree with the majority POV among secondary sources. Please do the work (as I have) of finding secondary sources that say there was no significant bump and/or there was no connection to the moneybombs. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You are doing a fantastic job of finding sources. Unfortunately, you're also falling into the same tar pit each time you present them: you attribute polling successes, and indeed fundraising success in general, to the concept of a "money bomb". You continually find sources that report things that would be at home in a Ron Paul article and paste them into this article, which is not about Ron Paul. --- tqbf 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The L.A. Times attributes polling successes to the concept of a "money bomb". Are they in the La Brea Tar Pits? John J. Bulten (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

John, read WP:TEND, specifically "You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people" and "You challenge the reversion of your edits, demanding that others justify it." — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't:

• Ron Paul is gaining more national recognition by the media, with voters and in the polls (...)
• Ron Paul is gaining more recognition because he's gaining more money (...)
• three more grafs
• Lyman detonated the first "money bomb" on Nov. 5
• no further mention of money bombs

The only mention of "money bombs", made in passing, is in the eight graf. Check out Inverted pyramid for implications. --- tqbf 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I will favor tact and shorten this comment by pointing out all this disagreement can be brushed aside if we agree on the refactor for now. It would also help if you could tell me: what do 5 of these 6 articles say by mentioning polls and moneybomb events together, with all the apparent connections I'm seeing? What is an accurate summary of what these articles say-- for whatever WP article you think it should go in? HelloAnnyong, I appreciate the link, but I believe this debate is working toward consensus with some success here. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Misleading polling graf

No reliable source asserts a connection between "moneybombing" and polling results. The presence of a single source that attributes a brief (statistically insignificant, ie meaningless) polling increase to Paul's fundraising may be a valid fact for a different article, but this is not an article about Ron Paul.

This is the same thing I pointed out yesterday, and it hasn't been addressed in comments. My edit removes a WP:COATRACK graf in an article that is purportedly not about Ron Paul.

--- tqbf 17:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You belie yourself, I think. NBC does connect the moneybomb, the $4.2 million event itself, not Paul's fundraising in general, to polling results; using the word "moneybomb" is unnecessary. AP found the rise significant. Further, coatracks refer to whole articles which monopolize a different subject, not a single graf in an appropriate place. Why don't we take a breather, I'll see what further sources I can find, and you answer my question above. Thanks. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no actual "rule" against "coatrack" articles; it's an essay documenting a phenomenon that occurs in contentious Wikipedia articles, such as this one, which purports to document a campaign tactic and neologism called "moneybombs", but is in fact a booster piece for Ron Paul. There are already articles about Ron Paul, his '08 campaign, the '08 campaign in general, and grassroots finance. You are unfortunately defending a dubious graf in a marginal article. I sympathize; that must be unpleasant. But the solution is to take the arguments you're trying to make to an appropriate article, and leave this article tightly focused on the marginally notable topic it documents. --- tqbf 17:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

New polling graf

... is a problem:

• If it's "unclear" that there's a connection, why is it in the article?
• More importantly: it gives undue weight to Ron Paul. This graf implicitly makes the following assertion:
  1. if Ron Paul supports launch a "money bomb"
  2. and Ron Paul sees no clear improvement in polling
  3. then moneybombs (and, by implication, grassroots fundraising) must have questionable efficacy.

  Not so! It is just as likely that Ron Paul's polls aren't moving because he is an unpalatable fringe candidate, and, were Huckabee to adopt the tactic, a profound polling shift could occur.

The fact is, there is essentially no reliable polling to report for Paul, as he is hovering at the margin of error for virtually every GOP poll.

I feel bad for you, John, because you're obviously putting a lot of effort into this one graf. Why? There are better articles for you to concentrate on, where you won't have to deal with all these arguments simultaneously.

--- tqbf 19:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As I implied, some of "all these arguments" are simple errors on your part, which I am trying politely to avoid calling too much attention to. "Unclear" is, of course, a standard WP way of stating a conflict in POV. Several sources find the connection; you and Cafferty don't; all POVs get stated. But deleting a relevant connection noted by several sources is not a WP way. Second, your eisegetical syllogism is really hard for me to see as an argument. Perhaps it might be fixed by something like "unclear in Paul's case", unless you find that too much coverage of Paul. I feel disappointed too that your efforts in jumping from argument to argument, instead of culling sources and improving WP, are not succeeding in building consensus or addressing my stated concern. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't favor tact over bluntness; I will not extend the same courtesy to you. What are the errors I'm making, so that I might stop making them? --- tqbf 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I usually prefer blunt but WP doesn't. In this case, I'd say you are implying this connection is unworthy of the article solely because allegedly unclear; and you are inferring a complicated argument not implicit in the graf. However, you have mooted those arguments by an acceptable temporary refactor, which may allow us to resume normal editing cycles for now. I appreciate your not deleting any of the sources, but it is certainly incomplete not to guide the reader as to what they say. But others may attempt to delete some of the sources while the paragraph stands incomplete. I may add a brief explanatory sentence later.

In general, it is much easier to address the minor errors when someone has retreated from the major errors (wholesale deletion, difficulty listening), which you have successfully backed off from for now. Thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, hey, sorry if removing the sources was the real hotbutton issue here. I wasn't intentionally trying to remove them; for the most part, more sources = better article. --- tqbf 19:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

More proposed insertions

Recognizing many changes are disputed, I would like to know the current consensus on these proposals. I am starting with the most important ones to balance of this article, and I'm likely to add more later when I see how these go.

1. Remove the two tags, and/or replace with "Template:unbalanced-section", which seems to better describe the debate lately.

   The original reasons for placing the two tags are long past and were ambiguous at the time. There was no direct response to my request of ten days ago for further OR or POV concerns. If anyone has current OR or POV concerns, please place them immediately below. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Strong disagree. This article reflects the POV of only two authors, and OR is reverted out of it several times a week. --- tqbf 23:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Strong disagree. The article is still OR/POV, especially with the latest edits by Duchamp. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Strongly agree. The whole article should not suffer a whole label on the basis for a few well-needed corrections, and just because Ron Paul seems to be the only truly successful moneybomb-using candidate does not make it POV. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

   We are (presumably) in normal editing cycle, albeit with one new editor who is still learning WP pillars. The ongoing presence of tags is intended for ongoing disputes, not for holding an article hostage. My request was intended to solicit specific concerns with extant text, which Thomas and HelloAnnyong have not raised. If concerns do arise with the new editor, there are many ways to handle other than demanding the ongoing presence of tags. I intend to go with the compromise tag "Template:unbalanced-section" as more appropriate to Duchamps comb's edits. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Insert a bit more on etymology.

   I believe there were two etymological sources removed here, one referring to "googlebomb" and one I don't remember. Any opposition to that material? John J. Bulten (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Agree --- the article should be more about the word and less about Ron Paul. --- tqbf 23:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Comment. I'd like to see the text before it gets inserted. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Agree. You cannot have an article that does not describe in-depth the meaning of the term. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

   Thank you for listening. When I started looking for sources, however, I noticed the can of worms Byron Wolf opened as described below. Will work neutral etymology in when I can. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

3. Name and describe some of the people involved in creating any moneybombs.

   Obviously Lyman has become notable. (Should I start his article? He is also managing the notable Ron Paul Blimp, moving to Free State NH, and becoming quite the attention-getting Paul activist.) Obviously Elder, the coiner of the word, according to Politico and Free Market News, is relevant to the article. (What kind of article is it when we know who coined it and when it was first used, but refuse to say so?) Sugra has received some reliable sourcing as well, and others, including some non-Paul names, should be easy to find. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Disagree --- if Lyman is "quite notable", create and defend an article about him. --- tqbf 23:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Disagree. There should be articles on them if they're so notable. Side note: Freemarketnews isn't an RS; see this page, particularly the edit comment. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Agree. If it is verifiable through a credible source, why not? This is why we have these standards- and it is not to prove just notability of credibly sourced people; that goes too far IMO. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

   Here the first two editors seem to confuse notability with content guidelines. It is not necessary for the supporters (of any candidate) to be independently notable to merit inclusion-- just verifiable. However, Lyman does seem to meet WP:N guidelines independently. I will edit accordingly. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

4. Describe some of the moneybomb creators' stated purposes across the board.

   Purpose of moneybombs is certainly relevant, and self-published statements of purpose are appropriate clarification. Most every campaign has a few supporters on record as to their purposes. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Disagree --- WP:COATRACK, view this as an attempt to inject more Paulite and Libertarian ideology into an article about a word. --- tqbf 23:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Disagree as per tqbf. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Strongly disagree. A totally irrelevant addition to the overall article. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

   Where else would the many sources for the purposes of moneybombs be included? I believe I recall reading that statements of purpose were appropriate if attributed to the purposers, neutral, and verifiable. Thomas, please stop waving the canard that this is an article about a word; even if so, arguendo, wouldn't that mean purpose statements would be appropriate for grassroots fundraising? John J. Bulten (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Describe some moneybombs not named as such by the mass media.

   Clearly Romney, Huckabee, and probably others can be referenced as examples of the fundraising spike event this topic describes. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Strong disagree --- I will reliably revert any attempt to brand grassroots fundraising not verifiably terms "moneybombing". --- tqbf 23:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Disagree. Unless it's been explicitly termed a moneybomb, it seems to be OR to list them as such. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Strongly disagree. What Annyong says is totally correct. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

   Umm, again I think there is suffering from failing to observe the use-vs.-mention distinction. What if we listed them under single-day fundraisers along with Kucinich? John J. Bulten (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

6. Describe the controversy over Clinton's total.

   Facts: she reported $8 million on 6/30 and $9 million on 9/30 to FEC (primary source); she made no press release of breaking any record on those dates (self-published source, her PR list, is sufficient to prove this negative); several media reported Paul's 12/16 event as less than $6.2 million but still awarded him the record, thereby creating a conflict by their silence about Clinton; and the only sources for the $6.2 million are NYT and AP (everything else tracks back to them) and only on 11/6. The natural conclusion is that some Clinton operative put out a white lie (i.e., an accounting statistic) and hardly anyone wishes to defend the accounting anymore. But even considering other conclusions, these facts are important balance to the bald claim. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Strong disagree --- I will reliably revert any attempt to discuss Clinton's fundraising in an article about a specific fundraising tactic. --- tqbf 23:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Disagree. Can you find a secondary source that shows this controversy? The fact that you call it a "natural conclusion" just reeks of OR. This one might be solved through sources. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 23:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

   Strongly disagree. Credible sources cannot be debunked by anyone other than other credible sources- totally agree with Annyong. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

   These are credible sources. FEC, a primary source; Hillary herself; and the contradiction between the silence this month and the NYX/AP theory last month. However, I'm not necessarily arguing for including them all in the text, I'm using them to show you reasonable people that the bald statement as we have it is in fact controversial. Unresolved contradictions like this are usually handled by language like "In Nov NYX/AP reported Clinton had the record at $6.2 million; in Dec several sources report Paul has the record at $6.0 million", in close proximity, without resolving the contradiction among secondary sources. Per Thomas's logic, why don't we just delete the whole Clinton reference; after all, it's an "attempt to discuss Clinton's fundraising"? John J. Bulten (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

... and while we're voting...

1. I think we should redirect this article to Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2008. Takers? --- tqbf 00:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

...No. Cut the snark, please. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a snarky suggestion, but thanks for chiming in. --- tqbf 01:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't stir the pot- we're actually making logical efforts :P Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 03:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask for a vote, I asked for consensus. Please help me build it. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Boston Tea Party additions

Twice now ([9], [10]) Duchamps has added information about the Boston Tea Party. I believe these edits are off-topic and unrelated to the topic at hand. They'd be better suited for a page about Ron Paul moneybombs, not about this one in particular. These edits only skew this page towards Ron Paul. Duchamps and I have been discussing this at my talk page, and I'd like someone else to chime in on this issue. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok I did add a section on the Ron Paul page "Boston Tea Party reenactment". However to me moneybombs are about more than just money and numbers but supporter involvement of which giving money is a part of. I am also interested how others define this word/event and by what degree is suppoerter actions off topic.

Perhaps their needs to be a section for supporter involvement in the moneybomb page?-Duchamps_comb—Preceding comment was added at 21:06, December 22, 2007

I'd oppose such a section, as it would only skew the page further towards Ron Paul. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 21:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose the section as you cannot expand the definition of moneybomb beyond its natural boundaries. Adding material that adds planned activities versus actual activities most certainly is not the way to go for this article. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 23:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I added new section and subsection headers that were sorely needed- otherwise, it is a huge mess under 'Description'. I think Duchamp's latest edit involving Geist and the lack of coverage is appropriate and right. If a concern is out there and it is verifiable and credible, then by all means add it. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 00:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm hesitant about this addition; while it does solve the problem of the Description section, this starts us down a slippery slope towards an increase in the bias of this page. Let's see where this takes us. I'd also like to hear from some of the other editors around here. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Ok, this definitely should be removed, there seems to be absolutely no point in having it here and is obviously not about criticism of the moneybomb concept, which could actually be legitimate, but criticism of Paul's lack of media coverage. It even asks, the section itself, whether the polls are "frauds." If those are quotes they should be made clearly into quotes, though if that's true it would seem the paragraph is effectively nothing but a string of quotes. There might be some legitimacy to a criticism section, I know November 5th was criticized for the date chosen, but this certainly isn't legitimate. I don't even see a point in bringing up such criticism of the media.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded on all counts. I was going to remove it in a few, but you can do it. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Struck. --- tqbf 18:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Duchamps, the three of us have agreed that the section is completely inappropriate. As per WP:CONSENSUS, the section should not be included. Please respect the consensus. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are all wrong! The section may need some tweeking. But it brings to light the effectiveness of the concept/idea/mediation of a moneybomb. (The media coverage) As well their was only one direct recreance to Paul. If there is a section you object to like the polls remove it and leave the section. --So what you are effectively saying it is OK to criticize the supporters for choosing a date for a moneybomb but not the media coverage or the lack their off. What kind of bias is that? The point is fundamental to the origins of moneybombs to buy publicity. The section could also show the huge gap between the internet publicity and mainstreem media.--Duchamps comb (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)duchamps_comb

I have no problem whatsoever with the criticism of mainstream media, but a big problem when it is done by dubious or not verifiable sources. That is why I stuck up for your Geist edit- it really isn't fair to blanket the whole of the criticism, but merely to analyze each part for its suitability. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 19:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm an avid Ron Paul supporter so if I had a bias it would be in the opposite direction. The fact is, none of what you provided is really serving a purpose in the article. Most of the section is nothing but quotes from other sources, only without some being clearly marked as quotations so you effectively have the article saying the corporate media is evil. If you make them quotes the section ends up being nothing but a string of quotes. You pretty much have other people writing this section and you're taking their words out of context and editing them to make them relevant. The New York Times mention is not criticism and never even uses the term moneybomb and the source for the last question is sarcasm referring to Paul supporters criticizing the mainstream media and polls. The sentence before that no longer has a valid source.

Criticism sections are usually for criticism of the subject of the article and the subject is the moneybomb. None of this is criticizing the moneybomb word or concept. Some of the section is actually positive statements about the moneybomb.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OK I am not arguing about the section I put together not being all quotes it was. So maybe some of you smart(er) folks than me can come up with something. My belief is the section is Needed, it does not have to be what I put in there. As well the one recreance you mention from the New Your Times said" The revolution, it seems, will be televised. Or at least streamed live over the Web." the revolution (Ron Paul supporters) So I changed it to, "The money bomb, it seems, will be televised. Or at least streamed live over the Web." to keep bias down. Some of my refrences would work for someone, NY times, Washington Post, Los Angelas Times...--Duchamps comb (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what got you in trouble, Duchamps comb. You can't alter any direct quotes and attribute them to the source- if they don't mention the term moneybomb, but talk about the event, then that is fine. It is obviously related, as it is a moneybomb event as stated by other verifiable sources. The bias comes in when comments made that have no relation to moneybombs or moneybomb events get put in here. I hope you understand. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 19:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The money bomb, it seems, will be televised. Or at least streamed live over the Web. (altered revolution to moneybomb) Objections have been leveled at the mainstream media for their marginal coverage of Paul's fundraising, such as on Morning Joe on December 18, 2007, when Willie Geist referred to the Tea Party event: "You raised 6 million dollars on one day and there it is buried on page 50 of The Washington Post." (direct quote) It was reported that Ed Rollins told the the Washington Post "I've been in politics for 40 years, and these days everything I've learned about politics is totally irrelevant because there's this uncontrollable thing like the Internet. Washington insiders don't know what to make of it."(direct quote) It is surprising that the media's coverage is so biased and uninformative, and people have to depend on blogs to provide them actual news now.(direct quote) Are the polls still frauds and the dim mainstream media still manipulated by evil corporate influences? (direct quote)

I understand what you are saying. However all of these quotes are talking about the ron paul coverage and moneybombs.--Duchamps comb (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if this section is attempting to be an encyclopedia article on moneybombs or a blog post. "The money bomb, it seems, will be televised"? If you're reporting a quote from the NYTimes, report the quote (faithfully and with cites). If you're reporting a fact about moneybombs, report the fact. Is there a single WP FA with "it seems" in the prose"? This is just MoS: we select and edit content so that every article could potentially become an FA. --- tqbf 20:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand how pundits would completely forget about some dude named Howard Dean, who ran his campaign online four years ago, made multi-millions of dollars through online small contributions four years ago... and subsequently imploded, four years ago. FCYTravis (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Byron Wolf's Input

Since there has been longstanding consensus on Zach Byron Wolf being a reliable source for this article in his 11/6 ABC report, would all please review this link, and this one provided by Eric Nordstrom (User:Eieoeoo) above? Wolf reliably states the following points:

1. "There is something special about the online synergy of the Ron Paul community" as proven by other candidates' supporter "attempts to replicate" the 11/5 moneybomb.
2. Attempts for Obama, Thompson, and Huckabee "to light their own money bombs have flopped": "Obama's campaign tried to light a money bomb" on 11/16; Thompson's "was meant to explode on November 21st"; Huckabee supporters did no better.
3. "The provenance of the term 'moneybomb' and who came up with the Guy Fawkes Day drive is up for dispute among Paul supporters, who have been waging an editing war on the Wikipedia entry for 'Moneybomb.'"
4. "If Wikipedia is correct (and you never know) we also should have given a bit of credit to a New York Jazz musician and some others."
5. Ron Paul Moneybomb "claims to be the very first moneybomb site."
6. Eric Nordstrom is an "active duty service member posted in England who created RonPaulMoneyBomb.com." Nordstrom's stated purpose for the site was reliably reported.

It appears to me that if a reliable, informed source makes such observations as that the later moneybombs were attempts to replicate Paul's, there was a marked difference and "something special" about Paul supporter synergy, there is a WP edit war about the term's origin and other issues, and that RPMB has notable connection to moneybombs, then a properly weighted inclusion of these notable facts would be appropriate (perhaps in the WP controversies article as well). I think that continuing attempts to argue that these observations are POV would be inappropriate. Who would like to make the edit? John J. Bulten (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has cared to comment, I have added some sources, including the above, as I saw fitting. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No historical perspective

As a veteran of Howard Dean's presidential campaign, I find it funny that the first online-driven campaign to become a national contender is given... not a single mention in this article about online campaigning. The concept of driving money on a single day is not some new concept invented by the Ron Paul campaign - uh, does The Bat ring a bell? What does make this different is the scale of money - it is larger, on a day-by-day basis, than what Howard raised. This article completely lacks any sense of historical perspective and treats Ron Paul's campaign as if it was the first-ever online campaign. People in politics have short memories, apparently - I clearly remember the same pundits falling all over Dean's campaign for its "innovative" use of blogs and the Internet to raise money. FCYTravis (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You can help expand the grassroots fundraising article with what you're talking about. This is about the word moneybomb and the relevant concept. Some mention of Howard Dean's fundraising could be put in single-day fundraising comparisons though.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I just find it humorous that we have quotes from pundits talking like online fundraising is something new and unexpected - "Washington insiders don't know what to make of it." Well, they damn well should - some dude named Dean made himself the Democratic front-runner for a time through it four years ago. Stupid pundits.

That said, I don't expect the money to help Ron become the Republican nominee any more than it helped make Howard the Democratic nominee. FCYTravis (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you find many things funny and humorous. I don't find the future of our country funny one bit. Howard Dean and his formal campaign are far and away different than the collective efforts of a Jazz Musician, an Air Force Sergeant, an amateur Videographer, and a Music Promoter. Howard Dean made a name for himself through hard work and talking to people. The moneybomb does nothing more for Ron Paul than it did for Howard Dean. The difference is that the moneybomb has given the patriots faith and strength and has lifted the apathy from their hearts. Howard Dean's online failures did no such inspiring. The moneybomb is tangible evidence of the power with/of the people.

I don't agree with your comments about pundits being stupid. On the contrary, they know full well what they say. The creation of apathy is important to control the masses. Pundits know full well that they need to force their opinions on the public to confuse and demoralize them. Pundits say things like "I don't expect the money to help Ron become the Republican nominee any more than it helped make Howard the Democratic nominee."

By the way... you said, "Dean made himself the Democratic front-runner for a time..." Can someone please provide me a reference for frontrunner, top-tier or major and minor candidate in the Constitution or any other statute? In addition, can someone please tell me why the Constitution mandates a free press yet free press entities such as Wikipedia only use verifiable content from non-free (corporate) press agencies? Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"emerging trend"

I stuck a cite needed tag on the statement in the intro that "moneybombs" are an "emerging trend". The three sources listed appear to be specific examples used to support a synthesized assertion of an "emerging trend". The relevant text: Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion,... then the editor is engaged in original research. Please note that the Wired source is speaking more generally of online fundraising, so we should be cautious when using that to make statements about "moneybombs". --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

no mention of Ron Paul in intro

Is there any reason that Ron Paul isn't mentioned in the intro paragraph of this article? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is that this article is supposed to be about the term itself as applied to all campaigns, not just his. Though this article is quite the WP:COATRACK. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you surprised? The term is an WP:Neologism that the media tried out for a few months, but quickly got bored with. Notice that no one called Hillary's most recent efforts a moneybomb. Nom it for deletion or merger after the election and call it a day. Burzmali (talk) 11:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong's first sentence is correct. Also, I have just added an April moneybomb for John Forsythe and a May moneybomb for Murray Sabrin. Please remember to consider deletion alternatives prior to recommending WP:AFD. JJB 15:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Paul is not mentioned upfront seems odd and inappropriate, given that this whole article is basically about Paul. The term originates from activities surrounding his campaign. Even the purported "definition" of a "one day feeding frenzy" that was in the intro is specifically about the Nov. 5 fundraiser (the Original Moneybomb). Per WP:LEAD, I'd argue that some mention of Paul should be here. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the main reason the article was keep during the AFD is that the article was about the moneybomb phenomenon, not the Paul campaign. As I said before, it looks like the term hasn't really caught on in the media and the links to the term being used for other campaigns are mostly bloggers and pundits, a merge to the campaign page may be in order. Burzmali (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So... am I understanding correctly that Paul is not mentioned in the lead in order to justify an AfD decision to keep the article? That was what I had suspected, though I don't think I actively participated in that, so I don't recall the details. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There are acres of discussion to explain this (blame me). Paul was not removed from lead in order to justify AFD keep; AFD happened in Dec and Paul remained in lead until Feb (you might recall this series): [11][12][13]. There, you proposed to define "moneybomb" itself as referring to Paul only; several sources (plus the three I just added) indicate that doesn't work. I reverted you and then (because accused of COI) decided that in good faith Paul could safely be demoted from the lead to satisfy the potential objectors, like, er, Burzmali. If you'd like Paul back in the lead, fine, but please keep in mind HelloAnnyong's consensus point, "this article is supposed to be about the term itself as applied to all campaigns". The person who happens to mainstream the idea and/or set the record is expected to get a hair more space no matter who it is. If you believe "this whole article is basically about Paul", fix that. If you believe this whole article should be basically about Paul, then argue against the consensus. But please don't (like others did above) believe both and then object. Mercury News did indeed present its definition as a definition, of "a new term to the political lexicon" (which is why I promoted it), and then it used the two most notable examples. Either they think moneybombs are Paul-only (which they might possibly, though it is rebutted by the other sources), or they do indeed think they are as they logically defined them to be, generic one-day frenzies that (in the cases mentioned) happened to earn $4 million and $6 million. Finally, Burzmali's statements supporting his threats of AFD are wholly unjustified by the record here, plus my latest three sources, and also community response to his latest AFD ideas. JJB 19:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks. To clarify, I regard this as a WP:COATRACK-ish article intended to glorify aspects of Paul's political legacy. Not sure whether I think that means it should be deleted though--I tend to think not. I do think, however, that the lead should better represent the rest of the article by at least mentioning Paul. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, a suggestion: If you want to take another step toward dispelling the idea that this article is part of the Ron Paul-pedia, you might consider removing those images of him from it and replacing them with images related to other campaigns. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Which ones, the campaigns that don't refer to their events as money bombs or the failed money bombs from the Paul wannabes that John added? Burzmali (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

InfoWars Moneybomb - May 08

Eric Nordstrom, one of the original individuals who performed the donation events for Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is repeating the formula for popular radio show personality, Alex Jones. See: http://www.infowarsmoneybomb.com and www.infowars.com ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used}

The intent is to raise money to fund a Television Network.

This note placed here for interested Wikipedia Editors to use toward additional "future history", pending the outcome of the event. Eric George Nordstrom (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)