Talk:Florida Whig Party

Discussion about Notability

I am concerned about the notability of this article. While I have been able to prove the party is registered and and ballot-qualified in Florida, and I have been able to turn up three or four sources beyond the Florida Department of State website that proves its existance, I have not been able to locate sources which rise to the level of reliability to make a strong case for passing WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The independant sources that I have located ([1], [2], [3]) are all blogs or on the edge of being blogs, and are not of the level of reliability that I would automatically assume notability. As we know, WP:GNG required multiple non-trivial mentions in independant and reliable sources. In this case, most of the material is not independant, and what is is right on the line of being reliable. I'm going to refrain from taking any action (AfD, Prod, etc...) until I can do a little more sourcing work, but without more coverage in very reliable sources, this article might be deleted if an AfD or Prod occurred. If you know of coverage in local papers, publications, or anywhere else, please chime in and add the sources! Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC) ::No longer directly relevant, as the article has been merged with the parent party article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Added Military Times reference. Online version is subscription only but I do have hard copy of prominently-featured article. Also can find copies of this article online, although not direct to Times site. Independent Political Report shows up on google "News" search and is considered a top third-party news source. Ballot Access News is online and print publication that is highly regarded in that niche. I think the article as limited now should suffice to stand on its own.Aardvark31 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Just started going through the recent history of this entry and noticed some threats of AfD seemingly out of frustration of the situation. Please be aware that my edits are absolutely in good faith and limit this entry to what appears to be notable as defined by proper third party sources. The notable element is that this is the first Whig Party with candidate with ballot access so I crafted it as such.Aardvark31 (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As you can tell from the history, I have made a good faith effort to source the article, and I was still concerned about notability, so when the article was redirected a second time, I allowed it to remain redirected. WP:ORG does not have some special exception for organizations that are the first to do something, they still must meet the basic notability reqirements spelled out in WP:GNG. In this case I am still *marginally* concerned about the reliability of the sources. Even the Miami Times article is actually on the newspaper blog, which makes it at least somewhat less reliable. I'm sure that more sources will appear with time, but my concern is that if the article goes up for AfD, it still has some chance of being deleted. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The Miami New Times article is akin to "The Fix" on the Washington Post in that it is written by a paid and regular journalist for this publication, which is a reliable third party source in Miami, FL. Online content to supplement written news is becoming the norm as publications seek to compete. This would be different if the relevant info was on the "comments" section or from a regular blogger. However, this particular source is a featured online column written for the media outlet. In any event, the Military Times newspapers are reliable publications, as are radio interviews that were added. Ballot Access News also, again, is a highly respected political news source. In other words, having seven different reliable third party sources for a roughly three-paragraph entry certainly makes it notable and properly sourced. In fact, I think basic elements of the party platform can be listed here so long as it doesn't cut and paste from their Web site. But I will defer that to another editor.Aardvark31 (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we actually disagree, we are just slightly off from each other on the specifics of the sources. I think the sources establish notability, I'm just concerned with the lack of coverage in absolutely clear and recognizably reliable publications, the existance of which would make defeating an AfD a slam-dunk proposition. Right now I think the article would stand a very good chance of defeating an AfD, but there is still some chance that consensus could fall on the side of deletion. I like to look at every sourcing attempt as an AfD, because that helps avoid AfDs alltogether.

I've already stated previously that I think a *summary* of the party platform would probably be merited. However, if it is the same as the Modern Whig Party, and is already covered there, it may be redundant. At no time should the entire party platform be dumped into the article, and I think the summary should remain short. If this were a more established party with a platform consistant over a long period of time the amount of platform information tolerable would be greater, but since this is a new party (despite the old name), things should stablize more before the article includes too much detail. A good stub is all the party really needs at this time.Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

One note... I've read and re-read that Miami New Times blog, and I'm not 100% sure it is reliable. There is language in it that borders on advocacy, and a lot of it is opinion, so as sources go it is pretty weak. That said, I do think there are enough other sources that appear reliable. Eh... We'll see what happens. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Another note... Any summary of the party platform really should be sourced from Third-Party sources. That might be difficult at this time. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we're on the same page... I suppose the point with the Miami article is that it was written by a legitimate third party source who covers Florida politics. The fact that a writer for such a reliable publication took note offers an element of notability. But as you rightly point out, there are other more journalistically sound sources to establish notability. Taken as a whole, this entry appears more notable than, say, the Centrist Party (United States) which has no reliable sources at all but still survived AfD. We'll see what happens.Aardvark31 (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point about the Centrist Party article, although that article is about a national party, and there was a significant removal of sources *after* the AfD that put it in this condition. Whether the sources were reliable is beyond the scope of this discussion, and I'm certainly not going to poke into it right now, but I'm not sure that article's survival would ensure this article's survival, especially considering how different the experiences from one AfD to another often are. That, and because the second AfD for that article centered on whether that organization was previously notable, and they decided it had been, and since notability never expires, it was kept despite being defunct. In this case the organization is in the early stages of aquiring notability, so that argument obviously doesn't apply. Well, if somebody ends up putting it up for AfD we'll find out, otherwise this is purely academic. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

State parties have historically failed at AfD. If this gets reverted from the redirect again, I will list it at AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As per my discussion with Who then was a gentleman?, I have reverted the page to allow for consensus to be reached via AfD if Who then was a gentleman? choses to nominate for AfD. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about how this article got out of hand (5/09)

I just wanted to apologize to anybody I offended with any edits I performed on this article. I certainly didn't intend it, but I do know things got contentious. There was an overall lack of communication and I really regret that. On my part, I know I made a few errors that created some confusion (especially that naming error), and I probably could have been more communicative, and a little less WP:BOLD. ;) I started this section in case anyone wants get anything off their chests, or offer suggestions for all of us to consider in the future. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments Re Merger

During the July 4 AfD, some editors expressed the belief that this article should be merged with Modern Whig Party. Before a more formal merger discussion begins, I want to lay out a few reasons why I do not believe this article should be merged. First, according to the materials I read during the previous attempts at sourcing this article, this party pre-dates the Modern Whig Party. The Florida Whig Party affiliated itself with the Modern Whig Party in 2008, around a year after the party recieved ballot access. Second, the Florida Whig Party is the only Whig party with ballot access, or with any suggestion of a candidacy for national office. If these two factors were not present, I would be the first to call for a merger, but since there is just enough of a historical and functional disconnect in this case, I think a merger is unwarranted. However, I'll admit it is a close call. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To make clear that I consider this article and exception, rather than the rule, I should also mention that I *DO* support the merger of other Modern Whig Party state and local parties, and any other minor state/local parties that do not have some independant reason to merit a separate article from the parent party, such as the recent merger of the North Carolina party article into Modern Whig Party. We do not need an article for every minor state party, but where a minor state party is in some way distinct from or predates the national party it associates with, I believe it merits a standalone article. I believe Florida Whig Party to be such a case. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Justification for deleting the Florida Whigs in Office section

Earlier today, I deleted the section entitled "Florida Whigs in Office". This has been contested, so I shall explain my rationale for doing so.

1. The section listed only elected candidates from the original Whig Party of Florida; the Florida Whig Party has yet to elect anyone.
2. I think it is obvious that the Florida Whig Party, founded in 2007, is a separate organization from the original Whig Party, which dissolved in the 1850s (or in 1860, if the Constitutional Unionists are to be considered Whigs). Regardless, the two parties are separated by an unbreachable chasm of a century and a half and are clearly distinct. Thus the candidates of the original Whig Party cannot be considered as belonging to the Florida Whig Party and, in that sense, are not "Florida Whigs".
3. Listing the elected candidates of one party, the original Whig Party, in the article of an unrelated party, the Florida Whig Party, is both superfluous and confusing.
4. I am aware the Florida Whig Party (along with the Modern Whig Party) fancies itself a "continuation" of the original Whig Party. The only relation between the parties is a shared name; no amount of historical falsification will ever make it otherwise. This view—that the Florida Whig Party is a continuation of the original Whig Party—is not an uncontested fact; it is a point-of-view (POV), and Wikipedia must present a neutral point-of-view, and thus cannot endorse the Florida Whig's historical POV by including this section.
5. Even if the above POV were accepted, the relevance of the section—all politicians who died over a century ago—to a party founded in 2007 is doubtful.

My edit was reverted by IP editor 72.184.133.78, with this remark: "It holds the same name as the original Florida Whigs and does not claim to be part of the Modern Whigs".

With regard to the first part of the sentence—"It holds the same name as the original Florida Whigs"—I believe this can be justly regarded as irrelevant. We do not pretend that the Republican Party of Lincoln had any historical relation to the Republican Party of Jefferson (called the Democratic-Republican Party by historians, but usually the Republican Party in Jefferson's time, as the article attests). Nor do we pretend that the Jefferson Republican Party, a modern third party, has a relation to either. A name does not prove relation, continuation, or connection of any sort.

The second part—"and does not claim to be part of the Modern Whigs"—is, I believe, a response to a remark I made in my edit summary, viz.: "The Florida Whig Party has no historical relation to the original Whig Party in Florida. Therefore it cannot claim elected original Whigs as elected modern Whigs." Whether the Florida Whig Party has any relation to the Modern Whig Party has, as the recent editing over at the Modern Whig Party article proves, been contentious. I have no intention of remarking upon the matter; it is not relevant to this discussion. When I used the adjective "modern" I only meant it as an antonym to "original"; I realize now that this was confusing, but I meant no reference to the Modern Whig Party. However, whether or not the Florida Whig Party is connected to the Modern Whig Party, my point remains the same.

For these reasons, I maintain the section should remain deleted. --darolew (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Every article I have read about the Modern Whigs and the Florida Whigs site them as the "revival" of the Historic Whig party72.184.133.78 (talk) 06:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Section also refers to them as "Historic Florida Whigs" 72.184.133.78 (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies, but I believe my points remain unchallenged. Politicians elected prior to the 1860s cannot have any relevance to a political party founded in 2007; they do not belong in this article, and will only serve to confuse and obscure the relevant information. Would it be too much to ask why you think the section belongs in the article? I am unable to fathom how you think it enhances its quality or usefulness. --darolew (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If a person or organization picks a name that has been used in the past, clearly they expect some "benefit" to accrue from it. It is not merely a coincidence.

Not sure why they did this since the national party turned into the Know Nothings and were electorally repudiated.

Another group, not too well-liked either, has one article to describe three separate instances of revival: the Ku Klux Klan. Of course, both supporters and detractors agree (wrongly) that they never dissolved, they just "went underground" for a time. Right. "Underground" as in disappeared.

If a group were to call itself the "Tories" for some peculiar reason, why wouldn't they be linked to whatever group called itself that in the past? For what reason would they be naming themselves with a label that is very identifiable in American history? Student7 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My solution to this issue is to bring the historic data more prominent.SoxFan999 (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I am a lifelong Florida resident and have long been interested in the state political system and historic parties like the Whigs. This is why my interest has been geared to this topic. My solution to the problem from above was to highlight the histroic Whig Party and differentiate it from the contemporary party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoxFan999 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism By SoxFan999

This article has stood up to several delete nominations on the grounds that The Florida Whig Party in itself is a credible entity under Wikipedia guidelines. The person SoxFan999 has repeatedly Vandalized this page over a debate that was preexisting in regards to weather the Historic Whigs that served Florida who were part of the original Whig Party held grounds to be listed on this page.

That problem was solved by changing the section title to "Historic Florida Whigs of the 1800's". Now again even after his edits were reverted by another moderator he went back and deleted all relevant information having to do with the present day "Florida Whig Party" His editing is clearly bias and personal. I have again reverted this article to it original version due to the fact that there is a Wikipedia article that already addresses Whig Party (United States) The name the Florida Whig Party has never been registered with the Florida Division of Elections and stands as an entity created in 2006. Again look at SoxFan999's contributions and up until recently has done nothing but execute vandalism this article and the Modern Whig Party article and nominated and deleted two articles about Florida Whig Party candidates. I will also be updating and referencing the articles from recognized news papers about the Florida Whig Party shortly since that was also one of the reasons given by this person who obviously did no research into any such printings. And to be accurate, The only entity that ever went by the name "Florida Whig" was a news paper in Marianna Florida in the mid 1800's Rigga101 (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read about vandalism. You're not using this term correctly. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

New PD message

Hello, Political Dweeb here would like to understand if it is possible for me to place back into this article on the Florida Whig Party this previous party's logo that I got back from this person who describes themself as a BOT. If I am not allowed to can someone explain why and help me make a decision on this please.

[User:Political Dweeb|Political Dweeb] [User talk:Political Dweeb#top|talk] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Political Dweeb (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fellow Florida Whigs If you go to Wikipedia and look up Florida Whig you will find that the information is inaccurate. There is nothing we can do to fix this other than take legal action against the responsible parties; which will be discussed at the next meeting of the board of directors. A known subject who edits the Wikipedia site for the Modern Whigs is the same individual who continues to alter the Wikipedia site for the Florida Whig Party. All communications to Wikipedia have been unsuccessful in locking the page. If you would like to assist the FWP in fixing the problem with Wikipedia, call or email Party Headquarters. The "hacker" on the Wikipedia site states the following: Businessman Craig Porter, however, did qualify for the ballot as a Florida Whig. Porter described himself to Neil Cavuto on Fox News that he was a conservative candidate and then endorsed Republican Senate Candidate Marco Rubio for office. Craig Porter did not endorse Marco Rubio. See the video below.

The following can be found on the Florida Whig Party Website: http://floridawhig.com/index.php?q=issue/wikipedia-modern-whigs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairmantruesdell (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The Florida Whig Party encourages all Florida Whigs to contact Wikipedia and complain about the known individual who enjoys posting on the Florida Whig Party site of Wikipedia and that of the Modern Whigs. Since the Modern Whigs have been without a Chair since December of 2009, they are a political club that is rudderless; however, accountability and liability remains in full force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairmantruesdell (talk • contribs) 02:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Future of this page

The Florida Whig Party might have been relevant in 2008 when this article was being made, but seeing how neither the Floridian nor National Whig Party exist anymore, nor does the National party have I page, I propose that we make a Modern Whig Party page, and then merge this page into it. Scu ba (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)