Talk:Independent Party of Oregon

Sources, point of view

The commentary (removed) about what the Sec. of State's intent might or might not have been is inappropriate. It was cited, not to a news article or even an editorial, but from a letter to the editor; not as the opinion of the letter writer, but asserted here as fact. This runs afoul of WP:V and WP:NPOV. So, the two problems: (1) find a way to explain what happened factually, instead of advancing an opinion; and (2) find a suitable news story or other reliable source to cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.165.18 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Bradbury's work against the Independent Party of Oregon seems to be true, and a Google search turns up many sources that agree. However, these sources (mostly blogs) probably do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources, and so I've added "According to the IPO" to qualify the statement as opinion, not fact. Also, I reinstated the sentence "The IPO was certified by state elections officials on January 24, 2007." which is unrelated to WP:BIO concerns. I'll look for a citation for that as well, though it's not as contentious as the claims about Bradbury. I hope this alleviates your concerns. -kotra (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember seeing this story when it came up. The problem the anon. seems to be pointing to is legitimate: phrases like "working against" are an interpretation, a.k.a. a point of view. The article cites a statement by one party involved (the IPO) but not the other (the SoS office.) That Bradbury took a certain action is a fact, and one that can presumably be cited to a news story; the idea that it was done intentionally, to harm the IPO, is an interpretation, and does not belong in a Wikipedia article. -Pete (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And, here's an actual article to cite. Note that Bradbury's spokesperson specifically denies that there was any intent to harm a specific party. -Pete (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the article, this is the sort of thing I was looking for (odd that it didn't show up in my Google search). The way I see it, there are two ways of achieving NPOV: leave out any mention of positive or negative views, or include all notable, adequately sourced positive and negative views. I think the latter is preferable, when possible, and thanks to this new citation, I think it's pretty close now. (by the way, the phrase "working against" wasn't ever actually used in the article, it was "attempted to block its growth"; I was just paraphrasing). -kotra (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake -- but I see those as logically equivalent. "attempting to block" and "working against" both imply intent; the Secretary of State denied that, and advanced a different reason, which was that the cost of printing new forms and throwing away the old ones ($40,000) was a poor use of taxpayer dollars. I'm not in a position to evaluate which is more accurate, but asserting either the IPO's position or the SOS's as fact is a violation of NPOV. I'm fine with either of your options -- either mention the factual details only, or summarize both positions briefly.

I tend to think the reader is more interested in what the party is about, than the politics surrounding its ballot status, so we should be mindful of WP:UNDUE here as well and try to expand other aspects of the article. -Pete (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything here (I was just being nitpicky about the phrasing). The article certainly should be expanded, but I'm not sure how. The IPO has endorsed some candidates like Jeff Merkley and Joel Haugin, would that be worthy of inclusion? -kotra (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Secretary of State

The assertion that the Independent Party has criticized the Sec. of State for failing to print the voter registration cards is not a matter of opinion. The person who wrote the letter cited in the reference is a member of the IPO central committee, and the attorney who pursued the claim against the SOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.245.198 (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes to article

The justifications referenced below as to why this article needs additional citation have been addressed. Some of the requested citations are unreasonable. Other parties list nominees or members without providing references. Corrected version of article has been reinstated with a few additional references. Feel free to call the Oregon Secretary of State to verify party membership of Vanvliet, Frohnmayer, et al 503-986-1518.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.245.198 (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: This post was moved from the top of the first section to the bottom of the page where it belongs, so references to "below" should be taken to refer to the section "Sources, point of view", above. Katr67 (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding citations to note party nominees shouldn't be too hard. As far as I'm concerned, the major citation problems with this article don't have to do so much with basic factual information like that, but with the unsubstantiated claims about motivation. E.g., the idea that the IPO was founded "in response to" HB 2614 (which I know to be the case, but is a major claim about the party, and lacks substantiation). Also the claim that the party is "centrist" should probably not be in there, without a clear definition of what "centrist" means and a citation to an independent reliable source supporting that the party conforms to that definition.

Also, a note about your approach to the article, in case you're interested: you'll find that it leads to a much more collaborative and productive approach if you bring changes up for discussion here, rather than making significant changes to the article. When tags for improvement are placed, it is common courtesy to give the person who placed them a chance to evaluate whether the underlying issue has been addressed. Do as you please, but I think you'll get further if you can show some respect for your fellow editors. -Pete (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a citation from the IPO website to the claim that the IPO was founded "in response to" HB 2614. However, their description seems to indicate that the IPO was created more in response to the bill that freed up the word "Independent" for a political party, so I've reworded that bit to match. -kotra (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, kotra. One thing I forgot to mention -- regarding Vanvlient, Torrey, and Frohnmayer, it's not so much the fact that they ran as a member of the IPO, but the claim that they are prominent candidates in the party. That needs substantiation, which should come from news coverage, not the Secretary of State's site. -Pete (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Pete, I believe that your suggestion to use media sources rather than the SOS, which is the definitive source for party affiliation and related elections issues in Oregon, is a mis-application of Wikipedia caveats against publishing original research. ----

PeteForsyth: No one claimed they were prominent candidates of the Independent Party, but prominent members. Moreover, the people who founded the party repeatedly claim that they formed the party in response to HB2614, including in the state voter's pamphlet. Yes, the fact that the name was freed up led to the specific name, but the party was more specifically created in response to changes in HB2614 that were intended to make it more difficult for non-affiliated candidates off of the ballot. News articles that are no longer published on the web, outside of the party's web site confirm this. Previous links to those articles were deleted by well-intentioned people who were not involved in the party's founding -- much as you were not involved in the party's founding. Feel free to restore those links.

Regarding the assertion that the party is centrist - please refer to the wikipedia definition of centrist. The Independent Party has nominated candidates from both major political parties. It is, by definition, centrist.

You will also note that prominent Democrats and candidates mentioned on the Democratic Party of Oregon page, as well as references to bylaws, etc. are not referenced or sourced in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.245.198 (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi 96. In reference to your points above, it would be a good idea to read about ownership of articles to learn why saying only those involved in party's founding should edit the article is a bad idea. Then read about why we don't always care how another article in Wikipedia may or may not be referenced. Cheers. Katr67 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Katr We are holding a meeting at my house this weekend and concerns have been raised about the accuracy of some of the changes made by people who are not involved with the party. No problem with people outside of the party making edits, only that the edits being made accurately reflect the party's history. In this case, many of the edits -- well-intentioned or not -- were not accurate. Also, the 96's comment that other parties are not being held to the same standard that we have been in this process appear to have merit. Speralta (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid in Wikipedia it does not have merit. Wikipedia's coverage is not equal in all articles, and articles vary greatly in quality. If we were to always be exactly consistent, our improvement would be slow and there would never be any "good articles". On this talk page, we are only discussing this article, Independent Party of Oregon, and how we can improve it. We do want to keep the article as accurate as possible, but please understand that our policy of verification requires that all potentially contentious statements must be referenced with a reliable source. Unfortunately, we cannot simply rely on the word of party insiders unless that word has been published in a reliable source (anyone can claim to be a party insider on Wikipedia, and though I don't doubt you are who you say you are, Wikipedia is more skeptical than me). Reliable sources include news articles, books, etc. The IPO website is good for statements like "The IPO's stated goal is...", and until more independent (no pun intended) sources are found, it suffices for other statements that aren't controversial. But if some of the currently cited statements are flat out wrong, we will need references for the opposing views. I hope this helps. -kotra (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Centrist?

Describing the IPO as "centrist" really does need a citation. IPO's website hosts a blog entry rejecting the term, and if drawing support from Democrats and Republicans is all one needs to be considered "centrist", Libertarians would find themselves in that category too. So until a better term is found ("Radical center"? "Apolitical"?), it will need a citation. -kotra (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to define the party as anything other than centrist, even though the party chair did write a blog post criticizing the term. The profile of candidates cross-nominated by the party can be accurately described as center-left or center-right. Additionally, the party now self-describes as trying to "bring gravity back to the public-interested middle".

We will continue to remove your assertion that a citation is needed to include the "centrist" reference unless you also make similar citation requests to the ideology and party position pages for the Democratic Party of Oregon, Pacific Green Party, and Republican Party of Oregon pages. Speralta (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In light of statements like the following (from the Voter's Pamphlet[1]):

We are unique among Oregon political parties in that we do not adhere to rigid ideology. Instead, we support candidates from across the political spectrum who are committed to the principle that the basic instruments of our democracy -– the initiative and referendum, our legislature, and our electoral processes -- should be in the hands of We the People rather than the special interests that currently control the government.

I think Non-partisan democracy and populism are more accurate terms. What do you think? -kotra (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, please understand that citations are needed for all challenged statements. Please review our policy on verifiability: WP:V. As for other articles, I am not working on them at the moment, I am working on this one. Simply because other articles have lesser quality doesn't mean we can't raise this article to a higher standard. And as a side note, referring to yourself in the plural is concerning to me; each account must be used by only one person (see WP:NOSHARE). -kotra (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We do not disagree with either term, but we insist that the centrist reference be retained, since it reflects the party's commitment to reward bipartisan cooperation and moderation among elected members of both major parties. As to the plural "we". I am the party secetary, and am speaking on behalf of the state council of the Independent Party in this matter. 'We' is an accurate reflection of the position we have taken. Thanks. Speralta (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If the party is indeed committed to rewarding bipartisan cooperation and moderation, then I agree there isn't any leap to calling it "centrism". Unfortunately, we have only your word on a Wikipedia talk page, which is insufficient: we need outside reliable sources. If the IPO website has such a statement on it, I believe that would be sufficient. Please understand that we cannot give your comments any more weight than that of any other editor. I personally trust your word and respect your views on the IPO as authoritative, but Wikipedia has different criteria. I've re-added the request for a citation for the word "centrist". Please do not remove it again, since a citation is needed to meet our verifiability policy. I am not removing "centrist" entirely, as I could under that policy ("Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."), because I do think you are telling the truth, but we still need to find a reference that backs it up. -kotra (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. I have also removed the reference to non-partisan. A political party may promote non-partisan reform. It may not, itself, be non-partisan since non-partisan by definition means "without reference to political parties".

Candidates in the 2008 election

The citation given, [2], describes 12 IPO candidates (page 33):

• Jeff Merkley U.S. Senate
• Joel Haugen U.S. House of Representatives, 1st Congressional District
• Sean Bates U.S. House of Representatives, 5th Congressional District
• Ben Westlund Oregon State Treasurer
• Keith Wangle Oregon House District 4
• Pete Belcastro Oregon House District 5
• Jim Gilbert Oregon House District 18
• Vicki Berger Oregon House District 20
• Terry Rilling Oregon House District 29
• Stephen Bradley Curry County Commissioner
• Col. Dale Potter Wallowa County Commissioner, position 1
• Ken Wick Wallowa County Commissioner, position 2

Since 8 + 5 = 13, this doesn't add up. Is the extra candidate from its own candidates or the cross-nominated candidates? -kotra (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Corrected.Speralta (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

References and approaches to editing

I've restored the "reference improve" tag to the top of the article. 96, you ignored my comment above; please consider the merits of trying to work collaboratively with the other editors here, rather than try to unilaterally overrule something that several of us who have no affiliation with the IPO seem to agree on. If you'd like to see the tag removed, consider asking whether those who have supported its inclusion are satisfied that the conditions that brought it there in the first place have been corrected. You might be surprised by the results, and you might find that we all get to a better article sooner and with fewer headaches.

Sal, I'm glad to see you've stepped in here. I'm sure you think it's obvious, but I believe you would greatly improve the tenor of this discussion by explicitly disclosing your connection to the party. There is nobody out to get you here. In fact there are several of us working on this who would love to help you improve the article, but it's very difficult to do when you come here with strong opinions, an assertive editing style, and a disregard for principles like those outlined in WP:OWN and WP:COI.

If anybody's interested in seeing an example where an interested party with minimal Wikipedia experience found a harmonious and productive way to work within this community, you might want to review the discussion page of Josh Marquis. -Pete (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Pete, I have removed the header because the issues you have raised have been addressed. Your comment was addressed both in this discussion document, and in the article itself. I have taken the time to provide significant revision and additional sourcing where requested, but I do not intend to allow contributions from our members to be ignored, nor will I accept a different standard for this article as for any other political party. By the same token, after spending much of my day dealing with this, I will continue to expect you to abide by the same standards you are attempting to hold me or other members of the IPO to as it relates to this article. If you want additional citation, please feel free to 'ask' for it. Please do not modify these contributions without asking first, especially when the modifications you are making may be inaccurate, or may disagree with others who are editing the page -- especially those who have more direct knowledge than you. I will continue to be assertive in ensuring the accuracy of public documents that relate to this party, and in recording an accurate and true history of this party. Thanks, Sal.

Speralta (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sal, I do not agree with you that the issues have been addressed, but I'm losing hope that we're engaged in a good faith discussion. I am encouraged to hear that you're taking an interest in the articles on the Democratic Party of Oregon, the Pacific Green Party, and the Republican Party of Oregon; those articles have needed help for some time, and I'm encouraged to learn that you might be willing to pitch in to bring them up to a better standard.

But your comment raises a major concern. Statements that you "do not intend to allow" something come across as a threat to this project. This is an especially significant concern since you are a member of the party's leadership. It is a clear indication that you put the interests of your organization above the interests of producing high-quality encyclopedia content. I had hoped we could sort this out here, but I'm losing confidence that that will be possible. -Pete (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Pete, I think the issue is that you have not taken the time to review the fact that every one of the issues you have raised have been addressed. I am disappointed also that you do not appear willing to acknowledge or recognize the significant additional attention that has been given to addressing these concerns and to more fully flesh out the organizational structure and history of the party. I am disappointed that you have chosen not to address concerns about errors that you may have made in your analysis that have been pointed out in this discussion. Finally, I am disappointed that when it has been brought to your attention that you appear to be setting a different standard for references as it relates to this page, vis-a-vis other political parties, that you have chosen to ignore that such a double standard may exist. I am always eager to engage in a reasonable discussion, Pete, but in this case, that means that you need to address some of the points that have been brought to your attention. Speralta (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sal, you are an expert on the history of the Independent Party. I am an expert on how to achieve productive collaboration on Wikipedia. You are correct that we are each ignoring substantial parts of what the other is saying; that is because you and I are operating with different motivations.

I would gladly engage with the finer points of your discourse, if you will only take a few steps to acknowledge that you have a conflict of interest in this particular article, that you don't own the article, and that you might need the assistance of people outside your organization in order to reach a satisfying outcome. If you can't do that, I feel that I have no choice but to regard your approach as hostile, and take the appropriate steps in the dispute resolution process. I don't think either of us want all that hassle. But the ball's in your court. -Pete (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pete, no one claims to "own this article". All I ask is that you adhere to the same standards you are asking me to abide by, and that you apply those standards equally when a lack of consistency has been brought to your attention. The sourcing in this article is fully consistent with the guidelines given by Wikipedia. We have consistently used the most definitive third-party sourcing where available -- Oregon SOS is definitive as it relates to Oregon election matters. Press reports are the second-most commonly referenced sources. And where neither is available, we have referred to official party documents and/or public statements by the party and it officials in a manner that is fully consistent with the guidelines given in WP:SELFPUB.

Speralta (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sal, you may assert that you have taken steps to address my concerns, but you overreach when you state unilaterally that you have addressed them. In my view, my concerns have not been adequately addressed. For the moment, I'll hold off on adding any tags back into the article, because edit wars don't help anyone, and they certainly don't lead to improved articles. But may we take another look at those concerns?

I had two significant concerns about the article: they concerned the terms "centrist" and "prominent." On further reflection, there is a simple solution that would satisfy me: simply remove both terms. Neither Republican Party (United States) nor Democratic Party (United States) makes a definite assertion about party ideology in the lead section; both articles have a "B" rating, which is higher than the project assessment of any political party article in Oregon. And as for "prominent," I don't think the word really adds anything to that sentence; listing some examples, along with the credentials of the candidates, makes clear that they are somewhat prominent, and I'm not sure there's any need to assert their prominence explicitly.

Recent edits have introduced material that, I think, raise additional concerns. An organization's mission statement is not necessarily needed in an encyclopedia article; and I'm not sure that asserting "party leaders" for the Senate and House in the infobox is appropriate. I believe it gives the reader the misleading impression that the primary party loyalty of these individuals is with the IPO, which is not the case. Furthermore, the ambiguity of U.S. vs. State House and Senate is a problem. -Pete (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Points of disagreement: I do not agree to removing the 'centrist' label. It is the most accurate ideological charicterization available from the list of such characterizations on Wikipedia, and it has been sourced. Similarly, I do not agree that the former Chair of the NEA, nor a former mayor of Oregon's second-largest city are not "prominent members". If you review your notes, your objection was to the assertion -- which was never made -- that we were claiming that these people were prominent 'candidates'. That you appear to be shifting your objection now does not strengthen your objection

On further review, we will remove 'centrist' from the first paragraph, provided that it is retained in the ideology section for the reasons given above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speralta (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Points of agreement: As to whether Jeff Merkley and Vicki Berger are the party's "leaders" in the US Senate and the Oregon House... I agree that these should be removed. Other minor parties do not appear to reference their cross-nominated candidates in this way.

Uncertain points: With regard to the mission statement... I think it provides relevant information to readers, who may have an interest in learning the criteria on which the party bases its nominations and cross-nominations. I note that other political parties provide their platform, which serves substantively the same purpose as our mission statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speralta (talk • contribs) 00:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sal, you may find this trivial, but I don't: your statement that "we will remove" is yet another indication that you're in the WP:OWN miasma. You and I are not the only people who've weighed in here. While I appreciate that you found some merit in what I had to say, it's not up to you and me to make the final determination. Leaving a note here is better etiquette, and will be better received by the community. Of course, you seem pretty disinterested in my opinion, so I suppose I'm wasting my breath.

Curious definition of "disinterested in your opinion" given that I have taken steps to accommodate multiple concerns that you raised.Speralta (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that you deleted some of the most clearly sourced information about the party without comment: [3] Would you care to explain? -Pete (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The material in question remained in contention in the discussion thread, concerns were raised that the material was poorly sourced. Also, a dispute about the printing of voter registration cards between the party and a former secretary of state seems to have very little historical relevance in any encylopedic sense. Feel free to restore that paragraph or to encourage others to do the same if you believe that it is of any real historical relevance.Speralta (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sal, I assume that the steps you took were out of a desire to produce a better encyclopedia article, not out of a desire to appease me. This is not a political game, it's an attempt to build an encyclopedia. You complained a while back about the amount of time you've put into this; I'm not thrilled about the amount of time I've put in, either. If you would listen to me, I could help us both out. As I said before, I have a great deal of experience in establishing an environment where editors can work effectively together, despite initial differences, to produce a high-quality article. I have suggestions along those lines, and this is what I would like you to take into consideration, for your own good, and for the good of anyone working on this article:

• • Seek agreement on the discussion page before making substantial changes to the article itself, even where you believe agreement exists. This basic diplomatic skill will go a very, very long way toward keeping things agreeable. The only downside is that the improvement may be absent for a day or so. Recent statistics indicate that might affect a whopping 1-15 readers.
  • Use edit summaries. For every edit.
  • Assert any apparent conflict of interest directly, as early as possible, when editing pages that might relate to your personal or financial interests.
  • Refrain from making comparisons to other Wikipedia articles to prove a point. There may be occasional exceptions in the case of a featured article.

If you want to debate why I make these recommendations, I suppose we could. But I'm really hoping that you'll just take my assurances -- based on 14,000 edits to Wikipedia, a number of successful Good Article nominations, and a strong standing in the Wikipedia community -- at face value. -Pete (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pete, I am gathering that your concerns at this point are primarily process-oriented. Point taken.Speralta (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. A smooth process is what makes it possible to develop good content with minimal headaches. That is my primary concern here. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that before. -Pete (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Centrism, Progressivism, Populism

The centrist reference primarily reflects the fact that the party's approach to realpolitik is to build power by drawing support from centrist candidates of both major political parties -- Vicki Berger, Frank Morse, Ben Westlund, Kate Brown. I think we've settled, perhaps uneasily so, that this is fine as referenced.

The progressive reference is being used in three senses in this document.

First, it is intended to address the concerns raised by Kotra regarding an early document by the party's chair pointing out that "Independent" does not mean centrist. What Ms Williams is describing is a worldview that is most consistent with the views adopted in the progressive era -- that centrism within the context of a liberal-conservative dichotomy places a sort of ideological shackle on the notion that one can adopt portions of the liberal and conservative traditions without being part of an ill-defined "mushy" middle, devoid of strong core beliefs about a structural need for public-interest reform.

Second, progressive more accurately describes what Kotra was trying to capture by referring to the Independent Party as being "non-partisan". I quote John Halpin: "At its core, progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society."

Third, the reference is to the fact that the ideological grounding of many of the current reforms supported by the Independent Party - campaign finance reform, fusion voting, the initiative, referendum and recall are al rooted in reforms enacted during Oregon's progressive era (the corrupt practices act, which gave Oregon its first limits on campaign contributions and its first voter's pamphlet; and the initiative, referendum, and recall; and electoral fusion).

Please also see Progressivism_in_the_United_States for more information about traditional progressivism.

Populism, I initially added this, but after re-reading the wikipedia page, I do not believe that the term adds anything that is not already captured by using the term 'progressive'. Also, I have some objections to referring to a party that consists of 2% of the voting population as "populist", since that term also carries the connotation of having widespread public support.

If anyone has concerns about the modification, feel free to revert, or adjust, but please discuss the reasons here.

(The above text was added by the anon. 96... -Pete (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

References

(The references above were added by anon. 96... -Pete (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC))

Apologies for my slow response. You make a strong case for "progressive"; unfortunately though, we don't have any sources (to my knowledge) using the term. It seems to be very difficult to find any citations describing the IPO as having any particular political ideology, for good reason: it looks to me like they're actively against having a strict party line. The lack of any sources pinning a political descriptor onto the IPO is a little frustrating for us, though. I'm tempted to suggest just leaving the "political ideology" field empty until such sources are available. I don't have a strong opinion on this though; progressive is probably accurate, though uncited. -kotra (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's hard to pin down, therefore I think we should leave it blank. Depending on the candidate, it seems like it can change. People who read the article can come to their own conclusions. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage you to review the mission statement and compare that to the list of values attributed to "traditional progressivism" in the Progressivism_in_the_United_States. Though it is true that the party does not adhere to a rigid ideology, it does require its candidates to share those values. I believe that part of the problem is that the term "progressive" has become somewhat ill-defined in recent years insofar as it has been appropriated by champions of mainstream liberalism within the Democratic Party. However, many of the progressive-era reforms supported by the Independent Party -- the Initiative and Referendum, Campaign Finance Reform -- are opposed by those interests, at least in Oregon. Speralta (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not finding any mention of the term "traditional progressivism" in Progressivism in the United States. Which section of that page are you referring to? As for using "progressive", I agree that the contemporary meanings of the term are varied. This is one reason why it may be problematic to label the party as "progressive"; though this could be helped by explaining what "progressive" means in a footnote or reference. -kotra (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. See "Tenets of Early United States Progressivism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speralta (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Independent Party of Oregon

{RFCpol | section=Request for comment (IPO) !! reason=Two editors have recently been editing this article, who have the strong appearance of a conflict of interest. (One edits under the username "SPeralta," which suggests he is one of the party's three officers.) They have sustained an argumentative tone with three longtime WikiProject Oregon editors (including me), and shown little regard for WP policies and guidelines (edit warring, talk page use, etc.) I hope for some comment from the community about how to best proceed. !! time=17:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)}

I should disclose that I know Sal Peralta personally. I don't think it impacts this particularly. I've had only one private communication with him during this, which was to inquire whether it's really him we're dealing with here; if I hear anything back, I'll post it here. -Pete (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

One other disclosure before we get going -- I blocked the IP above for 31 hours after the most recent round of edit warring, and left a note on his/her talk page. -Pete (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I lifted that block. I had misread one of the talk page sections above, and blocked too hastily. My apologies. Also, I did get email confirmation from Sal that the Speralta account is his, and that the IP address is his home account (but that most of the edits under the IP are not his). -Pete (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would like to say that Pete has some good ideas about collaboration. I just looked through google's news archive, and archives of Oregon newspapers, and I couldn't find a source that says what's the party about. Lots of articles talking about their candidates, but I think because they're a new party, no one has bothered to really summarize them yet. This is the best article I've found so far, and it's mostly interviews with party functionaries. Bill Lunch kind of talks about it, but more in generic terms. Maybe I missed out on all the drama, but the article looks pretty good. I think the mission section should say "according to the Independent Party of Oregon's mission statement, they are dedicated to..." It would also be better as prose than a bulleted list. It's also not clear to me what the difference between the cross-nominated candidates and ones like Joel Haugen who are "Independant Republican" is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

With regard to cross-nominated candidates vs. Joel Haugen....

Haugen was forced to withdraw his Republican nomination in order to be listed on the ballot as an Independent. So he is a registered Republican who appeared on the ballot as an Independent (Hence: Independent Republican). Unfortunately, even though we thought that this was big news (it was the first time in Oregon -- and possibly US -- history where a major party congressional candidate, having received the party's nomination, withdrew his candidacy to run as a member of a minor political party), the press largely ignored it. The Party sued the former Secretary of State (also ignored by the press) and lost to require the SOS enforce existing law (as opposed to office policy). The case is currently under appeal, and the party is actively lobbying the Oregon legislature (with the support of the current SOS) to clarify existing law. Although this is probably the most historically-relevant thing that the party is working on right now, none of it is sourced to "Encylopedic standards", and we have therefore largely left it alone on this web site. If editors want to help figure out something, it would be most appreciated if they would consider addressing this issue.Speralta (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there does seem to info on him.[4][5] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me what you think of the mods. Thanks Peregrine (and OPB and Google)Speralta (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What you're doing looks good. The correct way to write a wikipedia article, which you are doing, is to find reliable sources and summarize them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Last round of edits, including new photos were done by me, in case anyone is interested. Speralta (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll let others decide on the progressive/centrist stuff. I'm not that much of a political junky.

There are some procedural issues with some of the images you added that will lead them to be deleted, though. For File:Jimtorrey.jpg, only federal government stuff is public domain, not state government stuff. For File:Joel haugen.jpg and File:Berger sm2.jpg, they need more info to avoid deletion (look at the first one for details). Unless you took the photos yourself, you're supposed to go through the rigamarole here. If you do get other images, it would be great if you could get larger ones. Good luck. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a little cleanup on this page, mostly fixing up some references and punctuation. I think the article is now in pretty good shape and is fairly well-referenced. Organizationally, it does probably need a bit of work--for example, some of the info in the "History" section could probably be pulled down into the 2008 election area. With regard to the "centrist" item, I don't see where the supplied citation addresses the centrist issue discussed above; reading the wikipedia article on centrism, it does sound like the party fits into that definition, but if a citation is needed, a better one will need to be provided.

In terms of wikipedia etiquette, there has been a lot of edit warring going on which is really unacceptable and a really bad way to build consensus. Thanks to Pete for taking the lead on reminding everyone of the ground rules and getting discussion going here. Hopefully now, all editors will use detailed edit summaries and discuss issues before reverting. --Esprqii (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm at something of a loss to explain where the drama came from. I agree that Pete had some good suggestions, but I believe that his attempt to take steps to ban an IP from posting was an overreaction, and something of an abuse of power. I encourage others to review this discussion section and reach their own conclusions. In any case, I am glad that he corrected it.

My approach to collaborative writing is to add content that is well-sourced, and where there are points of disagreement with other editors, reasonably expressed, to provide a rationale for the changes and to make further revisions with an eye towards finding a consensus. I do not interpret anything that has happened here as "an editing war", but rather a reflection of the fact that writing is an iterative process, and editors will not always agree. Where there has been an extended disagreement, my perception is that efforts have generally been made to find a common ground. Speralta (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, File:Oct Parties.jpg, which is a great chart, needs to cite its source for the figures that went into making it (not for copyright reasons in this case, but for verifiability). -kotra (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the reference on the chart was deleted when the chart was moved into the Party History section.Speralta (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think kotra is suggesting that the citation be added to the File:Oct Parties.jpg page itself, not the IPO article. --Esprqii (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speralta (talk • contribs) 21:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the chart, and on clearly citing it on the image's page. I think the chart would be more informative if it included non-affiliated registrations as well. Sal, any chance you could re-generate the image with that line (or at least forward me the spreadsheet or compiled data that produced it)? -Pete (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I've created a chart that contains a comparison of total minor political party registration compared with NAV's and major political parties. In this case, I believe that the inclusion of NAV's will make it difficult to even see the registration of some of the minor political parties listed on the chart that have statewide access given that you have a graphical representation of 400,000 versus 2,000 or 3,000. Further, the change among NAV's over the 2-year lifespan of the IPO is notterribly significant. Feel free to embed the other chart I've created File:Allparties february 2009.jpg on any page where you believe it to be relevant. Here is another chart with a broader historical context that includes a voter registration comparison over a 10-year period File:2001-2009 Oregon Party Comparison.jpg that may be useful on this, or other pages.

You're quite right -- my mental picture of how far these lines are from each other was off. Thanks for producing the other chart, though -- it illustrates your point here nicely, and it might be useful at some point in this or another article. For whatever it's worth, I made a similar chart a while back for the Oregon article: File:Oregon voter reg 1950-2006.png It's a little frustrating that there's not an easy way to upload structured data (say, an .xls file) to Wikipedia; it would be nice if we could share the source materials for stuff like this more easily. We've played a little with a shared database on DabbleDB, but it didn't go too far at the time. -Pete (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The images still don't have what they need to avoid deletion. File:Joel haugen.jpg says "File was created by the Joel Haugen for Congress Campaign. Permission to use the file has been granted by the candidate." but it takes more than that. It sounds like you know them, so you should be able to iron this out. Basically, you have to get Haugen or the Joel Haugen for Congress Campaign to email you the picture, or the URL where the picture comes from (if't an offical Haugen site), and explicitly say "I release this image under creative commons attribution share alike 3.0" Then you have to upload it to commons, and then forward the email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. The email address has to be an official one that shows it's Haugen or his campaign, with some way of checking. Something like a URL that shows that that email belongs to Haugen or his campaign. Maybe sent from sarah@haugenforcongress.net, with a link to http://www.joelhaugenforcongress.com/ to show they're an official rep of his. It's a serious pain in the butt, but it's the only way to prevent people from saying "I know Britney Spears and she said I could put this picture on wikiipedia." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. We got permission to use these pictures for party purposes under the same creative commons license that all of our candidates agree to. I can send from the ipo email address or ask Sarah to send.Speralta (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you go throught the process, I recommend asking User:Cirt to look for the OTRS emails. I did it once, and he helped make the process quick, otherwise it can sometimes languish. I'd also like to say again that it would be great if you could get larger pics. We may want to create a page for Haugen or whoever later, and the small ones don't look good in the infobox. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want, you can have the emails sent to me at pfisher (at) gmail (dot) com. It's quite a bit easier for someone who's done it before. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of Mission section

According to its bylaws, the Independent Party of Oregon holds a number of positions. The party wants to increase voter participation and involvement. They advocate reform in specific areas of government, wanting to reduce the advantage of incumbancy and the influence of campaign contributions on politicians and policy decisions. Areas they single out for countering special interest influence are health, education, welfare, and economic security. They hope to achieve this through fiscally sound transparent decisions that create a taxation system that benefits all Oregonians.

Wikipedia frowns on bulleted lists for style reasons, as well as quoting large amounts of text for copyright reasons. Therefore, I have tried to turn the list in prose with summarization. I think I did it pretty accurately, but I'll let other people judge. I took the part that says "benefit from Oregon's education system, quality of life, and dedicated workforce contribute fairly for the common good." and just said "benefits all Oregonians." That was probably my biggest change. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your proposed modification is fine if bulleted lists are not appropriate. Just as an FYI, the bylaws of political parties are considered public documents under Oregon law.Speralta (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I dropped it in. There may be a difference between public domain and a public document, I'm not sure. Either way, it's a summary now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a point of personal curiosity -- I am almost certain that Oregon public records are not automatically public domain. Something being a public record concerns who has the right to access it; public domain concerns who owns it, and has the right to republish or modify it without permission. I'd be interested to hear reflections on this from anybody who's knowledgeable about it. -Pete (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that's right. Not much is goes into the public domain by default, almost everything goes into copyright by default. Works of the Federal Government is one rare exception. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Checking back in briefly

All, I've been trying to stay away while you sort this stuff out -- and also very busy off-wiki, which is about to increase. I want to note that the article looks much better thanks to your efforts. I'm glad to see there is productive work going on.

I have one point to make -- a minor one, because I'm not proposing a change to the article as it exists. You guys discussed how to address party ideology. In the absence of clear statements from third-party sources, I would consider this akin to "branding," and would say it's one area where interested parties should specifically steer clear. If people try to expand the lead section -- which wouldn't be a bad idea -- this issue will probably come up again. From what I have read in the papers, it seems to me that the IPO has been evaluated more on its strategy and tactics, rather than on its ideology. That may not be something the party leadership wants to emphasize, but I think it's an area where it's particularly important to leave our opinions aside and go with what the independent sources that exist say.

Again, good work…looking forward to seeing where this article goes. -Pete (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sections Mostly Chart

This may simply be a formatting problem, but a few of these sections are mostly chart with hardly any text. Is there a way to change that, either by adding text, shrinking the charts, or merging sections? Reinana kyuu (talk) January 8, 2013 23:04 —Preceding undated comment added 04:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the Growth and Membership sections by updating the charts, as well as adding more information on their party growth. I think it's reasonable to consider merging the two categories. --Mmeschter (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Independent Party of Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819041511/http://indparty.com/node/152 to http://www.indparty.com/node/152
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611121609/http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/hb2600.dir/hb2614.en.html to http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measures/hb2600.dir/hb2614.en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111075538/http://www.indparty.com/about to http://www.indparty.com/about
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090228103305/http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/254.html to http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/254.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313233702/http://indparty.com/node/151 to http://www.indparty.com/node/151

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Independent Party of Oregon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010024627/http://wweek.com/editorial/3317/8638/ to http://wweek.com/editorial/3317/8638/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109153822/http://wweek.com/editorial/3318/8677/ to http://wweek.com/editorial/3318/8677
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029001125/http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=12742 to http://wweek.com/wwire/?p=12742
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090713163842/http://wweek.com/editorial/3531/12669 to http://wweek.com/editorial/3531/12669/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120913140101/http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/26142178-47/party-bill-independent-ipo-political.html.csp to http://www.registerguard.com/web/opinion/26142178-47/party-bill-independent-ipo-political.html.csp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/04/biggest-ore-minor-party-faces-execution-bill
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901235849/http://www.co.lane.or.us/Elections/results/20080520.htm to http://www.co.lane.or.us/Elections/results/20080520.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:07, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Mission Section Expanded

Hi there, I expanded the 'Mission' section of this article to explain the overall position of the party, using information given from online voter pamphlets and the party's latest platform from their website. I explained how the IPO does not affiliate with a specific ideology, and how they instead support broad public interest initiatives. I presented a quote from the latest platform introduction in the section, using what I believed best summed up their stances. I understand that their are conflicts within the party on their exact goals (see this article that mentions that: https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/politics/2018/04/21/oregon-independent-party-governor-candidates-internal-conflict-highlighted/530248002/), if these previous statements I am citing are outdated or still in contention please remove or edit my writing as you like and notify me. Mmeschter (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Article Overhaul

So if you read above, I've already made numerous edits to this page in regards to adding a piece on the 2018 election, expanding the 'Mission' section, adding charts, etc. As has been discussed a while ago on this talk page, I think this article needs further expansion, including added election result charts, added history paragraphs, and better formatting.

I would support the idea of combining 'Growth' and 'Membership' sections, adding the list of membership by county to the paragraphs discussing its timeline of member increase. Maybe also re-formatting this info into a table would look cleaner. I think this all should be under a unified category of 'membership'.

Updating the history of the party including a 2012-2020 part would help renew the article's info. I understand that user activity on this talk page has been defunct for a while, so I think this article needs more long-term maintenance, as well as a catch-up to modern day.

In regards to election history, adding a section on the 2014 and 2012 elections are needed as it makes a six-year jump. The 2008 and 2010 election sections are well put together, I think we just need to add these charts to all the sections for consistency.

Overall, I wanted to post this to the talk page to explain some future edits I plan to do on the page, and some initiatives I have. I will start by updating the election results for 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018. Let me know your thoughts and concerns. Mmeschter (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've been adding some info to the 2016 election, I've been thinking about formatting the cross-party nominees and the independent nominees into different categories. The Independent Party has cross-nominated many candidates for the state house and senate, including all this information makes for very long lists. I am concerned these long lists may dominated the whole article. I purpose that the election results for Independent Party candidates (candidates who ran in the Independent primaries) be displayed first, followed by a condensable box showing the election results of their cross-party nominees. --Mmeschter (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Voter turnout question

I was researching the voter turnout for the Independent Party's primary in 2014. In a Statesman Journal article, it says 1,080 people participated, yet the Oregon SOS website says that 24,000 people participated. Does anybody understand what this means? --Mmeschter (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)