Jump to content

Talk:New Party (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Narrower statement

[edit]

This section is for discussion of whether or not we have sufficient sourcing to put into the article the following:

The New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his successful 1996 run for the Illinois Senate.

I believe that we do. All of the available sources, including the 2008 Obama campaign, agree with this statement.William Jockusch (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it somewhere in the history section, talking about their activities. Do the sources mention any other noteworthy endorsements they made? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice any. Did you?William Jockusch (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that if we're going to list endorsements we should list any others they made. Otherwise it creeps into the fringe narrative that he was an active member of the party. But there is barely any reliable sourcing to use at all. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They made other endorsements, but none that were notable, and the sourcing is much worse for the others. Do you think NP minutes and DSA archives are good sources or not? If they are, fine, but then they are good sources for their other assertions as well. Loonymonkey, given that even the 2008 Obama campaign conceded that the NP did endorse Obama in 1996, your continued assertions of lack of sourcing are bordering on WP:Point. William Jockusch (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe part of Looney's hangup here is that endorsement was designed to be subsequent to candidates signing the "Candidate Contract", as Kurtz describes from the actual text of the Chicago NP's Candidate Contract. So even though Obama's campaign admitted that the NP endorsed him, it is embarrassing to him now because it is consistent with the rest of the allegations which his campaign denied (that he joined the group, signed the candidate contract, and asked for their endorsement). Wookian (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need to repeat yourself, we're well aware that you buy into the conspiracy theory that Obama signed some sort of contract (although, like most of these conspiracy theories, nobody can seem to produce the article in question or evidence that it exists). Again, this isn't a WP:FORUM for discussing your own personal beliefs. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can produce the candidate contract? Not sure where you got that idea. Two different versions of the New Party's Candidate Contract have been publicly identified. Stanley Kurtz found a Chicago draft in the ACORN archives at the Wisconsin Historical Society, and Breitbart linked to a copy from the New Party website that was archived online. Does that answer your question? Wookian (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep the contract issue out of this section; it's not relevant to the question of whether or not the New Party endorsed Obama in his 1996 Senate run, which is the issue here. William Jockusch (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are further comments, I'm going to put this into the article. I'm not sure what Demon meant by the "history section", but I don't mind if it is moved there. William Jockusch (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the thematic section titles, the narrative is more or less chronological order. I think it would make sense as the second or third to last section under "founding". - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying I oppose any inclusion, both you and William make good points. I just don't understand the weight that is given to their endorsement of Obama. I mean, why would that be the lone endorsement listed, was it a turning point in the organizations short-lived 'life'? I don't see any reliable sources that lend me to believe inserting this endorsement into the article is proper weight. But I don't totally oppose an inclusion if done properly. Right now, I would say listing Obama alone without any sourcing that tells why it was an important endorsement lends far too much weight to an addition. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's sort of the point I was making earlier in this section. Unless we're talking about their endorsements in general, there isn't any reason to mention it. Saying it out of the blue seems to be a backdoor way to hint at the conspiracy-theory that Obama was a member without explicitly stating that. On its own though, it's not a particularly noteworthy fact about the organization itself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can say it's unimportant, you can say the NP isn't socialist, you can say many things. But you can't truthfully call it a conspiracy theory. It's been sourced from completely independent original documents through credible channels, and the only ones dragging their heels in this discussion are effectively providing political cover for Obama by suppressing something embarrassing for him. Does that shoe fit for you? Wookian (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early support for a future President is notable in and of itself. William Jockusch (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and added it. There isn't much chronology in the article, but since it refers to 1996, I put it before the part that mentions 1997. I don't mind if it's moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 18:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am just going to jump in here, but I agree with Looney and Dave in that it is undue weight to just have the Obama nomination listed. Also, even if it did belong in this article, I doubt it would be correctly placed under the header: "Influence"--DeliciousMeatz (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a cogent argument being made either way, but I lean toward William's view on this. An endorsement is more than just saying "hi" on the street, in a political party context it is a declaration of at least perceived shared values. A listing of other endorsees probably doesn't make sense because readers likely wouldn't know or care anything about most (or all?) of them. However, "endorsed Obama in 1996" gives readers a point of reference that many people can somewhat relate to. In my opinion, it would also be useful to clarify that Obama ran as a Democrat in that race. That would avoid some confusion and also add value by giving an example of the more abstract content in the article, showing how the NP operated within the two party system. Wookian (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look at WP:UNDUE
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
I'm claiming significant minority here. Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, and fightthesmears.com are prominent adherents. Enough said.William Jockusch (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will wholeheartedly agree that a significant partisan majority thinks that the New Party endorsement was a big deal. But the information itself isn't particularly important in the life of this party. Like Dave says above, How did this endorsement affect the New Party itself? Unless there is a section for endorsements I feel like it would best belong under a Trivia heading. I am not totally opposed to inclusion based on the claim's merits, I just don't know how well it fits with the article. If consensus is established to include it though I agree that Obama's choice to run as a democrat and lack of ties with the NP should be included as well. --DeliciousMeatz (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've triggered a thought with that -- I'll try putting it into the Obama article. On the merits, it totally fits there. I'm guessing it will last about 30 seconds :) FWIW, the Eureka College article does mention Ronald Reagan, even though he was not at all well-known at the time he was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I agree that Obama's choice to run as a democrat and lack of ties with the NP should be included as well." Alleging that Obama lacked direct ties to the NP would not be appropriate based on available sources at this time, but mentioning that he ran as a Dem would be useful to illustrate how the NP worked. Wookian (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the unreliably sourced addition by William Jockusch (talk | contribs) to the Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama article and removed the corresponding unreliably sourced, repeated readdition (1 2 3 4)—over objections without consensus—to this article. See Talk:Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama#New Party endorsement not reliably sourced.
Newross (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
William's "narrow statement" is true, verifiable, and non-controversial (in the sense that we have the Obama campaign on record agreeing that it's true). The source you are objecting to is a researcher and journalist with a Ph.D. from Harvard University, writing on a well respected journalism outlet, who is simply acknowledging the Obama campaign's public statement. You are quibbling that the acknowledgement comes in an opinion piece, but nobody has given any reason why this particular verifiable fact is suspect. How is that not wikilawyering? Wookian (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the single sentence paragraph:

The New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his successful 1996 run for the Illinois Senate.

to the "Influence" section of this article, citing:
  • New Party (March 1996). "March update". Brooklyn, N.Y.: New Party
  • Nichols, John (January 2009). "How to push Obama". The Progressive 73 (1): 20–23
not citing the contentious Stanley Kurtz opinion piece or the BuzzFeed.com questionable source.
I added the sentence:

Obama was endorsed by the New Party.

to the chronologically appropriate middle of the second paragraph of the "Nominating petition challenges" section of the Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama article, citing:
  • New Party (March 1996). "March update". Brooklyn, N.Y.: New Party
  • Nichols, John (January 2009). "How to push Obama". The Progressive 73 (1): 20–23
not citing the contentious Stanley Kurtz opinion piece or the BuzzFeed.com questionable source.
It is too trivial for the Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama article, which does not mention Obama's endorsement by the IVI-IPO either.
Newross (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Newross (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alleging that Obama lacked direct ties to the NP would not be appropriate based on available sources at this time, but mentioning that he ran as a Dem would be useful to illustrate how the NP worked Wait a sec, the only thing coming close to an admission by Obama that he was endorsed by the New Party is the defunct fight the smears website. Wookian even admits that it is non-controversial to say that he was endorsed by the NP because that site said so, but it also included the campaign's adamant denial of any direct ties to the NP. You can't pick an choose which parts of a source you want to describe as reliable. The campaigns denial of any ties (if we are going to be using this as a source) in addition with the absolute lack of any verifiable material showing that the NP and Obama collaborated in any way, says to me that we should include some clarification about the NP's endorsement and how it was not solicited at the very least. I think the additions to the Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama article look good considering how there is enough information already there that the slight addition of the NPs backed up endorsement doesn't give it undue weight.--DeliciousMeatz (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you both can and should discriminate which assertions are reliable from a given source. Just because something is an RS doesn't mean it is an RS for everything it says. Wikipedia is interested in what is true and verifiable. An admission by a politician of allegation that is unfavorable to him happens to fall on the credible side of the scale. My $0.02. Wookian (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, having just read through this talk page, I cannot believe the discussion being had here. I have become sick and tired of such discussions, which is why I have abandoned contributing to Wikipedia. As a PhD myself and familiar with the article by Mr Kurtz, I cannot see any reason why anyone would object to a simple statement that says something like "Documents in the archive at the Wisconsin Historical Society show that Barack Obama was an early member of the New Party." Mr Kurtz is a professional researcher. His article is a report of having witnessed documents that prove this point. He describes them. One contributor's objection to the "tone" of the article in which Mr Kurtz describes this is completely ridiculous. Mr Kurtz makes a factual claim. Editors who want to include this factual claim get jumped on for not meeting the burden of providing reliable sources. If a PhD academic who writes an article describing his research in a published magazine is considered "unreliable" then Wikipedia is more of a crock than I already thought. What would the objectors like instead? It would need to be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal? Photocopies of the documents? Sworn affadavits to the contents? Would all be nice, but that's hardly a realistic bar for a forum like Wikipedia. Instead, objectors fence with the need for "mainstream media outlets" (NYT, WaPo, major news networks?) to give it coverage before we have credible sourcing and/or "mainstream" discussion. That's the so-called Nyhan metric (after political scientist Brendan Nyhan) except applied to EVERYTHING (the Nyhan metric relies on the WaPo calling something a "scandal" before political scientists can refer to an event as a scandal; if the entire world calls it a scandal, but the WaPo never uses that exact word, it's not a "scandal"). Why can't reasonable people simply accept that Mr Kurtz made a factual statement: that Mr Obama used to be associated with the New Party? Several users on this talk page have shown the most childish behavior in responding to this topic, essentially sitting with their fingers in their ears, screaming, "I am not hearing this! I am not hearing this!" Shameful. (Don't bother writing to me. I will not be responding to any comments addressed to me.) Lufiend (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's important for the consensus process for multiple people to put their opinions out there candidly. Thank you for doing so, and I happen to agree with pretty much everything you said above. I have challenged several people to explain in what way the new info is not true or verifiable, and they've pretty much done exactly as you said -- stuck their fingers in their ears and wikilawyered about use of opinion pieces in the first person, while ignoring the elephant in the room that this is a respectable, trained researcher (except to those who dislike him because he is a conservative) who found and shared compelling original documents, and had his work recognized in mainstream outlets (including the WaPo). It has been particularly galling that one editor removed a reference to a Kurtz article in the NRO and replaced it with an opinion piece in The Progressive entitled "How to Push Obama", which was also written in the first person. It's clear to me that the wikilawyering has an agenda for some editors around here, and can be turned off when not needed for that agenda. (On an unrelated note, I personally would say Dr. Kurtz if using a title.) Wookian (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Skipping the esteemed Wook and responding to the original poster after an edit conflict) Allow me to parse this. You have a postgraduate degree as does Kurt, and you assume we don't, so assertions Kurtz makes based on what he claims he observed trump our process for verifying sources. And if we don't agree, Wikipedia is a crock. I hope that at some point in your education you learned what a logical fallacy is. You may think that Kurtz is super-special because he is a respected researcher. Others may think he is a partisan hack based on his blind repetition of various Republican campaign talking points. Yet others may esteem Newt Gingrich and his PhD, or Obama and his Harvard JD. That does not mean we repeat everything they say. We are an encyclopedia, not a cocktail party debate. In response to your rhetorical questions about sourcing, what we Wikipedians want as a threshold for inclusion is clearly spelled out in the well worn policy pages WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and other policy and guideline pages. We do not automatically assign a higher truth status to those those who assert personal authority (whether legal, religious, or academic - what principled reason would we have for choosing one belief system over another?). There's no question that Kurtz made a factual claim. So did a guy named Bob down at the corner tavern. The question is whether the making of the claim by Kurtz, or Bob, is significant enough to mention in the encyclopedia. The sources of the world, which we rely on to establish whether something is part of the world's accumulated body of knowledge, do not see fit to cover either of these claims. So we, as an accumulation of the sources of the world, do not cover them either. That's pretty simple, no childishness or crockpots involved. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikidemon, this story passed the editorial process for posting (among other places) on the curated Washington Post blog, a WaPo publication that summarizes and quotes think tank output which they considered significant enough to be part of the news (which is not very much, just a few articles a day or so). If Kurtz had no credibility, why would the WaPo curators have given him airtime? If if was just Kurtz's opinion, why didn't Ben Smith call him out on it, instead of acknowledging and sharing with the rest of the world the actual meeting minutes and membership roster that Kurtz found at the Wisconsin Historical Society archives? Back in 2008 Ben Smith had taken an active role back when he was at Politico in pooh-poohing the BO-NP connection based on what he considered the scant evidence of the NP event fliers that claimed Obama as a member, and I think in June 2012 he felt a journalistic responsibility to acknowledge such facts as now indicated that a stronger case had been made. What part of that is wrong? More specifically, where does the "brief Obama NP fling" story fail in truth or verifiability? Wookian (talk)

Using content from Trevor Loudon's book and its keywiki.org mirror

[edit]

I am having problems with the New Party (United States) article. I have problems using hyperlink sources from KeyWiki.org or Barack Obama and The Enemies Within book. Notability the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism inside the New Party that the Committees of Correspondence was radically left (Marxist-Leninist). The users on New Party (United States) are trying to cancel my account for no good reason. After all, Keywiki.org is also a wiki.

http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Enemies-Within-Trevor-Loudon/dp/0615490743 www.cc-ds.org/

Renegadeviking 14:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USERGENERATED for why keywiki.org cannot be cited as a reliable source. AJCham 21:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


   ↑ List of those NC members who signed statement of events at meeting of 11/15-16/91
   ↑ America's Survival, Inc. "From Henry Wallace to William Ayers - the Communist and 'Progressive' Movements"
   ↑ http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Wallace_to_Ayers_Communist_Progressive.pdf
   ↑ Radical Scholars & Activists Conference pamphlet, 1993
   ↑ The Corresponder Vol 10, No. 1, June 2002
   ↑ 6.0 6.1 Proceedings of the Committees of Correspondence Conference: Perspectives for Democracy and Socialism in the '90s booklet, printed by CoC in NY, Sept. 1992 (Price: $4)
   ↑ Way Back Machine: cofc.org: Leadership of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy & Socialism, August 6, 2004, originally at http://www.cofc.org/htm/leadersh.htm (accessed on Oct. 15, 2010)
   ↑ The Viet Cong Front in the United States, book, Western Goals, 1971, a private printing of the The Second Front of the Vietnam War, Communist Subversion in the Peace Movement, "Congressional Record", April 21, 1971 as prepared by Representatives John Schmitz, Roger Zion and Fletcher Thompson]]
   ↑ http://www.cc-ds.org/IssueJune2006Version4.0.pdf
   ↑ http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10628
   ↑ http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com/
   ↑ http://www.cc-ds.org/critical_moment.html
   ↑ http://www.cc-ds.org/convention_2009/Socialism_and_the_Emerging_Progressive_Majority.pdf
   ↑ http://www.cc-ds.org/discussion/metroDC_presents_Eco-socialism.html
   ↑ Committee to Stop FBI Repression: Solidarity Statements (accessed on Oct. 6, 2010)
   ↑ New Ground, 134, Jan./Feb. 2011
   ↑ Highlights from the National Coordinating Committee Meeting of 9/24/11
   ↑ CCDS NCC Meeting, Sept 30, 2011



   ↑ Spoiling for a fight: third-party politics in America By Micah L. Sifry, page 347
   ↑ SSE Tenth Annual Conference Program, 1992
   ↑ Dem.Left, July/Aug. 1995 page 18
   ↑ http://www.dsausa.org/dl/sum2k/01.html
   ↑ Z magazine June 1994
   ↑ Madeline Talbott, Chicago NP report August 12, 1992
   ↑ Chicago NP mailing list, circa 1993
   ↑ http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng38.html
   ↑ Where Does the Left Go From Here? A Chicago DSA - Chicago CoC Joint Forum, New Ground 39, March - April, 1995
   ↑ http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932
   ↑ http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html#anchor781435

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.newparty.org/ Renegadeviking 14:10, May 26 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Party_(United_States)&oldid=1198857996"