Talk:New Party (United States)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Controversy regarding New Party support for Barack Obama's candidacy in 1996

The Obama references were added within the last few days or hours of this alleged rumor coming out. As of now, I don't believe this rumor to be true or even credible. Full context needs to be provided and I'm sure the Obama campaign will respond. Until then, I can not let something outrageous or libelous like this to stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.37.171 (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "rumor" that the NP supported Obama's 1996 run. The source for the Oct. 8 edit which states this fact is the Internet Archive copy of a 1996 "update" page from the New Party's own web site, located at http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html . You can pull this page up yourself by going to the Internet Archive at http://www.archive.org/index.php and putting the URL "http://www.newparty.org/up9610.html" into the Wayback Machine. It has archived copies of that page that were cached between 1997 and 2003. That page even describes Obama as a "member" of the NP, so the statement that the NP supported his run is in fact an understatement. It is not outrageous or libelous to base a statement in the article on the New Party's own words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.147.29 (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Is one example from an archived web page from 1996 proof enough of the claim that Obama was a memeber of this organization? There's no other information I've seen corroborating this information. This combined with the timing around this addition (this story hit the right wing blogs yesterday) should be reason enough to disqualify the addition unless a better source shows up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.73.250 (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That web page shows that the NP at least supported Obama's candidacy, which is all that my edit said -- even though the NP's own statement that he was a member is strongly suggestive of that conclusion. Here's some corroboration of the NP's support for Obama if you require it: http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932 -- that is a link to the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America's own Web page, containing a report on the New Party membership meeting which was attended by, among others, a spokesperson for Obama, who was seeking the NP's support. Here is another page from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America's own Web page, in which the DSA group praises Obama and encourages contributing to his campaign: http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng45.html . And here is another page from the Chicago DSA Web site in which they discuss Obama's victory as a success of a "NP-endorsed" candidate and state that he "encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration." http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html#anchor781435 The fact that this story "hit the right wing blogs" (very non-NPOV terminology there, by the way) should not be a reason to disqualify the addition if the factual statements can be corroborated, which I just provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.53.131 (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So is anyone willing to go to a library in Chicago and look at a 1996 newspaper? Seems like a very straightforward, simple answer: what party was he listed as running under? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.14.110.162 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Obama ran on the Democratic ticket but was endorsed by the New Party. It's not entirely clear whether he was a "member" of the New Party, and I guess that may depend on the definition of "membership," but here's another source that states he was: a November 1996 editorial in Progressive Populist magazine. http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html

The wording on that page from populist.com is so similar to that from the New Party page in the Internet Archive that it could well be based on the New Party page, thus not an indepndent source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.14.110.162 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with all of this is not that the information is necessarily inaccurate, nor is the problem with all of this the motivations of those making the changes. So far, none of the cited sources are reliable third-party secondary sources, which is particularly important when the subject matter is controversial. The New Party archived website and the DSA archived website are self-published sources. Leaving that aside, it appears on the face of the material the Obama sought and obtained New Party endorsement in his run in the Democratic Party Primary, and then ran unopposed in the general election. What "help", if any, New Party provided in the primary is unstated in any of those sources. The suggestion made above is the correct one: whoever is interested enough to edit the article to include this material needs to find a reliable, third party secondary source. The Chicago Tribune's online text archives go back to 1985; the Sun Times to 1986; Chicago Reader to 1986 also; I'm sure there are others. Until then, none of this material is propery sourced per Wikipedia policy. Fladrif (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(I am the 'unsigned' from 208.14.110.162, sorry I didn't have my log-in info handy.) It's worth noting that a later page in the archive.org website only refers to Obama as a supported candidate. [1] Frank Lynch (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's apparently acknowleged it and noted that he ran as a Democrat, which seems irrelevant to the actual article content. [2] John Nevard (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The citations here are to primary sources, of unquestioned reliability -- in other words, nobody has offered any reason to think that a political party and its friends get basic stuff about that party's activities wrong. It is being used to make a simple assertion of fact, about Obama's political affiliations in 1996, which for understandable (though not terribly creditable) reasons has not yet made it into major media outlets. --Mikedelsol (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I questioned the reliability, but on another talk page. Primary sources are suspect to begin with - these materials are available to every journalist, author, and political opponent in the world just as they are to us, and if the material were worth covering they would cover it. The fact that secondary sources do not conclude it is true should be a hint to us, and that's one of the reason we favor secondary sources and why deciding what to make of primary sources is often considered original research or synthesis. Yes, fringe / minor political parties often get their basic facts wrong. They either lie, their sites are forged or hoax, they are wing-nuts, and/or they make exaggerated claims about their membership, claiming in order to puff up their importance that everyone who has ever spoken to them, appeared at their events, or signed a petition is "associated" or a member. We saw a very similar instance where there were claims that Sarah Palin had been a member of the secessionist Alaska Independent Party. Those claims were a lot more substantial and reliable-looking than this thing, and a lot of people were agitating to put that in the Sarah Palin article, accusing the more cautious editors of a cover-up, whitewashing, etc. But after the spotlight got turned on the claims it turned out they were false, and the party itself denied that she had ever been a member. In Obama's case the party is a tiny fraction of the size and importance of AIP, and it is not even around to answer to its claims. Even where we didn't have a specific reason to question the truth of unreliable sources, incidentally, they're still unreliable and can't reasonably form the basis of such an audacious claim as Obama's secretly having been a socialist. Wikidemon (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that Obama was "secretly" a socialist. The claim is that he was involved with the New Party. Reporters don't cover this for reasons laid out in this letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune A slow-cooker response. By the way, does a letter to tthe editor in a mjor newspaper count as a reliabl secondary source? After, the Newspaper is just as liable for libelous claims int he letters column as anywhere else. --20:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelsol (talk • contribs)

A letter to the editor is not a reliable source - it is just some person off the street voicing an opinion, and nothing here to suggest it is more than a random person's opinion. The opinion voiced is itself not a conclusion about anything, just a conspiratorial sounding claim that people are doing something wrong that needs to be investigated. Unlike a journalism piece there is no fact checking, no assumption of reliability or neutrality, no safeguard against uninformed or made up opinions, etc. It is interesting that the paper decided to publish it, though. One wonders, sometimes, why a newspaper decides to publish some rants and not other rants. They must have felt it was indicative of a common opinion or one that was worth sharing. Wikidemon (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, y'all! I agree with Fladrif, above. Additionally, it seems totally unbalanced to call out just Obama, who is one of 200+ people they have endorsed as the sources show. Comments appreciated... --guyzero | talk 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was happy to add the link to the later page at archive.org showing the 200+, and also want to say that here in New York, Working Families (a group under the New Party umbrella) rides on candidates' coattails. They would show a Democratic candidate under their party, and ask voters to vote for that candidate under that line, to increase their visibility. So I'm good with deleting the verb 'helped' since the contribution in such cases is questionable.Frank Lynch (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Obama should be mentionmed in this article because he is far and away the most famous person to be associated with the New Party. We can't claim that the New Party helped him until we find a reliable source that New Party people actually did something to help him. But the association should be here somehow.--Mikedelsol (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Your interest in this matter seems to have nothing to do with the New Party (the nominal subject of this article) and everything to do with Barack Obama. Regardless, There is no reliable, third-party source for any of your claims so there is no point discussing it further. Please go back to basics and learn how articles actually get sourced on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in Obama, who was affiliated with the New Party, welcomed their support, and amed to continue the affiliation. There is ample documentation of this in the materials from the New Party and its allies available on the web, e.g. the Chicago DSA website New Ground, which writes in issue 47 "Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration." [3]. --Mikedelsol (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

None of that is reliable sourcing, and the truth of these claims is highly dubious. Please don't keep re-inserting the claim in the article. You need to get consensus for disputed changes, and given how startling a claim it is that Obama was once a socialist party member, you will probably need some very strong sourcing for it because exceptional claims require exceptionally strong sources. I just don't see that happening. We would see front page articles in all the major papers if that kind of claim had any veracity.Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If there were any truth to it whatsoever, nobody would be wasting their time talking about Ayers and ACORN anymore. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to also bring up that Obama is a poor bowler. Frank Lynch (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL, maybe the folks at Bowling will be OK if we add that info there. See also Talk:Barack_Obama#Health --guyzero | talk 04:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now some new evidence out about this: http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78945 Whether this is still just second hand info or not I am not sure.

One thing I noticed is

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul1967 (talk • contribs)

That's not a reliable source - it's Aaron Klein (who promotes most of the anti-Obama theories) writing in World Net Daily, a frequent publisher of all kinds of poorly researched partisan attacks.Wikidemon (talk) 14:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

March 2012

Obama absolutely was a member of the New Party. There are multiple archived pages from the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America web pages. As well as this from the the Progressive Populist. --Denton0826 (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have multiple pages (5 or 6) of the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America Publication "New Ground" specifically mentioning and endorsing Barack Obama and you're going to tell me that it's not a reliable source? On what grounds? I am going to add my information again and should you remove my content again I will request dispute resolution and page protection. --Denton0826 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What you'll get for that is an editing block. You're supposed to discuss, and you cannot gain consensus, to leave well enough alone. On the technicalities, any group's membership claims are a primary source and not particularly trustworthy. When the group is a local out-of-mainstream political organization and the claims are about a major politician, there's all the more reason for skepticism. There are plenty of reasons why they might have misstated this claim, and by all appearances they did. On the substance, this weird claim about Obama being a communist fits in with all the other weird extremist stuff coming out about Obama - he's a fascist, a socialist, communist, an impostor, etc. It's WP:FRINGE material and it would need a very solid source to mention at all, much less to state as if it were true. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not a reliable source. Take it up at the noticeboard if you don't believe us. The extraordinary claim that Obama was a member of the party would require iron-clad references. They would have to be from multiple reliable source (not socialist blogs) and they would have to be second-party sourced (ie., a news organization). Otherwise it violates WP:BLP The fact that you can't find any reliable sources should tell you something about the truthfulness of this claim (because, really, if it were true don't you think his opponents would have made a serious issue out of it?) As for dispute resolution, the first thing anyone is going to tell you is that you're edit-warring in violation of WP:3RR. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Extraordinary claim"? That Obama was in the New Party? That's laughable. There is a clearly visible pattern of Obama being associated with extremist groups, whether it's Rev. Wright's church which openly advocates racism against whites, terrorist "weatherman" Bill Ayers, criminal Tony Rezko, and now the far left extremist "New Party," none of which you will read about on wikipedia with Obama's name attached. Our president's signature appears on official New Party documents, and the editors here have decided to block this wiki from mentioning it. It's a sad day now that Wikipedia has become a way for leftists and Obama apologists to rewrite history; in fact, it's opposed to what wikipedia and its editors claim are their goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.196.30 (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep or cut Obama?

Looking for comments and guidance here. We are only mentioning Barack Obama as being endorsed by NP. That mention alone is based on shaky and web-archive sources as it is. My question is, is it balanced to mention only Obama out of the other 200+ candidates that NP has endorsed? Should we cut all mention of Obama or mention any other notable candidates from the list that Frankenab posted earlier? thanks in advance, --guyzero | talk 01:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that I don't question archive.org's cache - - itself - - of the old 1996 page. Their 1997 cache of my site (samueljohnson.com) is accurate. The question in my mind is the source material they cached. I don't know that New Party's 1996 characterization of Obama as a "member" is any more reputable than a blog. As for singling out Obama, I personally don't think that's appropriate: he ran unopposed; how could you claim to have any significance in such a race?Frank Lynch (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• No reliable secondary sources have made this connection, we cannot rely on primary sources and blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.87.76 (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Quite right. On the other hand, this is such a pretty picture. John Nevard (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The NP can claim whomever they want as "their" candidate or member, that doesn't make it so. --guyzero | talk 00:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what's been said. I don't think singling out Obama is balanced and the mention seems to have little real relevance to the article. I also think the lack of reliable secondary sources makes the mention less creditable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.73.250 (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is a secondary source necessary to establish that the New Party endorsed Obama? That much seems to be undisputed since an endorsement, and even a claim that he was a member, appeared on the party's website. What purpose would a secondary source serve? Is there any question that the endorsement occurred?

I also think the endorsement is notable, though it's a closer call. Obama is running for president. I understand not wanting to play into the hands of right-wing blogs who'd like this article to be more about Obama than the New Party, but a single sentence noting the fact, along with the Obama campaign's response, seems appropriate.0nullbinary0 (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It is disputed. The party website is suspect and its truth uncertain. It is very unlikely that Obama was a member, so if the website claims that we know it is not accurate. Obscure claims about major party individuals need solid sourcing. The fact that an archive version of a defunct website is the only place a claim can be found about Obama highly suggests that it is either untrue or of extremely low importance. Wikidemon (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

March 2010

This article is about the New Party itself. It dumbfounds me how anyone can say that you can't use the party's own words in an article on the party, without someone else corroborating. That is like saying you can't convict a thief for stealing after he admits it unless someone else saw him do it. I believe most of the preceding discussion is colored by individual political biases and loyalties, not logic. This article should indeed include that Barack Obama was indeed a member of the New Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sozodken (talk • contribs) 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The analogy is not very close but no, you can't use a minor political party's own claims of having swayed a local election to verify a controversial claim about the United States President. They have every reason to exaggerate their accomplishments and size, and the rumor-mongers who spread this have every reason to try to use it to discredit Obama. The thief example doesn't work, a thief's claim he stole something would not be a legitimate source for Wikipedia to describe the theft. For more about self-published controversial statements please see WP:RS and WP:BLP. If something like this had any merit to it we would see significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Please do not use article talk pages to make accusations about other editors, either. Finally, please remember to sign your posts. - four tildes (~~~~) - Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering that their endorsement of someone who later on became President of the United States is probably the most notable thing they have done, it's fair to make a new section on the site about the debate on this issue. The DNC has confirmed that New Party endorsed Mr. Obama though denies that he was ever a member or sought an endorsement from New Party. [[4]] Omitting it completely is just biased. - 75.4.18.214 (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2012 Redux

The truth is that Barack Obama is the President of the United States, this makes all of his party affiliations VERY significant in an historical context. Moreover, significant photograph and document evidence has emerged that provide a backdrop the party's own records. Finally, if some inconsequential House member (Illinois Rep. Danny K. Davis) is cited, why not THE PRESIDENT of the U.S.A.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C-delta conductor (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for page protection. The supposed proof is a new piece by one of the old partisans who was this stuff before the last election. Please don't keep adding claims that aren't reliably sourced. That's a WP:BLP issue, among other things. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If we are to accept that source two is not reliable than the entire section on New Party endorsements must be cut. However, I tend to believe that we can trust PRIMARY documents. — Preceding comment added by C-delta conductor (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The article being used as a source (here) explicitly states the following things:

• Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois senate: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”
• Obama’s official spokesman Ben LaBolt...claimed that his candidate “was never a member” of the New Party.
• New Party co-founder and leader Joel Rogers told [[[Politico]]'s Ben Smith] Smith, “We didn’t really have members.”

The article is essentially Stanley Kurtz saying he just doesn't believe the people who would be in the best position to attest to the veracity of Kurtz's claims. Why anyone cares about this possible affiliation, I don't know, but WP:BLP really doesn't support the inclusion of conspiracy theory-level claims. — Scientizzle 18:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As I noted, Kurtz is one of the operatives who was promoting this and other fringe-ish anti-Obama stuff before the last election: Obama's supposed ties with terrorists, being a closet socialist, etc. He's back for another spin at that wheel, apparently. I won't get into the deeper psychological / social reasons why people want to believe Obama is a Manchurian candidate, but it's part of that. See the small new buzz of chatter in the conservative blogosphere.[5][6][7][8] I haven't seen any direct exhortations to come flood Wikipedia but a number of these blogs link to this article, so presumably some of the new / IP accounts are arriving here that way. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Opinion pieces:

• Kurtz, Stanley (Ethics and Public Policy Center senior fellow) (June 7, 2012). "Obama’s third-party history". National Review Online

contain opinions:

In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party.
Although Obama is ultimately responsible for deceiving the American people in 2008 about his political background, he got help from his old associates.
Yet it is clear that Obama, through his official spokesman, Ben LaBolt, and the Fight the Smears website, was bent on deceiving the American public about a matter whose truth he well knew.

and complain about the mainstream press not taking them seriously:

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.”...I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.
When the New Party controversy broke out, just about the only mainstream journalist to cover it was Politico’s Ben Smith, whose evident purpose was to dismiss it out of hand.
...let us see whether a press that let candidate Obama off the hook in 2008 — and that in 2012 is obsessed with the president’s youthful love letters — will now refuse to report that President Obama once joined a leftist third party, and that he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency.

News articles in WP:Reliable sources do not.
Newross (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

According to the Kurtz article, which quotes the minutes of the January 11, 1996 meeting of the New Party Chicago chapter, Barack Obama not only asked for endorsement from the NP, but also joined the NP and signed their "Candidate Contract". Kurtz provides a direct quote of the NP meeting minutes from that day which make these facts clear. That part of his article is certainly not opinion. In addition, Kurtz is published on the National Review Online, which (while conservative) is notable for consistently both avoiding and ridiculing conspiracy theories about the president (e.g. birtherism). Wookian (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The entire thing is Kurtz's opinion. Why should Kurtz's opinions be presented in contrast to the assertions of Obama('s campaign staff) and the party co-founder. This is a WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE issue until it appears in a broader spectrum of sources than the present rightwing political echo chamber. — Scientizzle 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you classify Kurtz's verbatim quote of the NP meeting minutes as an "opinion"? He didn't even write that, he's just quoting it. Can you clarify? Wookian (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to us to make those kinds of direct arguments to primary sources. The relevant secondary source is in an opinion piece by a partisan, not a reliable source. If there's any merit, importance, or relevance to the story it will get picked up by the mainstream press. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You have way too much faith in the mainstream press. The mainstream press tried to bury the Monica Lewinsky story until Matt Drudge forced them to look at it. The mainstream press tried to bury John Edwards' affair until the National Enquirer reported it.

On second thought, you, Wikidemon, have been working to bury this story since October 2008, so perhaps you are an agent of the mainstream press! 199.46.200.232 (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Even assuming the primary document is quoted precisely without any missing context, it is Kurtz's opinion that those minutes (and other documents?) are sufficient to assert that Obama campaign officials and the party co-founder made "false" claims about New Party membership in efforts to "deceive[] the American public". When you strip away the heavy layers of politicization present in Kurtz's piece, he simply presents contradicting evidence and claims, then picks his preferred interpretation. Until a broader discussion/analysis occurs, we would be in violation of WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE to present these claims. — Scientizzle 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The only reasonable way I can see to deny the suitability of this source is either to suppose that Kurtz may be lying, or perhaps that these records kept by the Wisconsin Historical Society are falsified. Kurtz's political views do not change this unambiguous quote from the NP meeting minutes. And despite what some say above, the NRO is not properly considered a fringe organization, in terms of citations. Their political views may be considered fringe at a Bay Area Tofu-B-Cue, but their journalistic practices are disciplined and for whatever it's worth, their political leanings are in line with a good half of the USA. People dislike that Kurtz has in the past pointed out associations between Obama and various politically far left elements; but he has documented his work and deserves better than the "crackpot" categorization with which some leftists are happy to write him off. It is a supreme irony to accuse Kurtz of partisanship when he makes this verbatim quote, then place implicit trust instead in Chicago political machinery! I cannot but chuckle to see that irony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wookian (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That "unambiguous quote from the NP meeting minutes" is ambiguous if the party co-founder explicitly says "We didn’t really have members" in the manner that Kurtz is alleging. Also WP:FRINGE does not apply to the NRO, but to the claim — 'Barrack Obama was a member of the New Party' — which is an assertion that does not have broad support in its field and therefore should not receive undue attention. If this moves into the mainstream press at all, with independent analysis of Kurtz's assertions, then it might be fair game for inclusion. Until then it's not appropriate for inclusion. — Scientizzle 20:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of Barack Obama is all over national media. If one wants to say he has been said to be have been in New Party, that's fair, but to remove completely it is POV. The concensus for inclusion should be clear from the volume of additions alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.94.115 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Mainstream sources

The Washington Post, a major left-leaning newspaper, has picked up on this in their politics blog as part of a summary of recent output of think-tank researchers including Kurtz. Also Ben Smith, Kurtz's liberal-leaning foil, has acknowledged Kurtz's new research, admitted that the Obama campaign may have been dishonest in 2008 in denying his past membership in the organization, and indicated that there are some important unanswered questions here. Of course, it's not Wikipedia's job to sort out whether people lied, parsed words etc; however, presenting sourceable facts at this point is 100% appropriate, primarily based on Kurtz's "smoking gun" quote from the NP meeting minutes which is being widely acknowledged at this point by both liberals and conservatives. Does anybody have any further objection against the claim that Obama's past membership in the NP has entered the mainstream of ideas and discussion? Wookian (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Atlantic Wire has some coverage now, too: "Conservatives Go to War with the Obama They Have, Not the Socialist They Want", Elspeth Reeve, The Atlantic Wire, Jun 7, 2012 — Scientizzle 16:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Is the Atlantic Wire piece a reliable source for any of this? It's tone is an analysis, but it's full of opinionated and informal statements "conservative obsession", "never mind", "kind of crummy", "wait, huh?", "gets so weird", "really bizarre", not exactly the most sober journalistic approach. I think it's reliable for the facts it does claim, but other things in there are clearly opinion. With respect to the New Party / Obama thing, the focus and tone of the piece is that in 2012 Republican operatives tried to turn an old issue into a new scandal when Kurtz repeated his accusation that Obama had signed the New Party's endorsement contract. That would be reasonable sourcing, and I wouldn't object either way to a consensus around including or not including that fact. About the accusation itself about the campaign misstating events or being a member it does not opine whether it is true or not, it only reports that the accusation was made. So we cannot use it to endorse the accusation. Is a single weak but reliable source that obsessive conservatives tried to make as scandal out of the New Party enough WP:WEIGHT to mention in an encyclopedic account of the New Party? Perhaps, because the New Party doesn't have a whole lot of notability otherwise. But it's also reasonable to say that a single source doesn't prove a point, again, if this is a real issue then surely it will receive more authoritative coverage in mainstream sources. In the same way that Wikipedia isn't a compendium of Hollywood gossip tidbits, even where the sources are (semi) reliable, Wikipedia is also more than a compendium of the political blogging industry. We'll see. The buzz feed is not a new source, it's a link to the piece we already discussed. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The WaPo blog doesn't really work as a source since it's a paragraph-long blurb with no critical evaluation, just a paraphrase of the controversy. I think Buzzfeed and NRO may be suitable as WP:PARITY sources, but it's a gray area.

The AW piece is closer to what we probably should have, but it still makes me uncomfortable. There is no news piece yet that covers the issue, only point-counterpoint (smear-countersmear?) barrages. I tend to be very picky about sources, but I predict there's a likely chance of wider coverage since it seems to be getting some play beyond sources closely allied with NRO; it may be possible to have really good-quality sourcing soon...That said, at this point the most that can be reasonably stated in this article, within policy, is something along the lines of "Kurtz argues A based on his interpretation of sources XYZ. Others disagree with his interpretation of Z. Statements by Mr. B and Mrs. C deny the validity of Kurtz's claim." That's about it...and it's not great. — Scientizzle 18:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Took off the hat. Scientizzle says it's a digression, I say it's germain. Let people read it and decide for themselves. As for news sourcing...the information that Obama was a member of New Party is being cited in many different sources. Brietbart, New American, National Review and Newsmax all cover this story. Now, is that Mother Jones or CBS, no. However, if the information is to be included in that a claim has been made that this is true, then fine, however, to erase it from the page as if it it doesn't exist is simply not encylopedic. It appears that not only are witnesses involved that know Obama was a member but Obama himself appears in New Party literature. This is relevant, important and needs t be included. 66.87.7.27 (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

66.87.7.27 or can I call you 66? :), it appears to me that discussion is moving toward a consensus about some kind of mention on the page, so it's not clear to me why the diversion above needs to be resurrected. Scientizzle had earlier objected that the idea of Obama's membership was not in the mainstream of thought. That seems now to be satisfied, since the NRO published it, the WaPo thought it germane to mention, its all over both conservative and liberal outlets and I don't really see people questioning the legitimacy of Kurtz's source. In my opinion, the challenge for editors at this point seems to be (as Scientizzle said above) determining how to concisely and non-confusingly represent the contradictions that haven't yet been resolved here. Of course, we don't have to resolve the contradictions and shouldn't try, instead just somehow make the reader aware of them. While the Obama campaign would probably prefer that this material not be presented at all to the public, that shouldn't affect the notability and relevancy of Kurtz's NP research for purposes of this article. In other words, the president has been reasonably documented to have been a member (in some capacity) of the NP, and that is unquestionably notable and an important part of an encyclopedia entry about the New Party. (descend soap box) Wookian (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you got the notion that there was consensus to use Kurtz's opinion piece as a reliable source for a BLP. Clearly that's not the case. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What you ascribe as my "notion" is not anything I said. Please respond to my actual comments. Wookian (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Forbes has recognized Kurtz's new material by publishing an article by regular contributor Lawrence Hunter. It's an opinion piece lamenting that both Republican and Democrat politicians are further toward the socialism end of the scale than the author would like. Wookian (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Many of the articles out there (including Ben Smith's in Buzzfeed) are referencing the fact that information about the New Party is still available using the internet Wayback Machine at archive.org. For example, various writers have pointed out that in November of 1996, it cost a $36 monthly fee to be a member of the national organization. This particular offer was presented in the New Party's website; see archive.org link at bottom of Smith's article. So this is why Kurtz (as Smith acknowledges) considers the founder of the NP to have severely dissembled when he claimed the NP didn't even have any membership. Note that I'm NOT suggesting using this as a source in the NP article. The purpose of this paragraph is to help some of the editors around here who seem to have have read the secondary sources such as Kurtz or Smith, but somehow tuned them out and missed a critical element of credibility about these new revelations. It turns out that the New Party DID in fact have some kind of membership. Either that, or their webmaster had a pretty sweet racket going on! ;) Wookian (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, archive.org isn't a reliable source. Second of all, even if it were, you are engaging in original research. We rely on reliable sources only. If, as you say, you're not suggesting this be used as a source, then you're simply engaging in discussion about the subject which is inappropriate. This is not a forum for discussing your beliefs or sharing your newly discovered "evidence." It's a talk page for proposing specific changes to this article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that paragraph as an explanation to assist editors who may have misunderstood the secondary sources such as Ben Smith's articles. Some editors above have asserted that Kurtz's piece and others were merely statements of their own opinion. These editors seemed to be unaware that Kurtz and Smith were accessing primary documents. When we evaluate secondary sources, we ascribe weight (or lack thereof) to them based on questions such as whether they are handling primary documents. However, to avoid the appearance of original research, I modified my link above to go to Smith's article linking to archive.org, instead of linking directly myself as an exemplar of the material Smith and others linked to. As regards "general discussion", I disagree that this is inappropriate, because there is a debate about whether these secondary sources are sufficient for inclusion in the article. Suggestion to shut down this debate seems unreasonable. Wookian (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

NRO's Stanley Kurtz has shared his source documents with Ben Smith at Buzzfeed, who posted them online. Smith interviewed a few of the people present at the meeting where IL state senate candidate Obama asked for endorsement, signed the NP Candidate Contract, and "joined" the New Party (whatever that means). The quotes Smith provides from his interviews indicate that people don't remember much if anything about Obama's involvement. One gets a sense in reading the article that Smith would rather not be asking these questions, and the former NP members would rather not be answering them. Smith reports that an Obama campaign spokesman this week actively declined to update their position in light of the new revelations - in other words, their official position evidently remains that Obama never joined the NP or sought its nomination. Wookian (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that Ben Smith and Rosie Gray of Buzzfeed are officially pushing the notion that the Obama campaign has made false statements. The tagline for this article says "According to people involved at the time, Obama sought the New Party's endorsement, but was never a member. The party was 'poorly organized,' a former organizer says." The Obama campaign denied that Obama sought the NP's endorsement, but now Smith/Gray are giving credence to both the meeting minutes and to their own interviews of former NP members that contradict that. At the same time, by saying it was "poorly organized" they seem to be attempting to downplay the other big contradiction, about Obama's having joined the group. Wookian (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A blog post on buzzfeed isn't in any way a substitution for reliable sources. The same unverified information bouncing around in the echo chamber for a week does not suddenly create verifiability and reliability out of thin air. Again, until this is actually reported as true by reliable sources we can't even consider including it. Blog posts referring to allegations in editorials or on other blog posts aren't verification, they're just repetition. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it is merely your opinion that Kurtz's article in National Review isn't a reliable source. I disagree with that evaluation. At this point, Kurtz has shared his primary documents (the NP meeting minutes) with other mainstream writers of basically the opposite political persuasion (Smith/Gray), who have given the materials credence and reported on their contents. How does that constitute an "echo chamber"? Wookian (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

With the length and divisiveness of this discussion, it seems worth copying here an excerpt from what appears to be the relevant policy:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources.
I looked around for noticeboard discussions on National Review. What I found was a little thin but appeared to suggest that National Review is an RS. However, it is certainly not multiple reliable sources, which is what the policy requires. At this point, the discussion has to separate out two claims: (1) Obama was a member of the New Party and (2) the New Party endorsed Obama's candidacy. For claim (1), the sourcing beyond the National Review is mixed, with Ben Smith saying it's still not proven, and Atlantic Wire saying . . . well, even after reading that article multiple times, I'm still not sure what exactly it's saying. To me, this adds up to a pretty clear rejection of the notion that the sourcing is strong enough to put claim (1) into the article.
Claim (2) is another matter. First of all, Ben Smith endorses it. Secondly, a source like the New Party is not RS for claims about others ("Obama is a member of the New Party"), but is RS for a statement about itself ("the New Party endorses Barack Obama"). So my opinion is that we do have RS sourcing for claim (2). William Jockusch (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Robin Abcarian referenced Kurtz's article and Obama's affiliation with the NP in a news story in the LA Times. Wookian (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

HeShe referenced and the news story is about the former, not the latter. Okay, so we have a small amount of reliable sourcing that conservatives are trying to call Obama socialist by tying him to the new party. Zero sourcing so far that he was actually connected to the New Party, only that opponents raised it as an election issue. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(Seems to be a glitch or something in your post, so not clear whether I need to point out that Robin, the LA Times writer, is a she.) I don't see anyone suggesting that this page's article should claim that Obama was a socialist, or that the NP is socialist. For purposes of this discussion, "Socialism" is a vague and contentious term probably best left to Socialism. The notable info here is that Obama's campaign strongly denied that he sought the endorsement of the NP, yet is now widely accepted to have spoken untruthfully. It's significant because of the cover-up. Do you disagree with that? Do you entertain a conspiracy theory that somehow exonerates the Obama campaign from their false statements in 2008? Unclear what your objection is at this point, with Kurtz's research and clear documentation having been widely acknowledged.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wookian (talk • contribs)

I've corrected my assumption as Robin may be a male or female name. I don't see where you're getting those things above, they're not in the Abcarian story. That story mentions, as background context to something Sarah Palin said in an article about Palin's supporters and anti-Obama grudge, that the New Party claim is a "story gaining traction right now in the right-wing blogosphere". There's nothing in the article that says Obama denies it (which in the context of that story would lend at negligible weight and relevance to the New Party), and none of the reliable sources have claimed any untruth or coverup. There's nothing but Kurtz' own word that his claims are sound, and he's been making strong partisan claims for years about this. The conspiracy theory is to believe that there's some cover-up that Obama is a secret socialist or Muslim or Kenyan or whatever, not that people are making these wild claims. That they certainly are. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"The conspiracy theory is to believe that there's some cover-up that Obama is a secret socialist or Muslim or Kenyan or whatever -- see, that's a problem, nobody here is saying that. You're attacking a straw man. The discussion should properly be about what Robin Abcarian refers to as "Obama’s affiliation in the 1990s with a Chicago organization called the 'New Party.'". Ms. Abcarian may or may not have had a similar agenda to many liberal commentators now in avoiding drawing attention to Obama's now-embarrassing denials of his past affiliation; however those denials are easily sourcable to anybody's satisfaction. I propose that Kurtz's article (which itself meets guidelines for consideration as a reliable source) has been widely enough recognized by his journalistic peers and counterparts at this point that it would be appropriate to mention (a) Kurtz's documentation that Obama sought the endorsement of the NP and (b) the Obama campaign's denial of the same. Even those journalists who find themselves on the opposite side of the fence politically are acknowledging his research and discovery of the basic facts of the matter from original NP documents, even while they strongly disagree with his conclusions (e.g. "Obama was a socialist"). Isn't that a reasonable take on this? Wookian (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why in the World would we put that in this article? You're conclusions are not correct, and there are no reliable sources that state as fact that Obama sought an endorsement, much less applied for membership, in this short-lived 3rd party. Anything concerning a living person would have to have very strong sourcing. Not this silly "he said/she said" bs. This whole non-issue is a no-go. Dave Dial (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If it is a "non-issue", why did the LA times link directly to Kurtz's article (which is a reliable source, sorry) and mention "Obama's affiliation in the 1990's with a Chicago organization called the 'New Party'"? Why has nobody questioned the legitimacy of the primary documents Kurtz discovered and reported on? Is it a "non-issue" if a sitting president is found to have lied and covered up his past? Are you attempting to assist the president's campaign in covering this up? As stated before, I suggest that it requires a conspiracy theory at this point to deny Kurt'z findings of fact. (Kurtz's political opinions are, of course, another matter.) Wookian (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the discussion is pointless. Without reliable sources we're just arguing opinions. You're really reaching here. The Times never claims there is an association between Obama and the New Party, you're taking that passage way out of context to stand for something the article doesn't say. They're characterizing Kurtz' claims, not Obama's history. No reliable source has said there is an association, a scandal, or a controversy, much less a lie or coverup. A few have reported that Republicans are making that claim. We don't have any primary documents, all we have is Kurtz, a less than reliable source, claiming that he has seen primary documents. Kurtz and other partisan operatives have made lots of claims about Obama, mostly distorted or untrue. The question of whether we tack those claims onto the article about the thing that is the subject of the claim is a case-by-case issue. When operatives accused Obama of being a "teleprompter president" we didn't add that to the article on teleprompters. When the crowd calling Obama a Marxist / socialist / fascist decided he was a disciple of Saul Alinsky, for some reason that got added to the Alinsky article but not the socialism article. When they said he was from Kenya we didn't change the article on Kenya. When there was a controversy over Jeremiah Wright we did add Obama's association to that article. What's the common thread here? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Kurtz's article in the NRO is a reliable source. I'm interested to hear you defend your opinion that it's not. Also, Kurtz shared the primary documents with Ben Smith, who posted them online. So yes, we do have them. And I believe it would even be acceptable under Wikipedia's rules to link to the original documents, via the (secondary) Ben Smith article that embeds a Scribd archive. Some of your assertions above are a bit confusing to me, because they seem obviously mistaken. Wookian (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I too am curious why you (Demon) don't think Kurtz articles in the National Review are reliable. I'm not terribly familiar with Kurtz or the NR, so maybe you know something I don't. I will say that the level of detail and specificity in his articles is striking. Incidentally, he has doubled down on his claims[9].William Jockusch (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This and this, and among other things. Kurtz is not a neutral journalistic observer, he's a partisan operative who has spent years attacking Obama. In this particular article he's repeating some claims he made in 2008 while bringing out all the talking points about socialism, ACORN, Obama deceiving the public, etc. He's as reliable Jerome Corsi, David Freddoso, Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Jason Mattera, Pamela Geller, or anyone else who writes an anti-Obama expose and then writes guest articles announcing his findings. It's a lost cause, I really doubt the editors here are going to consider this piece a reliable source for the extraordinary claims it makes, alone and without mainstream corroboration. You're on stronger ground with Ben Smith, a relatively minor and weak, but at least reliable source, or if you can find some more thoughtful publications that describe this. Alas, there are few sources other than the conservative blog world, which indicates that the matter has not been deemed very important, and the few sources that exist cover mostly the issue in the context of it being something conservatives are using to disparage the President. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It is well known that Kurtz weights his time toward researching questions that advance conservative causes. That alone shouldn't classify him as an unreliable source - or else we'd have to throw out most journalism, including much of the NYT. Even the LA Times article we discussed by Robin Abcarian showed signs of being colored by the author's political opinion. But I would generally consider her as a reliable source for the facts she documented, even while withholding judgement on her expressed opinions (Palin's spoke because of a "grudge", etc). Similarly, Kurtz's facts that he documented have been widely recognized (including by Ms. Abcarian), even while we can be sure that nobody on the left is going to agree with his conclusions and opinions based on those facts. The bottom line, Wikidemon, is that there is no way you can paint the meeting minutes Kurtz discovered as being merely Kurtz's personal opinion. The minutes are being widely recognized as a significant and real primary documentation of Obama's involvement with the NP. Whether Obama's involvement with the NP is seen an important story or not may in some cases boil down to one's political agenda. I can see why a pro-Obama activist would be very interested in shushing up this story or claiming it is unimportant. Wookian (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The New York Times is, in its news stories, very reliable and not particularly partisan. So is the LA Times. That's different than a writer devoting himself to attacking the President, getting on the partisan circuit, and repeating a party's talking points. The Abcarian piece is political analysis, which is a step removed from straight reporting, and there are aspects of it that are surely opinionated and not reliable. The title "Sarah Palin can't help it" telescopes that, although some publications do allow for colorful language in headlines, which are often written by editors rather than the reporters. I don't know enough about National Review Online to assess whether it has a solid reputation for fact checking and editorial control, but in the Kurtz piece at least they seem to be giving him lots of room to opine. Abcarian did not endorse Kurtz's opinion that there is a link between Obama and the New Party, that he was a member, that Obama lied about it, or that it makes any difference. She was reporting that conservatives are making much of these claims. There is no wide recognition of anything, there are a bunch of conservative claims and a few mainstream and a few liberal writers who have covered those claims. That much is verifiable, that conservatives have looked at some documents and made some claims. As I said that is something that may or may not be germane to the New Party, depending on weight. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the strict standards surrounding a BLP do not require universal acceptance of the truth of an allegation, but merely wide acknowledgement of the allegation. By linking to Kurtz's article, the WaPo, LATimes, Buzzfeed, Forbes, and others have acknowledged his allegation. Kurtz is most certainly partisan, but he's not a crackpot, birther, etc, and he is careful to document his research. Nobody is suggesting posting any of Kurtz's controversial opinions, rather, merely one or two of his well documented facts which gained enough respect to be recognized as mainstream ideas by the aforementioned outlets. Wookian (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Demon -- first of all, thank you for not disturbing my recent minimalist edit. That inaction on your part helps me to AGF. Now -- those links you gave above demonstrate that Kurtz is a partisan author and that he has an axe to grind. I don't doubt that for a second. But to take an example in the other direction, Media Matters For America is a partisan organization and clearly has an axe to grind, yet Wikipedia considers it to be an RS. Your links demonstrate that Kurtz has pushed the idea that Obama is "radical". But "radical" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? Not long ago I heard a piece on NPR that was stating that the Republican Party is "radical". I can't say I agree with this, but does it make NPR an unreliable source? Or does it mean that NPR, though reliable, is willing to give airtime to people who express nasty views about the Republican party? Similarly, Obama recently stated that the Republican budget is "radical" and a "trojan horse"[10]. Does that make Obama an unreliable source? Or does it mean that his idea of what is "radical" is different from the ideas of (say) Kurtz on what is "radical"? The upshot is that a demonstration of unreliability ought to involve false factual claims. And at least in the case of Wikipedia, it appears to require a multitude of such claims, as plenty of sources that have made such claims at one time or another, and even refused to publish corrections of such claims, are still considered reliable.William Jockusch (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Fox News Baltimore covered this story with a video segment and a short summary article. Wookian (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The Chicago Tribune carried an opinion piece by Jonah Goldberg, titled "Obama's Truthiness". Here's a quote: "Yes, he was a member of the socialist New Party (as my National Review colleague Stanley Kurtz has documented)." Mr. Goldberg is a syndicated columnist, so the same article was run in the Orlando Sentinel and some other places. It's certainly an opinion piece, but it's being carried in mainstream outlets and refutes the claim that Kurtz is operating in the fringe and only gaining recognition in the right-wing blogosphere. Anyone disagree? Wookian (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This story was on Fox Business with Lou Dobbs. [11] William Jockusch (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tribune op ed doesn't lend any weight. Lou Dobbs possibly lends some verifiability to the meeting minutes in fact existing. He waves some papers and refers to draft meeting minutes, is he waving a copy of the minutes in the middle of the interview or waving his notes for dramatic effect? So far no reliable source has really verified what these meeting minutes are. A political analyst for Fox News conducting an interview of the primary protagonist of these claims doesn't really establish that they're of note, Fox covers lots of fringe stuff. Also, the interview dates to June 8 so it's not exactly expanding coverage, if it were going to lead to something by now it probably would have. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments about editor behavior

digression
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've moved the above IP editor's curious request to have me blocked to the RFPP page to avoid the possibility, however slight, that an admin viewing this would not notice the resolution.[12] (redacted) - Wikidemon (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Once again, Admin request to block User:Wikidemon for violation of 3RR policy on New Party page, as well as removal of data from talk page, simply because he didn't want that request seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.94.115 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Wikidemon has shown his motivation for engaging in an edit war is POV and shows bad faith, as he has accused my request for dealing with his poor behavior as "Sock Puppetry". I am no sock. I am a legitimate editor. Admins, please handle this. 64.222.94.115 (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC) <-- For detail please see the RFPP page and of course this page's edit history. Any admin or legitimate editor with anything to discuss, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks, (redacted) - Wikidemon (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC) You are assuming bad faith, which in and of itself is a Wikpedia violation. Please no namecalling. As for being a legitimate editor...my understanding is that all can edit Wikipedia, that makes me legitimate. However, your characterization of my edits is na example of exactly why I've asked for you to be blocked. Admins? Could you please deal with this? 64.222.94.115 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Please Wikidemon, do not remove information from the talk page, or edit it in such a way that it appears off-topic. This is not good faith editing. I am attempting to bring in an admin who can easily understand the nature of this dispute. You have been fighting the addition of the Obama/New Party information for years. Frankly, you're making the case for me that you should be edit blocked. 64.222.94.115 (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC) I've put an archive over the above because it is a digression. I'll ask everyone to calm down and try to return to some semblance of cooperative editing. As a specific request to those that wish to include the Obama membership claim, please start a new section below to present any possible sources that meet our guidelines on reliable sourcing and policy on claims about living people. Really, read these two links before proposing something. If it can be demonstrated that there is coverage of this set of claims beyond the cacophonous echo chamber of the far right--i.e., some "mainstream" media coverage--I'd be happy to help find a way to properly include the controversy. — Scientizzle 16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC) Took the "Digression" header off this topic. That Wikidemon feels it is a digression does not make it so. Many here feel this discussion is relevant and germane. Please, Wikidemon, stop removing people's remarks and trying to cast them in such a light that they appear irevelant. Let people decide for themselves. To that end, I am adding back in comments made by 76.19.196.30, who is not me, and which were removed by Wikidemon, below: Please delete the above 2 (and this), first is a just an IP stalking me here with made up and nonsense edits, second is a rant they cut and pasted from above then accuse me of deleting. It wouldn't be a bad idea to hat or delete the comment up near the top beginning "extraordinary claim" too as it's a WP:TALK vio / soapbox and perhaps a BLP problem. Thx, Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC) No one is stalking Wikidemon....the edits aren't nonsense. I'm trying foe consensus on the Obama thing. This is getting silly. 23:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC) If so then confine your edits here to constructive comments about the article subject and immediately stop using this page to undo other editors' efforts to clean up the mess you've made, make accusations against them, or lobby to have them blocked. I see you're having trouble with this on other pages too. Even assuming the best of an editor without an account who is (mis)quoting policy and calling for sanctions against longstanding editors within a few minutes of showing up on Wikipedia, WP:COMPETENCE is also a requirement. Either I or someone else will clean this page up soon. Again, do not revert. Stick to the subject under discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Wikidemon - Im going forward with efforts to include what I believe to be very relevant information here on this page and on other wikipedia pages, and I did not ask your permission, nor your vote to do so. The latest accusations here have been made by you, against me, so I think it's obvious as to where that's coming from...I think your latest was I was stalking you, I could care less. Also, you seek to include discussions from other pages here. I am sticking to the subject we are discussing, please do so as well. That Obama was in the New Party is verified, and you specifically have been fighting its inclusion for at least four years. I'm going to stay on this, as long as it takes. 64.222.94.115 (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC) No, if it were verified, it would be referenced in verifiable reliable sources that meet the stricter requirements of a biography of a living person. Since none of those conditions have been met, the discussion can't even begin because there's nothing to discuss. At this point, it would be a BLP violation to put third-hand gossip in a biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed article change

Inserted as the second paragraph in the Influence section: During the 2008 US presidential election, conservative researcher Stanley Kurtz claimed(link to Kurtz's original 2008 article on NationalReview.com) that presidential candidate Barack Obama had sought the endorsement of the New Party while campaigning for Illinois Senate in 1996. The Obama campaign denied this allegation (link to a source maybe with a screenshot of the Fight The Smears response to Kurtz). In 2012, Kurtz revived the debate by producing alleged New Party meeting minutes(link to Ben Smith's article with scribd archive of the NP meeting minutes) documenting that Obama not only asked for the group's endorsement, but also joined the membership and signed the "Candidate Contract". However, former New Party members who were available for interview had no recollection of Obama's involvement (link to Ben Smith's article with interview results). Wookian (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible objection: BLP requires that it be in the mainstream of ideas. I propose that since the Washington Post, LA Times, Forbes, Atlantic Wire, National Review, Fox News Baltimore, BenSmith@Buzzfeed, and many others have acknowledged Kurtz's article, it is sufficiently extant that we can decribe it in the article as an allegation. Wookian (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Washington Post did not mention it. The LA Times, Atlantic Wire, and Buzz Feed mentioned it in the context of political analysis / coverage of partisan anti-Obama claims. I haven't reviewed the local Fox News TV station yet. Forbes and National Review don't count, they're the claim itself and an editorial. So that leaves 3 or 4 slight sources about something that's indirectly related to the subject of the article. For BLP purposes vis-a-vis Obama that is very light sourcing, and probably too far outside the mainstream, as every substantial thing about Obama can be backed by tens to hundreds of thousands of sources. Adding the claim here would tend to give it more credence than the sources apparently do. Nevertheless, I really don't see it as a BLP problem here in this article to report that Kurtz has made this claim. We say it in the Kurtz article, and we repeat lots of authors' anti-Obama claims in the articles about them and their books, I don't see why we can't say here per WP:WELLKNOWN that someone has made this sort of claim. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Washington Post did not mention it" -- I guess we need to define "Washington Post". A Washington Post blog gave a brief summary of the essentials of Kurtz's findings in their review of recent think tank output. Wookian (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

They didn't summarize it either, they gave a link and an excerpt. That's not Washington Post content, that's curated blog feed, which I don't think counts as a source at all. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it couldn't be used as a source, but agree that in practical terms nobody would ever do so, because it would be preferable to just link to the original, full article. To those who are claiming that Kurtz is fringe and his allegations are not recognized by mainstream outlets, I think the Washington Posts curated (good word) selection of this for sharing on their site is a notable counterexample. Wookian (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible objection: noteworthiness - I propose that especially since he later became POTUS, Barack Obama's involvement with a political group is noteworthy. In addition, it is noteworthy because Obama's campaign denied his having joined or sought endorsement from the group. Wookian (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

There are two ways to argue for whether something is significant enough to add to the article. The primary, best accepted way, is to look to whether the sources see fit to mention it, and here for the most part (see above, only 3-4 fairly light sources) they do not. A backup is to make a logical argument like the above, but that's usually done in the negative, to explain why despite being widely covered (say, the fact that Miley Cirus' butt was showing yesterday when she went shopping)[13] something isn't really weighty enough to mention. The argument that something is really important even though the sources don't think so is really WP:OR. Someone else can just as easily argue that it is not important, and there's no way to resolve that other than to check the sources. My conclusion, it's allowable but a fairly minor piece of encyclopedic information at this point. Which makes it subject to editor discretion either way. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, we see that the conservative leaning sources think it's important, and the liberal leaning sources think it's unimportant. I don't see how anyone could say with a straight face that a prominent politican being caught having falsified and covered up information is unimportant (not saying that's true or that we should assert that it's true, just that it's an inescapable consequence of these allegations). That alone would be sufficient to make this notable information. Wookian (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to play the game of putting every mainstream newspaper in the liberal camp if it doesn't toe the conservative line. There are only 3-4 reliable sources period, of which only one is really a mainstream publication. Atlantic Wire and Buzz Feed aren't especially partisan but they aren't exactly mass circulation or august publications of great reach either. They're niche publications. So most everybody is ignoring it, conservative, liberal, and otherwise. The only ones that are covering this to any great extent are the out-of-mainstream conservative sources. If the inescapable conclusion is that the President is lying, don't you think that's news somebody would cover? They aren't so far. There are plenty of other possible conclusions, but it's pointless to argue in the negative about why something isn't getting coverage. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible objection: relevance - If there were an article about the Chicago branch of the New Party, that would be one thing, but as things stand, it's relevant here. Wookian (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't object there, it is relevant though not directly so. The fact that the New Party endorsed Obama, and that he had some dealings with them, isn't by itself a big deal. We don't list the other X-hundred politicians they also dealt with. It's only a deal because there are claims being made about it today... so indirectly relevant. For a couple parallels, John Kerry is mentioned in the Patrol Craft Fast article, and Ted Kennedy is mentioned prominently in the Chappaquiddick Island article. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible objection: "National Review and Stanley Kurtz are not reliable sources, because they are conservative-leaning" - this has been voiced in various ways by an editor above, however it is not an objection based on Wikipedia's rules, but rather the biases of some participants in this discussion. These biases should not govern the consensus process. As noted elsewhere, it is proper to ignore controversial political/philosophical conclusions such as "Obama believes in socialism" (Kurtz/NRO) or "Sarah Palin holds a grudge against Obama" (Abcarian/LATimes) while still giving airtime to factual claims from sources considered to be reliable for simple factual claims. Kurtz is widely regarded on both sides of the political aisle as a reliable source on these factual claims because (a) he's known to be a disciplined researcher who documents his factual claims, and (b) in this case especially, he found primary documents. Without his primary documents in hand, the WaPo, LATimes, and even Sarah Palin in her speech likely wouldn't have given him airtime. Wookian (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That particular piece is certainly not reliable to stand for the proposition it argues, that Obama is lying. As a primary source as to its own existence, it is citeable as a courtesy link to stand for the fact that Kurtz makes this argument, barring BLP concerns (and I don't think the article is so contentious that we can't even link to it). The article does not validate its own importance but it doesn't have to, as we have reliable sources that lend weight to the proposition that Kurtz has aired this claim. Truly, I think it boils down to the weight of the sources. These sources are very slight when held up against everything else about Obama, but they are significant vis-a-vis the New Party, which is a much less significant subject. Kind of like, every time Tom Cruise eats at a restaurant, it becomes a big bragging point of the restaurant. But it doesn't go into the Tom Cruise biography. The bottom line here is that I wouldn't object if a neutrally worded account of Kurtz' claims goes in, and I wouldn't object if it stays out. So we'll see what others think. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The noteworthy claims here are made by the writer of the New Party meeting minutes and membership list as attested by Kurtz, Ben Smith, and others. Kurtz is already a secondary source, from that point of view. Wookian (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

An unreliable secondary source, sure. Which makes him usable only as a valid source for the proposition that he wrote what he wrote. If Ben Smith is actually endorsing that the meeting notes said what Kurtz says what they said (not clear), and if Ben Smith is a reliable source (not clear), then we have corroboration not just of the facts but also of the weight (significance, notability, relevance, whatever you call it). - Wikidemon (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ben Smith does in fact endorse that the meeting notes said what Kurtz said they did. See his article. He also interviewed former NP members who claimed no recollection of Obama's involvement, so Smith's article would be a good source for that similarly-important fact. Wookian (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You are referring I assume to the following passage from Buzz Feed: "According to the minutes of a 1996 New Party meeting, which Kurtz found in an ACORN archive: [apparent quote from oddly-worded meeting minutes]". It is not clear from this article whether Ben Smith actually verified this himself or if he is just taking Kurtz' word for it. Actually, reviewing Buzzfeed, it is not clear that Smith is a journalist or reliable source at all, or that Buzzfeed is in the business of news. It certainly does not have a standard editorial process. Per the Wikipedia article: "The BuzzFeed homepage consists of a time-sequential list of posts from users and staff members. The content of the posts is usually either a video, image, or link. These posts are the site's attempt to capture the essence of viral media currently resonating on the web. On Fridays, the website hosts a battle, where users are challenged to post the best, most time-wasting Flash game." Per BLP, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Claiming that the President is lying and there's some coverup, based on this kind of supposed evidence, is not adequate sourcing. So count it as not reliably sourced that there were meeting minutes or that this is what they say, only that Kurtz says he reviewed meeting minutes.- Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, no. We are not putting this fringe allegations into this article. Adding this here violates BLP policy. There are zero, zero, credible sources making the claims you seem to believe. Calling this "factual claims" and the attitude you seem to have just confirms that you believe there is some sort of conspiracy. Obama was a Democrat, ran as a Democrat, and there are no reliable sources that contradict that fact. Dave Dial (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be uninformed about this issue, or else are attacking a straw man. Obama's having run as a Democrat is not in dispute. Are you aware of how the New Party worked? Seeking their endorsement and joining their group did not preclude membership in the mainline political parties. You can see Kurtz's articles to establish this, or maybe just read the New Party Wikipedia article itself! Wookian (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what this short-lived party was. I'm just stating the facts. As opposed to your allegations and seeing "sources" state something that's not there. Dave Dial (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain more about how Obama's having run as a Democrat proves that he didn't join the New Party? You seem to be unaware that the New Party's candidates, as a general rule, ran simultaneously under a mainline party (such as the Democrats). In fact, the New Party's long term goal was to use the concept of electoral fusion to promote their candidates, i.e. running simultaneously under multiple parties. Does that help? Wookian (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I will break this down here for you, in my last post on this issue. Obama is a Democrat and ran as a Democrat. There are no doubts about that or reliable sources that question it. The Obama campaign confirms this. So we list Obama as a Democrat on the Obama article and in the Democratic article. Here we have some partisan mud slinger making accusations backed up by no confirmation by any members of that 3rd Party. The Obama campaign denies these allegations and no reliable source has stated the allegations are true. So we do not include this in the Obama article or this article. Simple enough for you? Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you really not understand how it was possible to join the New Party and also simultaneously run as a Democrat? It was not merely possible, it was likely the most common situation for New Party endorsees [at least in a major, partisan election], tending toward the left of the political spectrum. The USA is largely a two party system, and the New Party dealt with that fact. I'm not sure what else to say to help you understand this, but it's clear that you have been forming strong opinions about sources based on a fundamentally flawed understanding. Wookian (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Here, let's try this. This is a quote from the New Party WP article itself: " These chapters built local political organizations that ran or endorsed candidates, primarily in local non-partisan races but with occasional forays into Democratic Party primaries or (more rarely) traditional third party-style independent candidacies as well." -- Now, do you accept that it was possible to enter a Democratic Party primary and also be involved with the New Party? The fact that Obama was a Democrat and ran as a Democrat doesn't say anything whatsoever about whether he sought the endorsement of the New Party or joined their membership. Hope this helps. Wookian (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It is correct to say that Obama is a Democrat. It is also correct to say that he was endorsed by the New Party. Even the Obama campaign has acknowledged that, and at one point posted that information on fightthesmears [though I can't find it there now].William Jockusch (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Stanley Kurtz links to an archive of that FightTheSmears article from his own article, search for the "crackpot smear" quote. Note that the FightTheSmears article also pushes the rather absurd theory that because Obama ran as a Democrat, people should conclude that he wasn't involved in the New Party. Since FightTheSmears has functioned as a highly effective propaganda outlet, it is possible it was the source of DD2K's misunderstanding of this situation, a misunderstanding strategically convenient for the Obama campaign. It is important for Wikipedia editors to be aware of some of these logical fallacies and misinformation propaganda campaigns, in order to avoid misjudging sources and allegations. Wookian (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The fightthesmearssite does not make the argument posed above. Indeed, it does appear to have been a convenient forum for Obama's operatives to counter a number of the crackpot smears.[14]

I agree that it doesn't make the argument explicitly, but it's my opinion that it pushes the theory implicitly. Even if you disagree that that was their intent, perhaps you'll agree that it had that effect. This is such a complex dispute, that there are several opportunities to make what looks like a cut and dried defense for Obama's campaign's position, but on further inspection one realizes it's not so cut and dried at all. The idea that "he ran as a Democrat, therefore it's silly to accuse him of being in a third party" is one. Another is the NP founder claiming that "they didn't really have members". And that sounds simple -- of course Obama couldn't have been a member if they didn't have members. Various publications took that and ran with it as a refutation of Kurtz. But as Kurtz later found, they did in fact have members both in name and function. The founder later explained that "their concept of membership wasn't exactly like Republican or Democratic party membership, and they were really disorganized, and..." ... much credibility was lost by that individual, according to Kurtz and other conservative journalists. So a tl;dr summary would be that contrary to DD2K's claims, there isn't any really short and neat refutation of Kurtz's findings; this is not birtherism, it is a compelling and moderately credible allegation. Wookian (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about official WP, but at least to me, the fact that fightthesmears admitted a portion of an accusation by a partisan opponent is rather strong evidence that said portion of the accusation would be true. So when FTS says "The New Party did support Barack once in 1996, but he was the only candidate on the ballot in his race and never solicited the endorsement", I take this as evidence that "the New Party did support Barack once in 1996" is in fact true, simply because they would never have admitted that if the evidence for it were not overwhelming. At the same time, I don't take it as particularly strong evidence for or against the remainder of the sentence "was the only candidate . . . and never solicited the endorsement." Basically I'm just applying common sense here. Now, as I said, I don't know about WP. If WP is that either a source is reliable or it is not, then WP would not appear to be applying common sense, but it would still be WP.William Jockusch (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of the editors here question Obama's personal involvement with the New Party, despite Kurtz and others finding meeting minutes, membership listings, and official New Party announcements that clearly claim Obama's membership in the group and involvement, in the sense of signing their "candidate contract" and asking for their endorsement. It is claimed that even though the WaPo, LA Times, Forbes, Chicago Tribune, and a bunch of other newspapers have published acknowledgments of Kurtz's research, that it is somehow "a conspiracy theory" to claim Obama's involvement with the NP. (The above has been said many times, it was just a recap though I still disagree with the objections described.) Now... just for the sake of comparison, let's look at how probably the most hostile reviewer you will find in public discourse looks at Kurtz's recent allegations. Media Matters published their own take on Kurtz's work. And did they call into question whether Obama joined the NP, signed their candidate contract, or asked for the NP's endorsement? No, they didn't question any of that. The rather obvious reason is that Kurtz has documented it satisfactorily for it to at least enter the mainstream of thought and conversation. I guess it is possible that the meeting minutes, membership lists, and various public announcements of the NP that described Obama as being a member were somehow fabricated through some kind of conspiracy. But nobody sees that as likely at this point. And when the WaPo, LA Times, etc. acknowledged Kurtz's allegations, none of them called into question Kurtz's basic statements of fact -- because he is considered a reliable source for such research. So, getting back to the Media Matters article, these progressive propagandists didn't question Kurtz's basic facts about Obama's involvement, but rather his categorization of the New Party as socialist. If editors here would do the same, we could move forward with including some basic, well-documented and recognized allegations. See the article here. Wookian (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the sources. Sorry we don't see the conspiracy theory same conclusion you do here. Kurtz is not a reliable source, period. Your point? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we avoid calling things conspiracy theories?

By which I mean, can we please declare a truce on calling anybody's opinion here a conspiracy theory? Even if that's true in a literal sense (each opinion reflects a theory about what really happened, and for the most part if true they would reflect conspiracies in the sense of multiple people's coordinated involvement. But so what? That label is polarizing and not necessary. So I'm going to stop using it. We're just trying to report what sourcse are saying, whether they're theories, conspiracies, or otherwise. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It's sort of a vague term as in this context, as it can either mean simply (1) that more than one person have conspired to mislead the public (which seems logically inescapable either way in this dispute, like you say), and/or (2) that an idea is fringe and implausible, promoting mental images of tin foil hats, birtherism, 9-11 truthism, etc. Would you suggest using the word "fringe" to escape this ambiguity? Wookian (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to characterize each other's positions, we know what they are, we can just say "your opinion" or "my opinion", etc. It's the tinfoil hat aspect that probably annoys people, and I don't think you need a tinfoil hat to believe either that a partisan reporter is making stuff up or that a politician is in denial about his past. Both of those things happen daily in America. We don't base the article on opinions, but it is okay to have an opinion about what should be in the article. Does that make sense? BTW, I can come up with a bunch of possibilities where neither side is lying. For example: (1) the New Party minutes are in error, forged, etc., or the New Party itself was lying, (2) Obama simply didn't remember or his people made up a denial without asking him or knowing the truth (which is not technically lying). It's not really necessary for us here to get to the bottom of anything so we don't really have to debate the underlying truth (and WP:FORUM discourages that) - Wikidemon (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

"BTW, I can come up with a bunch of possibilities where neither side is lying. For example: (1) the New Party minutes are in error, forged, etc." -- Of all the sources that covered this, I haven't seen any speculating this, so there's no reason for us to consider that it's a reasonable possibility at this point. There are multiple original documents that allege Obama's membership: the meeting minutes, some membership lists, and some public NP event announcements. Note that after Kurtz found the minutes and members lists, coverage in left-leaning publications shifted from "he was never a member because his campaign said he wasn't and the NP never actually had members" to "the New Party he's alleged to be a member of wasn't really socialist" (see LA Times for example). I think Obama's involvement is now a mainstream and credible allegation that isn't being questioned anymore. Wookian (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing has changed and no new information has come to light. When you say it "isn't being questioned anymore" you're just saying that YOU don't question it (but then, you never did). --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"I don't think you need a tinfoil hat to believe either that a partisan reporter is making stuff up" I also don't see anybody suggesting this about any of Kurtz's writings, so that possibility should also have no influence on this discussion. Falsifying original documents is a pretty big deal, and I would hope that if Kurtz had ever been caught doing that, his research career would have been over a long time ago. That he is respected enough to be summarized in the Washington Post and elsewhere suggests that he's just not out there making stuff up. Right? Wookian (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't have a "research career." He's a political commentator and an editorial bomb-thrower. If he has any specific career at all, it's in attacking Obama (who he laughably refers to as a "Marxist"). His word alone is not, for wikipedia purposes, considered reliable and unassailable. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the information that Kurtz isn't a researcher. It is not only mistaken, it is wildly mistaken. He has a Ph.D. from Harvard University (social anthropology), and a large part of what he is paid to do is research and writing on various subjects for think tanks. Just to pick a "totally random" (ahem!) example, digging up the New Party records from the Wisconsin Historical Society and discovering and analyzing writings of NP figures would qualify as research in most people's book. The usual criticism of Kurtz from left-leaning people more credible than you, is that his topics of study are not as important as he thinks they are, not that he is making up his original documentation. And for crying out loud, everybody who has earned an accredited Ph.D. is trained in research to some extent, much less a Ph.D. from Harvard. I'm sorry if you dislike Kurtz and disagree with his political views, but I don't think that is valid grounds for censoring his well-documented and widely recognized findings from credible original documents. The Washington Post thought it worthwhile to publish a summary of his findings. Are your standards higher than theirs? Do you think the Washington Post was mistaken to give him "airtime"? Wookian (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of sources is familiar and not conducive to having any unbiased editor take your attempts to insert this material as anything other than a Fringe POV. None of the sources you are claiming have endorsed Kurtz's 'research' or conclusions. The fact that you insist they do makes efforts for further discussion a waste of time. So I think we are done here. Your assertions that Obama was a member of this organization is not going into this article, even if some other information regarding this issue is included. Until and unless there are other developments that would change the current facts. Dave Dial (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

"Your misrepresentation of sources is familiar" -- I'm getting tired of hearing that, and am not aware of any such misrepresentation. Please quote an example wherein I misrepresented a source. You need to be careful to avoid making unfounded personal attacks as a strategy to get your way in the Talk debate. Wookian (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's an example of how you could document my allegedly inept contributions. I'll make a statement about you as an example: Dave Dial has been making strong, sweeping statements of finality in this discussion without even having a basic understanding of the subject matter. To prove it, see his implication that Obama wouldn't have been a New Party member due to running as a Democrat for the IL Senate, thereby showing ignorance of the whole modus operandi of the New Party, which generally worked within the two party system for major elections. (Dave Dial wrote: "Obama was a Democrat, ran as a Democrat, and there are no reliable sources that contradict that fact.") Wookian (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This has devolved into WP:FORUM discussion and personal attacks. Unless there is anything new to consider on this issue, I see no point in continuing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The statement "Your misrepresentation of sources is familiar" is not something I can just let stand, because it is not true, and adversely hinders my ability to contribute to a consensus. I think it is legitimate to ask for substantiation of that. But regardless, perhaps it would be informative to open up a new section to discuss the rather interesting claim that Kurtz is not a researcher, and is merely a purveyor of personal opinions. It sounds like there are some misconceptions that need to be cleared up on that count. Wookian (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can start a blog about those subjects. They don't belong here. Dave Dial (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not interested in blogging about it. This page can appropriately discuss whether the article by Stanley Kurtz is a reliable source for alleging Obama's involvement with the New Party. Part of that could be correcting the surprisingly misinformed points of view exhibited by you and Loony. Some of the claims on this page have included that Kurtz is not a researcher, that he is just giving his own opinions, and so forth. These gross misconceptions can be cleared up from reliable sources. More to the point, you can't just post nonsense about Kurtz in order to censor information you don't want to see included about Obama in Wikipedia. Wookian (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment about what's going on here. DD2K attacked Wookian by saying "your misrepresentation of sources is familiar." Wookian responded. Then LooneyMonkey said there is no point in continuing because the discussion has devolved into personal attacks. While it is true that it has devolved into personal attacks, that is not Wookian's fault. I don't know if there is WP on this, but it seems to me grossly unfair to Wookian to have his discussion ended because somebody made a personal attack on him. If anyone should forfeit the point because of this, it is DD2K, not Wookian. Additionally, if DD2K is going to insinuate that Wookian is "misrepresenting", he ought to provide a specific example of an alleged misrepresentation. If he provides such an example, and it does not hold up under examination, the honorable thing for DD2K to do would be to withdraw the claim and apologize.William Jockusch (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny how my request to treat each other's statements with respect (by not calling them conspiracy theories) seems to have devolved into the opposite! I do think that Wookian mischaracterizes the sources repeatedly by saying that they are endorsing a position when they simply mention it (e.g. Washington Post), that a news source endorses the significance of a subject when it merely carries an op-ed by an outside contributor on the topic (e.g. Forbes), or that they are validating something when they say it has happened without debunking it (e.g. BuzzFeed). Indeed, making the arguments about the credibility of Obama vis-a-vis Kurtz does border on forum discussion, because we're just discussing our own opinion on things based on our perception of their reputation, and there's no way we can resolve that based on the actual content of the reliable sources. I do think DD2K is unnecessarily harsh. Right or wrong, it's best to stay cordial, right? So again, can we please not get irritable here? If you're tired of discussing you're certiainly free to sit it out for a while. We'll take your last word on the subject as your current opinion. If everybody gets tired they'll stop contributing and we'll see if there's any consensus for anything. Something like that. Please folks, despite the little glitches, this has been one of the more polite discussions of an Obama-related matter where people are proposing to add controversial material. Can we keep it that way? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I never said that the Washington Post asserted that Obama was a New Party member. Rather, they simply acknowleged Kurtz's research and summarized his findings. In other words, I have not been suggesting we include the simple statement "Obama was a NP member" in the article, but rather "Stanley Kurtz claimed that A,B,C show that Obama was a New Party member". Until and unless the Obama campaign updates their 2008 statement (of strong denial), I doubt that either the Washington Post or Wikipedia consensus would be prepared to assert his membership as a simple fact. So I don't think I mis-characterized the WaPo's publication of Kurtz's findings, if you look at everything I wrote. Of course, looking around this page... "everything I wrote" is probably a bit more than is reasonable to ask people to read... :D Wookian (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

To address your other complaint, I didn't say that a news source's publishing of an allegation indicates that they agree with that allegation. However, when an allegation is published in at outlet with strong editorial controls, that says something about how mainstream the allegation has become. When an allegation is sufficiently mainstream, it doesn't matter whether newspaper editors agree with it or not, it can be written in Wikipedia as an allegation. Take an infidelity scandal for example. How many witnesses do you typically have for such things? Obviously, few to none. And since they are embarrassing for the subject (just like Obama's campaign being caught lying would be embarrassing), you don't just include any old fringe stuff. But when such allegations are acknowledged -- not necessarilly agreed with -- in major outlets subject to respected editorial control, it's OK under Wikipedia's rules to mention them. Is any part of that inaccurate? Wookian (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

And as regards Wikidemon's other remark, I agree that it's generally been cordial around here, I've enjoyed the debate, and I believe there's a critical mass of source material to work toward consensus of some kind, so I'm not ready to end the conversation. If people have specific critical suggestions for restricting the focus to Talk page-appropriate subjects, I'll try to do a better job of staying on track. Thanks. Wookian (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

can we just stop with the obama additions already?

we're not going to allow any obama info on the page. period. none of the partisans have come up with sources that are non-FRINGE and/or non-blogs. i wish the right-wingers would just stop wasting our (and their own) time trying to add their obama rumors. Cramyourspam (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It would be best for you to speak in a singular voice, rather than presuming to speak for a majority of editors. There is no indication that Ben Smith of Buzzfeed or Robin Abcarian of the LA times share your conspiracy theory regarding Kurtz's discovered New Party meeting minutes and membership list. (Note that I'm not insulting you here; it's OK to hold a conspiracy theory - sometimes they turn out to be right.) Wookian (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

my conspiracy? no no no. you misunderstand. i'm very much with the leave-obama-off-of-the-new-party-page faction. of course *i* don't speak for all of wp, but also of course this rumor twaddle is not going to be accepted here by editors who matter and who watch this article and some related ones. i guess we're not supposed to actually *say* that nothing about obama is going to last if put onto the new party page, but, well, reality is reality. as i say, i wish the FRINGEy folks would stop wasting everyone's time by continuing to add that that stuff. we're going to carry on removing it. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The information is going to be allowed on the page if the result of the pending consensus discussion is that it is. You're welcome to participate, and perhaps you just did, although I don't think a flat refusal to accept the content or discussion of the presumed political biases of editors are that persuasive. Perhaps explain why you consider the proposed sources too weak or unreliable, or some other reason why? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Cramyourspam, do you consider Jonah Goldberg publishing a syndicated opinion piece in the Chicago Tribune and various other major newspapers to be fringe? If so, please explain why. If not, consider withdrawing your objection above. Wookian (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

This has gone way off track. A couple of important points: An opinion piece is not a reliable source for a biography. Ever. A writer that mentions or writes about Kurtz' assertion is not a secondary source for Kurtz' claim. And finally, Kurtz' assertion, by his own admission, come from completely unverifiable sources. It carries the weight of his own opinion, nothing more. Until an actual WP:V WP:RS news source finds some actual proof for this claim, it must remain out of the article for WP:BLP reasons. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What is your evidence for the assertion that Kurtz's NRO articles are opinion pieces?William Jockusch (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Have you read the article? Would you actually claim that he is writing in a neutral journalistic voice there? No, of course not. It contains his opinion. It's written in the first person. It's an editorial with a personal point of view (sprinkled with a hefty dose of self-aggrandizing and attacks on the "mainstream press" for not covering the story). He says things like "Obama once joined a leftist third party, and he hid that truth from the American people in order to win the presidency." That's not fact. That's opinion. Kurtz' opinion. Trust me, there is no conspiracy by the entire journalistic field to suppress this story, as Kurtz is inferring. There simply isn't any evidence to support the assertions he makes. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that the sources mentioning Kurtz' claims are of questionable reliability too. Buzzfeed is not a journalistic source, it's a curated internet meme aggregator. Per the Wikipedia article: BuzzFeed is a website that combines a technology platform for detecting viral content with an editorial selection process to provide a snapshot of "the viral web in realtime." Ben Smith had a journalist's role at Politico but I don't see that Buzzfeed has an editorial process. Likewise, the Atlantic Wire, though associated with the Atlantic, has a similar purpose to Buzzfeed: to aggregate what is hot and current. Elspeth Reeve's piece there is an analysis of what conservative pundits, bloggers, etc. are up to at the moment. It's clearly got opinions that we can't cite as fact, e.g. If Obamacare is socialist, then it's socialist regardless of whether Obama once sought the endorsement of a lefty third party. We can't cite something like that as fact, we can't cite most of her article as fact. So why should we give her mention of Kurtz' piece any more gravity? Per the Atlantic Wire website, her article has had about 1700 views, about as many as this article. The Atlantic Wire is already a meme amplifier, adding minor mentions from there would doubly amplify things. I have the same concerns about the LA Times piece, it's also an analysis piece, meaning full of opinion. We're still waiting for anything beyond dribs and drabs. If this were truly a significant allegation it would have significant coverage. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Loonymonkey says "And finally, Kurtz' assertion, by his own admission, come from completely unverifiable sources" -- where did he say that? Wookian (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Loonymonkey also says "An opinion piece is not a reliable source for a biography. Ever." -- Where in the Wikipedia rules and guidelines does it say that? I think you are confusing Kurtz's controversial opinions with his sourceable, verifiable facts. Wookian (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact...". But that's just a general rule. It's much stricter for WP:BLP material. And in this case there are several other reasons this material would be inappropriate. He is writing in a tabloid tone, mixing personal opinion and inference with whatever facts may actually be in there. It fails WP:REDFLAG immediately. If the information were true, why haven't several reliable third-party news outlets mentioned it? BLP is quite clear on this: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Until this becomes a real story, not the usual vitriolic rantings of Kurtz but an actual verifiable news story, it's not even worth discussing as it would violate policy. But that's unlikely to happen anytime soon as there isn't any reliable evidence to support the claim. Newspapers have strict fact-checking and editorial controls on such things. That's why we call them "reliable sources." --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Stein is a credible researcher, and I don't see people claiming that he falsified the original documentation which he shared with Ben Smith. But let's test your theory, Loonymonkey. Could you comment on the following: in the George W. Bush Wikipedia article, I see a reference to an article by Sam Stein writing on the Huffington Post, titled "Bush memo footnotes define waterboarding as torture". According to your logic, that would be an inappropriate source for the following reasons: (a) the Huffington post doesn't have high standards of story vetting, (b) the article includes controversial opining on the part of the author, and (c) since this is quite a sensational charge, one would expect to find major newspapers independently covering it in their non-editorial reporting, which I don't see. I'm not suggesting changing the GWB article, just looking for your comment: do you agree that the GWB citation is inappropriate under your own logic? I personally think that both the GWB reference and a NRO reference here would be appropriate, and can see no specific Wikipedia policy that would prevent this. Can you imagine if Wikipedia removed all stories written with a political agenda? That would be absurd. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; you have to be discerning and distinguish between Kurtz's controversial opinions ("Obama was/is a socialist") versus his widely recognized and (yes) credible factual assertions: the NP meeting minutes and various other sources document at least some limited involvement by Obama with the NP. This is a credible allegation that has been recognized by a news reporter in the LA Times, as well as by various opinion writers published in major outlets. You don't have to agree that it's true to recognize it as a notable, well-documented, extant allegation. Wookian (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I question whether Ben Smith writing in Buzzfeed is a solid source here, as I don't think Buzzfeed does its own independent journalism and fact checking. So we have a chain of allegations going from some written materials to a researcher to Kurtz to Smith to us. At no point do they get the independent evaluation we really need. If there's a problem with the George Bush article it should be addressed over there, but the widespread criticism (international consensus, really) that waterboarding amounts to torture is of a completely different nature than claims that Obama is lying about his political past. The factual part of the claim is credible, but it hasn't been vetted and, with almost no mainstream coverage of something being promoted as a smoking gun, there's no showing of significance, just the logical analysis and opinions of us editors (which would be considered WP:OR). - Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wookian, you didn't address any of my points directly and I'm not going to discuss an unrelated article that I don't edit. Take it up there. The fact remains that adding this material as it currently stands would violate policy. Again, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Kurtz' angry editorial is not in any way an exceptional source. If the material were both verifiable and noteworthy, it would have appeared in more reliable sources.--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Kurtz's article doesn't have an angry tone, that's a subjective judgment on your part. It is just your opinion that the NRO outlet and Stanley Kurtz in particular are unreliable sources for describing the contents of the New Party meeting minutes, membership list, and other publications that Kurtz (and other people) have found which claim that Obama was a NP member. You haven't cited any Wikipedia policy which prevents use of articles like this. It is not appropriate for consensus here to rest on a conspiracy theory that Kurtz or someone else somehow falsified those records. And in fact, in the LA Times news article that references Kurtz's work, the only controversy which writer Robin Abcarian mentions is the disagreement about whether the New Party was in fact a socialist party, NOT whether Obama was involved in it, which has been documented in various forms (most compellingly recently by Kurtz) from the New Party's own documents and publications. This documentation has been generally satisfactory to non conspiracy theorists. It is not extremely strange or controversial to claim that Obama was involved with the New Party, since it generally fits with his life narrative and political choices, particularly in that timeframe. Ironically, by classifying this as an extraordinary claim, you appear to be siding with those conservatives who call the New Party socialist. Wookian (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

It's my opinion too, which is why we have a consensus process. The relevant policies and guidelines include WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. I have no conspiracy theory about why Kurtz says what he says, he says it and we simply don't have strong enough sourcing to say that he's correct or that it matters. As of now it looks like the issue has gone quiet again, no non-editorial mentions in any mainstream publications for the last week. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikidemon, didn't mean to ignore you. I meant to say, just Looney's opinion as opposed to anything obviously clearly based on Wikipedia policy. My point was that it is OK to use an article in the Huffington post for an article about George W. Bush -- if that individual article meets appropriate criteria, so why not the National Review? And contrary to Looney's claims, it is sometimes appropriate to use an article that expresses an opinion as a source for a factual statement, if factors are present that make the writer seem reliable for such stuff. Like him or hate him, Stanley Kurtz is a serious researcher who is not known to fabricate stuff. Reasonable people of divergent political persuasions accept that he is reliably reporting the original source materials he found. It is not the job of Wikipedia to speculate about whether it was falsified somehow. Robin Abcarian reported his allegations in the LA Times, Jonah Goldberg opined in a bunch of major papers via his syndicated column; the Washington Times and Washington Post saw fit to report a summary of his findings; and yes, Virginia, it would be OK to report them as allegations here. They are not so spectacular as to require the Queen of England to serve a source to us on a tray. The only voices I see still expressing dissent with this raise questions about their own POV (seriously? claiming Abcarian's piece is not a regular news piece?). Wookian (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Abcarian's piece is a feature analysis of Sarah Palin. Here is a compilation of some statements in her piece:

One of Sarah Palin's favorite topics is the news media's failure to vet Obama. She seems to have a grievance, and seemed to have been hurt by allegations that her husband had joined a third political party. She made a reference to a story "gaining traction in the right-wing blogosphere." It is as if she never stopped campaigning against Obama. Palin's trademark outfit is a pencil skirt.

You can see how the writer is reporting facts, but is spinning them. It's not really a matter of her being conservative or liberal, it's just one of these political profile pieces. Reading it again, it does seem pretty reliable, but still not a whole lot of weight. She's reporting on Sarah Palin and her supporters, and covering background about something Palin is saying. She's not coming out and telling the readers about Kurtz and his claims for their own sake. It is a real source, just not a huge one, not as if the LA Times ran a headline on the front page: "Old documents cast doubt on Obama's political past: Researcher produces shocking new evidence!" It would really help if we could get a source like that. When you say that Kurt is serious, has a good reputation, etc., do you have some general background outside of this one story? If he's a respected author overall, that does lend weight. Take Ben Smith for example, if he were just anyone writing on Buzzfeed I think there would be no credibility because Buzzfeed is not a news outlet (as I say above). But he does have a solid reputation from Politico for being nonpartisan, serious, not pulling punches, etc., so the fact that the piece is by him does raise its reliability I think. On the other hand if, say, James Carville (to choose an example from the left or at least the Democrat side of things) wrote an analysis piece anywhere, there would be reliability questions because he's known to advocate for things more than just bring the facts to the table. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The closest thing to a source like that is Lou Dobbs on Fox Business. I don't know if Dobbs is a Fox opinion or fact program. Hannity did something similar to what Dobbs did, but Dobbs is more trustworthy than Hannity, and his show is an opinion show. William Jockusch (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)