Talk:New Party (United States): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 06:48, 25 January 2024

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Politics: Political parties Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Narrower statement

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

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

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

I would put it somewhere in the history section, talking about their activities. Do the sources mention any other noteworthy endorsements they made? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice any. Did you?William Jockusch (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that if we're going to list endorsements we should list any others they made. Otherwise it creeps into the fringe narrative that he was an active member of the party. But there is barely any reliable sourcing to use at all. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They made other endorsements, but none that were notable, and the sourcing is much worse for the others. Do you think NP minutes and DSA archives are good sources or not? If they are, fine, but then they are good sources for their other assertions as well. Loonymonkey, given that even the 2008 Obama campaign conceded that the NP did endorse Obama in 1996, your continued assertions of lack of sourcing are bordering on WP:Point. William Jockusch (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe part of Looney's hangup here is that endorsement was designed to be subsequent to candidates signing the "Candidate Contract", as Kurtz describes from the actual text of the Chicago NP's Candidate Contract. So even though Obama's campaign admitted that the NP endorsed him, it is embarrassing to him now because it is consistent with the rest of the allegations which his campaign denied (that he joined the group, signed the candidate contract, and asked for their endorsement). Wookian (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need to repeat yourself, we're well aware that you buy into the conspiracy theory that Obama signed some sort of contract (although, like most of these conspiracy theories, nobody can seem to produce the article in question or evidence that it exists). Again, this isn't a WP:FORUM for discussing your own personal beliefs. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can produce the candidate contract? Not sure where you got that idea. Two different versions of the New Party's Candidate Contract have been publicly identified. Stanley Kurtz found a Chicago draft in the ACORN archives at the Wisconsin Historical Society, and Breitbart linked to a copy from the New Party website that was archived online. Does that answer your question? Wookian (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the contract issue out of this section; it's not relevant to the question of whether or not the New Party endorsed Obama in his 1996 Senate run, which is the issue here. William Jockusch (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are further comments, I'm going to put this into the article. I'm not sure what Demon meant by the "history section", but I don't mind if it is moved there. William Jockusch (talk) 02:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the thematic section titles, the narrative is more or less chronological order. I think it would make sense as the second or third to last section under "founding". - Wikidemon (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yeah, that's sort of the point I was making earlier in this section. Unless we're talking about their endorsements in general, there isn't any reason to mention it. Saying it out of the blue seems to be a backdoor way to hint at the conspiracy-theory that Obama was a member without explicitly stating that. On its own though, it's not a particularly noteworthy fact about the organization itself. --Loonymonkey (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can say it's unimportant, you can say the NP isn't socialist, you can say many things. But you can't truthfully call it a conspiracy theory. It's been sourced from completely independent original documents through credible channels, and the only ones dragging their heels in this discussion are effectively providing political cover for Obama by suppressing something embarrassing for him. Does that shoe fit for you? Wookian (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early support for a future President is notable in and of itself. William Jockusch (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok, I am just going to jump in here, but I agree with Looney and Dave in that it is undue weight to just have the Obama nomination listed. Also, even if it did belong in this article, I doubt it would be correctly placed under the header: "Influence"--DeliciousMeatz (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could see a cogent argument being made either way, but I lean toward William's view on this. An endorsement is more than just saying "hi" on the street, in a political party context it is a declaration of at least perceived shared values. A listing of other endorsees probably doesn't make sense because readers likely wouldn't know or care anything about most (or all?) of them. However, "endorsed Obama in 1996" gives readers a point of reference that many people can somewhat relate to. In my opinion, it would also be useful to clarify that Obama ran as a Democrat in that race. That would avoid some confusion and also add value by giving an example of the more abstract content in the article, showing how the NP operated within the two party system. Wookian (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's look at WP:UNDUE
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
I'm claiming significant minority here. Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, and fightthesmears.com are prominent adherents. Enough said.William Jockusch (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

You've triggered a thought with that -- I'll try putting it into the Obama article. On the merits, it totally fits there. I'm guessing it will last about 30 seconds :) FWIW, the Eureka College article does mention Ronald Reagan, even though he was not at all well-known at the time he was there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Jockusch (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I agree that Obama's choice to run as a democrat and lack of ties with the NP should be included as well." Alleging that Obama lacked direct ties to the NP would not be appropriate based on available sources at this time, but mentioning that he ran as a Dem would be useful to illustrate how the NP worked. Wookian (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the unreliably sourced addition by William Jockusch (talk | contribs) to the Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama article and removed the corresponding unreliably sourced, repeated readdition (1 2 3 4)—over objections without consensus—to this article. See Talk:Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama#New Party endorsement not reliably sourced.
Newross (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William's "narrow statement" is true, verifiable, and non-controversial (in the sense that we have the Obama campaign on record agreeing that it's true). The source you are objecting to is a researcher and journalist with a Ph.D. from Harvard University, writing on a well respected journalism outlet, who is simply acknowledging the Obama campaign's public statement. You are quibbling that the acknowledgement comes in an opinion piece, but nobody has given any reason why this particular verifiable fact is suspect. How is that not wikilawyering? Wookian (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the single sentence paragraph:

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

to the "Influence" section of this article, citing:

New Party (March 1996). "March update". Brooklyn, N.Y.: New Party
Nichols, John (January 2009). "How to push Obama". The Progressive 73 (1): 20–23

not citing the contentious Stanley Kurtz opinion piece or the BuzzFeed.com questionable source.

I added the sentence:

Obama was endorsed by the New Party.

to the chronologically appropriate middle of the second paragraph of the "Nominating petition challenges" section of the Illinois Senate elections of Barack Obama article, citing:

New Party (March 1996). "March update". Brooklyn, N.Y.: New Party
Nichols, John (January 2009). "How to push Obama". The Progressive 73 (1): 20–23

not citing the contentious Stanley Kurtz opinion piece or the BuzzFeed.com questionable source.

It is too trivial for the Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama article, which does not mention Obama's endorsement by the IVI-IPO either.

Newross (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newross (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alleging that Obama lacked direct ties to the NP would not be appropriate based on available sources at this time, but mentioning that he ran as a Dem would be useful to illustrate how the NP worked Wait a sec, the only thing coming close to an admission by Obama that he was endorsed by the New Party is the defunct fight the smears website. Wookian even admits that it is non-controversial to say that he was endorsed by the NP because that site said so, but it also included the campaign's adamant denial of any direct ties to the NP. You can't pick an choose which parts of a source you want to describe as reliable. The campaigns denial of any ties (if we are going to be using this as a source) in addition with the absolute lack of any verifiable material showing that the NP and Obama collaborated in any way, says to me that we should include some clarification about the NP's endorsement and how it was not solicited at the very least. I think the additions to the Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama article look good considering how there is enough information already there that the slight addition of the NPs backed up endorsement doesn't give it undue weight.--DeliciousMeatz (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you both can and should discriminate which assertions are reliable from a given source. Just because something is an RS doesn't mean it is an RS for everything it says. Wikipedia is interested in what is true and verifiable. An admission by a politician of allegation that is unfavorable to him happens to fall on the credible side of the scale. My $0.02. Wookian (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's important for the consensus process for multiple people to put their opinions out there candidly. Thank you for doing so, and I happen to agree with pretty much everything you said above. I have challenged several people to explain in what way the new info is not true or verifiable, and they've pretty much done exactly as you said -- stuck their fingers in their ears and wikilawyered about use of opinion pieces in the first person, while ignoring the elephant in the room that this is a respectable, trained researcher (except to those who dislike him because he is a conservative) who found and shared compelling original documents, and had his work recognized in mainstream outlets (including the WaPo). It has been particularly galling that one editor removed a reference to a Kurtz article in the NRO and replaced it with an opinion piece in The Progressive entitled "How to Push Obama", which was also written in the first person. It's clear to me that the wikilawyering has an agenda for some editors around here, and can be turned off when not needed for that agenda. (On an unrelated note, I personally would say Dr. Kurtz if using a title.) Wookian (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Skipping the esteemed Wook and responding to the original poster after an edit conflict) Allow me to parse this. You have a postgraduate degree as does Kurt, and you assume we don't, so assertions Kurtz makes based on what he claims he observed trump our process for verifying sources. And if we don't agree, Wikipedia is a crock. I hope that at some point in your education you learned what a logical fallacy is. You may think that Kurtz is super-special because he is a respected researcher. Others may think he is a partisan hack based on his blind repetition of various Republican campaign talking points. Yet others may esteem Newt Gingrich and his PhD, or Obama and his Harvard JD. That does not mean we repeat everything they say. We are an encyclopedia, not a cocktail party debate. In response to your rhetorical questions about sourcing, what we Wikipedians want as a threshold for inclusion is clearly spelled out in the well worn policy pages WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and other policy and guideline pages. We do not automatically assign a higher truth status to those those who assert personal authority (whether legal, religious, or academic - what principled reason would we have for choosing one belief system over another?). There's no question that Kurtz made a factual claim. So did a guy named Bob down at the corner tavern. The question is whether the making of the claim by Kurtz, or Bob, is significant enough to mention in the encyclopedia. The sources of the world, which we rely on to establish whether something is part of the world's accumulated body of knowledge, do not see fit to cover either of these claims. So we, as an accumulation of the sources of the world, do not cover them either. That's pretty simple, no childishness or crockpots involved. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidemon, this story passed the editorial process for posting (among other places) on the curated Washington Post blog, a WaPo publication that summarizes and quotes think tank output which they considered significant enough to be part of the news (which is not very much, just a few articles a day or so). If Kurtz had no credibility, why would the WaPo curators have given him airtime? If if was just Kurtz's opinion, why didn't Ben Smith call him out on it, instead of acknowledging and sharing with the rest of the world the actual meeting minutes and membership roster that Kurtz found at the Wisconsin Historical Society archives? Back in 2008 Ben Smith had taken an active role back when he was at Politico in pooh-poohing the BO-NP connection based on what he considered the scant evidence of the NP event fliers that claimed Obama as a member, and I think in June 2012 he felt a journalistic responsibility to acknowledge such facts as now indicated that a stronger case had been made. What part of that is wrong? More specifically, where does the "brief Obama NP fling" story fail in truth or verifiability? Wookian (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Old AfD multi | date = 18 March 2010 (UTC) | result = '''keep''' | page = New Party (United States) }}
-{{WikiProject Political Parties |class=start |importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
+{{WikiProject Politics | political-parties=yes| political-parties-importance=low |importance=low}}
+}}
 {{Cleanup|date=November 2008}}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
 |archiveheader = {{aan}}
 |maxarchivesize = 100K
-|counter = 1
+|counter = 2
 |minthreadsleft = 2
 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
@@ Line 12: / Line 14: @@
 }}
 {{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month |index=  }}
-== Comments about editor behavior ==
-{{hat|digression}}
-::::::::::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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_page_protection&diff=496511002&oldid=496510703]  ''(redacted)''  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.222.94.115|64.222.94.115]] ([[User talk:64.222.94.115|talk]]) 22:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-::::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. [[Special:Contributions/64.222.94.115|64.222.94.115]] ([[User talk: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)'' - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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? [[Special:Contributions/64.222.94.115|64.222.94.115]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/64.222.94.115|64.222.94.115]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:RS|reliable sourcing]] and policy on [[WP:BLP|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. &mdash; [[User:Scientizzle|Scien]]''[[User talk:Scientizzle|tizzle]]'' 16:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
-:::: Took the "Digression" header off this topic.  That [[User:Wikidemon|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 <s>2</s> (and this), <s>first is a</s> just an IP stalking me here with made up and nonsense edits, <s>second is a rant they cut and pasted from above then accuse me of deleting.</s>  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, [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 23:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
-:::::::No one is stalking [[User:Wikidemon|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.  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 23:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
-::::[[User:Wikidemon|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. [[Special:Contributions/64.222.94.115|64.222.94.115]] ([[User talk:64.222.94.115|talk]]) 00:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
-::::::No, if it were verified, it would be referenced in [[WP:V|verifiable]] [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that meet the stricter requirements of a [[WP:BLP|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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 03:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
-{{hab}}
-===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''). [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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.   - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/does-obama-need-bill-clinton-obama-and-third-parties-and-more-am-briefing/2012/06/08/gJQAvNPWNV_blog.html brief summary] of the essentials of Kurtz's findings in their review of recent think tank output. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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)[http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-style/news/miley-cyrus-flashes-booty-in-way-too-short-shorts-2012216] 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.  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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.  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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.  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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).  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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 [http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/in-chicago-no-memory-of-new-party-membership 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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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.- [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 22:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
-::::Once again, no. We are not putting this [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] allegations into this article. Adding this here violates [[WP:BLP|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. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|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! [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|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? [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:RS|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. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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].[[User:William Jockusch|William Jockusch]] ([[User talk: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 "[http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz 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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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.[http://web.archive.org/web/20090730002941/http:/www.fightthesmears.com/articles/28/KurtzSmears.html]
-::::::::::::::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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:William Jockusch|William Jockusch]] ([[User talk: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 [http://mediamatters.org/blog/201206070016 the article] here. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk:Wookian|talk]]) 15:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
-:You're misrepresenting the sources.  Sorry we don't see the <s>conspiracy theory</s> same conclusion you do here.  Kurtz is not a reliable source, period.  Your point?  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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) - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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). --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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"? [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:FRINGE|Fringe]] [[WP:POV|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. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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."'') [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk:Wookian|talk]]) 20:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
-:::::::::::Perhaps you can start a blog about those subjects. They don't belong here. [[User:DD2K|Dave Dial]] ([[User talk:DD2K|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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:William Jockusch|William Jockusch]] ([[User talk: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,  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Cramyourspam|Cramyourspam]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Cramyourspam|Cramyourspam]] ([[User talk: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?  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk:Loonymonkey|talk]]) 17:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
-:::What is your evidence for the assertion that Kurtz's NRO articles are opinion pieces?[[User:William Jockusch|William Jockusch]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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: <i>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."</i>  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. <i>If Obamacare is socialist, then it's socialist regardless of whether Obama once sought the endorsement of a lefty third party.</i>  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.  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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." --[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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). - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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.--[[User:Loonymonkey|Loonymonkey]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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.  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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?). [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk: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.  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:William Jockusch|William Jockusch]] ([[User talk:William Jockusch|talk]]) 16:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 == Narrower statement ==
@@ Line 169: / Line 63: @@
 Frankly, having just read through this talk page, I cannot believe the discussion being had here. I have become sick and tired of such discussions, which is why I have abandoned contributing to Wikipedia. As a PhD myself and familiar with the article by Mr Kurtz, I cannot see any reason why anyone would object to a simple statement that says something like "Documents in the archive at the Wisconsin Historical Society show that Barack Obama was an early member of the New Party." Mr Kurtz is a professional researcher. His article is a report of having witnessed documents that prove this point. He describes them. One contributor's objection to the "tone" of the article in which Mr Kurtz describes this is completely ridiculous. Mr Kurtz makes a factual claim. Editors who want to include this factual claim get jumped on for not meeting the burden of providing reliable sources. If a PhD academic who writes an article describing his research in a published magazine is considered "unreliable" then Wikipedia is more of a crock than I already thought. What would the objectors like instead? It would need to be published in a peer-reviewed academic journal? Photocopies of the documents? Sworn affadavits to the contents? Would all be nice, but that's hardly a realistic bar for a forum like Wikipedia. Instead, objectors fence with the need for "mainstream media outlets"  (NYT, WaPo, major news networks?) to give it coverage before we have credible sourcing and/or "mainstream" discussion. That's the so-called Nyhan metric (after political scientist Brendan Nyhan) except applied to EVERYTHING (the Nyhan metric relies on the WaPo calling something a "scandal" before political scientists can refer to an event as a scandal; if the entire world calls it a scandal, but the WaPo never uses that exact word, it's not a "scandal"). Why can't reasonable people simply accept that Mr Kurtz made a factual statement: that Mr Obama used to be associated with the New Party? Several users on this talk page have shown the most childish behavior in responding to this topic, essentially sitting with their fingers in their ears, screaming, "I am not hearing this! I am not hearing this!" Shameful. (Don't bother writing to me. I will not be responding to any comments addressed to me.) [[User:Lufiend|Lufiend]] ([[User talk:Lufiend|talk]]) 03:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 :It's important for the consensus process for multiple people to put their opinions out there candidly. Thank you for doing so, and I happen to agree with pretty much everything you said above. I have challenged several people to explain in what way the new info is not true or verifiable, and they've pretty much done exactly as you said -- stuck their fingers in their ears and wikilawyered about use of opinion pieces in the first person, while ignoring the elephant in the room that this is a respectable, trained researcher (except to those who dislike him because he is a conservative) who found and shared compelling original documents, and had his work recognized in mainstream outlets (including the WaPo). It has been particularly galling that one editor removed a reference to a Kurtz article in the NRO and replaced it with an opinion piece in ''The Progressive'' entitled "How to Push Obama", which was also written in the first person. It's clear to me that the wikilawyering has an agenda for some editors around here, and can be turned off when not needed for that agenda. (On an unrelated note, I personally would say '''Dr.''' Kurtz if using a title.) [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk:Wookian|talk]]) 05:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
+::(Skipping the esteemed Wook and responding to the original poster after an edit conflict)  Allow me to parse this.  You have a postgraduate degree as does Kurt, and you assume we don't, so assertions Kurtz makes based on what he claims he observed trump our process for verifying sources.  And if we don't agree, Wikipedia is a crock.  I hope that at some point in your education you learned what a logical fallacy is.  You may think that Kurtz is super-special because he is a respected researcher.  Others may think he is a partisan hack based on his blind repetition of various Republican campaign talking points.  Yet others may esteem Newt Gingrich and his PhD, or Obama and his Harvard JD.  That does not mean we repeat everything they say.  We are an encyclopedia, not a cocktail party debate.  In response to your rhetorical questions about sourcing, what we Wikipedians want as a threshold for inclusion is clearly spelled out in the well worn policy pages [[WP:RS]], [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]], and other policy and guideline pages.  We do not automatically assign a higher truth status to those those who assert personal authority (whether legal, religious, or academic - what principled reason would we have for choosing one belief system over another?).   There's no question that Kurtz made a factual claim.  So did a guy named Bob down at the corner tavern.  The question is whether the making of the claim by Kurtz, or Bob, is significant enough to mention in the encyclopedia.  The sources of the world, which we rely on to establish whether something is part of the world's accumulated body of knowledge, do not see fit to cover either of these claims.  So we, as an accumulation of the sources of the world, do not cover them either.  That's pretty simple, no childishness or crockpots involved.  - [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 06:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
+:::Wikidemon, this story passed the editorial process for posting (among other places) on the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/think-tanked/post/does-obama-need-bill-clinton-obama-and-third-parties-and-more-am-briefing/2012/06/08/gJQAvNPWNV_blog.html curated Washington Post blog], a WaPo publication that summarizes and quotes think tank output which they considered significant enough to be part of the news (which is not very much, just a few articles a day or so). If Kurtz had no credibility, why would the WaPo curators have given him airtime? If if was just Kurtz's opinion, why didn't Ben Smith call him out on it, instead of acknowledging and sharing with the rest of the world the actual meeting minutes and membership roster that Kurtz found at the Wisconsin Historical Society archives? Back in 2008 Ben Smith had taken an active role back when he was at Politico in pooh-poohing the BO-NP connection based on what he considered the scant evidence of the NP event fliers that claimed Obama as a member, and I think in June 2012 he felt a journalistic responsibility to acknowledge such facts as now indicated that a stronger case had been made. What part of that is wrong? More specifically, where does the "brief Obama NP fling" story fail in truth or verifiability? [[User:Wookian|Wookian]] ([[User talk:Wookian|talk]])
+== Using content from Trevor Loudon's book and its keywiki.org mirror ==
+I am having problems with the New Party (United States) article. I have problems using hyperlink sources from KeyWiki.org or Barack Obama and The Enemies Within book. Notability the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism inside the New Party that the Committees of Correspondence was radically left (Marxist-Leninist). The users on New Party (United States) are trying to cancel my account for no good reason. After all, Keywiki.org is also a wiki.
+<nowiki>http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Enemies-Within-Trevor-Loudon/dp/0615490743</nowiki> www.cc-ds.org/
+[[User:Renegadeviking|Renegadeviking]] 14:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
+: See [[WP:USERGENERATED]] for why keywiki.org cannot be cited as a reliable source. <span style="font-family: sansation, sans-serif;">'''[[User:AJCham|<span style="color: #000;">AJ</span>]][[User talk:AJCham|<span style="color: #666;">Cham</span>]]'''</span> 21:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
+    ↑ List of those NC members who signed statement of events at meeting of 11/15-16/91
+    ↑ America's Survival, Inc. "From Henry Wallace to William Ayers - the Communist and 'Progressive' Movements"
+    ↑ http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/Wallace_to_Ayers_Communist_Progressive.pdf
+    ↑ Radical Scholars & Activists Conference pamphlet, 1993
+    ↑ The Corresponder Vol 10, No. 1, June 2002
+    ↑ 6.0 6.1 Proceedings of the Committees of Correspondence Conference: Perspectives for Democracy and Socialism in the '90s booklet, printed by CoC in NY, Sept. 1992 (Price: $4)
+    ↑ Way Back Machine: cofc.org: Leadership of the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy & Socialism, August 6, 2004, originally at http://www.cofc.org/htm/leadersh.htm (accessed on Oct. 15, 2010)
+    ↑ The Viet Cong Front in the United States, book, Western Goals, 1971, a private printing of the The Second Front of the Vietnam War, Communist Subversion in the Peace Movement, "Congressional Record", April 21, 1971 as prepared by Representatives John Schmitz, Roger Zion and Fletcher Thompson]]
+    ↑ http://www.cc-ds.org/IssueJune2006Version4.0.pdf
+    ↑ http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10628
+    ↑ http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com/
+    ↑ http://www.cc-ds.org/critical_moment.html
+    ↑ http://www.cc-ds.org/convention_2009/Socialism_and_the_Emerging_Progressive_Majority.pdf
+    ↑ http://www.cc-ds.org/discussion/metroDC_presents_Eco-socialism.html
+    ↑ Committee to Stop FBI Repression: Solidarity Statements (accessed on Oct. 6, 2010)
+    ↑ New Ground, 134, Jan./Feb. 2011
+    ↑ Highlights from the National Coordinating Committee Meeting of 9/24/11
+    ↑ CCDS NCC Meeting, Sept 30, 2011
+    ↑ Spoiling for a fight: third-party politics in America By Micah L. Sifry, page 347
+    ↑ SSE Tenth Annual Conference Program, 1992
+    ↑ Dem.Left, July/Aug. 1995 page 18
+    ↑ http://www.dsausa.org/dl/sum2k/01.html
+    ↑ Z magazine June 1994
+    ↑ Madeline Talbott, Chicago NP report August 12, 1992
+    ↑ Chicago NP mailing list, circa 1993
+    ↑ http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng38.html
+    ↑ Where Does the Left Go From Here? A Chicago DSA - Chicago CoC Joint Forum, New Ground 39, March - April, 1995
+    ↑ http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng42.html#anchor792932
+    ↑ http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng47.html#anchor781435
+http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.newparty.org/
+[[User:Renegadeviking|Renegadeviking]] 14:10, May 26 2013 (UTC)