Talk:New Party (United States)

Earlier New Parties?

Mentioned is the 1968 one. I don't know if there is any continuity with the one of 1956: [1] Шизомби (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Also "Kent and Phoebe Courtney's "Interim Committee for a New Party," chaired by Lieutenant General PA del Valle" in Roads to dominion: right-wing movements and political power in the United States By Sara Diamond (possibly the same as above). Шизомби (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oct 8 Revision

Reverted this addition because (i) it was a wholesale cut and paste from another source which violates fair use WP:FU, and (ii) the cut and paste was from a blog, which is not a reliable source per WP:SPS Fladrif (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The next crack at adding this material was much better, though this stuff still violates WP:NOR. I'll leave that particular dispute to somebody else. Cleaned up the references. The link to the Obama website is not a proper general reference for this article, and was removed. See WP:REF. Fladrif (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(I am the 'unsigned' from 208.14.110.162, sorry I didn't have my log-in info handy.) It's worth noting that a later page in the archive.org website only refers to Obama as a supported candidate. [2] Frank Lynch (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's apparently acknowleged it and noted that he ran as a Democrat, which seems irrelevant to the actual article content. [3] John Nevard (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am interested in Obama, who was affiliated with the New Party, welcomed their support, and amed to continue the affiliation. There is ample documentation of this in the materials from the New Party and its allies available on the web, e.g. the Chicago DSA website New Ground, which writes in issue 47 "Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration." [4]. --Mikedelsol (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

One thing I noticed is

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

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

Keep or cut Obama?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article is about the New Party itself. It dumbfounds me how anyone can say that you can't use the party's own words in an article on the party, without someone else corroborating. That is like saying you can't convict a thief for stealing after he admits it unless someone else saw him do it. I believe most of the preceding discussion is colored by individual political biases and loyalties, not logic. This article should indeed include that Barack Obama was indeed a member of the New Party.

DSA / Socialist party

I have seen in many of the comments and outside references that The New Party was somehow affiliated with DSA or the CDSA. These comments also call The New Party a socialist organization. However, I have not seen any evidence of this. From what I can tell The New Party may have been supported by DSA or its chapters, but it was not part of that organization. On the archived pages for The New Party, I see no reference to socialism, communism, or the socialist party, or DSA. I think some are intentionally trying to mislead people into believing this is true. Can someone clear this up for me? --Mherlihy (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The New Party was not affiliated with DSA or the CDSA. Those rumors appear to be based on common events that both organizations attended. However, the Arkansas and Illinois New Party were closely affiliated with ACORN. Ted Thomas headed both the Illinois New Party, and Chicago ACORN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.252.206 (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate Contract

Did you even read the references? For this article, I guess even the references need references. I am writing about the following line in revision 245759862: "Some chapters required candidates to sign a contract, before they were endorsed by the local New Party chapter."

It is properly sourced.

1.From the archive.org copy of the new party web site: A copy of the April 1994 progress report, which states that the New Party is requesting contracts from candidates. http://web.archive.org/web/19970709035846/www.newparty.org/up9404.html

1. 1 This is an organization writing about its own organizational requirements. It is not an interpretation.

2. From "Forging Radical Alliances Across Difference", by Jill M. Bystydzienski and Steven P. Schach, 2001, published by Rowman & Littlefield, isbn 0742510581, candidate contract referenced on pages 126-127.

1. 2 This is a published book. The author (Jill M. Bystydzienski) is the "Professor and Chair of Women's Studies" at Ohio State University. http://womens-studies.osu.edu/people/person.cfm?ID=2466

How is this not a reliable source?

3. Archive.org copy of The New Party of Illinois Candidate Contract, from the New Party of Illinois home page. http://web.archive.org/web/19991023054515/members.aol.com/NewPartyIL/contract.html

1. 3 How can this line be poorly sourced, when the reference points to a copy of the contract in question? The national New Party web site specifically points to members.aol.com/NewPartyIL/ as the home page of the Illinois New Party chapter. http://web.archive.org/web/19961112083630/http://www.newparty.org/chapters_members.html

The page on the home page of the Illinois New Party chapter is named "contract.html", the page is titled "Candidate Contract", and the page contains "The New Party of Illinois Candidate Contract". http://web.archive.org/web/19991023054515/members.aol.com/NewPartyIL/contract.html Sampleson (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

All three are primary sources of low quality - sourcing a self-published claim by a small off-center political party about itself, as evidence that the claim is true. Self-published sources like the organization's own contract, and their web archive reprint of the same, do not establish that the contract actually existed or was used in that form, that anyone signed it, or that it is important. You would need a reliable secondary source for all that. The source for #2 is not Jill Bystydzienski. The book is an anthology of essays, and the author of this particular one is Paul Haber, one of the former New Party leaders. As such it is yet another claim by the organization about itself. Moreover, the source does not mention the success of the contract or what it was. It says that they "introduced" the "new idea" of a contract, mentions its purpose, and describes some negative reaction they got from it. As such it's probably safe to mention the contract and describe it as a notable development in the history of the organization, but there is no reliable evidence regarding who signed it or how universally it was used. When a reliable source merely mentions or reproduces an unreliable primary source it does not rehabilitate that source - putting that essay in an anthology published by a professor does not change the fact it is a small political party's description of itself. That's a very weak source, but probably enough to make some uncontroversial claims. Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the book content. The book is edited by Jill M. Bystydzienski. The book chapter is written by Paul Haber. However, while Paul Haber may have been a member of the New Party, he is also a professor in the department of Political Science at University of Montana. His chapter of the book may have been written in the first person, but it was also heavy on references. There are 11 references at the end of his chapter. They include New Party publications, but they also include secondary sources such as spin magazine, other books, etc.

There is also the secondary source of "Democracy Unbound: Progressive Challenges to the Two Party System", By David Reynolds, Published by South End Press, 1997, ISBN 0896085635, 9780896085633 David Reynold is on the faculty at Wayne State University, and the author of several books.

In "Democracy Unbound" there is a section titled "Progressive Dane - The New Party in Madison" (starting on page 211). At page 213 it reads "candidates sign contracts pledging their support for building the organization in return for campaign support"...

David Reynolds is also published in (a college publication) New Politics, vol. 6, no. 3 http://www.wpunj.edu/%5C%5C~newpol/issue23/reynol23.htm where he writes "local New Party groups commonly have their candidates sign contracts agreeing to support movement-building by placing the New Party's name on all their literature..." He his rebutted in the next issue by Thomas Harrison http://www.wpunj.edu/~newpol/issue23/harris23.htm

There are also first person accounts of contracts, such as http://www.greens.org/s-r/12/12-03.html

The New Party may have been both a "national party" and an affiliation of local parties/chapters. But the Montana and Wisconsin chapters are specifically mentioned in publications regarding candidate contracts. The Illinois chapter web site had a copy of their contract, that stated "No candidate may be endorsed without first signing this contract".

The article entry of: "Some chapters required candidates to sign a contract, before they were endorsed by the local New Party chapter." Does not say "who signed it" or "how universally it was used". That is why it reads "some" and not "the new party".

I suggest that "Some chapters required candidates to sign a contract, before they were endorsed by the local New Party chapter" is uncontroversial and is in fact a documented claim.

On the other hand, I suggest that the statement of "Some New Party chapters introduced the idea of a contract for candidates to sign, to encourage accountability to the promises they had made the party in exchange for an endorsement, an idea that met with some resistance" is opinion that is an amalgamation of statements that were cherry picked from several paragraphs of the source, and taken out of context.

The "idea" was implemented, as a candidate contract (at least at some local chapters). The statement of "an idea that met with some resistance" does not refer to the candidates (according to the referenced author), it refers to resistance from the established (elected) politicians.

I suggest that the line in question be changed to something like: Some New Party chapters commonly signed contracts with endorsed candidates to encourage candidate accountability and increase New Party exposure.Sampleson (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Some chapters required" suggests that not all chapters required it, but it implies that within those chapters it was a universal requirement, which is not what the sources say. The sources do not claim that it became a requirement or that it happened with any regularity, at least Haber does not. Others do not seem to be entirely reliable. My modification is not opinion or cherry picking. It follows the Haber source quite literally. Haber says that this was an idea, and immediately describes the reason for doing so (accountability) and the reaction (some resistance, which he ascribes to opposition by some to local politicians answering to an out-of-state political organization. Further, I would not grant that professors are any more reliable than anyone else when making claims for their own careers and organizations. Wikipedia plays no favorites. Scholarly articles are reliable with some caveats when in reputable peer-reviewed journals and other publications within the bounds of scholarship. When a professor also happens to be a political operative he is on his own. Things get complicated when a university hires them simply for being a political figure, but I would suggest that the dynamics of academia do not serve to ameliorate the tendency of politicians to be unreliable in making claims about themselves and their own organizations. Wikidemon (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Democracy Unbound" is a book that covers the Reform Party, the New Party, the Labor Party, Campaign for a New Tomorrow, and several other third parties and movements.

Is this book also being dismissed as a secondary source? Sampleson (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 1994 request of a contract, is there evidence that this idea was still in place in 1996, when Obama was supported by the Chicago chapter? Just curious.Frank Lynch (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Several books and USA Today name Danny Davis as a prominent New Party member. Those books do not name Obama as a member. Many of the books are an examination of third political parties. They (like this wikipedia article) focus on the political party, not individuals. Sampleson (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Any talk about "contracts" should be taken in the context of the well-known Gingrich Contract with America of 1994. It was a rhetoric of the time, when the Republicans still posed as Libertarians. As amply demonstrated by the Republicans, it doesn't mean that there's actually some enforceable contract lying around out there. Wnt (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Court ruling

I cut part of the description of the Supreme Court ruling because it was misleading. The article portrays the Court's ruling as "the first time that the Court enshrined the two-party system as a fundamental feature of the US electoral system."

It did nothing of the sort. States have the right to "enact reasonable regulations of parties, elections, and ballots to reduce election and campaign related disorder" and the court ruled that disallowing electoral fusion fell under this category, while not violating the First Amendment right to associate and form political parties. This did not "enshrine" the two-party system. Third parties are welcome to form. In fact, in the state in which this suit was filed, Minnesota, there are already two other parties, the Independence and Green Parties, on the ballot. PFR 02:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PFR (talk • contribs)