Talk:New Party (United States)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One thing I noticed is

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

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

March 2012

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

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

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

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

Keep or cut Obama?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 2010

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

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

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

June 2012 Redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion pieces:

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

contain opinions:

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

and complain about the mainstream press not taking them seriously:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mean the IP sock/meatpuppeting? Just a note, 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.[9] Again, if there is any significance or validity to the subject it will be picked up by mainstream reliable sources. That's how sourcing works - see WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP for anyone reading this page who is actually new to Wikipedia. - 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.