Jump to content

Talk:Reform Party of the United States of America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Presidential Election 2024

My name is Nicholas Hensley. I am the current chairman of the Reform Party National Committee. Several times now the presidential candidate has been changed.

LEGALLY according the Reform Party Bylaws, which are enforceable in court, the Reform Party's 2024 nominee is Kennedy/Shanahan.

When someone drops out, the party LEGALLY has to meet and call off the nomination regardless of where that person is on the ballot.

Even though he will not appear with "Reform" next to his name, he is still the Reform Party nominee. That is because it was not rescinded by the convention.

The reason that he will stay the nominee is that it makes no sense to meet after ballot access deadlines have passed, and it will carry no weight in the election. For the ease of convenience, he is the nominee.

Please stop removing him from the page.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NRHensley (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

President 2012 Election

I went through a deleted the mention of the Presidental Candidates for Kansas and Mississippi. Those candidates were for splinter factions and not the RPUSA. Even thou those carry the Reform Party name, they are not affilates and shouldn't be on there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.64.136 (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Would anyone object to this page being changed to Reform Party of the United States, as articles such as President of the United States of America dropped "of America" a while ago? -- Mattworld 20:25, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have no objection. RickK 21:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC) Is this statement in the article correct, and if so, by what criteria?:

"In 1998, the Reform Party received a victory by electing Jesse Ventura governor of Minnesota, the highest office win for a third party since the beginning of the century."

I'm looking this up and several governors have been elected on third party tickets during the 20th century including Lowell Weicker on the Connecticut Party ticket, Walter Hickel on the Alaskan Independence Party ticket, and Lynn Frazier of North Dakota on the Non Partisan League ticket. There may have been others. Are we using the population of the state to determine what's the highest office win or would any state be equal in this regard? Kaibabsquirrel 02:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaibabsquirrel, I wrote that... actually it should have said "national third party" which would have been completely accurate. The Non Partisan League was a national party briefly (even though not really important natonally even then), but even when Lynn Frazier ran (1916) it fits the time frame I was thinking of when I wrote "beginning of the century". I didn't remember any specific dates so thats why I used the phrasing "beginning of the century". La Folette's governorship from the Progressive Party also was around the time I was thinking of (1906), and his party was actually more important nationally. And if you look at it another way, people have often referred Weicker who had a state-based party runs for instance as an Independent, because the party was a vehicle for his run and died after. There were always accusations that Perot was trying to do the same thing in manipulating control, but it was a real coalition, and regardless, when Ventura won people thought of it as a third party win more than they thought that way when Weicker won. ie it was a known national party with a national platform achieving a w in; which didnt happen since the time frame I was thinking of (even though the Reform Party started breaking up after). Its important to say this. I'll change the phrasing to "national third party" though so it will be accurate, my mistake.

btw, refer to this page on third party/independent governors from the National Governors association: [1] Walter Hickel is listed as an Independent governor. I haven't studied his case, this label here may be wrong, or it may have been that he accepted the nomination of the party while still considering himself Independent. In any case it fits into a similar category as Weicker's run, though the Alaskan Independence party existed before he ran.

Brianshapiro

Okay, no problem, not a big deal. When I was making the edit yesterday I was about to change the date to 1990 (for Hickel and Weicker) but wasn't sure if that was appropriate. After all Minnesota is the biggest of the states in question. Hickel and Weicker were both widely mentioned in the media as "Independent" governors but Hickel did run on the AIP ticket. Kaibabsquirrel 08:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Why Producerism should not be used to portray the party in this article, though may be mentioned

The Reform Party platform never had anything in it talking about reducing the welfare state, nor did Perot have that as an issue. He did view that health care was going to have a crisis though and needed to be reformed to avoid it. The addition of 'curtailment of welfare' was added to the platform section on this article to try to link the party with Producerism, which would then allow adding that as a link in the ideology section of the party description.

Besides the fact that it shouldn't have been added to the section on the platform, just out of understanding of what the party itself is voicing, it is a tenuous link in general. Its certainly why it had to be described as 'mildly Producerist', but it would be a gratuitous promotion of the Producerist article to describe the party ideology that way in the info box if it only represented producerism in a 'mild' form.

I not only read the article on Producerism, but a lot of its links, which do try to make the case that the Reform Party, and especially Pat Buchanan's brief involvement, represent some Producerism. I understand all of this, but the section on party information in the right-hand frame is supposed to characterize the party in plain non-controversial terms; while its clear that party members would have found this a controversial description of their efforts.

Its even hard to fully fit Buchanan into Producerism, though that sense is sort of argued very strongly in the article and links. For instance, the article tries to make the point that Producerists center on the middle class, but anti-globalization appeals were always about both lower class Americans and lower class Mexicans. This may represent some inconsistency in the theory of Producerism, which looks to me as some ham-handed effort to peg a politic into a hole that is connected with conspiracism and even fascism.

(as a side note, Buchanan, also, only had brief relations with the party, which was objected to by many members, after which the party has tried to reject him)

And at a cursory level that may also seem true when some Reform Party members have said that social issues are used by politicians to distract the electorate. However, who they are saying it distracts, aren't some bottom rung, but voters including middle-class Americans. This may also seem like a critique that 'elites' are manipulating the situation, but the argument from Perot and the Reform Party was just that the political system was dysfunctional and corrupt. ie Perot saying "there are good people in office, the system is corrupt". Even the Producerist article mentions that the way it differs from the Radical Middle is that while the Radical Middle thinks 'government doesn't work' (i would interpret that as 'isn't working' since the radical middle isn't Libertarian) Producerists think of it as serving the interests of the elite and the bottom rung. Which sounds more like Perot? Its also true that in some cases being against globalization is pro-producer, but socialists are the same when they argue that; and any sign of protecting producers isn't a sign of being against consumers, or more affected towards producers.

There may or may not be Producerist sentiment in America, but trying to peg this party as Producerist, is also a ham-handed and totally theoretical effort which doesn't recognize that different ideologies are built on subtle differences.

At the very least, it should not be used as a descriptor of the party in the info box, or false information added to the platform section which would suggest a real bent.

---I would find it completely fair if there was some section at the end of the article analysing the role of the Reform Party in modern politics, where it would say "some have suggested [or some theorists] that the Reform Party's ideology is a mild form of modern Producerism" (there linking to the Producerism article), or Producerism added to the links at the bottom. So if the writer if the article would want to do that I think that would be a much more NPOV solution.

Average Reform Party members, from my experience, also have sentiments that are strongly similar to Communitarianism, but its not really reflected in the platform as it came to be so I wouldn't put that in the info box either. Communitarianism is mentioned in the article on the Radical Middle, and Producerism is a link in that article there. A suggestion could be both be left out of this article and either discussed in the Radical Middle article, or in another more encompassing article. Whatever way its handled, its clear Radical Middle is the least POV description of the politics (even though some contemporary writers who consider themselves radical centrists might not align with the party).


This talk-page essay is a highly POV piece of original research. v. --Cberlet 03:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it includes POV and also includes criticism of an insertion of POV into the article. Its a talk page after all. I noticed you returned something to the platform section that was never in the party's platform at all.--Brianshapiro
I just added a whole series of cites to the producerism page. --Cberlet 04:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing my point. First of all as it relates to this article, saying that welfare is in the platform is just inaccurate. That is a completely separate issue from the article on Producerism.
As for Producerism, the first thing you have to take in account when writing an article, is that, as the article admits, nobody except a few people talk about having that ideology its used to describe certain sentiments; so even saying "its an ideology" is POV compared to "its used as a description of a type of ideology that includes..". My suggestion of restructuring the article would just make all of this clearer, and where the term comes from, what discourses its been used in, and why its used to describe groups today. It wouldn't remove any information. Its not about citations or lack of citations. Brianshapiro
Look again, I researched the welfare stuff and you were right, not in the current platform, so I pulled it. Then I made the aggressive nativist anti-immigrant plank more accurate. Then I added a paragraph linking the platform to producerism. It is not POV to point out that scholars talk about producerism, and it is just silly to argue that if a group doesn't describe itself using the term, we can't use a term used regularly by scholars.--Cberlet 04:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its not even about the group not using the term, its about whether the ascribed ideology would be rejected or be controversial within the party. In which case I said it would be OK to mention producerism in the article, but it would be better not to use the term in the main description box on the right, because if party members would reject it, it is an imposed POV. That was my sole argument about that, I think my objection was fair.
Btw, just to know the Reform Party its important to know the immigration plank was relatively recent, after a Buchanan takeover, it just was never removed, and many in the party don't like it. I talk about that in the producerist talk page.
Also just as a side, producerism also is a more specific mindset than is admitted in the producerist article even despite obvious controversy and confusion over it--I'll continue my comments in that talk page when I get around to it.--Brianshapiro

American System

Why is there a link to this 19th century economic policy? Is it included in the Reform Party platform? Did Perot ever mention it? -Will Beback 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Platform of the Reform Party and you will find: Investing in Infrastructure and protecting American manufacturing, while encouraging production through research and developmet within. You will also find this in Perot's books. This is not just a 19th century economic policy, it is a phiolosophy of economics of both 19th and early 20th century by the United States and other countries, known also as the National System which Friedrich List wrote about in his book of the same name. It was used by Bismarck's Germany, and by France and Japan after WWII. It is what made Perot's and Reform Party's system unique, returning to America's economic system that had built the Arsenal of Democracy in the first place. Read their platform, it is neither Marxist or Laisee Faire; it is however American System. --Northmeister 01:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the 2003 Platform here. It does not mention tariffs, internal improvements, or a national bank, much less the American System by name. Please show me specifically where I can find the info you mention. Thanks, -Will Beback 04:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've never read Perot's book, as I can see. The platform mentions Trade in a manner consistant with the American System, the Reform Party has been against CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO, etc. it was built by Perot and Buchanan, both staunchly against present free-trade agreements. A little AMERICAN history for you. Second, on internal improvements, they are the same as building infrastructure (READ SOME AMERICAN HISTORY BOOKS), the Reform Party has called for more US dollars towards Research and DEVELOPMENT as well. The Reform Party believes as do all American political parties' in national banking through the FED. You don't even understand American politics, let alone history. You need to stop editing American history and political articles as you don't understand, I.I. and N.B. are pretty well established and accepted, except by the neo-con's running the White House today...the tariff is the only is to restore the American System and the Reform Party is for 'fair trade' deals that woul protect and promote American Industry...per Perot's, Buchanan's books, and the platforms. Your again out of touch and out of reality. --Northmeister 00:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the American System to the Reform Party article because you think Ross Perot would have supported it if he'd ever heard of it is not Wikipedia:verifiable. Lots of politicians give lip service to investment and research, but that doesn't make them AS supporters. The current party platform says nothing about tariffs or investment that I can see, but if it is buried deeply than it might not be relevant anyway. -Will Beback 01:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Links to similiar philosophies is wiki credible, allowing the user to have background behind U.S. politics. Can you prove Perot doesn't believe in national banking, internal improvements, and protecting American Industry? Further populism and protectionism are mentioned due to the same reasoning, because they tell the more about the roots of the Perot sentiment and movement that lead to the Reform Party. The American System belongs to allow readers, if they wish to read about America's economic policy prior to the Cold War and how that policy is similiar to Perots. No one is saying by providing a link that the Reform Party even knows of American history per the American System, but they certainly reflect the sentiments of Clay and Lincoln, and the original GOP on this and foreign policy (non-intervention). --Northmeister 01:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't prove that Perot doesn't support the ideals of Confucious either, but that is not a sufficient reason to include a link to that article. The American System has not been America's policy for a long time and this page is not intended to remind readers of obscure 19th century economic theories with tangential relevance, whose main purpose seems to be to burnish the reputation of Lyndon LaRouche's pet theory, by making it seem widely-supported. If you have a source that disucsses the roots of the Reform Party in the American System then let's see it. -Will Beback 01:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again your out of line bringing LaRouche into this. You seem to have a problem here. --Northmeister 01:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reviving what he thinks is the American System is a pet project of the LaRouchites, and thus Will Beback does not have the problem.--Cberlet 13:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the "new" Reform Party

Evidently there's a "new" Reform Party who has a website here: http://www.reformpartyusa.org/ However, there's also another one that was previously thought of as valid here: http://www.reformparty.org So, which one is the "real" one? I am more inlcined to believe the one that existed previously rather than the new one unless some proof is given to show that the claims by the new one are correct. Likewise, without any information the article should not be changed. Anyone, know what's going on? I've heard more things from the reformparty.org people than the other one but I don't know what their case is exactly. - DNewhall

Not sure what is going on. I use to belong to the old one, that the second link goes to. The second link is the (or was the) real Reform Party. What has happened to that party is a shame. It had good people and sound ideas. It shied away from social issues such as Abortion. It united behind reforming politics, budgets, and economics. That is why Buchanan fit on the economic front. Unfortunately until America has a proportional system (which it should have), third party's have little chance of gaining momentum. They often represent the true interests of the people as opposed to big money interests (which in today's world has nothing to do with the people or country in question). --Northmeister 01:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Must be tough trying to slip between right-wing populism and neofascism.--Cberlet 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Must be tough not being able to understand the words you use. There's a greater argument for the Dems or Reps being neo-fascist than the RP. I suggest you read the Neo-Fascism and Reform Party article. Also, calling a party that had a very vocal Marxist contingency in the mid-90s "right-wing" seems a bit inaccurate. - DNewhall
Perot, Choate, and Nader are right-wing populists (Nader works openly with Buchanan, union-busting business nationalist groups, and Christian Right activists). Buchanan flirts with neofacism. See the book Right-wing Populism in America. So in my view it really must be tough trying to slip between right-wing populism and neofascism, especially when folks think they are being progressive. I have no idea what Camejo was thinking. The New Alliance Party people behind Fulani left Marxism behind years ago for a weird totalitarian therapy group and they act like a bunch of thugs within the Reform Party. So I do understand the words I use--we just happen to disagree. --Cberlet 17:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I find disturbing by your views are you give no room to honest compromise for the sake of the country. What would you call our Founders? Did they not compromise despite major differences for the good of the country? Democracy only works when opposing sides work with one another to achieve results for the people. If two sides inherently agree about a problem, then it only matters as to how that problem is to be solved. One side favors government initiative the other private, both compromise to achieve the best results. Whats wrong with that? --Northmeister 17:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC) ps. If nader was truly right wing as you say, would the Green Party have nominated him? --Northmeister 17:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, your (Cberlet's) comments were uncalled for and off topic. We are trying to figure out the issues with the two competing organizations as to which is the "real" one, not their political ideology. Second, I'm not necessarily debating the right-wing populism thing but the neo-fascism thing. Buchanan is ultraconservative but then you need to remember that fascism is by definition not conservative, it's a radical rejection of previously existing ideologies to create a new nationalized state. You did of course use the term "neo-fascism" which does imply conservative values and free-market capitalism nowadays. However, a strong centralized government is still central to the neo-fascist parties and this is where Buchanan differs since he wants a smaller government. Also, right-wing populism in America has traditionally not been fascist but generally libertarian. So, sure, the RP might be right-wing (supports capitalism and the free-market using the Nolan definition) and populist (it focuses on the "working class") but is in no way neo-fascist by any definition I've seen. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the current question we're pondering in this section. - DNewhall
I was directly responding to the comments by Northmeister. This is a talk page. Lighten up. I totally disagree with your definitions of fascism and right-wing populism. The KKK was a form of right-wing populism. Hardly libertarian. You need to expand the range of political ideas that you have been exposed to. --Cberlet 20:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The KKK amounted to nothing more than a southern terrorist organization that gained the upper hand under Jim Crow. It was not a political party, although it did exert considerable force, unfortunately, in the South at one time. DNewhall is right in his analysis for modern politics in America. Your perspective is way off base. You call someone like myself (since you were referring to me) right wing when in fact I am a progressive by self definition and belong to the Democratic Party today. So your way off base with me. That said, it makes one question your other analysis of individuals when you make great leaps like this. But this is not about you, its about the Reform Party. Please do not get personal and work in good faith with your fellow editors. We are not enemies but collaborators trying to get it right. --Northmeister 01:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nader a right wing populist?..says a lot about Berlet's POV and credibility. As I recall, he also calls Ramsey Clark a right wing populist. Makes you wonder who he doesn't consider a right wing populist. Himself, obviously, but is there anyone else? Reminds me of the shtik of his old hero from CAFA days, Enver Hoxha. "Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism". Anyone who isn't as extreme left as Berlet is a right wing populist. Chip, you're losing it.

Split needs to be covered in NPOV way

If folks cannot find a way to cover this split in an NPOV way, it will have to be locked down until the revert war ends.--Cberlet 00:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? An anonymous user vandalising a page with material that is false? or something else? The only discussion here was a diversion by yourself into namecalling and labeling, which made no sense at all. We were trying to discuss and by CONSENSUS, agreed I think anyway, that Charles Foster et. al. are the real Reform Party, any split party belongs elsewhere, it is as simple as that. --Northmeister 02:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user: User:70.36.91.194 has reverted a number of times today and continues to vandalise the page, I would ask the community here to form a consensus to request a block on that IP address, since said user refuses to log in and claim credit for his edits. --Northmeister 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. While it is possible that what they are saying is correct the lack of evidence outside of a single website while another previously valid website has a differing viewpoint at least requires that the person explain what's going on instead of constantly reverting the article after we ask them to explain themselves. - DNewhall
I think you right here. If you user is reading this he/she might want to opine as to the reasoning behind reversion and not to revert until discussion is conducted and consensus is reached among editors. If you request a block I will support your effort, until such said anonymous user logs in or gives us explanation here. --Northmeister 06:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a request for (semi-)protection of the article until the user explains themselves. - DNewhall


I contacted the New England regional representative listed on the current website (reformparty.org) asking about this issue. He replied with:

There are several groups using the RP name. The group that has reformparty.org is sueing the others trying to get just one recognized by the FCC. Hopefully this will happen soon.

So, no conclusive proof for one or the other just that the current people are aware of these claims, believe themselves to be right, and are trying to prove that they have the name legally. - DNewhall

I assume he meant FEC, Federal Election Commission, not the FCC, Federal Communications Commission. -Will Beback 06:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, typo. - DNewhall
So we are still facing the issue of there being a split in the organization, and needing to report that, while trying to find third-party published sources that explain why one side or the other had more legitimacy. So the current page is POV.--Cberlet 13:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cberlet. The split youre talking about is apparently recent, but everything historical covered in the article as its presented is NPOV. (the party information and links to websites might be disputed, but I assume you can list both) If you find out what has been happening of course go ahead and add it to the article. However, there has been something similar in the Reform Party before, and I expect that its not much different. The group that split off as the American Reform Party initially tried to get recognition as the national body of the Reform Party from the FEC, but they failed for reasons that were obvious for the FEC (except people outside who were routing for a party breakup seemed to gloss over these reasons). They only had power in 8 or so states, in some of these states had to wrest for power, and were clearly challenging the main organization. The reformparty.org website is connected to the organization which had national recognition, and by all appearances still seems the main branch (and I can explain why if you want--mainly continuity reasons), which is why apparently they would have to fight to keep the other groups from trying to get FEC recognition. Seeing that the party is less functional now than it was during the split I mentioned, the number of states involved is probably less important, because there probably isn't any viable organization in any state as it is, though thats the most important thing to find out--whether they have major state organizations. Also research when exactly the www.reformpartyusa.org website was put on the Internet, and when the FEC filings took place. Also put that in relation to the fact that the leadership listed on www.reformparty.org has some continuity with party leadership from before. Maybe from that you can figure out whats happening. I personally have no idea whats going on though. If anyone wants to investigate it and add to the article and decide what to do about the website links and everything else, go ahead. The rest of the article, I should note again, would be seen as NPOV by most people, including people of differing opinions, who have been involved in the party over the years.
As far as the other things you've brought up for this article. I argued with you how labeling the party as producerist was innapropriate, and now it seems you would want associations of neo-fascism or being right-wing. I thought it was fine that you modified the article's description of the immigration stance as that was accurate (although I think its important to know the recent development and also disagreement within the party). Associating the party with fascism is incendiary, and frankly even when Buchanan entered for candidacy in the party he acknowledged putting his more right wing opinions aside to work with a party that didn't welcome them (supported by Pat Choate, a former Democrat). Eventually his 'Buchanan Brigades' left the party. The party as it existed was equally composed of former Republicans and former Democrats, and there was always debate over social issues in the party, but everyone involved didn't like the two parties for lack of not being moderate enough and both being too extreme. Perot was, although sometimes called right-wing for fiscal policies, largely seen as a centrist. --for reasons evident to any observer of American politics. Not only do you want to skip over that fact, you want to try to concretely peg the party in the article, any way you can, with extremism, whether under the label of 'neo-Fascism' (how you want to try to link the party, whether through Perot or Buchanan or Nader with Corporatism I don't know unless you're being dishonest), or with Producerism, which is an interesting (though unclear) concept but seemed somehwat clear to me at the time it was brought in to bring association with fascists. Now that you've introduced the topic of neo-Fascism, its clearer why you originally introduced producerism. Brianshapiro

I've added some information about the "split" in the party in as NPOV a way as possible. Also, I recieved this response from the anonymous user that was editing the article:

Hello, I was just able to get your message. There is no vandalism or factual mis-statements. The only mis-statement is that of Charles Foster as Chair and the address. Mr. Foster is part of a group of 5 Reform Party State Organizations that walked away, held a meeting in early 2005 and declared themselves "national officers" Mr. Foster also lost election as National Chair two years ago.
The real Leadership has prevented this group from entering into a mediation with the Fedral Govt, and none of the State Party Organizations that left and declared themselves "national officers" have real functioing State Party Organizations, except 1.
The major active and real State Party Organizations remained with the Party and its Constitution. The Group which Mr. Foster is a member of held a weekend meeting and purportedly elected all new officers and wrote a completely new constitution. Think a Party with its entire Membership could do that? 4 or 5 State Organizations could without the other 20, which included Cali, Kansas, AZ, and on. The United States Attorney has been consulted by the actual Party Leadership, and they unfortunately had to file a criminal complaint to prevent the fraud and harrassment. Try talking with the Az, Cal, R.I and other Reform Party State Chairs.
The gentleman above has made comments that are subject to dispute. Not knowing his actual status (what was firsthand, what was secondhand information) I can't tell how much of this is based on his views and how much based on just what he was told.
I will not judge the validity and strength of his portion of the RPUSA, as I do not have firsthand knowledge of it. I can say that most of his statements about Mr. Foster's group are incorrect based on my firsthand knowledge. Summarizing, we did not "walk away" but attended a Convention that some SPOs chose not to attend because they questioned its validity. We had about a dozen SPOs present, not 5, which was a majority of active SPOs. We had about 60-70 delegates, which was on par with turnout at recent conventions. We held elections just as they would have. And, if a copy is provided beforehand (which was done), it is possible (and legal under the rules) for delegates to make significant amendments to any constitution over the space of 4 days of convention, which is what was done.
Really sir, you are more than welcome to dispute the validity of actions you do not agree with, but it should not be necessary to portray them in such a manner to get your point across. No need for such character assassination.
DCollison 02:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, the Reform Party is recognized by the Federal Election Commission and below is an exerpt from the FEC confirming the address and status of the Party.

Presented by the Federal Election Commission TRY A: NEW SEARCH RETURN TO: FEC HOME PAGE

Committee ID: C00331314

REFORM PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

340 EAST 32ND STREET SUITE 112 YUMA, AZ 85364

The anonymous user above is quoting this page: http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00331314 which is from the FEC archives and says that the Federal Election Commission recognizes the Rodney Martin wing of the Reform Party as the official party. Until the government changes its mind that should be the information presented in the article. - DNewhall

Actually, regardless of what the FEC web site implies, the Federal Election Commission has stated they have NO IDEA who the proper treasurer of the RPUSA is, and they really have no legal authority to make that determination anyway. The sole function of the FEC is to monitor financial receipts and expenditures, ensuring everything is being done in accordance with law.

However, I feel the need to provide a counter to the rather inaccurate statements made above. The RPUSA held it's national convention in June of 2005 in Tampa, Florida. Despite the claims above, EVERY state party affiliated with the RPUSA, including Arizona and California, were given proper notice of this convention. The RP of Arizona's own web site shows minutes from an emergency convention where they acknowledged a convention was being held in Tampa, and chose not to attend. As judge after judge across the country has stated, anyone who is given proper notice of a convention and fails to attend waives the right to object to the proceedings. A total of thirteen state parties attended the Tampa, Florida convention, where Charles Foster was duly elected as National Chairman, with Beverly Kennedy of Texas as the National Treasurer.

At present, the FEC is suing the RPUSA for $330,000+ it claims is owed for improper expenses by the 2000 Convention Committee. Despite the claim above, the RPUSA has never attempted to mediate the dispute, and is agressively pursuing an appeal with the Court of Appeals. It should be noted that during the appeal, Barbara Dale Washer, the supposed Treasurer for Martin's group, had asked the court to allow her to intervene as Treasurer in the case. The FEC opposed this, claiming she was NOT a party to the suit. As such, Bev Kennedy is still listed as the Treasurer of record for the purposes of this lawsuit.

The Chair of Rhode Island is correct, the RPUSA is currently suing sevral individuals who are holding property of the RPUSA, namely it's 1-800 telephone number, and using names the same or confusingly similar to the name the RPUSA uses, in clear violation of Trademark law.Jmccloskey 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotecting

I'm sure that a spell of free editing will help editors to make a good attempt to cover the split in a neutral way. I'm unprotecting to allow this a chance to happen. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a former UWSA and Reform Party member. I made some changes earlier today, mostly from my recollection of events. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I didn't know I needed to create an account. The edits are only registered under my IP address (67.190.143.220). I felt the article needed some clarification, particularly during the time period of 1996-2002. I added in an anecdote about the primary process in 1996, giving information about what the RP claimed at the time. I tried to make the edits as uncontroversial as possible. The RP has long been a contentious organization, so I understand if even my edits might cause consternation. I don't mean to "stir the pot". --User talk:Mmiller 2 April 2006

PoV passage

This is pretty PoV. Could someone check and rewrite it in an NPoV way? (I've tidied some of the English.)

Despite the in-fighting, the party is working to remain a viable force. In April 2006, the largest slate of Reform Party Candidates in Arizona announced candidacies for various elected positions. Other Reform Party State Organizations are currently working to regain ballot access via the petition process. A purported 2008 presidential candidate Wyatt Chesney, who, like Buchanan and Nader, is not a registered member of the Reform Party, says he is using his campaign in part to unite the Reformers, but has little if no contact and interaction with Reform Party state parties throughout the country. Currently there are approximately twenty-two functioning Reform Party state organizations; twelve remained in the party, six left in mid 2005, and the remaining four are independent and not affiliated with a National Reform Party.

2005 is not the only time a Group has left the Reform Party; in 1996, supporters of former Colorado Governor Richard Lamm left the party after Lamm failed to win the 1996 Reform party Presidential nomination, and formed the American Reform Party. Many Reformers fear that the current division will only result in the Reform Party losing its status as a political party. Interestingly, while the Reform Party works to reinvigorate itself, by engaging the public, recruiting and running Reform Party Candidates, petitioning for ballot access, and participating in debates and Town Hall meetings, the six state party organizations have little or no activities of a political party; while claiming to be the Reform Party they run no candidates, have minimal ballot accees, and are not working to regain ballot access, and have engaged in no real outreach to the Public, such as the activities the remaining Reform party currently does.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to dispute your statement that any SPOs "left" the party in mid 2005. For an SPO to leave, they would have to officially disaffiliate and notify the national organization that they were doing so. OR the National Organization would have to, by vote of the National Convention, vote to disaffiliate that SPO by name. Note that recognizing or failing to recognize certain leaders or officers has no impact on the status of the validity (one way or another) of the organization *by name*. There is still only one RPUSA, and it still has all 22 relatively functional SPOs.
Also, there were more than 6 SPOs represented at Tampa, and those SPOs who attended are indeed running candidates, some of the SPOs do have ballot access (Florida for instance), and do indeed do outreach. The difference (see my other comments further down this page) is that we put more of the responsibility on the state levels, and quietly help them succeed. That's just a different way, and does not indicate "little or no activities of a political party". DCollison 01:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Votes

Can someone include the number of votes each of the nominees recieved?--KSava 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral James Stockdale?

why isn't he mentioned?

No direct relevance to the reform party. He never claimed to be a member and has never run on a reform party ticket. He was Perot's running mate in 1992; however Perot was running as an independent that year and hadn't even formed the reform party as of then.Troodon 01:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of data

Removed paragraph about Wyatt Chesney. He is a ficticious character invented by a teenager as a prank. Verify with Rodney Martin of the Reform Party, http://www.reformpartyusa.org

First Person POV of current RPUSA situation: Not wholly neutral

More later, and if I have contributed (as I think I have) to a revert war I apologize and will desist. The most recent edits, by FCY Travis, I think are a pretty neutral presentation of the situation, though of course incomplete.

The gist of it is that after the Buchanan supporters left around 2001, the Reform Party was left with only a handful (less than 20) active State Party Organizations (SPOs) and many gutted shells trying to rebuild with a few activists. The Nader campaign helped gain some ground in this respect.

After Mr. Nader's campaign, a schism did indeed develop inside the RPUSA, primarily over the leadership style of Party Chairman O'Hara. His supporters, strongest in California, Oklahoma, and Arizona, had a vision of a more active National Organization with greater direct participation by individual members. The end result, IMO, would have been a hybrid organization attempting to combine a national activist membership organization with a national party committee organization.

The second group, which convinced me to participate with, were strongest in Michigan, Florida, and Texas. Their vision was of a more limited National Organization with the states having less oversight by the National Organization.

The end result is that O'Hara's supporters believed the other group were "elitist exclusionists" and O'Hara's detractors believed his supporters to be "micromanagers with no grasp of what a political party is".

Off memory, I think it was near the end of 2004 that a call by various National Committee Members was made for a National Committee Meeting in Atlanta for the purposes of addressing various internal matters only somewhat related to the above dispute. Such a called NatCom meeting is allowed under our rules. At that meeting, the National Committee Members called for a National Convention in Tampa Florida in June 2005.

However, Chairman O'Hara and his supporters disputed the validity of the Atlanta NatCom meeting. It is on that basis that they boycotted the Tampa Convention and have disputed all subsequent actions resulting from it. Because of this, as of June 2005 we had two sets of people claiming to be officers. One arguing a legitimate convention has not been held, one arguing that it has. (Now disputed) Chairman O'Hara and his supporters then issued the call for a (in his mind legitimate) Convention in Arizona.

From here out, I will refer to the Martin group (Arizona) and the Foster group (Tampa)

With regard to using FEC records to determine the legitimate officers/group, that is suspect at best. We have found that they tend to accept whatever most recent filing they have received and go with that, though they may have tired of that and made a more or less arbitrary decision to "stop here" until things settle out.

There is indeed a lawsuit, by the Foster group, attempting to settle the question legally. None of us are pleased with going to court over this, but it does not seem possible to settle it otherwise.

Regarding the number of attendees at the Tampa vs Arizona Conventions. The Tampa Convention had between 60 and 70 delegates (going off memory) from about a dozen states (which was a good majority of active SPOs at that time), so it's hard to call us a "rump" group. Having been a member since 2001, I recognized enough of the faces that I am confident they were not a "packed house". My understanding is that the attendance at the Arizona Convention was significantly smaller, but this is secondhand information.

Take all this for what it is worth. I would appreciate any attempt to present a neutral point of view of this that acknowledged the problem. The critical point is that we do indeed have candidates in several SPOs, and memberhip is growing in the Foster group (and according to Mr. Martin in his as well). I think both groups understand this can not continue indefinitely.

I could give numerous anecdotal arguments regarding why I think the Foster group is legitimate, and do so without demeaning or insulting the Martin group, but that would make this even longer than it already is.

DCollison 01:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the FEC records, I agree that you can't use it to say one is legitimate or not, which is why I avoided any such wording. But, of course, it is a point of fact. I also agree re: calling one side or the other "rump." FCYTravis 03:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Material, Pre-2005

My credentials:

Scott Malcomson, Reform Party; Gubernatorial Candidate, Arizona, 1998; Secretary, Arizona Reform Party, 1999-2000; Delegate, National Convention 2000 & 2002; National Secretary Candidate, 2002; National Rules Committee Chairman, 2002

I have been witness, and party to, many events that currently are disputed by people whose only sources of information come second- or third-hand. On that basis, I have corrected and expanded on material that was severely lacking in important details, especially in regards to the rise and collapse of the Buchanan takeover. I cannot begin to detail the damage done, by deliberate and demonstrably illegal acts, by the Buchanan campaign, to include death threats, coercion, and ultimately the imposition of mob rule. Nor can I begin to detail the additional damage done by the FEC's decision to award taxpayer funds to Patrick J. Buchanan without having first verified whether or not he had met the requirements of nomination.

One area in which I will admit ignorance, however, is the current 2005 dispute. I have been unable to obtain information from either faction --- neither of which I belong to --- regarding the original cause of the dispute. I understand that it is based entirely on whether or not the Tampa Convention was legitimate, which itself is based on whether or not the preceding National Committee meeting was legitimate, and I have not yet heard what the grounds are for declaring the meeting to be invalid. I will continue to research this subject and will report when I have something concrete to say.Calbeck 05:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wyatt Chesney Information Deleted

The poster who listed extensive information regarding a so-called fraud by a "person" styling himself Wyatt Chesney is heavily mistaken regarding the significance of the information. While it is true that an 18 year old masquerading as a 30-something potential candidate for President in 2008 did prowl the internet, and it appears some internet jockeys did express support for that person, it takes more than a website and posts by individuals who happen to be Reform Party supporters to constitute and endorsement or lend credibility to any old yahoo who claims to be a candidate. The truth is, political parties including the GOP and DEM get dozens of whackos claiming to seek such a nomination (some of whom really are imbalanced). Without a formal endorsement by a decision-making body any such claim of potential candidacy is nothing more than just chatter.

Add to that, the forum cited by the author was at the time open to both registered members and guests who are not Reform Party members, and it becomes even more meaningless. The simple fact is that the event was a prank by a young man, never had any credibility except among a handful of net surfers, and really isn't nearly significant to be part of any discussion of the Reform Party. Any neutral observer would conclude this.DCollison 02:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I tried to originally remove the Wyatt Chensey fraud from Wikipedia and the 2008 Presidential election page I had my IP address permanently banned from Wikipedia for excessive vandalism. The reason given was that the discussions on the reformparty.org forum gave the impression that Wyatt Chesney was a legitamate candidate. If I am mistaken in the misconcpetions, than so are all of the moderators on Wikipedia. Furthermore, it was I who removed the Wyatt Chesney page with the help of Rodney Martin (ask the moderator Firefox), not DCollison or anyone else from his team. If I was not involved in the cleanup, the Wyatt Chesney page would still be listed on Wikipedia and on the 2008 Presidential Page. If DCollison and his team had acted when they should have acted, it would not be a big issue. But they are only reacting, because of the RICO lawsuit. If there was no lawsuit, DCollison would not even bother to make an acocunt of Wikipedia, let alone contribute. Zzmonty 22:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPUSA Trademark Case: RESOLVED JUNE 25,2007

Shawn O’Hara/Rodney Martin Faction of the Reform Party Wins Jury Trial June 25th, 2007

In January 2007, a recommended order was issued in the Trademark Case (http://www.dscworld.org/courtfilings/1st_Amend_Complaint.pdf) with respect to summary judgement filings by both the Reform Party USA (Plaintiff) and defendants. You are welcome to peruse the text of that order here: http://www.dscworld.org/courtfilings/Doc_230_Order_denying_3MSJ-164-189-191.pdf

The case was brought by the Reform Party USA as represented by Chairman Charles Foster alleged to have been elected at the Tampa Convention in 2005, against various individuals operating similar websites and/or claiming to be the Reform Party USA (including www.reformpartyusa.org, which listed Mr. Rodney Martin as Chairman elected in Arizona in 2005).

The issue of whether the officers listed on the www.reformparty.org website, including Chairman Charles Foster, properly represent the RPUSA was not directly addressed by the recommended order (see footnote of recommended order, page 5 of 37). However, Judge Hinkle, before finalizing the recommended order, determined that it was necessary to determine whether the Tampa officers were indeed valid.

The recommended order for summary judgment stated(among other things) that the only proper website for the RPUSA is www.reformparty.org, and that individuals operating similar websites, including www.reformpartyusa.org, are clearly and without doubt committing trademark infringement and cyber-piracy by purposefully operating confusingly similar websites and using the Reform Party name. [1]

Also, please note that there is NO EVIDENCE (as reflected by the "citation needed" flag on the main wiki entry for this topic) that a RICO complaint was actually filed by the Arizona group other than an inflammatory press release on their website. Further, based on their sheer lack of the merest supporting evidence for their claims in the trademark suit, I seriously doubt such a RICO complaint would be taken seriously by the authorities. --DCollison (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- (Unknown poster) Mr. Dcolison, I have read a lot of your postings which appear to be spin, I aggree with another post that your spin would appear to be in reaction to a suit, given this I did some checking based on the information YOU HAVE POSTED. AND YES, THERE IS A RICO LAW SUIT FILED AS A COUNTER SUIT ON THE COURT SCHEDULE IN THE CASE YOU ALWAYS REFERENCE. Why don't you post links to that pdf document in the interst of full disclosure so we can see bvoth sides of this reform drama, or are you just spinning. ---

I do not have a copy of the RICO suit that the poster references. In point of fact, I am told that all the RICO suits were dismissed rather quickly. I welcome any feedback, dispute, or correction of this information. --DCollison (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION MR DCOLLSON Mr. Dcolison, I have read a lot of your postings which appear to be spin, I aggree with another post that your spin would appear to be in reaction to a suit, given this I did some checking based on the information YOU HAVE POSTED. AND YES, THERE IS A RICO LAW SUIT FILED AS A COUNTER SUIT ON THE COURT SCHEDULE IN THE CASE YOU ALWAYS REFERENCE. Why don't you post links to that pdf document in the interst of full disclosure so we can see bvoth sides of this reform drama, or are you just spinning.

67.86.236.93 As the first poster stated, the issues of who is actually the chairmain of the party (and which is the real reform party website) was not addressed by the summary issue. Mr. Collison's view that since they brought the trail the Judge will rule in their favor (Mr. Foster) is unfair to the voters. Both sides are jumping the gun by saying that the trail will rule in their favor. Each side is giving their opinion. Neither side is stating actual facts. The main page should still say that the issue is in dispute until their is an actual trial. Sorry Mr. Collison (and the poster of Mr. Martin's name). The summary judgement is not the final verdict of the trail.

--- Please note, the following two paragraphs were originally inserted inside my post, with no reference as to the poster's name. I have inserted them here because they fall here chronologically in the discussion. Frankly, since the Tallahassee/Tampa issue was resolved very clearly and obviously, I'm not sure retaining this discussion thread is needed. --DCollison (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC) --- (Unknown poster) Shawn O’Hara/Rodney Martin Faction of the Reform Party Wins Jury Trial June 25th, 2007 On June 25, a federal court jury in Tallahassee, Florida, unanimously ruled that the action of the national party convention in June 2005, changing national party officers, was invalid. Therefore, the officers who were in office prior to that convention (and the faction that supports them) are the valid national party officers. Shawn O’Hara, who had been national chair during 2004 and 2005, had since resigned and Rodney Martin of Yuma, Arizona, had taken his place.[reply]

The Tampa convention had been called over the objection of Shawn O’Hara. The Tampa convention had chosen Charles Foster of Texas as national chair. Foster and his faction had then sued the O’Hara/Martion faction, alleging that the law on trademarks was being violated by their use of the name “Reform Party.” However, the jury ruled in favor of the defendants. The specific question answered by the jury was, “Do you find by the greater weight of the evidence that the vote changing officers at the June 2005 Tampa convention was valid?” The jury answer was “No.” (unknown poster)

--- Well, it appears that the previous posters were correct. A recommended order is not the final word. He is also correct (it turns out) that it was not the best course for to post information based on a recommended order. In point of fact, the situation became very complicated with regard to the Trademark case. Judge Hinkle decided to grant the recommended order, but ONLY after verifying that the Tampa Convention officers were in fact legitimately elected. After a lengthy process and a frankly excruciating trial, the jury found that they could not find the Tampa Convention officer elections valid because of a technicality in how the call was issued.

After the ruling, both the Tampa and the Yuma groups attempted to get Judge Hinkle to comment on the validity of the Yuma Convention OR to obtain a new trial to address its validity. Judge Hinkle refused to do either, leaving us with an invalid Tampa Convention, and a Yuma Convention of unconfirmed validity. (see next topic)

After I dig up the appropriate refernences (I do have most of them) I will post this on the main page with the references. I will also attempt to find the information showing that the RICO suits were all dismissed with prejudice.

With respect to my "spinning" the matter, I have made no secret in previous posts that I am directly involved. I have attempted to be as neutral as I can under the circumstances, but of course, I am somewhat biased. I would suggest any reader rely heavily on the references provided when reviewing ANY posts about the Reform Party. With such ingrained disputes, any political organization history is VERY subjective.

PS: PLEASE if you post a response, indent the response and include your signature after EVERY post. It is very difficult to tell who is saying what otherwise. Some previous posters just inserted text everywhere, making it look like I was the one posting comments. --DCollison (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC) --DCollison (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC) ---[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.dscworld.org/courtfilings/Doc_230_Order_denying_3MSJ-164-189-191.pdf

NPOV problems

I have no involvement with the Reform Party or any faction or former faction thereof, nor have I had such involvement in the past. However, the discussion of Pat Buchanan's involvement with the party in 2000 seems to me to have been written from a stridently anti-Buchanan point of view. As with all Wikipedia articles, this article needs to take a neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said, I was a direct witness to the events of 1999-2002, when the Buchanan Brigades (as they call themselves) invaded the party. I am not, in the least bit, exaggerating. If the article comes across as "anti-Buchanan", it is specifically because the Buchanan campaign demonstrably acted in a reprehensible fashion. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of observation. If I were to be reporting firsthand on the violence in Darfur, would the article be smacked with the accusation of "POV" as well?
I was THERE, mind you, when the Buchanan-paid security staff kept hundreds of elected Reform Party delegates from entering our own convention hall at Long Beach in 2000. I'm in the PAPER, in the forefront of the PHOTO, where we are SHOWN being turned away in the pages of the Los Angeles Times. They used force to deny us our right to debate on, and vote for, our own candidate. I'd like to hear how you could possibly describe such an event accurately and NOT have it sound "anti-Buchanan". Calbeck 16 March 2007
Well, make sure you have cites to the Times coverage of the events in question. --Orange Mike 18:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

The introduction on this page really needs to be cleaned up. *edit* This wiki entry has just confused me more about the history of the reform party, in fact this wiki looks a lot like the reform party, a mess with different sides debating about the truth. Sad.

Removed material

I have removed a wealth of material, mostly about the 2000 election, as it was unsourced flagrant criticism of Pat Buchanan and others. I also, as is the norm under WP:BLP these days, removed several pending lawsuits and criminal actions that have not gone to trial or resulted in convictions, and are not especially notable in the news, especially as they too were unsourced. The 2000 election material could surely be expanded fascinatingly, but it must be done with appropriate respect to WP:NPOV and to our policies on sourcing. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed reference of The Reform Party of Ohio's endorsement of Presidential Nominee Ron Paul. The Reform Party of Ohio is an entity that is not at all related to the Reform Party of the United States of America. (75.54.92.66 (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Needs updating and explaining

Much needs to be inserted into this article to make it up-to-date and complete: details of the convention(s?) which was held under court order, the legal wrangling, and so forth. Very little information about the Reform Party over the past couple of years seems evident. I have removed the line about McCain/Palin being the party's nominee as it was repudiated on the party's official website Oct. 16, 2008. 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gibberish?

   * Direct election of the United States amber won the award by a popular vote.

A noticeable absence from the Reform Party platform has been what are termed social issues, including abortion and gay rights. Amber went to west Hertel yah long stated beliefs that their party could bring together people...

Any ideas just what those two clips are supposed to mean?

Chill633 (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just the remains of some recent vandalism that hadn't been completely reverted. It's sorted now - thank you for pointing it out. For information on vandalism and what can be done to fix it when you spot it, see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Cheers, Karenjc 19:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the use of certain terms in the atricle.

The article uses the words "Right-Wing" and "Center-Left" It wrongly assumes based on a clear bias that center and left are closely tied when in fact the center and the left are polar opposites. Wing is used to describe the right but not the left. The Reform Party never took positions on social issues officially and welcomes all points of view. Perot's main reason to start the party was to have an alternative voice that would work in his view in a non-partisan manner using the "best ideas from both sides". But he was really anti-George HW Bush, for personal reasons. His big push was opposition to NAFTA and fixing Social Security. 

     Gerry209.247.23.38 (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website

According to a New York Federal Judge's ruling yesterday, the website at http://www.rpusa.info is the legal, legitimate, party website --greenguy89 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.152.4 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed] --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founding black delegates

That story seems out of place in the 1996 prez election section. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party

Choat's comments about the Tea Party may be interesting in an article about the Tea Party movement but do not seem relevant to this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC Martin (talk • contribs) 20:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert David Steele, who blogs with the Huffington Post and is working with OWS to push through a program of Electoral Reform, is running for the RP nomination for President:

http://www.phibetaiota.net/2011/12/three-reasons-why-robert-steele-is-running-for-president/ Macousticboy (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how this should be included, but it seems worthy enough info to go ahead and start a section for 2011/2012.

Quayle's view on the Reform Party

Is there a way we can point out Quayle's error. The Reform Party didn't exist in 1992, to cost the Bush/Quayle ticket reelection. Perot ran as an independent. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015 edits

User:Ericl has made a number of edits that I believe violate WP:NPOV:

  • "before collapsing into irrelevance." -- This isunnecessary. We do not need to interpret the facts for the reader, just present them.
  • "The inclusion of cultists such as Fulani and John Hagelin would lead to the later destruction of the party as a force in American Politics." -- This is the editor's opinion. It is not referenced and violates WP:SYNTH.
  • "With Perot out of politics and Nader seen as a hopeless perennial, the party started to fracture, losing whatever credibility it had." -- Also opinion. Violates WP:NPOV

I think these edits should be reverted to conform to Wikipedia policy.

Finally, the headings are incorrectly capitalized, per WP:HEAD. This is surprising since the editor has a long history on Wikipedia. I will fix those errors immediately since they are a clearviolation of the style guide. Ground Zero | t 15:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, the edits were necessary to create fuller understanding of the subject, take the NLP for example. It was run by what is considered to be a cult. Same with Fulani's group. the takeover of the Reform party by the "lunatic fringe" in 2000 led directly to it's destruction. The party was mostly dead by the time Nader was nominated, and it was a mere "fig-leaf" for his independent campaign in 2004. it went from half million votes for presidents in 2004 (with no votes for lesser offices) to less than a thousand in 2008.Ericl (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping to get more editors into this discussion, but no-one seems to be stepping forward. However, any edits must comply with Wikipedia policy, and I do not believe that these do. These seem to be your own conclusions, which violates Wikipedia's policy on original research:

"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."

If the article is going to say these things, then you will have to provide references to reliable sources for them. If you don't, then I will remove the stateents per Wikipedia's policy on original research. I will put tags on these statements to indicate where citations are needed. Ground Zero | t 13:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right?

Is the Reform Party centre right? The Republicans are centre-right, if not right, and the Reform Party is to its right. Surely that makes it right or far right?Royalcourtier (talk) 10:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans are def not center right. They are right-far right Barnacles14 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing edits

I'm undoing all edits by 71.172.59.230 They appeared to have vandalized this. The person modified it so that it stated the Reform Party as controlling all political seats in the United States (federal and state-level).And wrote other purposely wrong information No explanation was present either.

Hifear267 (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reform Party of the United States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016 updates

My name is Nicholas Hensley. I am the Secretary of the Reform Party. I made two small changes. The first is that the entry said that the Reform Party split off of the Republican Party. That is untrue, the Reform Party grew out of an Independent movement in 1992. Also that the party was Centre-right to right wing, that is also untrue. The Reform Party is Centre-Left and Centre-Right. Remember that the party ran both Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader for President.

I myself am centre-left and there are many people like me in the party.

I'm also going to clear up the Stop Common Core, New York State Reform Party misconception. When the Stop Common Core ballot line gained full access, it teamed up with the Reform Party of New York and merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.144.217 (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Position change

I changed the position from 'centre-right' to 'centre to centre-left' as that more accurately describes their current nominee. If my facts are correct, I believe the party was almost always on that side of the spectrum until it was hijacked by Buchanan supporters (and subsequently taken over by Nader supporters) in 2004. But perhaps it's not worth assigning a position to it at all. W ASB94 (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reform Party of the United States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reform Party of the United States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reform_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America&oldid=1250062318"