Talk:New Party/Archive 1

Earlier New Parties?

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

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

Oct 8 Revision

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

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

DSA / Socialist party

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

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

Candidate Contract

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

It is properly sourced.

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

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

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

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

How is this not a reliable source?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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