Talk:Third party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

.

American Patriot Party[edit]

The members of the American Patriot Party place the Party Link, as the Party is presently stopped by wiki members from existing as a PAGE on Wikipedia.

Two previously written articles, perfectly suitable, are apparently not considered by a few Europeans and other Wikis as note worthy enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Where the frivolous Beer party and other ridiculous parties are allowed free rein and mentions.

If wiki members will protect our article to exist, I ask that you replace the last page placed.

The Party Exists, is fairly well known and is news worthy; Though not widely discussed because most news services are mostly Corporate (state born exclusive privileged cartels) and would rather not have true Constitutional Original-ism that the Founders intended promoted. The few Wiki Europeans and others hovering over the article to keep it from existing, do not like it either.

The Excuse they use has been that they can't find articles, well others seem to be able to find them and us:

Here is one article APP mention: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20111120/NEWS03/311209935

Published: November 20, 2011 3:00 a.m. Fort Wayne, Indiana ‘Fair tax’ momentum growing on Capitol Hill Brian Francisco | Washington editor: ...."Democrats in Congress have panned the fair tax proposal. So, too, have conservative groups such as the Constitution Party and the American Patriot Party."

The issue really should be, do we exist; And the answer to that is yes; From 2003 to Present. Over 20 states in organization.

Now what purpose is there for those monitoring Wikipedia, to actively black out the existence of a Political Party, when the number of frivolous (even those no longer in existence) parties are easily granted notoriety on Wiki.

So if Wiki users will protect the page, I will ask that the last page be posted as it was with the ending (United States).

We do not understand wiki enough to reestablish the page, over those on Wiki bound and determined to keep it off.

Past info:

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/American Patriot Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Patriot_Party

Articles for deletion/American Patriot Party (2nd nomination) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Patriot_Party_(2nd_nomination)

Articles for deletion/American Patriot Party (United States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Patriot_Party_(United_States)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardTaylorAPP (talkcontribs) 18:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 
Most of that statement above doesn't really have to do with this article specifically, but I will try to answer some of your questions. Since you have a direct connection with the party, some of your editing, and those of other APP members who edit on IP addresses only, would have a conflict of interest in editing. Creating articles about your own group or business is definitely frowned upon. The problem is that the linking and wording tend to be much more non-neutral or promotional. I can't speak to the exact articles above, but evidently other users didn't think you had enough third-party and reliable sources to really establish notability. It probably would be best if someone not affiliated with your group created the article. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Speaking to this article specifically, it really just looks like adding spam links or pure promotionalism when you or the anonymous users add the party link back in against guidelines. Several different users have pointed out reasons why this is not correct to add in here or in the other party lists (WP:ELPOINTS, WP:ELNO, WP:LSC, WP:WTAF, etc.). The fact that other articles exist that may not be notable is not a reason to add your link. Don't keep adding inline links as you have done. Consensus on this page is to not include redlinks in the list of parties (that is, parties without articles). Continuing to add that in amounts to spamming Wikipedia and is disruptive. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
As one of the editors who keeps removing the link, let me reiterate what I keep saying in my edit descriptions.
  • External links - As a general policy, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Care must be taken to avoid the appearance that the link is advertising rather than informative. And while I have seen no official policy regarding such, the consensus has long been that lists such as this one refer only to Wikipedia articles and not to external sites. Which brings us to
  • Notability -- It is not sufficient for something to exist in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about it: it must meet general standards of notability. I have said, many times, that if this party is sufficiently notable to be included in this list, then an article should be written and link added that points to that article. Given that no article has yet been written, it would appear that the party does not meet the requirements for notability and therefore is not notable enough to be included on this list.
To summarize: If the American Patriot Party merits inclusion on this and similar lists of third party organizations in the United States, write an article for the American Patriot Party that maintains a neutral point of view and has a sufficient number of reliable, independent sources, and link to that article. Seeing as the article keeps getting nominated for deletion, it would seem that its authors have been unable to make their case regarding notability. Bringing your case to this talk page is not appropriate. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico[edit]

Although Puerto Rico is presently a US territory I propose adding the 3 major political parties of Puerto Rico: the state only right wing New Progressive Party (aka the pro-statehood party), the centrist Popular Democratic Party (aka the pro-commonwealth 'status quo' party), and the Puerto Rican Independence Party under ethnic nationalist parties. 69.115.242.114 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to object on the grounds that Puerto Rico is a sovereign territory and not a part of the US, but then I realized that PR and the US Virgin Islands are already mentioned in List of political parties in the United States. Given that, the only issue I see would be that the three parties have Wikipedia articles and that the links go to them, not to external websites. If it is not sufficiently notable to have an article, it is not sufficently notable to be listed on this page. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 22:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

POV alert[edit]

The so-called "lead section" (really, like so many other articles, not an actual lead section but a random string of text separated from the article body for the sake of claiming that the article contains a lead section) of this article states "Third party is a term used in the United States for American political parties other than the Republican and Democratic parties". Simple enough to understand. Yet, the "Third party officeholders" section refers to independents in all but two cases in a gallery of "notable, current third party officeholders". First, why are certain members of the community continuing to push the POV that "independent" is a political party when it's not? Don't you suppose that contradicts the statement in the lede? Second, why is Bill Walker mentioned but not his running mate, Byron Mallott, who was elected as an independent right along with him? See the abundance of evidence recently presented to the NPOV noticeboard. Better still, see his own official website, which states "Governor Bill Walker and Lt. Governor Byron Mallott took office in December of 2014 as the first non-partisan administration in Alaska history". Don't tell me that he doesn't qualify for inclusion in that section when "lesser" officeholders such as state legislators, who were not elected on a statewide basis like Mallott was, are included there. It's really a matter of certain people across certain corners of the web cherry-picking scant evidence to claim that he's serving in the office as a Democrat, which has already been throroughly disproven by this point. This is getting very tiring to see. If I can see right through this, don't you suppose that others can as well, such as those who don't log in to accounts and are therefore being bombarded at present with requests to donate money to support this project? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)