Talk:Reform Party of the United States of America

message: 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)
thread_title: President 2012 Election

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Once again your out of line bringing LaRouche into this.  You seem to have a problem here. --Northmeister 01:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: American System

message: 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)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: Can someone include the number of votes each of the nominees recieved?--KSava 03:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of Votes

message: 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)
thread_title: Admiral James Stockdale?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: First Person POV of current RPUSA situation:  Not wholly neutral

message: 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)
thread_title: Additional Material, Pre-2005

message: 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)
thread_title: Wyatt Chesney Information Deleted

message: 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.  http://www.dscworld.org/courtfilings/Doc_230_Order_denying_3MSJ-164-189-191.pdf
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)
thread_title: RPUSA Trademark Case:  RESOLVED JUNE 25,2007

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed material

message: 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)
thread_title: Needs updating and explaining

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Gibberish?

message: 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)
thread_title: I object to the use of certain terms in the atricle.

message: 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)
replies: text: --Orange Mike  |  Talk 14:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Website

message: That story seems out of place in the 1996 prez election section. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Founding black delegates

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tea Party 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quayle's view on the Reform Party 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
thread_title: June 2015 edits

message: 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)
thread_title:  Right? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Undoing edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Reform Party of the United States of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.sph.umich.edu/~rwatt/old_nw3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: June 2016 updates

message: 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)
thread_title:  Position change 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028101426/http://www.politics1.com/reform.htm to http://www.politics1.com/reform.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924035234/http://reformpa.web.aplus.net/news.htm to http://reformpa.web.aplus.net/news.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=12063153
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160503120750/http://truthinmedia.com/libertarian-party-registrations-rising/ to http://truthinmedia.com/libertarian-party-registrations-rising/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613005525/http://indegayforum.org/news/show/26834.html to http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/26834.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion