Jump to content

Talk:Forward Party (United States)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evan McMullin and Stand Up Republic

[edit]

I don't see any mention of former presidential and senate candidate Evan McMullin, or his organization, Stand Up Republic, in this article. But I believe that the Facebook page Stand Up Republic became Forward Party and its Twitter account now links to Forward Party: https://twitter.com/StandUpRepublic/status/1626605062712614913.

McMullin has a page at https://home.forwardparty.com/evanmcmullin but it's pretty much empty. It would be good to have some information about McMullin and Stand Up Republic (and SUR co-founder Mindy Finn, though I know even less about her status) in this article, even just to include Stand Up Republic under "mergers". (I don't know if McMullin belongs under notable members.) Rxtreme (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Possible move back to Forward Party

[edit]

I think we should consider a move back to Forward Party. WP:NAMECHANGES requires more than the subject changing its name for us to move the page, it requires reliable sources to adopt the new name as the most common name, which I don't believe has happened. Nobody is calling it "Forward" without the "Party" unless there's already sufficient context to know what's being talked about. Take this Washington Post article published after the merger, for instance. And even the party itself is still using the old name in a number of places, including the footer of the website, which says "PAID FOR BY FORWARD PARTY". ― Tartan357 Talk 15:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tartan357. The name of this article should be Forward Party (United States) for the reasons given. JHelzer💬 03:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 August 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) – robertsky (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forward (United States) → Forward Party (United States) – See above discussion. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Forward Party Leadership

[edit]

I am attempting to compile a list of national leadership for the Forward party to place in the article once it is complete enough and well sourced. If you know of a WP:RS listing party leaders please add it to this section. JHelzer💬 03:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-chair: Andrew Yang (Former Democratic presidential candidate)
  • Co-chair: Christine Todd Whitman (Former Republican governor of New Jersey)

src: https://www.axios.com/2022/07/28/andrew-yang-forward-party-merger JHelzer💬 03:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source for co-chairs: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-former-republicans-democrats-form-new-third-us-political-party-2022-07-27/ JHelzer💬 03:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-CEO: Miles Taylor (Former Republican)
  • national Organizing Director: Will Conway (Former Republican)
src: Twitter profile descriptions, need reliable source
  • Advisory Board Member: Joe Sestak (Former Democrat)
src: https://www.politicspa.com/sestak-named-to-new-third-political-party-advisory-board/110831/ JHelzer💬 04:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JHelzer

Co-CEO: Matt Shinners
src: Linked-in Profile. Need reliable source JHelzer💬 04:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Co-founder: David Jolly
src: https://twitter.com/Fwd_Party/status/1559180724661542920 (MSNBC) JHelzer💬 14:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

[edit]

The PAC and the newly formed political party are two separate entities, and while they are related I think it would make the most sense to split the two. A PAC is not a political party. What are other editors' thoughts? I am fine doing the work to split this out if consensus is reached. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. We go by reliable sources, not the government's definition of what a party is. And all reliable sources have defined this as a party, just as the organization has. The legal structure at the moment is a detail that can be mentioned, but there clearly has not been separate reporting on a PAC vs. a party. There's barely enough sourcing for one article as it is. Parties are complex legal entities with many parts, that does not mean those various parts need their own articles if they are not independently notable. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In diving into the background more, I think you're right, @Tartan357. Initially I thought it was created solely as a PAC and then made a decisive split into a political party, but it looks like it's been muddled from the start, at least from what I'm seeing. Cheers! --Kbabej (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The intent from the start has been for this to be a party. Registering a political party in the US is no small task, and it is quite typical to have to start out as a PAC or other legal entity. ― Tartan357 Talk 18:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which of the following is more accurate.
a. The Forward Party started on October 5, 2021 by Yang with RCV and UBI as a platform and later RAM and SAM merged with it.
b. The Forward Party started on July 27, 2022 as a new organization, merged from RAM, SAM and FWD.
I have been thinking of it a option b. If option b is correct FWD PAC could have it's own page like the other two because all three started and have ended when the new Forward Party was created. An alternative is to give the three originals their own paragraph in the history section and delete the extra pages. JHelzer💬 14:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did Forward Party split from Republican and Democratic Party?

[edit]

Hello all, there has been some disagreement on whether or not the Forward Party split from the Democratic Party (United States) and/or Republican Party (United States).

Democratic Party- [1] - This reference was used to list the Forward Party as a "split from" the Democratic Party and largely relies on the fact Yang left the Democratic Party to form the Forward Party. Personally, I think this is good enough to list it as a split from the democratic party. The parties founder and main advocate publicly split with the Dems to form this party.

Republican Party - [2] - This reference I think is actually better and could be used for both. It reads: "Dozens of former Republican and Democratic officials will announce a new national political third party to appeal to millions of voters they say are dismayed with what they see as America’s dysfunctional two-party system.The new party, called Forward, will initially be co-chaired by former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and Christine Todd Whitman, the former Republican governor of New Jersey."

What do other editors think of listing this party as split from the Democratic and/or Republican Party? Do the WP:RS support it? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is supported, and one of these isn't a RS. The first one is Newsweek, which RSP says it is generally not reliable, per WP:NEWSWEEK. The second source doesn't use that verbiage at all. If this is the best we have for sourcing about a "split" from either party (which seems dubious), it should not be included. --Kbabej (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! I saw the article was republished on MSN.com and didn't check to see the story was originally from Newsweek. On the second source, is "Dozens of former Republican and Democratic officials" not clear enough? What kind of verbiage is necessary if not? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of verbiage necessary would be something to the effect of "the Sixth Party System ended when the Democratic Party collapsed and splintered into the Forward and such-and-such other parties." Something that would go in a history book about the Democratic Party. What you're talking about is nothing remotely approaching that. ― Tartan357 Talk 18:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems far too strict. For example, the Progressive Party (United States, 1948) is listed as having split from the Democratic party since it was formed by high profile dems leaving the party, but in no way did it break a party era and or clearly signal the transition to a new one. It seems to me your ignoring smaller splits in parties and advocating inclusion of the "splits" in the infobox only if they break the party they split from. Most 3rd party splits are unsuccessful in disrupting the party they split from, that doesn't mean they didn't split from a larger party. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any RS that call it a split, though. The two sources above don't support that view. Why would WP call it a split when RS don't? --Kbabej (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My answer to this is requiring a "magic word" be used for inclusion when sources describe that process is bad. Just because a WP:RS doesn't use the exact word "split" doesn't mean the source isn't describing a split. I think " "Dozens of former Republican and Democratic officials" is pretty clear that those officials were part of the other parties and split to form this one. However, if the consensus here is that the sources provided aren't clear enough, I'm fine with not including. I didn't add these sources or the split to the infobox, I'm just questioning their removal since they were present on the page for awhile and removed when the party received renewed attention after announcing its merger with other parties a few weeks ago (The article was created listing it as a split with the Dems in 2021, which it appears @Tartan357 removed it shortly after. This was the correct edit since the split was unsourced not criticizing Tartan. It was readded on Oct 14, 2021 and removed the 15th and readded again the 15th with the Newsweek source and remained on the page until now). However, it seems there is consensus that the prior sources weren't good enough, and I'm not planning on researching for other sources, so I'm fine with keeping it out of the infobox until someone else finds a more appropriate source and there is a discussion on that source. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yang is categorically not a "high-profile Dem". I don't say that to denigrate him, it's just true. He's never held public or party office before. My standard is RS saying the Democratic Party split, not saying Yang split, but saying the Democratic Party itself did. I am trying to explain to you why I think they haven't called it a split, but all that really matters is that they haven't. ― Tartan357 Talk 18:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what the field is for and this is reading something from the sources that isn't there, and has the effect of inflating the Forward Party's importance. The "split" parameter is meant to indicate those parties divided in some meaningful way. That absolutely did not happen. It is not "one person left his party to make a new one". If that was the case, every third party in the US would be considered a split from the Ds and Rs. Yang is one person who has never held office or any position in the Democratic Party. The Democratic and Republican parties are no less intact because the Forward Party was formed by former members of those parties. ― Tartan357 Talk 18:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the split parameter is meant to be that strict. The Template:Infobox political party isn't super instructive either and just says "Party or organisation the party was split from." The membership of the Forward party is split from the R/D parties and I don't think it's a mislabel to call that splitting. However, I do understand that it does make the party seem more important than it is and want to be sure to avoid any WP:UNDUE claims. Personally, I don't see the problem with labeling most 3rd parties as splits from either the Republican or Democratic parties because well, they usually are. 3rd parties tend to come into existence in the United States when party members leave the other two to form the new party. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are not about filling out as many parameters as possible. Editors need to apply discretion in choosing which parameters are helpful to have filled out in the infobox. I fail to see how this is useful in communicating any important information, it seems like just filling it out for its own sake. ― Tartan357 Talk 18:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical" ideologies

[edit]

The original Forward Party existed for less than a year prior to its merger and no members held office during that time. Considering this, I think labelling ideologies the party held then as "historical" in the infobox is strange and helpful. Perhaps they should be removed altogether? RoadSmasher420 (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "Richard Warmbold"?

[edit]

I was looking to create a page about this individual, listed as a notable member for being Deputy Secretary of the Interior in 2014, however I could not find any mention of him online. The source attached linked to the Florida Forward Party website, where he is not mentioned. Anyone know of him? Microplastic Consumer (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant Citations

[edit]

There seems to be a lot of redundant citations/references on this page.174.67.226.163 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Forward_Party_(United_States)&oldid=1215040098"