Talk:Independent Greens of Virginia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Independent Greens of Virginia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul

What is the reason for this reversion? Their site states that Ron Paul is their vice-presidential nominee. Synergisticalism (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I also disagree with this edit, as the source cited is from January 2008 and thus way outdated, especially since the IGVA website's update a day or two ago notes the vice-presidential nomination has been switched to Ron Paul. Synergisticalism (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is Carey Campbell, the State Chairman of the Independent Greens of Virginia. You can reach me at www.VoteJoinRun.US novagreen@prodigy.net 703-916-0945.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate we have ever listed on our Vice Presidential ballot line in 2008. Those are the facts.

In the email I sent to Richard Winger of ballot access news about our presidential petition drive, I also wrote about Gail "for Rail" Parker's U.S. Senate petition drive. That is the reason for the inital confusion in Richard's story. I wrote a poor email. Again, I repeat, only Ron Paul has every been listed on our petitions. Those who write otherwise here on wipedia are mistaken. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.159.218 (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Since both Bloomberg and Paul have said they are not running, they should be listed as stand-ins, because Virginia law requires a candidate to agree to there placement on the ballot. Furthermore while the Indy Green website lists Bloomberg/Paul as it's candidates it also has a picture of the Green Party candidate Cynthia Mckinney on its home page none of these people have agreed to be candidates and or have any dealings with the party. The party website is not a reliable source of information nor is party chairman Carey Campbell who was a contributor to the website Thirdpartywatch.com and routinely would post incorrect and misleading information such as claiming candidates as Indy Greens dispite the fact the candidates were running in states other then Virginia the only place were there is such a thing as an Indy Green. The candidates typically were candidates and members of the national Green Party or were independents. Campbell also routinely posted false information about the national green party such as claims the party was having dealings with national independent figures (Jesse Ventura, Kinky Friedman, etc).

This can all be verified by doing an advanced news search on google, keyword Carey Campbell News source thirdpartywatch.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.188.223 (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is Carey Campbell.

Of course there was outreach to Jesse Ventura and Kinky Friedman. I personally invited them to the National Green Party convention with support of some other affiliated Green Party state leaders. That's a fact. Would you like to see the emails? And I invited Phil Donahue. Candidates of the National Green Party in Virginia...hahaha.. you're joking. Whomever keeps making lying changes to the web page...

Why don't you put your name here? I've put mine...Carey Campbell, and my phone 703-916-0945 and email...novagreen@prodigy.net.

It is simply absurd that you claim that we do not know the story of our own party.

Have the courage to write your real name... or perhaps its' easier and safer for you to hide behind a fake name.

The use of an IP address (rather than even a username) is often a clever device that serves a multitude of purposes. An established username allows you to look at their other contributions and perhaps discern some clues as to their identity or affiliation. On the other hand, a relatively new account, if the user demonstrates experience/knowledge with Wikipedia, can provoke allegations of sockpuppetry. If the new user does not demonstrate experience/knowledge with Wikipedia, he is pretty much harmless as he will be ineffective in pushing his POV since he cannot game the system through his familiarity with the rules and norms.

An IP address provides the opportunity to disclaim responsibility for edits (since they could have been made by someone else using the same terminal) and, if the IP address shifts, can make it difficult to figure out which edits are being made by whom. It is thus ideal for doing a certain kind of subtle sockpuppetry which one can readily disclaim later as unintentional. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Temporary majority

Also, the use of the phrase "temporary majority" (see this edit) is somewhat biased. Is there any evidence that this majority was not an actual majority? Synergisticalism (talk) 02:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no one responded on this talk page, I went ahead and changed it. Synergisticalism (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This is Carey Campbell State Chair of the Indy Greens. All of this is nonsense. As with most political groups there are disputes. Old line left wing Greens, and Democrats aka DemoGreens in guise of Green Party always want to fudge the results. I've seen them do it repeatedly.

After years of attempting to work with the 5 to 15 people who make up the Green Party affiliate in Virginia, we simply found them to be a coffe club, and waste of time. They are ideologues who do not want to run candidates.

The Independent Greens story is much longer and actually includes candidates on the ballot.

Our record and constructive on ballot deeds - our constructive work on the ballot with a few hundred candidates, speaks for itself.

We put many candidates on the ballot in the 1990's and early 2000 the dogmatists refused to support. Always with their dictatorship of the minorty. I.E. blocking a nomination or endorsement with one-fourth of the votes present.

They wasted our time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.159.218 (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Campbell, your efforts to get people on the ballot are (or should be) respected statewide. Nobody else is doing it on this scale. Incidentally, I recommend creating an account on Wikipedia (which need not be under your real name; indeed, sometimes things go better if you try a pseudonym). It will make things easier for you here, I think you'll find. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Campbell, You said "We put many candidates on the ballot in the 1990's and early 2000" how is this possible if the party was not founded till 2003? Its founding in 2003 is a verifiable fact - you claims are not verifiable, and or trustworthy please refrain from editing Wikipedia with revisionist history! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.188.141 (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

2007 elections

Most of the candidates listed pulled between 15 and 30% in state legislative race (the vast majority in 2 way races) Ron Fisher lost 81% to 19% Craig Ennis finished fourth in a four person race capturing 3.23% of the vote. Losing by a 50%+ margin (35D, 39D, etc) does not make these races notable especially when it is a two candidate race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.102.16.147 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a blurry line of notability when you get into these types of elections. I think an argument could be made that for stability's sake (i.e. to avert the constant threat of removal of content, and edit wars over the same, given the lack of clear standards) we should just move much of the information here to another wiki. What options do we have? Is there a wiki for third-party-related stuff?

Bear in mind too that the vote count may not reflect actual voter preferences in multi-candidate races, as it could also be the spoiler effect at work. John B. Anderson also lost by a large margin in 1980 but is considered notable. Synergisticalism (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

John B. Anderson was a presidential candidate who also happened to be a member of "congress". Even if he had not run in 1980 he would still be notable and there is clearly no comparison between his substancial defeat and that of local candidates because he got six million votes. As for the removed election info several of the candidates that had been listed (the one's with higher %) were not in multi-candidate races but in two-way races.

If Michael Bloomberg and Ron Paul are to be the parties candidates in the fall why is there no source in fact all the "reliable" sources have quoted both as saying that Bloomberg is not running and Paul is not and will not make another third party bid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.161.76 (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Bloomberg and Paul are placeholder candidates so the whole issue is not particularly important. Synergisticalism (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorsements

Should we include mentions of all Indy Green endorsees? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This is Carey Campbell, State chair, Indy Greens.

I'm working on a list. It is likely much too long to be included here at Wipedia.

I've included most of the statewide...and significant local, state, and federal. With more to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.159.218 (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

POV

This article has recently been expanded to include much more and very useful information. However, in the expansion, some information has been removed. I've restored some of the information on the founding of the party, with appropriate citations. Since the expansion appears to have been made by supporters of the party (naturally enough) some of the deleted information related to the founding of the party and could be seen as critical of the organization. So this information may have been removed for reasons of bias. Without endorsing the POV of supporters or detractors of the organization, there should be a way to include information on both sides of the formation dispute, without bias, in order to give an accurate chronological depiction of the organization's development. DJ Silverfish (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is Carey Campbell. . DJ Silverfish YOU are the guilty party!?! About once a week I've got to come here to Wipedia and correct the incorrect entries. Encourage you to refer to our state web page www.VoteJoinRun.US...the IG Story..

If you are fair...surely you'll recognize we know our own party's story.

Hope springs eternal....so, I hope you will allow the corrected version to stand. It's Monday August 11,2008... And since we've completed most of our petition drives...I will make time to correct this web page every time! Let us see who's political will is stronger! bring it on.

Carey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.98.253 (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look at the history page for the "Independent Greens of Virginia" article, which you'll find here, you'll see that I've made four or five edits recently. The edits that I've made you've mostly retained in your work.

I do appreciate your retention of the citations from the VA Greens on the 2003 split. If there were something documenting the IGVA side of that which could be cited,then that could be used as well.

Also, thanks for writing up the IGVA's side of things in the 2005 filing dispute. There will probably be some addition to that paragraph once somebody digs up the Lynchburg News & Advance article on the topic.

There do appear to be contentious feelings raised by the split. I would expect that dispute to lessen over time. The IGVA's affiliation with the national Independence Party should help. DJ Silverfish (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I see now that I did revert the last edit by 68.50.98.253 (talk) to that of 71.114.169.136. I think its important to clarify to 68.50.98.253 that I did not revert his most recent posting on account of content, only because the additions duplicated most of the article and deleted some information with in text citations. You can see this if you look at the differences between the two edits here: [1]. Again, nothing personal. DJ Silverfish (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I once again reverted a deletion of much material, including cited text. Deleting cited text without justification is a inappropriate. The article is still kind of a mess, but will be reorganized into something that balances out the inherent bias of some of the supporting citations. The route to clarity is not to delete citations with perspectives that the editor disagrees with, but to augment the chronology with supportive documentation from another perspective. I don't think that personal or political will enters into it. Its natural that people on political topics will have contentious opinions. The editing process tends to smooth out disagreements, or at least make them and intelligible part of the narrative. DJ Silverfish (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is clearly POV due to the fact that most of the content on the page come verbatim from the Indy Green website [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.102.16.185 (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

There is a lot of good information on this page, its just not written very well. I think the article doesn't so much have a POV problem, but an organization and citation problem. DJ Silverfish (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are non Indy Greens pictured on parties home page as though they part of the party(intentionally misleading?)

today I noticed that the Indy Green website has a picture and website link of Green party United States 2008 congressional candidate Malik Rahim on its front page, Why is this!!!! The indy Greens only exist in Virginia and are in fact in no way what so ever part of the Green Party but rather part of the Independence party of America, stranger still is the fact Malik Rahim is a candidate from Louisiana where neither the Indy Greens or there national party has a state affiliate. Then again this is the party that while saying Michael Bloomberg and Ron Paul were its candidates (and later after endorsing the Constitution Party ticket of Baldwin/Castle) displayed and continued to display through election day an image of the National Green Party nominee Cynthia McKinney. One has to wonder weather the Indy Greens intentionally try to mislead voters. 71.127.19.85 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's August 4, 2010...the post above is long ago...

This is Carey Campbell, State Chairman of the Independent Greens of Virginia. The reason we included Malik long ago...He's a personal friend, and I've donated to his efforts. Malik's work with Brad Pitt to build Green Homes was especially impressive and remarkable..As I write Malik, along with Cynthia McKinney have nationwide bike rides underway. Purpose to promote peace and stop the wanton waste of american tax dollars on the pointless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.233.238 (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Material by editor "Carey Campbell"

I reverted editor Carey Campbell's edits, which were largely badly formatted campaign statements and deletions of sourced material. I am restoring the factual aspects though, working with his last usable revision, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Independent_Greens_of_Virginia&oldid=379131501 in order to incorporate its notable info into the article. Can he or someone clarify the nominated candidates vs. endorsed candidates for 2004? For the endorsed candidates, it would be helpful to know if the candidates accepted the endorsements or otherwise publicized them. Then for 2005, I think the current version of the article is fair, compared to his version, in the link above. Then for 2006, I think his only change was to add "Independent Green 1st Congressional District Chairman Marv Pixton was on the ballot in the 1st district." At the time, he was Independent, not Independent Green(SBE). Does the Indy Green website have a list of committee chairs? Thanks. -Colfer2 (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)