Talk:Libertarian Party of Massachusetts/Archive 1

Archive 1

Image copyright problem with Image:Libertarian Party.svg

The image Image:Libertarian Party.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

2011 Lawsuit against Commonwealth

Any more info about this? I just added a few bits, but if anyone wants to add a section about the lawsuit, please feel free. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Edits WAR 10/7/2022

previouse edit of tartan on 24 jun 2022 is the most correct version of the LAMA PAGE https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarian_Association_of_Massachusetts&oldid=1094859086 LINKS show that the Board that the MEmbership of the state and the Libertarian Party have all stated as the correct Board of LAMA is that with Cordio as the leader. User:Magnatyrannus please discuss the changes and how we can come to and understanding. from the Links provided and the LNC meetings and LAMA page LPofMA.org the right edit of this page is 24 june 2022 Datmof (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I forgot to read the revision from June 24 2022. I also apologize for all the inconvenience. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Diodotus Looking to revert to the 24th june edit 2022 are you in agreement with this?

trying to form a consensus

Please vote yes for 24 revert date in reply below and why you vote that way

or

vote no below and why you vote that way Datmof (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

the june 24 has the leadership that is recognized by the national party and is a LAMA. LPEDIA the libertarian party page also points this leadership. there is no 3rd party resources that support the don leadership. Tartan edits up to the 24 are correct as far as I Can see I do not see any links to claims otherwise after the 24th. as both factions claim otherwise. Datmof (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Once our p blocks get expired, should one of us reinstate the version from June 24? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

yes, when the block expire 72 hours I think we can reinstate the 24 june version. Datmof (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The article reflects the organization that has candidates on the ballot, and therefore the organization that is receiving press coverage. Most recently, there was an article in The Eagle-Tribune on the candidates. Wikipedia must reflect these sources. When primary sources are in conflict with secondary sources, we MUST follow the secondary sources. Reverting based only on primary sources to your preferred POV could result in sanctions, as could continued edit-warring after your p-blocks expire. Tartan357 (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

But wait, out of curiosity, why did you add the discretionary sanctions tag? Not saying that it shouldn't be there, but I'm just curious, that's all. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:15, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It serves to let editors know they need to be extra careful when editing a page that falls under the scope of American politics, which frequently experiences disruption. Tartan357 (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course, I wasn't saying that it was an unhelpful suggestion. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

there is only one organization. links to the LNC org on june 5 show that the 24th june edit of yours was the most correct and rightful organization. two Factions were competing and on jun5 the LNC minutes recognized a single organization per the minutes. This Organization was the organization on the 24 june edit. That Organization per their by-laws and the lnc are recognized as LAMA. the Other board has continued to try to use the name of the organization and on june 6 they said that they were going to no longer affiliate with the Libertarian party. Since this Page has a history of edits to include the merger by you tartan of LP Massachusetts it only makes sense for it to remain upto date with the current LNC affiliate. Datmof (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

also those candidates on the ballot are Members of LAMA and the cordio board. Datmof (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The candidates on the ballot are not members of the Cordio board. Reason (in September; nobody had candidates on the ballot in June) specifically tells us they are part of the other group, saying: "Still, all the Libertarian candidates on the Massachusetts ballot this year are the ones put forward by the older body". Cordio himself commented to Reason, saying "he's currently more focused on membership and volunteer growth and outreach than candidates and ballot access." Please cite a reliable source for your claims. Tartan357 (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

since the first edit of this page on 3-apr-2007 this page has always been linked to the Libertarian National Party. It still is linked under category to the Libertarian national party at the bottom of the page. If as you claim the edits you have made remove them from the libertarian party then why is there still links to LP throughout the page to include the LPMASS.org web page that web page would indicate that they are still part of the libertarian party.

Further FEC filing Statement of Organization Filed 02/16/2020 states they are still part of the libertarian national party. (202002169186507024.pdf (fec.gov)) The LNC minutes on Jun 5 state that the correct board is the cordio board. Unless they have updated thier FEC Statement of org fillings to represent that they have left the libertarian party I do not see any evidence to back the 13 September changes. Did the group from the 13 sept edits only halfway leave the lp? if they still are collecting money federally as in FEC filings then why have they not shown that they left the Organization that no longer recognizes them?

seems the social media presence of the 13th edit has dropped off and there is no more page to recognize them on at least facebook. where as the 24th group has a listed page per Lpedia

per lpofma.org about us section About Us – LP of MA

Constitution & Bylaws

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LIBERTARIAN ASSOCIATION OF MASSACHUSETTS

As amended at the 2010 Regular State Convention

Preamble, Name And Purpose

We, the Libertarians of Massachusetts, do hereby unite to form the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts, in order to give voice to and implement the fundamental principle of libertarianism: that no person, group of people, or government has the right to initiate force against any other person, group of people, or government. We shall do this by supporting candidates for public office, publicizing the principles and goals of libertarianism, and taking any actions that the State Convention or the State Committee deem will further our aims. The Association, its Bylaws, and State Committee exist solely as a path for reaching the objectives of this preamble.

Libertarian Party of Massachusetts - LPedia

Notice of Special LNC E-Meeting June 5, 2022 at 5pm Eastern | Libertarian Party (lp.org)

meeting minutes

https://www.lp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/LNC-Special-Meeting_2022-6-5_FINAL.pdf

@Tartan357

Massachusetts

Category:Political parties in Massachusetts Datmof (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, please cite a reliable source for your claims. Primary sources are unreliable, Wikis are especially unreliable. Reason Magazine is an example of a reliable source. The page does indicate in multiple places that it is a former affiliate of the LP, and there is a link to information about the current one at the top of the page. But only the original organization is running candidates and is recognized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a qualified political designation. The only source that even mentions the Cordio group is Reason, which emphasizes that the existing group is the one with candidates. It takes more than one source to make an article, which is why that information went in List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States). Tartan357 (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

the edit history of this page since 2007 has it listed with being part of the libertarian party.

The FEC FILLING FOR 2/16/2020 list LAMA as a STATE AFFILLIATE OF THE NATIONAL PARTY

where is the change if they as claimed are a former affiliate then why did the Never let the Federal elections Commision know they are former affiliates?

No political designation is recognized in massachusetts law. even with SOS page that is not a recognition 50 people could sign a paper and get the same thing on Mass SOS.

Reliable is meeting minute of an organization they provide a snapshot in history of what happened.

Both Boards claim Ownership of the Name from what I can tell.

1 board is recognized by the libertarian party as a whole and was recognized by you in multiple edits until sept 13

from June 6 to 24 june all your edits included the board recognized by the LNC including your request to move ) 09:34, 6 June 2022‎ Amakuru talk contribs‎ m  14,759 bytes 0‎  Amakuru moved page Libertarian Association of Massachusetts to Libertarian Party of Massachusetts: Requested by Tartan357 at WP:RM/TR: I made the original move under WP:NAMECHANGES when they stopped using "party". They have started using it again alongside "association", and it is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. undo)

At no point did the leadership change from june to september.

I would like to see something that shows a change in leadership through multiple edits and recognition that 2 entities claim this name

On your 23:40, 24 June 2022‎ Tartan357 talk contribs‎  14,914 bytes −241‎  Restored revision 1091880762 by Tartan357 (talk): According to that document, it is just a DBA and not the official name in the bylaws, which is still LAMA according to their website. And the initialism "ULP" is not in that document. undo Tags: Twinkle Undo

you only had change the DBA.

so what changed that it was fine all in june with minor edits then you did and overhaul come september 13 without explanation in the edits or conversation on talk? Datmof (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is getting tiresome. Nowhere in this WP:WALLOFTEXT is there a single reliable source. I have provided multiple reliable sources to you showing which group is running candidates and is state-recognized in MA. Those sources came out and I updated the article at the time to reflect them. Tartan357 (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

you have not shown anywhere that there is actual state recognition of lama as a party. Mass does not recognize parties.

I have giving the by-laws which indicate the usage of LAMA and LP under the codio group. even your own reason article recognises him as chair.

what changed the edits from june to sept? Datmof (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

fec Filling is not reliable to you? Datmof (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

What changed was we found out which group is running candidates, per Reason and the Eagle-Tribune. Of course this page will reflect the group running candidates. And there is state recognition as a designation, you can see here: [1]. The designation allows voters to register Libertarian and allows this group to place candidates on the ballot if they petition. Tartan357 (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

so a group running candidates automatically is the correct group? This PAGE has for the past 15 years reflected the group affiliated in Massachusetts as the libertarian parties affiliate and it did so up until your edit on the 13th of September. Despite the no changes in FEC filings to show that there are 2 seperate groups and that there is only a single LAMA that is affiliated with the Libertarian National PARTY. Where IS The Reliable Source that LAMA is not an affiliate of the LP? the links on that are to a single group. And with it not being the Affiliate as claimed. Also does LAMA (Cordio group do Buisness as LAMA) from everything I have seen Yes they Do. They seem to have proposed a change which you remarked on the ULP in one of your edits.

the Only other way I see to resolve this is to have both boards listed as they are BOTH LAMA and they both do BUISNESS AS LAMA. List BOTH BOARDs and create a section related to the current dispute of leadership with in LAMA. That would be the only correct way. Datmof (talk) 06:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

There are sources reporting that these are the Libertarian candidates in MA. There are sources that tell us this is the same party that has always been in MA, and it chose to leave the national LP. It is the officially recognized Libertarian Party by the state of Massachusetts and has more than 19 thousand members registered with the state. There is no notability demonstrated for the new group led by Cordio. If all you have are primary sources (Cordio's own website and LNC docs) we're done here. Wikipedia will reflect what Massachusetts sources are writing about the MA party and its candidates. You can come back if the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth recognizes the Cordio group and it takes responsibility for the candidates. Tartan357 (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Truly, if the Secretary of the Commonwealth makes that decision, the page will be immediately updated. I was the one who updated Delaware to reflect Bill Hinds as Chair as soon as the secretary of state of Delaware made that decision. The state recognition is the most important thing to the sources and the candidates. But (for now at least), those 19 thousand voters and the ballot access belong to the Graham group. Tartan357 (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

[2] there is no change to the statement of organization per FEC laws so there is no split from Lnc by the graham group at least legally. LAMA is still collecting money as an affiliate of the libertarian party. Since this page is about the LAMA affiliate of the LP and LAMA recognizes 1 chair.

Now if the Graham group Goes and Files changes to their statement of organization as required within 10 days of any changes per federal election law well then there would be 2 separate groups. Datmof (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

just because they have candidates in Mass this election cycle does not mean they are LAMA. LAMA run by Cordio is the Same LAMA as always has been in Massachusetts according to LNC. The changes you used on sep13 were from the GRAHAM guys board to make your claim.

The MA PARTY AS RECOGNIZED BY THE LP AND INCLUDING THE REASON ARTICLE YOU Shared is the cordio board.

(202002169186507024.pdf (fec.gov)) This is the FEC statemen of organization there has been no changes on the FEC to corroborate your claim that there is a second entity that is now seperate from the LNC. LAMA has still continued filing up to this month as an State AFFLILATE of the National LP.

WHEN DID THE LEAVE THE LP AGAIN? PER FEC FILING if the DISAFFILIATED from LP as you claimed they had 10 days to FILE with the FEC since they are still filling as the Affiliate of LP then they never disaffiliated as your claim state [3]https://www.fec.gov/updates/ao-2017-09-libertarian-association-massachusetts-qualifies-state-party-committee/

per page 2 of the FEC form 1 Statement of organization they are Still a state committee of the national LP 202002169186507024.pdf (fec.gov) Until that changes the recognized board is the cordio board for LP actions and since LAMA is still Federally recognized as a subordinate to LP national I can only state that the correct revisions was the 24th june 2022 Datmof (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Reason reported that they left the national LP. This is an article about a state party, it is not owned by the LNC. It is the state recognition and local media reporting on party activity that matters. You will not get your way by WP:YELLING in all caps and posting the same primary source docs (bizarrely, from 2017) repeatedly. You refuse to provide actual reliable sources and adhere to Wikipedia's polices, instead repeatedly posting walls of text filled with your personal opinions. You are not engaging in constructive conversation based on Wikipedia's sourcing policies. We're done here. Tartan357 (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

primary source federal election commission is a good primary source. not yelling separating thought. I have giving the Fec fillings of lama and the statement of organization which states they are an affiliate of the libertarian national party their statement of org has not changed. Since they are one org under the national lp as recognized by the fec. The current board can only be the board recognized by National LP. Datmof (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I keep linking WP:RS so you can find out what a reliable source is. A primary source is not a reliable source. You can learn more by following that link. If you don't, you won't have the understanding needed to have this conversation. We follow secondary sources like Reason. Since you only have primary sources, there is nothing more to be said. You will not get anywhere with that. There are other wiki projects like LPedia that are written from primary sources. Wikipedia is not one of them. Tartan357 (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

and yet this is used as a source ??? [4]https://www.lpmass.org/lama_state_committee_resolution_to_disaffiliate

if that is a verifiable source that can be used then why can't the LNC meeting minutes or LPOFMA>[https://lpofma.org/ be used. you used the the previous sources to back your claim and then dismiss all other sources. and following the link Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, WEll Using FEC Data is reputable DATA that is easily verifiable is it not?

LNC meeting minutes are verifiable and published, the Data expresses the facts of the meeting in a historic perspective and are put out by a reputable source on LP affairs.

further from the reason article you provided as a source " Still, all the Libertarian candidates on the Massachusetts ballot this year are the ones put forward by the older body, doing business as the "Libertarian Association of Massachusetts." Andrew Cordio, chair of the officially recognized "Libertarian Party of Massachusetts," said in a phone interview this week that he's currently more focused on membership and volunteer growth and outreach than candidates and ballot access" when you check out both links they both Say they are the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts. So even The reason Article claimed as a reliable source that you use is not clear because it links to two orgs that use the same exact NAME.

so where does this leave us with reliable sources. I have given large amount of source that agree with my position the sources you provide agree with my position you originally had not issues with the position and left the article be till sept 13 through multiple edits.

you have not giving a clear or concise reason.

Mass law for Secretary of state listing only requires 50 signature to be listed as a political designation. from OCPF they don't even recognize any PARTY except for democrats and republicans.

your comment about ballot control was not part of the article but neither party has ballot control or access under Massachusetts law as LAMA is not a statutory political party in Massachusetts. Datmof (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

looking at the eagle tribune source it does not create any seperation from LP national "nationally, the Libertarian Party has seen a 92% rise in membership in the last decade, fielding candidates in dozens of states. Four years ago, the party saw more than 600 candidates in federal, state and local races in nearly 40 states." from the source you gave.

"The Libertarian Party of Massachusetts had 19,097 members as of October 2020 — a more than 130% increase from 2017 when it had a major party status, according to Secretary of State’s Bill Galvin’s office." eagle tribune So if I looked at this source and then read the Reason article I would stand to reason the Cordio Board which reason List as LP mass is the board of LAMA and Massachusetts affiliate

So from both sources you cite as reliable we see that LAMA is still organized with LNC there is no clear statement that there is two parties.

combine both those sources with the look at FEC filings LAMA is Still Organized with the LNC

adding LNC Meeting minutes on the Official board of mass and the LP judicial hearings the correct set using your links combined with mine is the 24th of june 2022 edit. Datmof (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

reason article "The Bay State fight emanated from a Mises-associated bloc of members from the state party calling for a (bylaw-legal) special convention in December 2021, that the old guard attempted to quash in January 2022 by expelling from the party all who called for it. Competing conventions were then held in April and the newer, Mises-oriented bloc is the one the LNC now recognizes as an affiliate.

Still, all the Libertarian candidates on the Massachusetts ballot this year are the ones put forward by the older body, doing business as the "Libertarian Association of Massachusetts." Andrew Cordio, chair of the officially recognized "Libertarian Party of Massachusetts," said in a phone interview this week that he's currently more focused on membership and volunteer growth and outreach than candidates and ballot access."

this is the only thing mentioned in this article it It states who is Recognized by the LP and give 2 separate Links to each party each group on their respective pages claim LAMA.

Since this article started with the LP of Massachusetts the party recognized by the LNC. IT should remain as noted in the reason article with the group recognized by the LNC.

Your claim that because they do not have candidates at this election season the article should be turned in Favor another group does not make rational sense.

it would be like saying in Massachusetts if a the Republicans don't Run a candidate they are not a party. Just because they dont run a candidate in 1 election cycle that from all appearance has been a fight between both groups for almost a year now from all links provided it's a miracle any group got on the ballot. There are also articles I AThol Daily news of the Cordio group collecting signatures for Kevin reed and Charlie Larkin [5]https://www.atholdailynews.com/Collecting-signatures-46208157 Datmof (talk) 11:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a bad idea, because if we do so, then we're gonna get sanctioned. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 03:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Unless an uninvolved editor does so, I assume? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion

@Magnatyrannus: @Tartan357: How about this as a solution?

Libertarian Association of Massachusetts
Abbreviation	LAMA
Chairperson	Disputed
Founded	1972 (1972)
Membership (2020)	19,097
Ideology	Libertarianism
National affiliation	Disputed
Senate	0 / 40
House of Representatives	0 / 160
U.S. Senate	0 / 2
U.S. House of Representatives	0 / 9
Website
www.lpmass.org
Politics of United States Political parties Elections

Jon698 (talk) 14:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Notes

References

No, there's only one organization recognized by the Secretary of the Commonwealth. It has candidates on the ballot, it has 19 thousand members registered with the state, and it's receiving media coverage for its candidates. There is a hatnote for information about the newly-formed LNC group, but they are separate. This article also has a lot of historical information in it that is about the existing party. The LNC doesn't get to annex an article about a state party—there is a history here of activity in the state of MA, and deference is given to MA sources. The LNC is a service provider, it doesn't actually control state affiliates (Reason). This is an issue for the MA Secretary of the Commonwealth to resolve. Tartan357 (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

this article has always been listed as the affiliate of LNC. so Until this is fully figured out it is disputed. Up until the 13th you kept the affiliate recognized by the lnc per each edit. your sources still claim both as LAMA.

so its disputed till one group changes their name. Datmof (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Magnatyrannus @Tartan357

I actually agree with this edit but would add both websites LP of MA – The Legitimate Libertarian Association of Massachusetts

Jon both groups claim the 19k people number. the secratary of the state does not recognize anyone and that is in dispute still in the state. Datmof (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we shouldn't edit further to our preferred version or we'll be sanctioned. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

yes, that is working on a consensus is about. Its seems some dont care if there is a consensus and choose their way while we try to figure out a consensus Datmof (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making accusations about people's motivations. That 19,000 may be claimed by the Cordio group, but that doesn't make it theirs. The Secretary of the Commonwealth is clear on which group is recognized. I've linked to their listing many times. The notability for this article comes from being a recognized state party. Without that, the notability is just the national LP, which is why List of state parties of the Libertarian Party (United States) does contain information on the Cordio group. If the Cordio group wishes to be the recognized party, they need to resolve their issues with the Secretary of the Commonwealth directly, not through Wikipedia. The Cordio group does not even have political designation status, which only takes 50 members. We should write an article about that? No. There's no notability there, so it goes in the list article. If this article isn't about a state-recognized party, it will just be deleted for lack of notability. If it is really disputed by the Secretary of the Commonwealth like you claim, that changes things. Please produce evidence that the Secretary of the Commonwealth considers it disputed. Tartan357 (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Magnatyrannus: @Tartan357

It's pretty clear that there is a dispute over management of the group going back to February 2022, when a Special Convention was called by a quorum of members for the purpose of electing a new State Committee, and the chairperson of the old State Committee and several members of the old State Committee claimed that the call was invalid and claimed the right to expel the members who had signed the papers to call a Special Convention (including two members who had been members of the State Committee). At this point, there came to be two organizations claiming to govern LAMA.

The group presently cited on the page (the ones who deny that a Special Convention ever happened) has not released a full timeline or history of the dispute as they see it. But the other group has released such a timeline, which reflects their understanding of the dispute. [6]

There are arguments on each side of the dispute; one group claiming that having candidates on the ballot makes them the able to claim to be the proper State Committee of the organizational entity called LAMA, the other group claiming that having been duly elected by the membership in accordance with the group's by-laws at a duly called convention makes them the proper State Committee of the organizational entity called LAMA. There are sub-arguments on each point, and these could be spelled out in a "dispute" section.

So, yes, I agree that saying "disputed" is an excellent solution. It should have both web pages referenced. Diodotus (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Original research is not accepted and will be discarded in assessments of consensus. Please learn Wikipedia's content policies before commenting. Tartan357 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

[7]https://thirdpartywatch.com/2022/08/08/lama-a-record-of-inaction/

According to the above article the leadership is in dispute as to who runs what in the IDEA of LAMA "LAMA, the “Libertarian Association of Massachusetts”, was until recently the Massachusetts affiliate of the national Libertarian Party. LAMA has a remarkable record of political inaction. It is still in operation, will likely put on the ballot a slate of candidates for statewide office, but the Libertarian National Committee now recognizes a different group, the Mises-associated “Legitimate Libertarian Association of Massachusetts”, as the national party’s affiliate. Both groups claim to be the legitimate LAMA."

[8]https://reason.com/2022/09/15/libertarian-party-faces-state-rebellions/

"Still, all the Libertarian candidates on the Massachusetts ballot this year are the ones put forward by the older body, doing business as the "Libertarian Association of Massachusetts." Andrew Cordio, chair of the officially recognized "Libertarian Party of Massachusetts," said in a phone interview this week that he's currently more focused on membership and volunteer growth and outreach than candidates and ballot access."

according to your article you posted in Reason there are two groups that claim the LAMA name. So at this time its clearly in dispute.

So as @Diodotus @Magnatyrannus @Jon698 And I all Agree that the leadership is in DISPUTE. and that the page should show DISPUTED. Datmof (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

you have continually used the SOS page but dismiss the FEC public records. Fec states that LAMA is and affiliate of and always has been the Libertarian National Party and there has been no change in the affiliation status. LNC recognizes 1 board, So if the gram board if they claim the disaffiliation would have filed per federal LAW the changes you have placed with the articles. Otherwise they are memembers of one large group an affiliate of the LNC from everything that has been provided.

This all continues to point to leadership in dispute.

whats our next step in resolving this issue? Datmof (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Third Party Watch is an unreliable WP:SPS. The Reason article makes it clear there are two separate organizations (Reason debunks your claim that there is only one org and it is still affiliated with national), so we have content in two separate articles. There is a hatnote at the top of the article with a link to the Cordio group. This article is and always will be about the party recognized by the state of Massachusetts. "Resolving the dispute" does not equal getting what you want. You just created an account on Wikipedia, so it is understandable that you are not familiar with our policies on sourcing and consensus. You have to make arguments in line with our policies. WP:NOTE requires that the scope of this article be the one that is receiving press coverage. We can't have an article about a party that has no claim to fame other than a passing mention in Reason. So far you have yet to reference a single policy in this discussion or explain why the ones I'm referencing are not applicable. I would suggest creating the article Libertarian Party of Massachusetts (LNC affiliate) or Unified Libertarians of Massachusetts if you believe it is notable under our policies. That is your best way to resolve this. Just click on that link to do it. We will see if you have the sources for it to survive deletion. So far the only one I can find for it is that sentence in Reason. Tartan357 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Both groups received Press coverage in your reason article. then SPLC "Massachusetts also has two libertarian parties, though the LP recognizes only one – the Mises Caucus-aligned party. The split occurred in February after the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts accused the Massachusetts Mises Caucus of using racism as a recruiting tool." [9]https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2022/10/11/libertarian-party-loses-state-parties-donors-after-hard-right-turn

Please refrain from trying to express what I want " "Resolving the dispute" does not equal getting what you want. You just created an account on Wikipedia, " I personally feel from everything provided and your previous edits that the june 24 is the most correct version you have not shown that its not. But I am willing to go with DISPUTED because it is disputed. Datmof (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

looking at your edits on

Revision as of 02:33, 6 June 2022 (edit) (undo) (thank)

25stargeneral (talk | contribs)

No edit summary

Next edit →

You were the one who edited it to be the cordio board as it was based on the libertarian affiliate.

The the 13th of September you changed it without any clear reasoning to change from the LNC affiliate to a break away Org from the LNC Datmof (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)