Talk:Connecticut for Lieberman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Orman link
It's definitely not NPOV, but it raises some valid issues about CT third parties. If someone wants to rework its inclusion (say, by citing it in the article text) I have no objection, but I think it can be legitimately included in an NPOV way. I don't claim yet to have done so. Maybe there are other columns praising CfL that could also be profitably included, I don't know. Cheers, PhilipR 21:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Removed the link. It's both biased and irrelevant. Doctofunk 20:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CfL future
What is the future of the CfL Party? --myselfalso 05:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Presumably, it will be around as long as Lieberman is a senator from Connecticut. Valtam 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think so. I think he's repatriating to the party. [www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/10/ct.senate.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories Call Me A Democrat][1]
Apparently, they have a guaranteed ballot line for the Connecticut senate race six years from now, due to Joe's victory in the general election this year.[1]. I'll be surprised if they don't nominate some kind of candidate at that point... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- The real (original) CFL party remains dormant, but still under control of Lieberman and whoever the 25+ electors are who reserved the party designation. And they do have a ballot spot in the next Senate election, if they choose to use it. The rest of this is alot of entertaining political theatre. Per Sec 9-453u paragraph (e) "The reservation shall continue in effect from the date it is recorded until the day following any regular election at which no candidate appears on the appropriate ballot for that office under that party designation." http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/pub/Chap153.htm#Sec9-453u.htm Acerimusdux 04:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to post information from this Greenwich Times/Stamford Advocate articleon the CFL page. --Seraphim55 (talk) 11:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem, as long as you include the response: In an editorial page column in The Advocate of April 15, Sara Littman gave a very incomplete view of the events surrounding the evolution of the Connecticut for Lieberman party.
I was the first member of the party, having registered on August 9, 2006. At the time of a gathering of Lamont supporters in January 2007, I was the only member of the party with party privileges.
Under Connecticut law, the only members eligible to vote on party matters are those who have been members for at least 90 days. Under the unchallenged party rules, the annual meeting of the Connecticut for Lieberman party is held in August. Eligible members of the party, that is, those registered for at least 90 days, were invited to the meeting held August 9, 2007.
Subsequent to August, a request for a special meeting of the party was submitted, but no reason was given. The request was denied by the party leadership.
Mr. John Mertens is a failed minor-party candidate who now wants to use Connecticut for Lieberman as a vehicle for seeking office again. His disregard for proper procedure has not secured him any valid claim to party leadership.
Connecticut for Lieberman is a new political party that carries on what used to be the ideals of the Democratic Party: a liberal approach to domestic issues coupled with a strong commitment to a robust foreign policy. New members who subscribe to this platform are welcome. http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/letters/ci_9127496 http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/norwalkadvocate/opinion/ci_9127497 Skorchin (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- The original article is now available to the general reader only upon payment of $2.95. I assume that Mr. Korchin's letter in response will soon suffer the same fate. Instead of providing these useless links, I've included the information about the change in officers by citing it to the Orman/Mertens faction's website. Because of the dispute about the legitimacy of the "statewide party caucus", we can't simply assert that a caucus was held and that Mertens is the new chair; we have to indicate that the caucus was called by one of the factions. The information that the party nominated candidates for state rep would be notable if that nomination put them on the ballot, but, as I understand it, the CfL automatic ballot line applies only to the 2012 Senate race. If that's correct, this "nomination" has no legal effect. I don't see any reason to include it in the article unless and until there's some indication of notable CfL activity on their behalf. (If either faction of the CfL does something notable in the political arena besides throwing rocks at the other faction, that should be included.) JamesMLane t c 12:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] sorry
Sorry that I edited this page to say Lamont beat Lieberman I misunderstood the page on the 2006 Senate race and thought it said Lamont had won out, so I edited this page accordingly. I don't want to be seen as a vandal, as I am an anonymous IP address. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.165.55 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] WP:COI
It appears to me there is a bit of an edit war going on here between editors who may not have a neutral point of view on this article subject.
User:SKorchin and User:Stuart_Korchin both seem to be handles for Stuart Korchin, one of the parties involved in the dispute for control of the party.
Likewise, User:Doodysprinkles has been posting on left wing blogs (under the handle sprinkles) soliciting support for her version of the article, and has identified herself as Sue Henshaw, the Secretary of the Ornan faction of the party.
I would encourage all involved parties to please read carefully the guideline WP:COI, and "avoid or exercise great caution" in editing this article. I would also encourage neutral editors to keep an eye on this and watch for NPOV issues and content that is not encyclopedic. Acerimusdux 09:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, and the latest edit by Skorchin raises these concerns anew.
- As I understand the facts, Korchin says he changed his registration on August 9, 2006, but the Secretary of State didn't have a record of that. Korchin attributes the discrepancy to error by the voting registrar or the Secretary of State's office. He's certainly entitled to hold that opinion, and we should report it (as my edit did), but the objective fact that is known is only that he stated that he changed his registration, not that he actually did so. (In other words, meaning no disrespect to Mr. Korchin, we can't assume that his statement is correct. Maybe he prepared a change of registration to be mailed but it fell out of his pocket and wasn't included when he mailed his other letters that day. Under WP:V and WP:NOR, nothing Korchin says here can establish that he did change his registration.)
- He's also disputed Orman's statement about notice of the meeting. There are two problems here. First, Korchin's edit says he "noted" that Orman was notified. That implies that his version of events is true. Here again, we don't know that. We shouldn't say that Korchin "noted" that Orman was notified any more than we should say that Orman "noted" that he wasn't notified. We know that they made statements and that's what we should report. Second, the whole edit depends on an assertion about a letter to the Hartford Advocate that isn't cited. I tried to find it on the Advocate site and through a Yahoo! search and came up dry. All editors should adhere to WP:CITE but, Mr. Korchin, it's especially important that you do so when you're editing in probable violation of WP:COI.
- Finally, I wrote, "Korchin told the Hartford Advocate that he had held another party meeting, although he did not say where or when it had occurred." Skorchin changed that to read, "Korchin told the Hartford Advocate that he had held another party meeting on August 9, although he did not say where it had occurred." His version is directly contradicted by the text of the linked Hartford Advocate article, which states: "Korchin wouldn't tell me where or when the meeting as held . . . . " (I'm assuming that "as" is a typo for "was".)
- For the foregoing reasons, I'm reverting the edit. Mr. Korchin, I suggest that you provide suggested language on this page, including a link to your letter, so that the editors without a conflict can evaluate your proposal. JamesMLane t c 07:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Lane: with due respect, the facts regarding my party registration are well documented. In Connecticut, party registration is predicated solely on visiting the Registrar of Voters in one’s town, and filling out a form. I did this at the Cheshire Registrar of Voters office on August 9, 2006, changing my party registration from Democratic to Connecticut for Lieberman. The receipt or non-receipt of notification of this change by the office of the Secretary of the State in Hartford is irrelevant to any change in party registration. By the same token, I was informed (erroneously) by the Secretary of the State that Susan Henshaw was affiliated with Connecticut for Lieberman, when in fact she had disaffiliated. Again, the only important fact is what the town Registrar of Voters records. As evidenced by the referenced article in the New York Times of January 18, 2007, my party registration as of August 9, 2006 was verified by a reporter, so you don’t need to take my word on it.
Second, I have an email from John Orman declining to attend the August 9, 2007 meeting. I’ll be happy to forward a copy of that email to you if you care to see it. I noted this in this letter to the Hartford Advocate:
http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=2596
Third, your assertion that I didn’t tell Adam Bulger when the annual meeting of Connecticut for Lieberman was held is ludicrous. The cited article states in the fifth paragraph: “The second annual meeting of the party was held on August 9.” The fourteenth paragraph states: “Speaking before the Aug. 9 meeting, Korchin said he expected about 30 party members to attend the meeting.” For your information, the meeting was held on August 9, 2007. Is it important to know the exact time? Skorchin 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for following my suggestion that you discuss the matter here instead of editing the article yourself. Specific subjects:
- Party registrations: You state that "the only important fact is what the town Registrar of Voters records." For Wikipedia, however, the only important fact is what we can ascertain under our policy of Verifiability (often "WP:V" on talk pages). The key passage:
-
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
- By that standard, I'm inclined to agree with you that the January article in the Times supports your statement about your party registration. It's not 100% clear that the reporter verified it with the registrar, but that seems like the most plausible reading. We should, however, note that the Secretary of State didn't have the record, because that's relevant to the subsequent communication to Orman (that there were no registered party members). As for Ms. Henshaw's registration, we have assertions from you and from her, but nothing that I'm aware of that satisfies WP:V.
- Notice to Orman: Thanks for your offer to forward the email to me, but that would accomplish nothing in light of WP:V. What does accomplish something is your providing a citation to your LTTE. We now have published sources for Orman's assertion that he wasn't notified and for your assertion that he was. We can report both assertions. That's all we can do. I have great respect for investigative journalism, but we don't do it here.
- August meeting: I'll tell you frankly that I didn't completely understand the Advocate article. I agree with your implication that it's not important to know the exact time of the meeting. That's why, when the article said that you "did not say where or when it had occurred", I interpreted that as meeting that you didn't say whether the meeting scheduled for August 9 had actually occurred on August 9. At any rate, that doesn't matter, because citing your LTTE enables us to report your unambiguous assertion that it did indeed occur on August 9.
- I've now revised the article again based on the foregoing. If I've gotten any of the facts wrong or misapplied Wikipedia policies, please raise the point here. I have the page watchlisted and I'll try to respond promptly. JamesMLane t c 07:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Korchin, I have previously sent you (in July, 2007) a copy of a document, dated July 10, 2007, signed and attested to by Kathleen Miranti, Assistant Registrar of Voters of Trumbull, which states that I have been registered with the Connecticut for Lieberman Party since 1/18/2007. This document is on record in the Registrar of Voters in the Town of Trumbull. Should you have any questions as to my registration, please contact Ms. Miranti. --Seraphim55 22:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC) Susan Henshaw
Thanks to Mr. Lane for educating me regarding Wikipedia policies, and for providing changes which corrected the errors.
As Ms. Henshaw is perfectly aware, the document to which she refers is erroneous. I contacted the Trumbull Registrar of Voters, and spoke with Ms. Mironti's supervisor, who recogized the mistake and agreed to notify Ms. Henshaw. Ms. Henshaw and I both received a copy of her voter registration, which verifies her affiliation with Connecticut for Lieberman on June 22, 2007. I remain mystified why Ms. Henshaw would continue to lie about this when the facts are already known. I believe that her disaffilation, reaffiliation and the subsequent attempts to discredit the facts about it are relevant to the mention of her in the Orman article. Eventually some enterprising journalist will investigate this and report on it, at which time I will be delighted to add the reference. Skorchin 16:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone recently pointed out to me that the members of "Lamonties Who Can't Get Over It" are planning to go annoy someone else:
http://www.fairfieldweekly.com/article.cfm?aid=1540
Much as we will miss the additional publicity for Connecticut for Lieberman, we wish Orman, Kantrowitz and Henshaw godspeed in their future endeavors. Skorchin 02:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Korchin - please provide documentation as to your party registration. Otherwise, your claim is unreferenced.
--76.196.121.110 (talk) 22:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- See the discussion of this issue above. When we had only the Connecticut Post article as a source, I agreed with your point, and so I edited our article to read: "Lieberman supporter Stuart R. Korchin has stated that, on August 9, 2006, the day following the primary, he changed his party registration to Connecticut for Lieberman." Because of this article in the New York Times, though, I consider it reasonable for us to report this as a fact (with a source), rather than merely a Korchin assertion. JamesMLane t c 15:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Lane, if that is the case, why have you added back unreferenced material which impugns my valid party registration, as well as comments regarding the 25 founders of the party?Skorchin (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
References as to Mr. Korchin's claim:
AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEFINITION OF A "MINOR PARTY"
From the Office of Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz, the date the party was certified:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, August 23, 2006: SECRETARY BYSIEWICZ: SEN. LIEBERMAN COLLECTS ENOUGH VALID SIGNATURES TO GAIN NOVEMBER BALLOT ACCESS
Mr. Korchin claim is to have joined the party on Aug. 9th, 2006 (the date the petitions were due to the office of the Secretary of State). However, the party wasn't officially certified by Ms. Bysiewicz until August 23, 2006. Mr. Korchin 'joined' a nonexistent political party.
--Seraphim55 (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Response to SKorchin: As my edit summary indicates, my intention was to fix the broken CQ hyperlink. I was reviewing the history, and apparently I edited an earlier version instead of the one I intended to edit. Matching my error, though, you've apparently reverted to a different earlier version, thus breaking the link I had fixed and causing some other problems. I'll now try to rectify both our errors.
- Response to Seraphim55: This article can include the fact of the date of Bysiewicz's certification of the party. It can't include the assertion that a change of registration before the certification date is ineffective unless that assertion is properly sourced. I will, however, remove the statement that the Korchin registration change was not "properly" entered in the database. That word implies that an error was made. Perhaps the failure to enter the change was not an error if a change preceding the certification is invalid. Absent a reliable source on the point, our article can't assert either that the registration was ipso facto invalid or that it was perfectly proper and that any failure to enter it was therefore a screwup. JamesMLane t c 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Lane: The exact quote from Jennifer Medina's article (NY Times, Jan. 17, 2007) is "when Mr. Korchin filled out a short form in August at the Cheshire Town Hall changing his party affiliation from Democrat to Connecticut for Lieberman, the information could not be properly entered in the state’s electronic voter database." I don't "claim" anything. This is what was reported. If you have any suitable references to challenge this, please cite them. If not, I suggest using the direct quote from the reporter to avoid the appearance of bias on your part. Skorchin (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
