From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Convention takeover attempts

I would not characterize the defeat of the Workers World Party's Monica Moorehead, in a three-way convention contest with the Socialist Party's candidate (whose name currently escapes me) and Ralph Nader in 1996 as an example of a rebuff to an extremist group's takeover attempt. Their participation in the nomination process was entirely legitimate, and not part of a takeover attempt. It could be argued, in fact, that with Vice Presidential candidate Gloria La Riva, the WWP candidacy was more "indigenous" to P&F than the other two. (I present this view as one who voted against the WWP, as well as the others for different reasons.)

It should be clarified in the article that, while our other statewide candidates are nominated by direct primary, we choose our Presidential candidates at a convention of delegates comprising those elected to each County Central Committee during the primary; the Presidential primary is advisory but not binding, according to our bylaws.

The debate at the 1996 convention was spirited and principled, and the voting difficult as no candidate was able to secure a majority, and we had a hard time trying to determine the "will of the body". We went through several rounds, starting with a straight three-way vote, an up-or-down on each as "acceptable" or "unacceptable", some discussion of an "Instant Runoff" vote (but no means to implement one), and probably more that I've forgotten since then. In the end, we selected Marsha Feinland, our then State Chair, as the candidate, with the stipulation that, should P&F actually obtain the Presidential nomination, we would put forth a slate of Electors to the Electoral College proportionately representative of the votes each of the three (WWP, SP and Nader).

A much better incident to use as an example would be the attempt by the New Alliance Party in the mid-1980s to early-1990s, during which they succeeded in sabotaging our convention in 1988, and were ultimately rebuffed in 1992. Unlike the WWP, they were a classic example of a hostile takeover operation.

-- 70.132.53.190 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC) (note, I wrote this before I got my Wikipedia account) -- Davecampbell 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Missing Presidential candidates?

Did the party not run candidates in 1976, 1984, and 2000?

http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/ has Margaret Wright ( Peoples Party) as their 1976 candidate (on their Third Party Presidential Candidates page), and says P&FP endorsed Sonia Johnson ( Citizens Party) in 1984, but had Bill Thorn as the VP candidate instead of Richard Walton (on their Citizens Party page). In 2000 it appears they didn't have ballot access, but perhaps they has a write-in candidate, or endorsed another party's ticket? Schizombie 23:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC) reply

P&F was off the ballot in 2000. It recommended a vote for either Ralph Nader or one of the socialist candidates running independently as write-ins. -- Davecampbell 02:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC) reply

Ricardo Romo

Is the Ricardo Romo the party ran for Governor in 1970 the same as the University of Texas President? Esquizombi 13:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Eldridge Cleaver's VP running mate?

Wasn't it Douglas Fitzgerald Dowd? Someone added a mention of a Peggy Terry - is that wrong, or was there more than one running mate? Шизомби 20:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC) reply

How confusing... http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php/about-us/historical-information/presidential-candidates doesn't mention Dowd and adds Corky Gonzales. Some of the info for other years is different too. Шизомби ( talk) 14:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Steve Argue

Hi, Steve. Your comment about leaving P&F is more appropriate for the discussion page; the main page is not for airing of personal differences. Good to see you here nonetheless. -- Davecampbell 16:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Workers World Party Involvement

According the website Politics1 the Workers Wold Party had a heavy involvement and/or was involved in party in-fighting until 1996 when their "candidate was successfully blocked." I came to Wikipedia to find more info on this and there isn't any here. I was wondering if anyone knew anything and if so would they be willing to add it, as it may be helpful

ChipMD 00:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I just had a look at that site, and just skimming through several of its entries (including the one for Peace and Freedom Party) I see lots of oversimplification, apparent confusion, and a generally snarky tone, all of which argue against treating that site as an informational source.
At the very top of this Talk page, is an old note written by me in response to a similar characterization, in an earlier version of this article, of the WWP's role in the 1996 State Convention and presidential nomination contest (claiming that WWP had tried to "take over" P&F); my note, which is original research (having been a participant at that convention and chaired one of its sessions), presents what I believe to be a fair recitation of the WWP role there - i.e., completely legitimate, and not any sort of a takeover attempt.
The rest of that site's "information" about P&F is likewise to be, if not completely disregarded, at least taken with a huge grain of salt.

-- Davecampbell ( talk) 00:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for Image:Peace and Freedom Party.png

Image:Peace and Freedom Party.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC) reply

I mentioned this at the last Peace and Freedom Party State Central Committee meeting, since that body is the only entity that could be called the logo's "owner", as far as I know. There was a general scratching of heads, wondering what this was all about, and a collective shrug, having more urgent business to attend. Since then, I've poked around here some, checking all the links in the note above to try and find out what the status of this issue is, and how to remedy it. Turns out, the user BetacommandBot has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia on account of incorrectly tagging articles. So as far as I'm aware, this issue is not an issue at all. If a human knows anything different, please advise so we can straighten it out. -- Davecampbell ( talk) 18:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC) reply

1968 ticket

On eBay, I saw a 1968 pin with Martin Luther King and Benjamin Spock, and another with Dick Gregory and Spock. The note on the former said "Early in 1968,the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was being touted as a presidential candidate for the Peace and Freedom party. This 1” celluloid pin was made to promote the anti- Vietnam War ticket of Dr. King and pediatrician, Dr. Benjamin Spock. Tragically King was shot and killed in Memphis in April, so that campaign never got very far." On the latter, "Peace activist and former comedian, Dick Gregory and Doctor Benjamin Spock made up the unlikely ticket for the Peace and Freedom Party in 1968." Gregory split, and seemed to have two different running mates, Spock not one of them. Very confusing. Шизомби ( talk) 00:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Endorsement/nomination?

The article lists Nader as "endorsed" by the Peace and Freedom Party. Isn't he the nominee of the party, not just its "endorsement"? Final Philosopher ( talk) 00:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Room for Jello?

Just noticed the note that there are efforts afoot to "draft" Jello Biafra as the P&F Presidential candidate for 2012. The party does not choose its candidate by any sort of "draft" or by any other means being proposed at the referenced site (including by counting up monetary contributions - our ballot line is not for sale!). Our presidential candidate is chosen at our State Convention in August of the presidential election year; the delegates to the Convention are those people elected to the various County Central Committees in the primary election. -- Davecampbell ( talk) 00:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply

"Drafting" does not refer to a formal nominating process, but trying to persuade a candidate who may be reluctant to run (see Draft Condi movement etc. etc.). AnonMoos ( talk) 03:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC) reply
So it's not about convincing the Peace and Freedom Party to nominate Jello for President in 2012, but rather it's about convincing Jello to run for the Peace and Freedom Party presidential nomination? That's not the impression I got when I clicked on the link and started reading, but I won't argue about it here. And please don't misunderstand, I'm not writing against the idea of Jello seeking the P&F nomination, just trying to clarify how such a thing would be accomplished: not by amassing $10 contributions to the Party (though such are of course welcome :-) ), but by either running candidates for County Central Committee in the 2012 primary election who are committed to voting for Jello at the Convention, or working to convince incumbent Central Committee members to vote for him. -- Davecampbell ( talk) 01:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Admin help - logo deleted

I don't know how to go about fixing this, hoping an admin can help. A robot deleted the party's logo from the Commons due to some copyvio. I know this is WP:0R but as a member of the State Central Committee I brought this up the last time a (different) robot threatened to delete our logo, and everyone agreed that we have no objection, as the collective owner of the logo, to its being included in the Commons, on our Wikipedia page, or anywhere else. We are not aware how to go about formally giving permission to do so, and no one seemed all that interested in finding out.

Could an admin assist me/us in fixing this problem? -- Davecampbell ( talk) 19:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Also I have some questions/corrections about the box at the top (for instance, who decided our party's color is "black"? we have no official color, but if we did, it would more likely be Red, or Red and Black; also, we are not "pacifist", we uphold the right of self-defense), not sure how to fix those or who put them in, in the first place. -- Davecampbell ( talk) 19:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC) reply

According to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LOGOS page is not terribly clear. I also have experienced a long history of uploading logos and images which are in the public domain on their very face, which are then summarily deleted by autobots and human tools. Some of these images are manifestly in the public domain, like the logo of the Knights of Labor. Since you do have some right to speak for the organization, why don't you post the logo as its creator under the creative commons license, as used for this simple image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Domestic_cat_cropped.jpg.
Alternatively, borrow the rationale used by the GPUS here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Usgreenpartylogo.PNG.
This logo has been up since 2005. Good luck. DJ Silverfish ( talk) 00:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Confusing edits

I'm not getting this revert to my contribs; aside from the rude suggestion that it wasn't an improvement can the user care to elaborate on why it isn't an improvement? And while he/she is at it, perhaps the user could list what Wikipedia rules the contributions contravened. Gobbleygook ( talk) 14:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Certainly. Your edits did not improve this article. Your edits injected partisan, off-topic sources into this topic. Further, your account appears to have been created solely for this purpose. Viriditas ( talk) 20:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC) reply
The edits aren't "partisan" as it isn't making a claim about the Peace and Freedom Party (it is only highlighting the political affiliation of the Peace and Freedom Party) nor is it off-topic, as the information cited bears directly on the topic. And this isn't even including the fact that it passes the Wikipedia verifiability and reliability tests. Moreover, even if you think this is a case of tendentious editing, that in itself is not sufficient grounds for removal. I should also point out that in reverting not just this edit but all my other edits, it appears you are engaging in wikihounding so I would strongly advise against this practice in the future. Gobbleygook ( talk) 00:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Please find secondary sources about the subject. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 04:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply
That is not necessary as per WP:SELFSOURCE Gobbleygook ( talk) 06:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply
How am I misusing the primary sources? It is talking about the ideological platform of PFP! Gobbleygook ( talk) 07:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply
You've misused dozens of sources in the last day. I've requested a reliable secondary source supporting your edits. Please provide it. Viriditas ( talk) 07:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply
That isn't necessary as per WP:SELFSOURCE. Gobbleygook ( talk) 13:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Sorry, but no. When a request is made for a secondary source based on the misuse of a primary source, it is necessary. Please go to your local library and start researching. Viriditas ( talk) 03:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply
That isn't necessary as per WP:SELFSOURCE and while you are at it, please review wikipedia editing guidelines. Gobbleygook ( talk) 07:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply
Response to third opinion request:
The revert specifically referenced in the beginning of this thread seems inappropriate. The Fox News description seems perfectly acceptable. The edit was not partisan. It was on topic. Viriditas seems to be really far off base here, and it appears I'm not the only one who feels this way.

As for the use of primary sources, it's a little bit borderline, because the guideline requires that the article not be based primarily on such sources. In this case, the article is heavily reliant on primary sources, such as the party's website and government-published election returns. To improve the article, more secondary sources should be tracked down. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Input duly noted and changes will be made accordingly. Gobbleygook ( talk) 05:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC) reply

founding date of June 23, 1967

The Peace and Freedom Party gives June 23, 1967, as its founding date because the registration drive that eventually qualified it for the ballot in California kicked off at the anti-war demonstration that day. The description of that day previously characterized the demonstration as a "riot in Century City" and says the party was founded after that event. The "riot in Century City" was "LAPD riot in Century City" until someone changed it in October 2012 questioning whether police could riot. What happened that day (see " http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2009/05/crowd-battles-lapd-as-war-protest-turns-violent-.html" for a good description) was a large demonstration that rallied at a park (where presumably most of the Peace and Freedom registration activity took place), then began a permitted march past the hotel where Johnson was speaking. When some protestors violated the march permit by sitting in the street in front of the hotel, the police attacked the demonstration. I would argue that it is justified to call this a police riot (unless one considers the police violence too organized to be a "riot"), but in any case whether the demonstration was or was not a "riot" or a "police riot" is irrelevant to why the date is seen as the founding date of the Peace and Freedom Party.

Dave Alfa ( talk) 05:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Peace and Freedom Party. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC) reply

"Citation needed" on 2012 (Roseanne Barr) row of POTUS nominees grid

Why is there a "[citation needed]" tag in the Notes column of the 2012 row of the POTUS nominees' grid? For one, none of the other years' Notes contain any such "citation" (the links in that column are to supplemental information, as befits a column headed "Notes"); for another, why would any sort of "citation" be needed there?; and for three, there is in fact a citation for Barr's nomination given next to the first mention of her name in the introductory paragraph. Unfortunately, I'm not very adept at this, and haven't been able to find where that tag is, in the edit page, in order to get rid of it. -- Davecampbell ( talk) 20:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Peace_and_Freedom_Party&oldid=1209672178"