Talk:Libertarian Party of Virginia

Currently someone [redacted] is attempting to edit the page.

An improper vote was attempted by bad actors on 9/12/22 in violation of LPVA constitution, the governing Roberts Rules of Order, and state law regarding non stock corporations. 209.10.66.76 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

We have no way of verifying these claims. The state obviously does not view it as illegal, as they have approved the Articles of Dissolution, which you can see on their website (also cited in the article) [1]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

We have no way of verifying the claims of the rogue actors (because they acted improperly and also lied on the dissolution form) either, yet you seem to immediately jump to their defense. Highly suspicious. You also deleted my comment (Personal attack removed) because you refuse to accept facts. 2600:8806:A501:A100:2112:7C15:E5C5:C3F3 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What reliable sources are reporting your claims? —C.Fred (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

What reliable sources are reporting yours? All I've seen is crap simply quoting the rogue actors and eating up their every word without bothering to do an ounce of journalism and talk to the actual members of the party who are still here. 2600:8806:A501:A100:2112:7C15:E5C5:C3F3 (talk) 01:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is citing an AP wire story that ran in, at least, the Seattle Times. —C.Fred (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah yes, Seattle, which is *checks notes* nowhere near Virginia. I'm sure they know exactly what's going on here, certainly more than someone who actually attended the meeting that started this mess. Get out of here with that nonsense. 2600:8806:A501:A100:2112:7C15:E5C5:C3F3 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

So, an AP wire story with nationwide attention against...nothing. We'll go with the wire service source, per policy. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Right, cause simply quoting some rogue actors is perfectly credible. GFY. 2600:8806:A501:A100:2112:7C15:E5C5:C3F3 (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The national party considers the affiliate still present. The sources used are mainly pointing back to the same article, but several not the dissolution is in dispute in the articles. According to the members of the state, and national party, the affiliate still exists.

https://groups.google.com/a/lp.org/g/lnc-business/c/fnRuE9EjUN8/m/kPG05SF9AgAJ - national party confirming its existence

https://va.lp.org/ - local affiliate confirming the same.

The repeated assertations of deletion are page vandalism. Horus829 (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

As of today, va.lp.org returns an error of "Registration has been disabled." —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

They domain has now shifted to https://www.lpofva.org , previous URL was correct at the time of its original edit. Correct webpage was added as part of the edit. Thanks, Horus829 (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, see the national party website, which links its active affiliates, and is the overall arbiter of whether affiliates exist or do not. https://www.lp.org/state-affiliates/ Horus829 (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Further information:

Media story discussing the previous articles surrounding dissolution, noting that it is in dispute, and that the local state party, intra state level affiliates, the national party, and the national officers all consider the affiliate to be intact.

Article additionally points out that the Viginia Mercury checked with the state department of elections, and found that it is still intact.

https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2022/09/libertarian-groups-dispute-virginia-chapter-dissolution/ Horus829 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Question on reverted edits

Why were my edits reverted? I see the above discussion, but at least according to this article [2], as well as the other news site articles cited, the party's status could be considered in dispute, at the very least. It is not at all obvious that the dissolution attempt was successful. Finally, is LPedia not considered a disinterested 3rd party for purposes of citation? It's managed by the national LP's Historical Preservation Committee, not the LPVA. Perhaps I should take another crack at it, this time making it more obvious that its status is still in contention? It's not accurate to state, carte blanche, that the dissolution is complete and/or permanent. Please advise. Thank you. --Toby Beaman (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

LPedia is a wiki, which is unreliable user generated content. Washington Examiner and Independent Political Report are unreliable sources. The sources do state that the party dissolved. They mention that some people have said they think it was invalid, but that doesn't make it invalid. They mention that the state corporation commission approved the articles of dissolution, which is also cited directly in the article. You should certainly not "take another crack at it", you will just end up blocked for misrepresenting the sources in the article. Nothing in any of the sources supports your assertion that the "attempt failed". 25stargeneral (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'm new around here, and trying to wrap my head around what I've read in the guidance and apply it in practice so I don't repeat mistakes. Taking another look at the User Generated Comment definition, I now understand why LPedia is not considered a reliable source. And revisiting the Independent Political Report, I can see why it would be considered unreliable according to Wikipedia's definition. However, why would the Washington Examiner be considered unreliable? Or, alternatively, as a professional, for-profit weekly magazine with a strong web presence, why is such a large and established media outlet considered more unreliable than other outlets and websites cited in the article, such as Reason magazine, The Stafford County Sun, baconsrebellion.com, roanokefreepress.com, and bearingdrift.com? Toby Beaman (talk) 15:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Even the reuters article stated the dissolution was in dispute, to say nothing of the underlying issue with the differences between PACS and corporations.

The Washington Examiner is a major publication, and though I think even the designation of independent political report being unreliable is dubious at best, the Examiner is a major publication, and certainly worthy of citation. 64.79.62.23 (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Washington_Examiner. As for it being in dispute, the sources clearly state that the vote to dissolve passed and that the corporation commission has approved the dissolution. They say some in the party "question the legitimacy" of the vote. People also questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, but that doesn't mean it was rigged. Claiming something does not make it reality. The sources tell us what the reality is. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you again for the explanation. For a newcomer, this is extremely helpful. Regarding the Examiner, it still makes no sense as to how, for example, Reason magazine (by the Reliable Sources vetting list's own admission is a partisan/biased outlet according) is somehow more reliable that the Washington Examiner. In a fair world, they would be placed on approximately equal footing with regard to reliability. I will, of course, comply by not including it as a source for the sorts of facts being discussed in the wiki entry, but the viability of that list really needs to be revisited. It would appears that the group of editors who decide such things is as biased as some of the outlets in questions (perhaps moreso), calling into question the reliability of many wiki articles forced to ignore certain information. Toby Beaman (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

(Also - I don't know why, but the other user's comments are "in line" with mine, making it appear that all the comments came from the same person. I'm not sure what happened there, but it is a little misleading to a third party who happens to stumble across this discussion. My comment was registered at 15:50 UTC, 18 Oct, and the other user's comment was registered at 16:46 UTC, 18 Oct, but looks like one big post.) Toby Beaman (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The threading of the comments is appropriate. Since both are replying to me, both use the same level of indentation (see WP:INDENT). The signatures are used to tell them apart. The Washington Examiner has been discussed eight times in open discussions. Anyone is free to open a discussion on a source at any time by going at the reliable sources noticeboard. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Restoration of Page to Original Status

At this point, I am reverting the changes to this page to their status prior to the claimed dissolution of the party by the previous board.

At this juncture, the following is undebatable:

1.) The state party itself considers itself active. [3]https://lpofva.com/

2.) The national party considers it active [4]https://www.lp.org/state-affiliates/

3.) The FEC considers the party active [5]https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00399865/ - It should be noted that this never seemed to change in either the state or local level

4.) The PAC is still registered, active, and filing as appropriate post the alleged dissolution with the State of Virginia. (this being the most important item) [6]https://cfreports.elections.virginia.gov/Committee/Index/f4c24292-b687-e111-9bed-984be103f032

5.) The corporation is active in the VA State Corporation Commission Database [7]https://cis.scc.virginia.gov/EntitySearch/BusinessInformation?businessId=300453&source=FromEntityResult&isSeries%20=%20false (although this does not appear to have been necessary for the PAC to continue to exist)

6.) It has held a convention which was reported on in one of the news outlets that covered the initial claimed dissolution by the previous board. In this story, the former chair of the party does not dispute that the new leadership is valid, and that they are the former leadership. [8]https://www.virginiamercury.com/2022/12/27/new-virginia-libertarian-chair-says-party-is-alive-and-well/

There is therefore no reasonable way in which a conclusion can be drawn that the Libertarian Party of Virginia is not currently active. Horus829 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC) — Horus829 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.