![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
Its most well-known plank is its call for a vote on secession, which they claim was not offered as an option in the plebiscite on statehood. - shouldn't that read "which they claim should have been offered as an option"? It's impossible to make claims about what actually was on the plebiscite, as opposed to what should've been on the pebliscite Nik42 04:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
They are correct in stating that it was not offered upon the ballot. International law said that it should have been, therefore the article is correct in that sense.
Some examples of the ballots are still on file at the United States National Archives and Records Administration - Alaska Region offices (654 W. 3rd Ave, Anchorage, AK, 99501); I've handled them while an employee, but I didn't read them.
The wording was most likely yes/no question; Alaskan non-office elections almost always are, and almost always have been, both before and after statehood. (I happen to live in Alaska. The AIP is hardly pushing the secession issue in Alaska. I'd never heard it elsewhere than here; I never looked, either.) I can't actually go check; I'm not permitted to publish any research done in that office until 2009. Someone else could, however, request a copy.
The assertion about Hickel not following their platform is questionable, and clearly political, and does NOT belong there. (I would agree with it, however... )
Wfh 09:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It's still massively opinion, and belongs not on the AIP page, but on a Walter J. Hickel page.
As to the independence issue: it's not been a major facet of their public face since I became aware of them circa 1980 (in Jr. High). Jéioosh, we have met... and your "earliest days" go well before my own... by the mid 1980's, their people coming to the Chugiak HS government classes were not pro-secession; pro-secession rhetoric was not being used by the party publicly in the various fora I've followed.
In the article it says that one of there goals is to join canada. But I looked at there website and It listed the other 4 goals but not this one, so unless anyone has any objections I'm going to remove it. - NamesR4chumps ( talk) 00:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I do, cuz members, such as myself, hav expressed having that on the vote as well.
I recamend we add this.
Furthermore, some members of the party who want Alaska to instead join Canada, hav expressed there wish to add this choice to the revote.
5. Join Canada as a autonomous province, simular to Quebec's demand for specail status (this choice is unoffical, but has be expressed by some members of the party)
Kanga-Kucha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.19.200 ( talk) 00:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I also hav a petition I'd like to add to the article that has ALL five choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.19.200 ( talk) 02:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistake. I just assumed that since it wasn't on the website it wasn't a goal, however we should find a website so that we may sight that goal as well. NamesR4chumps ( talk) 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have it, but unfortunaly, nobody is letting me post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.45.94 ( talk) 23:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess as it stands in the 1959 vote we shouldnt add that, but I still think a link to the New Canadian Provinces and Territory page should stand.-- 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 00:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. The text of the article says "The party has appeared on the ballot in Alaska in all state elections since 1970," but the infobox says that the party was founded in 1982. kpearce ( talk) 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
On the Frontpage of Digg right now is a story alleging Sarah Palin was a member. Don't know if it's true or not-- that's what led me to this article. But, if it is verifiably true, it probably merits a mention. But I leave it to better minds than mine to determine.
And true or not, heads up because partisans on both sides will probably coming trying to make AIP look angelic or demonic. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 15:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources are needed. Youtube is not a reliable source. Revert until a reliable source is provided. Corvus cornix talk 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is a recording of the Vice Chair of the Party not a reliable source? I am not saying that it is, but would like to know how Wikipedia policies govern use of such material. Franklin Moore 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexnovo ( talk • contribs)
ABC News has this on its website confirming in interviews with the AIP Chair that Palin was a member. 24.44.126.129 ( talk) 00:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Alexnovo ( talk
The Todd Palin membership is pretty uncontroversial given the AP report that I just cited, so I included that. I'd say WP:BLP prevents us from doing much more speculation about Sarah Palin's membership. Tjarrett ( talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to put an end to this nonsense. Newsweek has debunked this rumor, and continued inclusion will be removed per WP:BLP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 September 2008
With sources reporting that Todd Palin has acted in ways that they refer to as being a 'shadow governor' as in participating in Sarah Palin's meeting and work as governor, his membership with the AIP gives her an association with the AIP. The relevance of that is what it is... but I would not write that off immediately. -L Brillante
Regardless of what happens this article needs to maintain a complete representation of the facts without editorialising on the AIP and the Palins' connection therewith. As it stands currently I doubt it does the former, although I admire the current revision for not falling prey to what I'm calling New York Stupidity these days. It's so easy to turn Sarah Palin being from Alaska into a campaign ad about federal unity, it's pathetic to even think about. So just don't do it, please. Get all the information right, and don't be douchebags about it, it can't be that hard. Dextrose ( talk) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
what does "Ideologically a constitutional foundation" mean? jnestorius( talk) 16:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it means something like, "ideologically, the party advocates strict constructionism in interpreting the constitutions of both the United States and of Alaska," but like you, this phrase puzzled me and I'm not really sure what is meant. -- Midnite Critic ( talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I yanked it. If my understanding of said phrase is correct, then someone who knows whereof he/she speaks can state that in clearer terms. Sarah, you on board here at Wikipedia? -- Midnite Critic ( talk) 01:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the first sentence of the article says
Does "federalism" here refer to New Federalism ("...transfer of certain powers from the US federal government to the US states")? Certainly not to "old" federalism in the sense of Federalists ("favoring a strong centralized national government").
And what does the "including" refer to? How can a "strong belief in Federalism" be included as one of the options in a state vote?
-- Austrian ( talk) 19:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, my edit has clarified matters. -- Midnite Critic ( talk) 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The previous prose "On September 2, 2008, the Associated Press reported that the Alaska Division of Elections said that Todd Palin, the husband of Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, had registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party in 1995 until 2002." says that Todd Palin, who is the husband of Sarah Palin, had registered as a member, not that Todd and Sarah had registered. The next paragraph stated that Sarah Palin has been a member of the Republican Party since 1982.
But I've placed Sarah's information all in the second paragraph now to clear up any confusion the formulation might cause. The sources weren't excellent, especially Youtube, so I confirmed both statements with a New York Times article.
How is that? It doesn't repeat the incorrect information reported that Sarah was a member, just the final report from a reliable source. Balsa10 ( talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The Alaskan Independence Party was founded in the early 1970 but was not considered a "officially recognized" political party by the State of Alaska until 1984 [1]. By May 9, 1978 the party was able to use donations from 1500 card carrying members, to place a full page advertisement in the May 9, 1978, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner with this banner headline: A VOICE IN THE LAND. ALASKA INDEPENDENCE PARTY. The article announced candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor, the arrival of the end of the two party system in Alaska, and possibly, the beginning of the independent Nation of Alaska. It would be six years before the state recognized this organization as "The Alaskan Independence Party". In the 1982 election, the AIP ticket was headed by Mr. Vogler. The results of that election and a challenge by Mr. Vogler to state election requirements brought a 1984 court decision that placed the AIP on the ballot and lowered the percentage of votes required for state recognition of politcial entities hence the party was finally "officially recognized" by the state [2].
To further illustrate the difference between a party being in existence and being "officially recognized" the Green Party of Alaska first gained ballot access (same as Recognized Political Party) in 1990, but lost its Recognized Political Party status in 2002. Ballot access was regained in 2003 based on a court order, lost again in 2005, and regained in February 2006 when Superior Court Judge Stephanie Joannides issued a preliminary injunction against the State of Alaska, preventing the state from denying access to the Green Party. On June 3, 2007 a lower Alaska state court upheld Alaska’s new definition of “political party” and the Green Party of Alaska was removed from the ballot. The judge wrote that she had to uphold the new definition of “political party”, because the Alaska Supreme Court had upheld the old definition of “political party” on November 17, 2006. [3] Through all of this the Green Party of Alaska has not ceased to exist only to be re founded, but has merely lost "officially recognized" status (automatic ballot access). Highground79 ( talk) 03:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I dunno if everyone lost interest once the whole Sarah Palin association thing was obviously revealed to be so much bravo sierra, but wait, here's more!
Senate Bill 388 in the 8th State Legislature (became effective May 10, 1974) created what is now the Alaska Public Offices Commission. I believe this bill, which became law without Governor Egan's signature, was also the infamous "conflict of interest law," which caused departing House Speaker Tom Fink and others who were self-employed to leave the legislature in protest. This bill also mandated that the lieutenant governor publish an election pamphlet, which the State of Alaska has done every election cycle since.
I'm holding in my hand right now a copy of the 1974 pamphlet published for the Anchorage area. I believe there were 4 editions published statewide, much like today. Anyway, this publication from 1974 shows mention of the AIP as follows:
If you were looking for something which would have been easy to find via Google, sorry, but I can't help you out there. The Alaska Division of Elections has been known to e-mail pdf's of documents they don't have on their website, by request. Dunno if this would be one of them, however.
This is the earliest reference I've seen to the AIP name. The name Alaskans For Independence precedes that. AFAIK, that name first came up the previous year, when Vogler used it in conjunction with his petition drive on the issue of secession. Both names had success during the 1970s operating as legally distinct entities, even though Vogler was so strongly identified with both.
As for party recognition? It should be easy to find a case called Vogler v. Miller, which the Alaska Supreme Court dealt with during the early 1980s. If the party was officially recognized in 1984, it would have been due to that court case, and not due to electoral success. Around 1984, the AIP was not really running any candidates except for Vogler and his running mate du jour. Alaska did briefly flirt with the notion of having a presidential primary in 1984. Vogler used that as an opportunity to gain publicity for the party by offering to be on the ballot in order to represent the AIP.
Once again, the Alaska Division of Elections may be the best source for information here, even if it's not currently found on their web site. I'm pretty sure that back in the 1980s, the only way in which a political party could gain official recognition was for their gubernatorial nominee to receive over five percent of the vote. This happened to the Libertarians following the 1982 election, the Dick Randolph/Donnis Thompson ticket garnering almost fifteen percent. Vogler and Al Rowe in 1986 garnered a little over five percent.
Anyway, hope this helps. RadioKAOS ( talk) 02:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
For the simple reason that that entire article is about AIP anyway. They are pretty much the only group that has any doubts about the legal status of Alaska. Having two articles on their legal theories would seem to violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alaskan Independence 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
Its most well-known plank is its call for a vote on secession, which they claim was not offered as an option in the plebiscite on statehood. - shouldn't that read "which they claim should have been offered as an option"? It's impossible to make claims about what actually was on the plebiscite, as opposed to what should've been on the pebliscite Nik42 04:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
They are correct in stating that it was not offered upon the ballot. International law said that it should have been, therefore the article is correct in that sense.
Some examples of the ballots are still on file at the United States National Archives and Records Administration - Alaska Region offices (654 W. 3rd Ave, Anchorage, AK, 99501); I've handled them while an employee, but I didn't read them.
The wording was most likely yes/no question; Alaskan non-office elections almost always are, and almost always have been, both before and after statehood. (I happen to live in Alaska. The AIP is hardly pushing the secession issue in Alaska. I'd never heard it elsewhere than here; I never looked, either.) I can't actually go check; I'm not permitted to publish any research done in that office until 2009. Someone else could, however, request a copy.
The assertion about Hickel not following their platform is questionable, and clearly political, and does NOT belong there. (I would agree with it, however... )
Wfh 09:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
It's still massively opinion, and belongs not on the AIP page, but on a Walter J. Hickel page.
As to the independence issue: it's not been a major facet of their public face since I became aware of them circa 1980 (in Jr. High). Jéioosh, we have met... and your "earliest days" go well before my own... by the mid 1980's, their people coming to the Chugiak HS government classes were not pro-secession; pro-secession rhetoric was not being used by the party publicly in the various fora I've followed.
In the article it says that one of there goals is to join canada. But I looked at there website and It listed the other 4 goals but not this one, so unless anyone has any objections I'm going to remove it. - NamesR4chumps ( talk) 00:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I do, cuz members, such as myself, hav expressed having that on the vote as well.
I recamend we add this.
Furthermore, some members of the party who want Alaska to instead join Canada, hav expressed there wish to add this choice to the revote.
5. Join Canada as a autonomous province, simular to Quebec's demand for specail status (this choice is unoffical, but has be expressed by some members of the party)
Kanga-Kucha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.19.200 ( talk) 00:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I also hav a petition I'd like to add to the article that has ALL five choices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.19.200 ( talk) 02:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistake. I just assumed that since it wasn't on the website it wasn't a goal, however we should find a website so that we may sight that goal as well. NamesR4chumps ( talk) 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I have it, but unfortunaly, nobody is letting me post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.45.94 ( talk) 23:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess as it stands in the 1959 vote we shouldnt add that, but I still think a link to the New Canadian Provinces and Territory page should stand.-- 74.237.54.62 ( talk) 00:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. The text of the article says "The party has appeared on the ballot in Alaska in all state elections since 1970," but the infobox says that the party was founded in 1982. kpearce ( talk) 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
On the Frontpage of Digg right now is a story alleging Sarah Palin was a member. Don't know if it's true or not-- that's what led me to this article. But, if it is verifiably true, it probably merits a mention. But I leave it to better minds than mine to determine.
And true or not, heads up because partisans on both sides will probably coming trying to make AIP look angelic or demonic. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 15:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources are needed. Youtube is not a reliable source. Revert until a reliable source is provided. Corvus cornix talk 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is a recording of the Vice Chair of the Party not a reliable source? I am not saying that it is, but would like to know how Wikipedia policies govern use of such material. Franklin Moore 21:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexnovo ( talk • contribs)
ABC News has this on its website confirming in interviews with the AIP Chair that Palin was a member. 24.44.126.129 ( talk) 00:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Alexnovo ( talk
The Todd Palin membership is pretty uncontroversial given the AP report that I just cited, so I included that. I'd say WP:BLP prevents us from doing much more speculation about Sarah Palin's membership. Tjarrett ( talk) 21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to put an end to this nonsense. Newsweek has debunked this rumor, and continued inclusion will be removed per WP:BLP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arzel ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 September 2008
With sources reporting that Todd Palin has acted in ways that they refer to as being a 'shadow governor' as in participating in Sarah Palin's meeting and work as governor, his membership with the AIP gives her an association with the AIP. The relevance of that is what it is... but I would not write that off immediately. -L Brillante
Regardless of what happens this article needs to maintain a complete representation of the facts without editorialising on the AIP and the Palins' connection therewith. As it stands currently I doubt it does the former, although I admire the current revision for not falling prey to what I'm calling New York Stupidity these days. It's so easy to turn Sarah Palin being from Alaska into a campaign ad about federal unity, it's pathetic to even think about. So just don't do it, please. Get all the information right, and don't be douchebags about it, it can't be that hard. Dextrose ( talk) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
what does "Ideologically a constitutional foundation" mean? jnestorius( talk) 16:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I think it means something like, "ideologically, the party advocates strict constructionism in interpreting the constitutions of both the United States and of Alaska," but like you, this phrase puzzled me and I'm not really sure what is meant. -- Midnite Critic ( talk) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I yanked it. If my understanding of said phrase is correct, then someone who knows whereof he/she speaks can state that in clearer terms. Sarah, you on board here at Wikipedia? -- Midnite Critic ( talk) 01:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently, the first sentence of the article says
Does "federalism" here refer to New Federalism ("...transfer of certain powers from the US federal government to the US states")? Certainly not to "old" federalism in the sense of Federalists ("favoring a strong centralized national government").
And what does the "including" refer to? How can a "strong belief in Federalism" be included as one of the options in a state vote?
-- Austrian ( talk) 19:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully, my edit has clarified matters. -- Midnite Critic ( talk) 01:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The previous prose "On September 2, 2008, the Associated Press reported that the Alaska Division of Elections said that Todd Palin, the husband of Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, had registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party in 1995 until 2002." says that Todd Palin, who is the husband of Sarah Palin, had registered as a member, not that Todd and Sarah had registered. The next paragraph stated that Sarah Palin has been a member of the Republican Party since 1982.
But I've placed Sarah's information all in the second paragraph now to clear up any confusion the formulation might cause. The sources weren't excellent, especially Youtube, so I confirmed both statements with a New York Times article.
How is that? It doesn't repeat the incorrect information reported that Sarah was a member, just the final report from a reliable source. Balsa10 ( talk) 22:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
The Alaskan Independence Party was founded in the early 1970 but was not considered a "officially recognized" political party by the State of Alaska until 1984 [1]. By May 9, 1978 the party was able to use donations from 1500 card carrying members, to place a full page advertisement in the May 9, 1978, Fairbanks Daily News-Miner with this banner headline: A VOICE IN THE LAND. ALASKA INDEPENDENCE PARTY. The article announced candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor, the arrival of the end of the two party system in Alaska, and possibly, the beginning of the independent Nation of Alaska. It would be six years before the state recognized this organization as "The Alaskan Independence Party". In the 1982 election, the AIP ticket was headed by Mr. Vogler. The results of that election and a challenge by Mr. Vogler to state election requirements brought a 1984 court decision that placed the AIP on the ballot and lowered the percentage of votes required for state recognition of politcial entities hence the party was finally "officially recognized" by the state [2].
To further illustrate the difference between a party being in existence and being "officially recognized" the Green Party of Alaska first gained ballot access (same as Recognized Political Party) in 1990, but lost its Recognized Political Party status in 2002. Ballot access was regained in 2003 based on a court order, lost again in 2005, and regained in February 2006 when Superior Court Judge Stephanie Joannides issued a preliminary injunction against the State of Alaska, preventing the state from denying access to the Green Party. On June 3, 2007 a lower Alaska state court upheld Alaska’s new definition of “political party” and the Green Party of Alaska was removed from the ballot. The judge wrote that she had to uphold the new definition of “political party”, because the Alaska Supreme Court had upheld the old definition of “political party” on November 17, 2006. [3] Through all of this the Green Party of Alaska has not ceased to exist only to be re founded, but has merely lost "officially recognized" status (automatic ballot access). Highground79 ( talk) 03:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I dunno if everyone lost interest once the whole Sarah Palin association thing was obviously revealed to be so much bravo sierra, but wait, here's more!
Senate Bill 388 in the 8th State Legislature (became effective May 10, 1974) created what is now the Alaska Public Offices Commission. I believe this bill, which became law without Governor Egan's signature, was also the infamous "conflict of interest law," which caused departing House Speaker Tom Fink and others who were self-employed to leave the legislature in protest. This bill also mandated that the lieutenant governor publish an election pamphlet, which the State of Alaska has done every election cycle since.
I'm holding in my hand right now a copy of the 1974 pamphlet published for the Anchorage area. I believe there were 4 editions published statewide, much like today. Anyway, this publication from 1974 shows mention of the AIP as follows:
If you were looking for something which would have been easy to find via Google, sorry, but I can't help you out there. The Alaska Division of Elections has been known to e-mail pdf's of documents they don't have on their website, by request. Dunno if this would be one of them, however.
This is the earliest reference I've seen to the AIP name. The name Alaskans For Independence precedes that. AFAIK, that name first came up the previous year, when Vogler used it in conjunction with his petition drive on the issue of secession. Both names had success during the 1970s operating as legally distinct entities, even though Vogler was so strongly identified with both.
As for party recognition? It should be easy to find a case called Vogler v. Miller, which the Alaska Supreme Court dealt with during the early 1980s. If the party was officially recognized in 1984, it would have been due to that court case, and not due to electoral success. Around 1984, the AIP was not really running any candidates except for Vogler and his running mate du jour. Alaska did briefly flirt with the notion of having a presidential primary in 1984. Vogler used that as an opportunity to gain publicity for the party by offering to be on the ballot in order to represent the AIP.
Once again, the Alaska Division of Elections may be the best source for information here, even if it's not currently found on their web site. I'm pretty sure that back in the 1980s, the only way in which a political party could gain official recognition was for their gubernatorial nominee to receive over five percent of the vote. This happened to the Libertarians following the 1982 election, the Dick Randolph/Donnis Thompson ticket garnering almost fifteen percent. Vogler and Al Rowe in 1986 garnered a little over five percent.
Anyway, hope this helps. RadioKAOS ( talk) 02:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
For the simple reason that that entire article is about AIP anyway. They are pretty much the only group that has any doubts about the legal status of Alaska. Having two articles on their legal theories would seem to violate WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Beeblebrox ( talk) 16:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Alaskan Independence 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)