|WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject United States / Presidential elections||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 Some background on the 2003-2004 Prohibition quarrels
- 2 Huh?
- 3 Questions? Ask them through Wikinews
- 4 recent deletion
- 5 Conflict of interest
- 6 Reference tag
- 7 not a threat
- 8 an alternative course for David J. Hanson
- 9 Professor Hanson (aka "David Justin") conflict of interest
- 10 Professor Hanson's latest error
- 11 Professor Hanson's request for citations
- 12 restored "sudden"
- 13 SmokeDoctor, reveal yourself
- 14 Who are you, "Exofreeze"?
- 15 2008 candidate?
- 16 Dodge's symptoms of mental disorder
- 17 Dodge's secession and setting up a corporation
Some background on the 2003-2004 Prohibition quarrels
Since the above note indicates that the biography should be altered, I thought that some additional information might be of use.
In the summer of 2003, Dodge called a private meeting in his house in Lakewood, Colorado, from which he excluded a number of Party members. The Prohibition Party's membership had not approved this private meeting. Dodge and six other people, including two daughters, met in his living room. The group nominated him for president and Howard Lydick for vice president. One of those present was Leroy J. Pletten, the secretary of the executive committee, who later "switched sides" as the controversy widened, upon being informed of Dodge's having refused disfavored members notice of the meeting and of the right to attend. Dodge and Pletten are not related.
The party's membership as a whole immediately objected to Dodge's private meeting. The membership as a whole called the Convention due that year, to be held in Tennessee. This full membership Convention occurred in the fall of 2003. At this meeting, new officers were chosen for the executive committee, and Dodge was asked to give an account of the party funds and Storms collection. Chronicler3 11:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The historic Party learned that Dodge had secretly incorporated a new Party, calling it the "National Prohibition Party" to distinguish it from the original Party (founded in 1869). However, to the unsuspecting subscribers, Dodge continued using the historic name, over the objections of the historic Party.
Is this a joke? No joke, Dodge and his people seceded, set up a DIFFERENT competing party that they called the "National Prohibition Party." They knew, of course, they could raise no funds with that, so to outsiders, they pretended no change had occurred! and that Dodge remained Chairman of the historic Party. This is as though, in history, Jefferson Davis had pretended he was President of the United States, not Lincoln! -- not just a lie but an ultra-whopper of a lie! Yes, Dodge's lying was so extreme you might think that revealing the truth is a "joke," but truth is stranger than fiction (a joke).
Questions? Ask them through Wikinews
I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.
I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?
Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.
- n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Democratic Party
- n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Republican Party
- n:Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008/Third Party or Independent
Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.
Thanks, Nick -- Zanimum 19:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The recent derogatory paragraphs appear to me to be presenting the assertions of the non-Dodge faction as fact.
The second "citation" link is, in fact, to a web page maintained by said faction. Somehow, I don't think that counts as a valid citation. I mean, I could easily create a web page containing wild accusations against some other person - would it be legit if I cited that page in support of similar statements on Wikipedia?
Meanwhile, the first link appears to point to a page which was written by the person who added the derogatory paragraphs. If I understand correctly, this is considered to be spamming. If I don't understand correctly, I welcome correction from anyone who is knowledgeable on the subject.
At any rate, that's why I deleted the paragraphs in question. If they're added again, I'll delete them again, until the poster tires of the cycle, or one of us is blocked from making such changes, or someone can persuade me that mere repetition of the other faction's assertions is considered legitimate.
Caldodge 04:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
Earl Dodge's son has taken it upon himself to censor information in his father's wikipedia biography. In so doing, he is in violation of Wikipedia policy. His threat to engage in a revert war with anyone who dares to present information he considers deragatory or otherwise unacceptable also appears to be in violation of Wikipedia policy.David Justin 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Following the posting of the tag calling for more references on November 8, the reference density has increased from one per 162 words to one per 25 words. Therefore, I have removed that tag.David Justin (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
not a threat
Sorry, Professor Hanson aka "David Justin", but I didn't declare war. I did say I'd delete your items which merely parrot the other faction's claims (with one exception, every non-Wikipedia link you added is a pointer to that faction's web site). I don't consider unsubstantiated allegations motivated by political considerations to be "information".
In addition, I see no citation for your claim that "divisiveness may continue because of the Amondson faction’s contention that the Dodge family controls most of the assets held by the party and its foundations". Who says "divisiveness may continue"? Are you quoting a member of the other faction? If so, who? Or is this simply your speculation, given your antipathy toward all temperance organizations? At any rate, I also don't believe the editorial comments of a biased party count as "information".
I'm not a Party member, and haven't been for years. But I know the Dodge family has no desire to "control" the party, and I'd say that knowledge has more validity than your biased uninformed speculations.
So, again, I'll keep deleting your crap until 1) you tire of this game, or 2) you or I are blocked from making such changes, or 3) someone persuades me that the other faction's claims are valid (you could do this if you cited real evidence, rather than playing "Polly wants a cracker" for Pletten and his bunch).
an alternative course for David J. Hanson
One alternative for you would be to post your crap on the Prohibition Party page. I promise not to revert any claims you put there. Of course, I may also post counter-claims on that page, and let people see both sides of the story, instead of the one-sided story you are repeating over and over.
Professor Hanson (aka "David Justin") conflict of interest
Professor Hanson has an obvious conflict of interest, too. He believes that moderate drinking is healthier than abstinence, and consequently has written numerous derogatory items about temperance organizations (as well as organizations which simply want people to not drink while they're driving).
It's obvious to me that his continuous reposting of the other Prohibition faction's claims is simply another way to attack a temperance leader, advancing Professor Hanson's cause.
- Hi Caldodge- Writing about ones father necessarily constitutes a conflict of interest according to Wikipedia guidelines. However, writing about something or someone and having a point of view (as does everyone) does not. Thanks. David Justin (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Professor Hanson's latest error
Professor Justin was apparently ignorant of the date of the Earl Dodge quote on politics1.com.
A check with the Internet Wayback machine [] shows the "fair and objective" quote dates back to 2000, and therefore CANNOT be a reference to the "divisive events" of 2003. That is why I removed the quote - it falsely implies his agreement the description of those events.
I added what I've been told is the real motivation of anti-Dodge faction (i.e., compromising prohibition goals). I didn't do so in some partisan spirit, since I've been a Republican since 1994.
Regarding "Dodge faction does not refute these allegations", Dad felt that what he _did_ was more important than what people said about him (believing God would judge his actions), so he was not in the habit of defending himself publicly (or, most of the time, privately).
And I know from discussions with Mom just how much Dad sacrificed to keep the party afloat in recent years, as well as when the party faced financial disaster in 1960. No, there are no citations available for this fact, since it wasn't published in any news story.
- Hi Caldodge- I don’t believe your father’s quote regarding the accuracy of Politics1.com is misleading. By letting his comments stand, he is reasonably presumed to have acknowledged the accuracy of the material in question.
- However, it is unacceptable to add, as you have, numerous statements based on hearsay and other non-verifiable sources. Even though you have a clear conflict of interest, I don’t doubt your integrity or the veracity of these statements. Nevertheless, their inclusion is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. Thanks. David Justin (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Professor Hanson's request for citations
Since Professor Hanson's "citations" consist almost entirely of links to the pagss of the anti-Dodge faction (with an occasional link to an article which merely mentions the fact that there _is_ a party schism), I'm assuming that similar links to the pro-Dodge's faction would also count as suitable citations.
I'll discuss this with the prohibition.org webmaster, to see what pages I can create which will then be used as citations.
- Hi Caldodge- That would be most useful. It’s important that both sides of the issue be presented as well as possible. Thanks for your efforts. David Justin (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I'm curious about Professor Hanson's obsession with repeatedly posting the anti-Dodge faction's allegations. Is his motivation simply a desire to denigrate all temperance organizations? Does he have some unmentioned conflict with Earl Dodge? Or does he have an undisclosed relationship with the anti-Dodge faction?
As one of Earl Dodge's sons, I trust my motivation is obvious. What is your motivation, Professor Hanson?
- Hi again Caldodge - I regret that I never met or communicated with your father. From the obituaries and related news, he appears to have been a man with a magnetic personality with whom even strangers could easily relate, who loved his family, and who largely devoted his life to the cause of prohibition to which he was so deeply committed. Even some in the opposing faction considered him to be their friend and he seems not to have spoken ill of anyone regardless of their beliefs about alcohol.
- My motivation is to help present a balanced encyclopedia entry for the man who was truly “Mr. Prohibition.” No encyclopedia entry about George Washington would be balanced without a discussion of his slave-holding, nor of Jefferson without attention to his apparently illegitimate offspring, nor of Nixon without an explication of Watergate, nor of Clinton without consideration of the Monica Lewinsky affair.
- A man of your father’s stature deserves more than a superficial “puff-piece” and an encyclopedia entry demands it. Best regards,David Justin (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have been with the Amondson faction since 2004, and I have never heard of him by either name. I did take a look at his website once and realized that I agreed with the "neo-prohibitionist" agenda completely.Chronicler3 (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC) Earl Dodge was NEVER "Mr. Prohibition." In fact, in his last years, he tried to destroy the historic 1869 Prohibition Party both organizationally and in court, by pretending that it was a new group just formed in Septmber 2003! He ran against the historic Party, using his new secessionaist group which he called the "National Prohbition Party" as his vehicle.
I restored the "sudden" adjective because the death WAS sudden - unexpected by anybody.
Dad had a heart attack in 1984, and septuple bypass surgery in 1999, but to all appearances seemed to be healthy enough for his age (unlike my wife's grandparents, both of whom had an obvious decline in health for months before their deaths) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caldodge (talk • contribs) 18:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
SmokeDoctor, reveal yourself
Instead of hiding behind a phony name, why don't you post your real identity?
Frankly, based on your additions, I'm guessing you're another of David J Hanson's sock puppets. But it would be nice to know for sure.
Come out from under your rock, and let people know who you really are.
Who are you, "Exofreeze"?
So you restored comments from the phony "SmokeDoctor" "due to neutrality bias"?
There is nothing to 'reveal'. You seem to think that only people related to David Hanson would disagree with you. I am a university student who has been writing a paper on political parties that either are not impactful during election processes (such as the Prohibitionists) or actually split votes (such as the Green party). I have no bias either way, nor am I related to any of those in question.
Now whether or not you agree with me or not is not important. The fact is there is a neutrality bias once you, the son of the person in question, take it upon yourself to censor this page in any way you see fit. It does not take a student or a 'sock puppet' (as you call them) to understand this.
Your attitude in attacking anyone who edits this page is proof enough of a neutrality bias - and it is the readers' right to know this when they come to your fathers page.
You have no bias? Then why are you hiding behind an alias? Why are you adding language which is not in the cited pages ("new secessionist party")? How is it that my comments based on personal experience (Dad paying for many party expenses out of his own pocket, for example) are considered a "neutrality bias", while text derived from the opposing faction is not so?
All we have is your word that you aren't a sock puppet (the term is a well-known one at Wikipedia (and other sites) - not something _I_ made up). For all I know, you could be Leroy Pletten (a man who has been described as "a nut" by people in the opposing faction) or (more likely) David Hanson.
I'm not afraid to list my real name, and let readers know where I'm coming from, so they can use that knowledge in judging the veracity of my comments. Meanwhile, you hide behind an alias, so the readers have no idea as to who you really are, or where you're coming from. I'll let that difference speak for itself.
Debating with you is pointless, since you can claim anything I say is made up. My name is Anthony and I live in Texas, at the time I visited this site I was attending UTD. The fact that you assume anyone on this page who disagrees with you is in league with some anti-earl dodge party is simply insane. I am sorry that you have people who you believe are slandering your father, but do you really think every person who comes here is out to get him? Luckily, by your lack of recent edits, it seems you have moved on to live your own life - just as I graduated and moved on past the class I was taking that led me to dealing with you. Your profile page is missing, so I gather you were banned from the site. Wikipedia became a better place on that day.
Dodge's symptoms of mental disorder
This is something that came out in the lawsuit that Earl Dodge and his group of secessionists caused against the historic Prohibition organization. Information was provided to the historic group to the effect that when Dodge would periodically be caught stealing, that he would use an apparent insanity defense. For the full text of the affidavit filed under oath, see http://medicolegal.tripod.com/wagneraffidavit.pdf
This above was added by Leroy Pletten, the ringleader of the anti-Dodge faction of the Prohibition Party. The reader may find this information useful in judging the veracity of the information. - Caldodge (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Dodge's secession and setting up a corporation
This is another fact that came out in Court. It came out when Dodge was being cross-examined by the judge. Dodge admitting incorporating the group. He did this in Colorado in September 2003. Dodge was enraged when the historic group by majority vote refused to re-elect him. So Dodge and his minority -- like Confederates -- seceded, set up their own Party, which they named the "National Prohibition Party." For background, see the Court hearing transcript, at http://medicolegal.tripod.com/transcript011607.doc
The incorporation paper itself has a Colorado file number, # 20031285653. The document is posted online at the State of Colorado site, http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityDetail.do?quitButtonDestination=BusinessEntityResults&nameTyp=ENT&masterFileId=20031285653&entityId2=20031285653&srchTyp=ENTITY&fileId=20031285653 Note that Dodge, to give himself the Chairmanship for life, specified NO voting by the members! He had been voted out, he wanted to make sure his new Party could never vote him out!
Given that you're citing documents from a site controlled by Leroy Pletten (the ringleader of the anti-Dodge faction) - and that those documents appear to NOT have any links within that web site, I feel safe in assuming you're actually Leroy Pletten, the fellow who took control of said faction.
That makes it a little more obvious 1) why you persist in kicking a dead man, and 2) why you resort to aliases, so people won't see that YOU are also subject to the charge of "neutrality bias".
So, Leroy, are you also "ExoFreeze"? What other pseudonyms are you using here? Inquiring minds want to know!
Is Calvin Dodge's paranoia showing? pretending that somebody named Leroy Pletten controls the above sites including the State of Colorado site!! :) More likely, the Governor or Secretary of State of Colorado controls the Colorado site!
It is significant that Calvin Dodge does not deny the truth of any of the statements in the Court Transcript, the Wagner Affidavit, nor the State of Colorado website. He just denounces somebody, "ExoFreeze," or whomever! :) Implies his awareness of his father's guilt as charged!
No, I didn't, Leroy. And if you read my comments CAREFULLY, you'll see they're referring to the phony user "SmokeDoctor" (since THAT user is the one posting links to files on your website).
But since lying appears to be your stock-in-trade, it's not surprising that you'd claim that I said something which I didn't. medicolegal.tripod.com IS under your control, and citing your web site to back up your comments is generally considered to be bad form on Wikipedia (just ask David J Hanson). The Colorado document does state that Dad would have control of the party name (in Colorado, at least), but that is probably a reaction to his belief that you conned others into giving you control of the rest of the party. You weren't the first person who wanted the Party for his own uses - just the most successful one.
I don't KNOW the "truth" of the Wagner Affidavit, but since it was apparently created after your tenure in the Party (as mentioned in that court transcript), it wouldn't surprise me that you could con Wagner into creating it for your benefit. I DO know that Dad had plenty of happy customers, and their comments after his death gave us a good idea as to how much they respected and trusted him.
The negative remarks about Dad in the Court Transcript are all from YOU (assuming you're the "Mr. Plutten" in the transcript). Again, citing yourself is not exactly considered good form here.
I'm curious, Leroy. Dad's been dead for 9 months now. Now that Howard Lydick is also dead, it seems likely the entire party will be under your control, and ready for you to run it into the ground. So why this continued vendetta against Dad? Why does the Prohibition Party Wikipedia page devote 80% of its space to the 2003 secession, instead of documenting the effects of Prohibition, and mentioning the great leaders like Homer Rodeheaver, etc.?
Dad is beyond your reach now, so I find it curious to see you wasting your time on making frequent additions to his web page. If your motivation is truly to advance the Party's cause, I think your time would be better spent on Party work, rather than spitting on the man who devoted 55 years of his life to the Party.