Talk:Alaskan Independence Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Election box metadata[edit]

This article contains some sub-pages that hold metadata about this subject. This metadata is used by the Election box templates to display the color of the party and its name in Election candidate and results tables.

These links provide easy access to this meta data:

Old comments[edit]

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)

International law said that it should have been
FWIW, plebiscites on statehood in the U.S. are non-binding, since the final decision on admitting new states is up to Congress. Even the Puerto Rico plebiscites, which have always resulted in at least a plurality in favor of the status quo, could be overruled if Congress saw fit to do so. Of course, such an action by Congress would be politically difficult.
The AIP is hardly pushing the secession issue in Alaska. I'd never heard it elsewhere than here...
I was registered as an AIP voter for a part of the time I lived there during the '90s. I never had any doubts at the time that secession was one of their ultimate goals, though I had no illusions that a plebiscite could ever actually result in independence. Whether their stance could reasonably called "pushing" secession might be subject to debate. I have the impression that since Vogler's death the party has drifted toward trying to present a more mainstream face. 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree. I was born and raised in Anchorage and understood from the very earliest days of my political awareness that the AIP was all about independence in the sense of leaving the union. It was just understood that this political goal was relatively unattainable, and so they focused their energies on other subjects. I've had AIP friends who've said as much. — Jéioosh 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The assertion about Hickel not following their platform is questionable, and clearly political, and does NOT belong there. (I would agree with it, however... )
I don't agree. I think it's perfectly acceptable, encyclopedic, and honest. He did basically use the party affiliation so he wouldn't have to deal with the state Republican Party, and for all intents and purposes ignored the AIP after his election. Other than his arguments for increased resource exploitation, greater private property ownership, and lower taxes, Hickel really didn't do anything in support of AIP goals, and I think this was even commented on in editorial media. I'm sure if you could find a scholarly history covering his tenure you'd probably find the same claim. — Jéioosh 21:43, 19 May 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.

Wfh 06:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

They didn't say that...[edit]

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 (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 (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 (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.-- (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Internal Contradiction[edit]

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)

I just came here to write the same thing! However, with the recent interest in Sarah Palin's ties to the AIP, I am sure this question will soon be resolved... --KarlFrei (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin & AIP[edit]

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 cornixtalk 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 (talkcontribs)

There seems to have been a lot of coverage of this story on the internet in the past day or two... I think that we can assume that within a day or two there will be a noteworthy story (one that should be included in Wikipedia) stating either that she was a member of the AIP or that there was a false accusation from a senior member of the AIP that she was a member. (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It could have just been the AIP party official trying to make their party look good, or it could have been a manipulated video. It is also likely that the upload to Youtube is a copyright violation. In general, Youtube videos are not allowed unless copyright is clear. Corvus cornixtalk 22:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

ABC News has this on its website confirming in interviews with the AIP Chair that Palin was a member. (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Alexnovo (talk

Most recent details are here. Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Alaska_status_vote Carol Moore 01:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Allegations like this do not belong. Unless there is verifiable proof that Palin was a member this information is nothing more than an attack, trying to make guilt by association. Arzel (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing to be ashamed about supporting the right to vote for secession :-) Plus this is most notability party has gotten.
Updated info - final info should be included so it does not look like Wikipedia editors are trying to cover something up. One example of such info, if not necessarily the best: Sarah Palin's ties to Alaskan Independence Party are played down; The McCain campaign denies his running mate supports the party's separatist bent. By Michael Finnegan Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, September 3, 2008:
she was not a member but she has cheered the work of AIP...according to its website, "its primary goal is merely a vote on secession."... "Keep up the good work," Sarah Palin told members of the Alaskan Independence Party in a videotaped speech to their convention six months ago in Fairbanks. She wished the party luck on what she called its "inspiring convention."... her husband, Todd, was a member of the party for seven years...McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said Palin did not support secession...He sidestepped the question of whether she favored a statewide vote on secession. Carol Moore 17:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)(UTC)Carolmooredc {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)

Kudos to you Tjarrett! Great edit. Going to give you a barnstar for that when I get home. Sorry, but it's not a good enough edit to warrant me killing my laptop battery over looking for the appropriate star. Gnowor (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In any case, the entire issue does have to be mentioned; Palin's connections to the group were a major news story for a while, and brought the entire organization much more national attention than they would usually have had. If it's just tracking the rumors and saying there's nothing to them (or providing sources refuting them), that's fine, and probably no more than a couple of sentences are needed; but as one of the highest-profile national incidents in the AIP's recent history, the issue does belong in this article in some form or another. --Aquillion (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Perpetuating possible libel is an instant reason for removal. These allegations need to have some rock solid backing for inclusion. Arzel (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • By that logic it would be dispelling libel, rather than perpetuating it, if it is covered fully. Additionally, you should read BLP before citing it as the reason for a revert; it specifically touches on cases like these; see WP:WELLKNOWN. It says that:
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
  • This is the case here; the subject has been covered by many reliable published sources before, which were cited in the section you removed. It is not our job to decide when something is libel, or when it becomes or ceases to be an issue; we report what reliable third-party published sources say about public figures, and there were many of them commenting on this affair. Whether those sources are fair to Palin or not is irrelevant; it is not Wikipedia's purpose to pick-and-choose which high-profile published sources it covers, but to cover them without bias. The controversy will not vanish from history simply because you delete it from Wikipedia; but by covering it accurately, and providing reliable, published sources on all the relevant points, we can lay it to rest. --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 7 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 (talkcontribs) 00:27, 18 September 2008

Just for the record, Arzel, Newsweek came nowhere near debunking the story, and it's hardly a rumor. If you click on that link you just posted, you'll see that the chairman of the AIP, Lynette Clark, told the New York Times, on the record, for attribution, that Sarah Palin had been a member. Then, when this proved embarrassing to Palin, changed her story to say she'd been all wrong. It remains pretty much anybody's guess which story was the truth. (Has Sarah denied it?) Having said that, I do agree that for the claim to be included here it has to sourced better than it is now. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look a little closer, the article still mentions Palin but in a one-sided way. The article should either delete all mention of Sarah Palin or give the full story. I oppose Arzel's deletion. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Unless you could be registered in both parties she could have not been registered with AIP. I suggest we don't play into fringe theories. Clark has stated her official position, there is no reason to throw in "Howevers" to expand on these rumors. I personally think the whole section should be removed since it is all a unproven rumor, and subsequently disproven by Clark herself (regardless of what you think her motives were). Todd Palin being a previous member is not what I would consider notable, but RS clearly indicate that he was. I would suggest it be removed, but to this point concensus is not on that side. Arzel (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the references because the sources were the Daily Kos, and a blog from ABC who doesn't know what to make of the "she said"/"she said". The ABC blog sites a confirmed, reputable source of Gail Fenumiai, the director of the Alaska Division of Elections saying "Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time." The only quote from the contrary is a former "AIP official" Mark Chryson, who wasn't even an official during the time he "saw" Palin at the 1994 convention. Is there any documentation? Any proof? From the article, it is not even known if he is referencing Sarah Palin! Also, there was absolutely no source to or truth that the "McCain/Palin presidential campaign confirmed she attended the 2000 AIP Convention." as "smeared" in the original edit that I deleted. If one can present proof that Sarah Palin was in the AIP and that she attended a convention, by all means add it and site it. Until then, there is no place for these smear tactics by a political campaign in WP. Retriev32 (talk) 02:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, just for the record, the story is not a rumor. It's a very carefully sourced story published in a major newspaper, The New York Times. The fact that Clark retracted the statement she made to the Times does not make it a rumor, it just impeaches her as a reliable source.
Also, for those who may not be familiar with American electoral practices, I'll point out that party registration has got nothing to do with party membership. In many US states, when one registers to vote, one is asked to declare a party preference. This declared preference is used to determine which party's primary the voter will vote in. Most people declare party preferences without ever becoming a member of the party, which involves paying dues, receiving a membership card, etc. Most voters have never actually been a member of any party. Frequently, minor parties like the AIP never even bother with primary elections and use another process to select their candidates for office. It is perfectly possible to be a dues-paying member of one party while being registered in another party. Indeed, fringe parties like the AIP frequently pursue their goals not by putting up their own candidates, but by trying to get their members nominated by a major party. Thus, pointing out that Mrs. Palin has been a registered Republican for her entire voting career does nothing to refute the claim that she was once a member of the AIP.
Thus, my position remains that there are two acceptable ways of handling this: either say nothing at all about Sarah Palin and the AIP, or mention both statements coming from Lynette Clark. If she's a reliable source for saying that Palin's not a member, she's a reliable source for saying she was. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the entire section should be removed, any attempt to expand upon it will look like OR and pushing this rumor which has no backing. And for the record, just because it was published doesn't mean it is not a rumor. Arzel (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
For the record, a story that is sourced and attributed to a clearly named individual who is in a position to have direct knowledge of the facts is not a rumor. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Ideologically a constitutional foundation[edit]

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)

Two problems with the first sentence: federalism, vote including belief[edit]

Currently, the first sentence of the article says

The Alaskan Independence Party is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska that advocates a state vote which includes several options, including strong beliefs in Federalism, limited government, and territorial status.

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)

Indeed, thank you very much. I changed the link "become a state" to "become a state (U.S.)", I hope that is what was meant. --Austrian (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin & avoiding libel[edit]

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)

Year of Founding[edit]

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:

  • Page 6 contains the list of candidates. Excerpting from that
  • On page 10, there is a profile of Vogler, starting with
  • On page 12, there is a profile of Peppler, starting with
  • Then on page 62, we have a full page devoted to

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)

Back to this for a second...I was looking for something just now on Amongst the search results came up Vogler v. Miller. Warren Matthews, in his opinion in that case, expressly mentions that the party was formed in 1973. It appears that the brunt of Vogler's case was that the legislature had changed the signature threshold for nominating petition candidates between the 1978 and 1982 elections, and that it would have cost him approximately $10,000 to gather the necessary signatures to appear on the ballot. I also have a photocopy of an interview Joe and Doris Vogler gave to Mike Doogan, then the city editor of the Anchorage Times, during the 1974 campaign. Doogan wrote that Vogler sued to get on the ballot in that election, despite the Matthews opinion stating that the far less restrictive threshold of 1978 had also existed in 1974.RadioKAOS (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

merge Legal status of Alaska here[edit]

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)

  • Support - sounds sensible to me. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - the two articles cover one topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - one caveat, though - the overall topic of Legal status, not to mention at least some of the content, also contains relevance to Alaska Statehood Act, an article definitely more in need of work than this one. Most of the content of Legal status was copied and pasted from my first attempt back in 2006 to turn Joe Vogler into a real article.RadioKAOS (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Partial "Merge"  "Legal status" is not a "fringe theory", nor is a party's political platform a "fringe theory".  Given that there are questions raised by the AIP about the legal status of Alaska, it seems reasonable to present this material from the relevant legal viewpoints without getting unduly involved in the political AIP viewpoint.  Also, there are already articles on the Legal Status of Texas and Legal Status of Hawaii, so precedent exists for having such an article.  At the same time, the Legal Status article has a lot of history about the AIP which I would say is of no interest to readers of the Legal Status article, so I'd suggest merging that off-focus content, and let the article work to do the job for which it was created.  Yes, the material might fit at Alaska Statehood Act, but it seems like the first thing to do is removing the AIP history.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The concept of an article on legal status is not the point here, so precedent is not really relevant. The point, which I thought was pretty clear, is that the legal status article is almost entirely about AIP, which already has an article. A political party whose candidates can't seem to win any elections would be a "fringe group." That's not a value judgement on their views, it is a simple statement of easily verified fact: [4] Look at those numbers. They run barely three percent throughout the state, the absolute minimum required to be recognized by the Division of Elections. Since the only group contesting the legal status of Alaska is AIP, it makes sense to merge most of that content here, moving the remainder to the Statehood Act article as suggested by RadioKAOS. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that we agree that this article should not be about the AIP.  What I don't get is why you think the article is "almost entirely" about the AIP, when I only see the History section as the problem.  It seems to me that it is worthy of note to all US Citizens to know of the seemingly unresolved contentions surrounding the United Nations Charter, and the decision to allow military personnel to vote in this election.  Given that the AIP has won a governorship, it doesn't hurt for the rest of the country to know about the AIP too.  The topics seem to be far different.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The usage of "is" suggests incomplete historical perspective. The multiple organizations established in the 1950s promoting commonwealth for Alaska would also qualify as groups contesting the legal status of Alaska, in the context that such a choice wasn't made available or much seriously considered.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not following your point.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The AIP is the only group contesting the legal status of Alaska *RIGHT NOW*. Really, the entire statehood movement, not to mention political conventions held in Alaska as early as 1881, could also be considered in the context of groups contesting the legal status of Alaska (again, not exclusively focused on the present-day situation).RadioKAOS (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Let me put it another way. Is opposition to the manner in which statehood was achieved the exclusive focus of the topic of Legal status, or just the exclusive focus of the article as currently constituted? Is there more to take into consideration beyond the point I just brought up?RadioKAOS (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
There's the section History of Alaska#Statehood into which this stuff could go. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Partial "Merge" AIP is *not* the only secessionist group in Alaska, actually. There are several. This should NOT be merged with the AIP, at least not fully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - This is ridiculous. This article is about a political party and that one is about the legal status. Not the same thing at all.  Liam987(talk) 20:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
They are obviously closely related topics. Of course they are not the exact same thing, or there would be no reson to discuss a merger, it would be done as a matter of course to avoid duplicating articles. There are plenty of examples on WP of groups, espescially non-mainstream groups like AIP, being mentioned in the context of their area of interest rather than having their own articles. I don't see what is so ridiculous about that. Both articles are rather brief and merging them would put all the related content in one place, and of course a redirect would be left so that it can still easily be found. Sounds both reasonable and helpful to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has now entered the beginning stages of beating a dead horse. The bottom line is that one or more editors decided that "Legal status of Alaska" was a worthwhile subject for a Wikipedia article. Unfortunately, rather than a properly-constructed article, we have something which reminds me of a lot of these recent Ambassador Program trainwrecks (see 13 Alaskan Native Regional Corporations for a rather fine example of that). It reads as though it were a copy-and-paste job, completely fails to be on point inasfar as the actual topic is concerned, and gives disproportionate weight towards only one dimension of the subject, one group of individuals, and towards recent events. The first sentence of the article reads "The legal status of Alaska is the standing of Alaska as a political entity." That covers not only a whole lot more ground, but a whole lot longer timeline than what is presented there.
I haven't cleaned up my watchlist in quite a while, and wasn't aware that the legal status article wasn't on it. Therefore, I missed that an anon gratuitously spammed the Background section with all sorts of various tags since this discussion began. The other major part of the article, the History section, is a copy-and-paste of Joe Vogler#Political career, which isn't really that relevant. The Alaska Statehood Commission is very relevant. I believe it was described as the first time a U.S. state asked to examine its relationship with the union since the Civil War. It also greatly helped increase the public profile of commission member Jack Coghill, which led to his being elected lieutenant governor. That, of course, is an item of interest to this article. However, since the commission was established by voters in 1980 and only lasted a few years, what do you suppose the chances are that anyone even knows it existed, unless they're ancient enough to have been around at the time like me?
A proper history section would detail:
  • Any political structures employed by Native peoples, as well as their transition into the "white man's" political structure. Of particular concern there would be an overview of the various Native land claims issues over the decades, especially since, if I recall, Natives laid legal claim to the entire area of the state at one point. I would think that in Alaska's case, land ownership status is somewhat closely intertwined with its legal status (see Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act for an example of that).
  • The shifts in status from Russian occupation to statehood, and Alaskan reactions to vital decisions made outside Alaska, particularly in Washington, D.C. Of particular concern would be the various political conventions of the late 19th and early 20th century, which lobbied for greater local autonomy and eventually led to the establishment of the territory, the statehood (and even commonwealth) movement, as well as the role played by various Congresses and presidents in these matters.
  • Of course, recent events do belong. It could be argued that Schaeffer Cox is just as relevant to that topic as Joe Vogler. I describe the Alaska Statehood Commission above, which is also just as important as Vogler.RadioKAOS (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose! - The legal status of Alaska would entail a discussion starting from the land transfer from Russia. AIP article is about the Alaska Independence Party. Different! This is like asking the American Revolution be merged with George Washington's article! Ratibgreat (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)