Talk:United States Pirate Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Guosherry. Peer reviewers: Witherwingsblog.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mwbeahm. Peer reviewers: Mwbeahm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

I can tell a good amount of research has gone into this article, but I'm still not totally convinced. Of the sources here, the first 4 are about the Swedish party, #7 is not specifically about this party, #9 and #11 are self-published, and #11 is only a passing reference. The two Ars Technica references may be useful, but I haven't taken the time to read through them yet. In general, though, since this is an unrecognized (from the official standpoint) political party, there may be a limit on what we can reasonably do about notability, for now at least.

I don't intend to AfD it or anything because I think it's a good article and it's not doing any harm; but we may have no choice but to keep it tagged for now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you coming here to discuss this. As the primary contributor to this article, I found all the sources here. The first one, the Wired article, is about this party, not the Swedish one. Wired clearly counts as WP:RS. Also, the Ars Technica articles are, in my estimation, notable. I'm unclear about the notability of the TorrentFreak articles, because they probably don't match up to WP:RS. However, i've just now added three new ones, one from TorrentFreak, one from ZDNet, and one from a Norwegian news source. I also added the Criticism section. Would you mind looking them over and giving some feedback? I know there aren't a lot of spectacular sources out there, but I think that what is there satisfies WP:N and WP:V enough to survive an AFD. Whether or not it still needs the notability tag, I don't know. Once the California thing gets underway, the number of sources would probably double. However, I think it is sourced enough now that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. Thank you for your feedback. Firestorm Talk 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the refs are about the Swedish Pirate party, but the following are about the US party. Current ref 1 is from Wired magazine and is quite extensive. Ref 5 is from the Ars Technica magazine seems to me to be a reliable source. These two seem to establish notability, and ref 14, a brief interview on Torrentfreak, does too (I am not so sure about Torrentfreak as a WP:RS though). I raised this issue at talk dyk too, thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the initiative to edit some of the article to be more accurate. I've cited the party's platform page, and given insight into the inner workings of the party. I also felt it was necessary to make the differentiation between each party as well. I feel like I can do this, being that I am the current co-administrator of the party for the 2009-2010 election cycle. On top of this, I will also be removing any references to The Pirate Bay, as they are factually incorrect. Gkerbein (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UK Newspaper The Guardian, the BBC, the FCC, and Swedis wire services all consider TorrentFreak a reputable source, so I can't see why wikipedia wouldn't. 68.219.42.248 (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be completely un-noteworthy. I'm concerned because it was tagged as such on 24 Feb 2009 and now just a week later the tag is gone with no discussion of its notability at all. CsikosLo (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a look at its history, it was untagged by the same person that tagged it. He was satisfied with the additional sources I provided. his comment appeared on the DYK page, not this one. Firestorm Talk 17:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing this to an "attempt"[edit]

I'm inclined to significantly cut this entry. The reason is because it is not so much a party as it is as an attempt with some very minor and borderline notable article references. As such, this group should be listed as an attempt and not have all this length associated with it that a more notable and active party would have. Primary rationale is that this party does not have any significant or notable amount of verifiable members. Mainstream media hasn't covered its membership and it appears to be the effort of just a few people. It's an attempt and no more. Please verify a significant and notable membership. Otherwise, this should be heavily edited. Danprice19 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify... I kept the few notable references that directly related to the US party. Other than that, there is no need to cite the entire platform from this group's Web site. Danprice19 (talk) 19:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW... There is no need to restate this group's platform per Wiki policy. Instead, I retained the general priority that was referenced. Other references apart from the Wired article relate to the European party and not US. We also don't need an entire paragraph documenting how this group failed to get enough signatures to form a recognized party. on and on...Danprice19 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(crossposted from User talk:Danprice19) Fine, I will accept your edits to this article as valid (at least until I can get data from a RS that has membership information). I did not see your rationale on the Talk page (where I probably should have looked first), but instead saw an attempt to remove cited information from the article, so I immediately reverted. Seeing your reasoning now, my concerns have been taken care of, and I will adhere to WP:1RR until I find verifiable membership information. Firestorm Talk 19:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One or more american PP?[edit]

Does anybody know who these guys are? http://www.piratepoliticalparty.com/ - somebody changed the link on the Pirate Party article from http://www.pirate-party.us/ to that. I reverted the change. Is that a new link to the old PPUS (redesigned) or a new, independent branch? Seams like the latter. ArnoldPlaton (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is only one Pirate Party in the US, and that is at pirate-party.us. There have been some attempts at scam-groups in some countries, including France, and this appears to be more of the same. It would in fact be the second 'scam' group in the US right now, but the one at pirate-party.us is the only such group recognized by Pirate Party International. 68.211.102.208 (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New name?[edit]

The official website says United States Pirate Party - USPP. --Gamsbart (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They both refer to the same thing. Due to a mix up with the IRS, the old registration of "Pirate PArty of the US" had to be abandoned, and a new registration of "United STates Pirate PArty" made - both are linked in the IRS systems. Ktetch (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanliness[edit]

I've opted to clean up the look of the page. An ambitious user decided to list the entirety of the platform, but not make sure that the links were intact. I've also changed the list level. The "create like it's 1790" image is unnecessary to put into the bottom of the page - perhaps elsewhere; for the time being, it's been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChannelSix (talk • contribs) 22:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's put a silly template on, saying the article looks like it was written by a fan of the subject. Except it wasn't, it was copy-pasted from their website. But now people have gone and edited it to fix the wording, instead of just marking it as being quoted from a primary source, and since their official website is down (thank you, lousy webhost) it can't just be copied from there any more. Were-Aardwolf (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interview[edit]

In an interview with Brittany Phelps, she describes herself as the administrator of the USPP. Should the article be changed to reflect that? Griffinofwales (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the best course of action. ChannelSix (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point of a 14- or 28-year copyright if copyright infringement isn't punished?[edit]

Tisane talk/stalk 04:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really the place to discuss it, but presumably the idea is that a reasonable law might be more often obeyed than an unreasonable law... AnonMoos (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a world where creators have no rights at all a 14 year term would indeed have no meaning. But that's not what the Pirates want. Like in all parties there are some hardliners and some people with more liberal positions.
Even the hardliners usually don't want to abolish all rights. The right of attribution will be kept. And many people prefer to give the creator an exclusive right of commercial distribution. That would mean that everybody is allowed to distribute digital copies but only the creator would be allowed to commercially sell copies (e.g. collector's editions with bonuses). And these rights still need a term. --::Slomox:: >< 19:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Punishment has no bearing on whether an unreasonable law is followed or not. BrainSlugs83 (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

This reads like a handbill should, at least in the Platform section. I think it definitely offends WP:NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codster925 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Massachusetts Mentioned in opening paragraph?[edit]

- Massachusetts is not the only US state with a legally recognized Pirate Party, and they are not the state in which the USPP was formed (see: http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=cbcbd562c56c303b4c0d4e863&id=2f1732744c&e=f11b054862 -- the country-wide docs are on file in Arizona...) So I'm curious as to why are they specifically called out? [FYI: We are dissolving and reforming the party, it is not coming to an end -- just the current form of the organization on paper.] [FYI #2: Another link to a news letter from Brad about the USPP being registered in Arizona: http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=cbcbd562c56c303b4c0d4e863&id=0a8764ef13&e=f11b054862 ]


- Mass and Florida are officially registered state parties in those states. The USPP in Arizona is not an officially registered state party in Arizona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Variable rush (talk • contribs) 14:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


- Hey Rush! That doesn't really answer my question. As you should know (if you're the rush I think you are?) The Pirate Party is an officially registered state political party in MANY states, including Oregon for instance... yet, none of that is listed in the opening paragraph. Just Massachusetts. So I'm wondering why Massachusetts is so special that it gets mentioned and no other state does.

To my understanding, the USPP is not a state party -- anywhere -- it *was* an organization which recognized state parties -- It seems the article is leaving something out, one way or the other. The opening sentence mentions that mass was officially recognized, but leaves out either A.) All the other state parties which are officially recognized by their respective states or B.) the significance that makes mass worth mentioning and not the other states.

Could it be that the article is just out of date? I see no mention of the dissolution and that's been going on for months now. BrainSlugs83 (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good day Slugs. I am he. Mass is mentioned because that state recognizes the Pirate Party in that state. You can actually get a voter card that says "Pirate Party" on it. The same goes for Florida as well.

You're right in that the article is out of date. I'm not really sure what to put as far as dissolution goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Variable rush (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding an Out of date tag to the article. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable about the current state of the party can update it. mcklucker (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not recognized as a political party in Massachusetts, but as a 'political designation'. Refer to Massachusetts Secretary of State's office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.225.201 (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing statements on the platform/principles[edit]

The article says that the party has "the same principles" of the original Swedish Piratpartiet, but that party has the protection and promotion of privacy as well as transparency of institutions/open government as co-equal agendas with copyright reform and patent reform. There is no mention of either issue in this article on the US Party. If it has "the same principles" as Piratpartiet, than literally 50% of the agenda is unmentioned. If the US Party doesn't give weight or credence to that half of the agenda then it isn't accurate to says that it has "the same principles."TheCormac (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick clean-up[edit]

Two paragraphs were removed. Neither were reference or cited, both were several years out of date. One also contained long-since irrelevant speculation and trivia. The other was apparently to do with individual opinions no longer of any apparent relevance, and contained undue weight and WP:SPAM. Plutonium27 (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pirate Party (Estonia) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Pirate Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Pirate Party[edit]

The New York State Pirate Party website [1] is in Chinese. Perhaps this is a hoax.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States Pirate Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Tejas"[edit]

Hello, editors of this page. I noticed that Texas was spelled Tejas. I realize this is not a typo due to the invisible note, however this has not been cited. Best regards, UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be the name of the Party, but as I mentioned here the column it is included in is not the name of Parties but of States and similarly situated terrorities; the name of the State is Texas. This Tejas spelling was recently introduced and has been reverted by three separate people since then. @MonSocMan: adding a hidden comment here does not negate the issues it presents. Per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, you should get a consensus for that change since it has been reverted by three separate people now, does not fit the convention of the currently existing table, and is unsourced. - Aoidh (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're incorrect. The list reflects the state parties map on their website, which is why Chicagoland is also listed. Tejas is the correct spelling and way it should be listed. MonSocMan (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://uspirates.org/about/#:~:text=Pennsylvania%20Pirate%20Party-,Tejas,-Website%3ATejasPirates
Here's directly from the US Pirate Party website, including links to various social medias referring to the state party as "Tejas Pirates". I'm unsure why this is an issue. MonSocMan (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The table's heading is unambiguous in that the entries listed are for the state itself, not what the party calls itself. The state's name is Texas, not Tejas and what this particular party decides to call Texas does not dictate what Wikipedia calls the State of Texas. It's an issue because it's inaccurate as presented; there is no State of Tejas and your introduction of that content has been reverted by several editors at this point precisely because it's introducing an inaccuracy. If you want to include prose that explains (with reliable sources) why they call it Tejas with proper contextualization that would be one thing, but it is quite another to misspell Texas in a list of states simply because the political party calls itself Tejas Pirates. I'm not sure how to address the Chicagoland entry and if that would be better as a subset of Illinois, but that's a separate issue. - Aoidh (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a a misspelling but is the Spanish language spelling of Texas. The Texas state chapter was founded out of the Rio Grande Valley area, and the members chose to name themselves "Tejas". This is a chart not showing states, but state parties. The Chicagoland issue directly correlates because this is based on the map found on the US Pirates website, which you can find in the previously posted link. It would be inaccurate to call the state "Texas" in the list when the list is, again, showing state parties and not simply listing states. The name should remain "Tejas" since it is the most correct when citing their website and map of state parties. MonSocMan (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a chart not showing states, but state parties the table itself lists parties by state (or more accurately by location). The Pirate Party of Oklahoma for example is not simply called "Oklahoma", but the state it is located in is called Oklahoma, which is why in the "State" column it simply lists "Oklahoma". The party for Texas may be called Tejas Pirates, but that does not make their location Tejas. It is inaccurate to misspell the State of Texas on the table because that column is not the names of parties but where they are located, and while I am aware of the Spanish-language usage of the word Tejas (which even the Spanish Wikipedia article about Texas lists as merely an alternative sometimes used) in the English language the English-language name for locations are used. As I said, prose could perhaps explain (with reliable sources) that they are called Tejas Pirates and why, but it is inaccurate to characterize them as being located in Tejas rather than Texas. - Aoidh (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh@MonSocMan Also, isn't Texas referred to both colloquially and legally as Texas? Shouldn't WP:COMMONNAME apply? I get that has little to do with the disagreement, which is what "state" refers to, in which case I agree with @Aoidh. Cheers! UnexpectedSmoreInquisition aka USI (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Pirate_Party&oldid=1210799971"