Talk:Libertarian Party of Arizona Affiliate Controversy 1995-2000

It may be in order to refer to the nationally recognized entity "the affiliate" and the State recognized entity "the party". One is a creature of the state and one is a charter of the LNC. The LNC had full rights to recognize and affiliate whomever they wish, however they did not have the authority to destroy the other entity.

This article is not a debate page. It is about what happened. Please stop importing your judgment on what should have happened into the factual history of what in fact happened. This is a record of claims and official decisions of the party whether you agree with them or not. Feel free to say "some members think that" in an editorial section (particularly if you can link to historical support for that - or some outside retrospective opinion discussed elsewhere). I will be linking opposition views at the time which are relevant to the history. The LNC makes those determinations. The Party does not use those terms you suggest, and the LNC then and now categorically disagree. A future LNC may not and may make contrary decisions and that will be relevant on whatever page is about those events. This decision was in fact made by the LNC and the fact of that history has no relevance as to whether you or I agree or not. CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2023 (CDT)

The disputed material tag was added:

Disputed/Controversial Material This page (Libertarian Party of Arizona Affiliate Controversy 1995-2000) may contain disputed or controversial material because there are strong and differing opinions on some aspect of this topic. LPedia is an archive and takes no sides. The main article on a topic should focus on undisputed facts. Material that represents subjective opinions should be presented as such by one of the following methods: reference to another document that has a clearly identified author or source, a footnote that identifies the source along with the opinion, a brief summary in the main text of the nature of the dispute and the positions of each side. Authors should refrain from language that shows bias, e.g., praise of one side or slurs against another. Extended presentations of a particular viewpoint are best provided as separate documents or articles labeled as such; this allows readers to make their own judgments and arrive at their own conclusions. Thank you for respecting the purpose of LPedia. For more information see LPedia:Disputed or Controversial Material.