Talk:List of Libertarian Party Caucuses

Recommended Criteria for Definition of Caucus

1. Identify as Caucus
2. Maintain an active website and/or social page (last activity within the current year)
3. Support the Libertarian Party (capital 'L', cannot be explicitly anti Libertarian)

-- 04:22, 14 May 2017? Eric.mulder

Numbers 1 and 3 make sense -- the Crane Machine, for example, would belong in a different category, and current factions are a dangerous thing to document here, especially when they're not operating openly and actively exert influence and would take a dim view of being documented here.

Number 2 doesn't work. Many older and especially historical caucuses have never had these things. Some operate off of old school mailing lists. Many are organized online in places we're not going to notice. Also in the past year doesn't work by definition of this is LPedia: caucuses that were organized in the past are absolutely the point here -- the present is only a secondary consideration.

In many cases documentation is sketchy -- this is cause to pursue more information, not to drop what little we know into a memory hole. -- Strangelv (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2017 (CDT)

Also remember that the original purpose of this was as a bootstrap list. Its primary purpose is to have links to things we need to document, not be tidy in any sense of the term. Tidy it up pdysically, but if you're wanting a list of caucuses with high quality information, then it would need to be separate from the page that exists to facilitate original historical research. LPedia is not Wikipedia -- Strangelv (talk) 10:16, 26 August 2017 (CDT)

Groups listed here that are determined to not be caucuses should be moved to a more appropriate location, not simply removed from documentation. -- Strangelv (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2017 (CDT)

I think the idea of lists has grown beyond bootstrap lists though. I think on the list we should have active, inactive, and disbanded. So #2 would be to be listed as active. ! and 3 would be to be listed at all.CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2017 (CDT)

Suppose this doesn't become an obstacle for identifying caucuses and collecting enough information about them to start articles. How do we keep having the list broken down by current activity levels from becoming a maintenance headache, terribly out of date, or both? As it becomes longer and longer, how do we reduce the risk of the same caucus getting listed multiple times because the contributor adding it to active couldn't find that it was listed as having disbanded? -- Strangelv (talk) 10:27, 27 August 2017 (CDT)

A group is a caucus of LP if at different times it makes an attempt to influence policy, especially at the state or national level. However, we should divide it into Existing and Historical groups, based on activities at relevant group links or reference links. And remove any group that has no credible reference link to the fact that it has ever existed. Anyone can start a FB group with 20 likes and call it a caucus, so let's not encourage them if they are a one person show.

Since I've been in LP for 38 years and am familiar with a lot of these, I boldly will do so next time I take an interest in this list. And I'll list the ones I think are pretty much un-defendable here, in case people want to do some research and re-add them.

Also I might have made a few formatting or consistency boo boos today and will clean them up tomorrow. LP-1979 (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2017 (CDT)