Talk:Modern Whig Party

sorry about the stub I just wrote what I knew I intend to expand it at a later date.^{— Unsigned, by: Orderbel / talk / contribs}

INSANE?

How are they insane? Someone edited the article to imply ther were in some way insane and I'd like to know how they are insane.^{— Unsigned, by: 96.42.214.127 / talk / contribs}

Will you people please sign your posts? And if I got you two backwards, well, you deserve it for not signing. ħuman 05:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How do I sign--do I do this? Oderbel?

Four tildes. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Or click the signature button in the toolbar above the edit box. Based on what is written here I don't really see why they should be classified as insane. Is there other stuff that should be included?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I am a charter member of the modern Whigs and I edited the entry to be more accurate, but not overly "puffy". Insanity, btw, is re-electing the same folks and expecting a different result, so......? Although thinking we can change the landscape permanently may be insane! ^{— Unsigned, by: 64.80.43.83 / talk / contribs}

BoN edits

loof like a puff piece but hesitent to completly revert (insufficent caffiene). Thoughts? ^{an iron, yet caring fist} 20:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Beware whitewashing

Hmm...

From this post on the Modern Whig website - they are going to monitor this entry "continuously" and edit unilaterally. It's certainly been amended to look like the most appalling puff piece as it stands at the moment. As far as I am concerned it seems to grant far more importance than is appropriate to a party whose political successes are limited to one judge of elections in a contest where the Whig candidate won 36 to 24. Whoop-di-doo. I'm sure the two main parties are quaking in their boots.

I'm not sure we even need a page on this mob. Cloud Yeller (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for deleting this. Almost zero real world impact at this point and I can't quite seem to see why it would missional even if it did. --Marlow (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The page where they were doing that appears to have been removed, along with many other changes to their site. We also have plenty of pages on small, obscure political parties, from the Falconist Party to a laundry list of minor sectarian communist parties and splinter cults. I think the MWP is noteworthy as a US third party that isn't an extreme wingnut or moonbat party and has an explicitly pro-science platform. They've also completely revamped their platform since the time the above comments were written, so that may be worth reflecting as well. The One They Call Mars 10:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

How's about an update?

I'm thinking we should update this article to reflect changes within the Modern Whig Party and its platform since the last major revisions were made in 2014. Notably, it looks like the MWP has completely overhauled its platform, tossing out the vague platitudes and "punting to the states on truly hard questions" in favor of many progressive stances, including some that go beyond mainline Democratic proposals, and increased policy detail. There are also many original planks which may be of interest to us, including a proposal for the US to adopt approval voting, support for schools structuring their classrooms around a "science lab" model, borrowing ideas from the Ecomodernist movement, and more. The One They Call Mars 10:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)