Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 4

message: In the Separation of Powers and Federalism section it said that Republicans believe making laws is the responsibility of the "legislative and executive." I deleted the executive part on account that it isn't true. The Republican Party knows that the executive branch's role is and should be limited to the enforcing the law, not making it. If you want to get into semantics; with a party consisting of millions of registered members, so of course there are going to be a few who are ignorant of the Constitution's separation of powers and/or think the President should be allowed to make laws. But the overwhelming majority, (probably 99-99.9%) are staunch federalists.   72.195.159.155 06:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote it that way, because the President has the power to veto laws, and in practice, is involved in the legislative process. (And part of the executive, the Vice-President, occasionally gets to vote in the Senate.) But I'm not going to bother changing it back - neither way is wrong, just different perspectives. Argyriou (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should this be updated to include something about signing statements? Ryan 21:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separation of Powers and Federalism 

message: I wonder about the neutrality of the statement "Republicans strongly supported the welfare reform of 1996, which limited eligibility for welfare and led to many former welfare recipients finding jobs." Is there a reference that can back this statement?  Otherwise it sounds biased to me and would need to be revised. Tigeriz 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are tons of references. I've added one to the text. Argyriou (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic policies neutral?

message: First of all, all apologies for the way that I'm editing this page. I feel like a bull in a china shop. Secondly, I'm just completely shocked that the founding of the GOP is conspicuously absent from this article. Exactly who were the founders of the GOP? Finally, I have this suspicion that the original GOP was a) the original liberal party of the United States by being anti-slavery, and b) inspired by, and actually taking their "Republican" name from the revolutionary French Republic.Dlittrell 11:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founders & Founding 

message: "GOP" used to stand for "Government of the People". 67.41.213.180 14:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Their website maintains and my political science teacher maintains it's Grand Old Party (actually Grand Ol' Party to be technical). Should stay as is. Novaprospekt 20:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the term GOP is widely accepted by the style manuals for newspapers and magazines. Thus the Associated Press Stylebook (2003) p. 108 says "GOP is acceptable as a second-reference synonym for Republican Party." Rjensen 22:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the stylebook relevant?  It may be accepted practice among mainstream media, but mainstream media is not necessarily the best example to follow. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3533643957232437789&hl=en 64.229.30.2 04:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: G Of The P

message: European political parties are different from American Political parties. European political parties are programmatic, American Parties (at least the Dems and GOP) are pragmatic, they believe what gets them the most votes.    -Mike Reason
:That's interesting...without "winner takes all" there is less pressure to reach out to wider voter base?Triggtay 09:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Once and for all, American political parties are not programmatic 

message: This article gets the most random vandalism from random, non-logged in users of any page in my watchlist.  I'm sure this debate has come up before, but would trying to put this on semi-protected status make sense?  It seems to me that the loss would be quite minimall, and it would potentially save a lot of people time by not having to check changes and revert.  (The Democratic Party page is protected....)  Is there a reason this page isn't semi-protected? Mgunn 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I put in a request for the admins to semi-protect it... very frustrating trying to do a project at school and see crap like Waldo as the Senate Leader and Howard Stern as the chairman. People need to grow up. Novaprospekt 20:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected status? 

message: While parts are interesting, this section is largely speculative.  It is impossible to make this section NPOV or even modestly based on fact because the future has not yet happened and is inherently unpredictable.  In my opinion, "Future Trends" should be left to the pundits and should not appear in an encyclopedia.  I know people put work into this section, but I think the case is strong for lifting it out.  Reactions?  Agreement?  Any strong objections? Mgunn 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: keep. The section does NOT make any predictions. It describes the predictions made by prominent analysts and how they arrived at them. It is indeed encyclopedic as it stands. Rjensen 08:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eliminate Future Trends Section? 

message: who put there leader as howward stern and waldo
:Some moron did apparently. I reverted edits and got an admin to protect the page. Novaprospekt 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Just letting people know that an article called References regarding the United States Republican Party is floating in Wikipedia nowhereland. It's orphaned, as of 2 minutes ago was uncategorized and is not particularly useful. It was spun-off the current article 10 months ago. Probably someone here will know how to deal with it. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 15:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of references floating out there 

message: The Republican Party is a center-right party, by American and world standards, being much less "right-wing" than many fringe parties in North America and Europe, and much less interested in promoting a plutocracy or other undemocratic forms of government than many governing parties around the world. 
Further, it has been the consensus of editors to this page, at least those without their own POV axes to grind, that the party description box should read "center-right", not "far right". Argyriou (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of splitting hairs let's call it "right wing". A key characteristic of american politics is that due too the two party system, members of the major parties ascribe to a wide spectrum of political beliefs--Republicans may be center-right, far-right, up/down right, whatever. Triggtay 05:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Center-right seems fine to me. It is neither liberal nor conservative, though it tends more toward conservativism. Comparing it internationally is in some ways inappropriate. The United States is (obviously) different from European, Asian, and African countries. The politics of the U.S. Republican Party make the most sense in direct reference to the circumstances of the United States, historically, culturally, and economically. For instance, gun control is an issue in the United States because of the laws and history regarding gun ownership here. In much of Europe, gun control isn't even a political issue. How can they be compared on similar issues when the circumstances are what drive the politics? Rkevins 20:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  center-right versus far-right 

message: While on the subject, what are people's thoughts on the word ideology being used interchangeably with a party's particular place on the political spectrum? A while ago "Discuss whether Centrism deserves to be in the 'Ideology' section," was added to the To-do list on the talk page of the Democratic Party article and it's probably a legit topic of discussion on improving any political party article. Settler 06:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, no. Ideology has a meaning, and that is not it. Whether any political party in a democracy is well enough defined to have one ideology is another question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, currently it is being used that way on political party infoboxes. It's somewhat irked me since I've been here but it was never a priority to do anything about it. Certainly not without first soliciting the opinions of others in advance. Settler 07:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we really want is to change the word ideology to match the entry, rather than trying to describe the Republicans in an info-box. Alignment? Position? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On ideology and political spectrum 

message: I changed "unenthusiastic about gay rights" to "hostile to gay rights." The GOP in platform and floor votes has opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, adoption by gay couples, gay marriage and the inclusion of "sexual orientation" to federal hate crimes laws. Rhetorically, GOP leaders have ranged from veiled "family values" appeals to comparing gay people to kleptomaniacs, alcoholics, and pedophiles. Given these facts, "unenthusiastic" is euphemistic, even deceptive. MJFiorello 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voter base 

message: I do not apreciate a life size pic of bush staring at me when i click a link, i tried to revert it but its still there Joevsimp 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: I need help deciding which links to remove among the section that I named  "Other" a while back. Which are important parts of the Republican Party's organization and which are not?
* Grand Order of Pachyderm Clubs
* National Black Republican Association
* National Federation of Republican Assemblies
* Republican Main Street Partnership
* National Federation of Republican Women
* Republican Liberty Caucus
* Republicans for Choice
* Republican Issues Campaign
* Republican Leadership Coalition
* Republicans for Environmental Protection
* GOPinion, conservative news from around the web
* Young Republican National Federation
We should be keeping official external links and not have the article act as a directory for groups and websites not mentioned within the context of the article or are not really important. Wikipedia:External links Settler 06:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links

message: Crane (2004)
Who's the author?  Fephisto 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the references section: "Crane, Michael. The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics (2004)" Settler 03:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Citation 

message: This article needs a very brief historical/ideological summary in the lead based on the article's contents. I've attempted on several occasions to write one but it comes out rather unsatisfactory, so I'd like someone else to make an attempt.  I still might eventually finish writing one that's good enough but I can't guarantee it. Settler 00:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article intro 

message: Wikipedia needs to clarify why the three stars on the GOP logo have been inverted. We need to address this in the proper area of Wikipedia. Those who choose to remove facts and details due to their ignorance and or political bias are ignorant.
The three stars on the GOP logo are inverted five-pointed stars recently rotated to be pointing down for reasons yet to be determined some year in the beginning of the 21st century, rather than the position shown on the American Flag. If the colinear edges of the inverted five-pointed stars are joined together a pentagram is produced, a symbol of mystical and magical significance. A probable reason for the change is due to the influence of The Star and Crescent of Kappa Sigma. ΚΣ (Kappa Sigma) is an international fraternity that has produced many alumni, including four senators, eight congressmen, seven governors, and a deputy prime minister.Flsaisalie 02:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide attribution in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines if it's being challenged. I have no opinion on the matter yet. Settler 16:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that this is all speculative, original research, and in many ways violates WP:BLP (by inferring that certain Republicans have some kind of satanic or other ties). --Ali'i 17:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh... what? Wikipedia isn't for guessing at the reason for things. Unless you can provide an actual source, it fails to merit inclusion. "One can go elsewhere to find a speculative reason." Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not the place for original research.  Wikipedia is not the sole place where people should go to find the reason.  If it is the sole place this information turns up, that's a big problem and it fails to meet the guidelines. Settler 17:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I've run my own little searches, and found no reliable sources that link the Republican logo with Kappa Sigma or any invented pentagram theory. I eagerly await your results. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In the meantime people should read up on Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, and other related guidelines.  It's particularly at its most importance in debates on information that may be regarded as controversial by some people. Settler 17:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols and name 

message: Apparently, someone has changed the political position in the infobox to "right-wing/far-right". While there is definitely a very right-wing faction of the Republican Party, I think that generalizing the entire party's political position as "far-right" is rather inaccurate, not to mention non-NPOV. I'm no Republican myself, but wouldn't just "Right-wing" be a better categorization?
I can see that this has been brought up before on this discussion page, too, but it doesn't seem like anything was decided. ObeliskBJM 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been some discussion on the talk page of Democratic Party (United States), and editors there seem to have reached a consensus that the Democratic Party is centrist, rather than centre-left. With that shift, I am wondering if this party should be shifted to simply "right." I am not completely convinced that it should, as the party is rather diverse. The Republican Party of Bush is pretty firmly "right," while that of others such as Guiliani is more like centre-right. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 07:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true, I have contributed significantly to the discussion on that talk page and there is no consensus about the Democratic Party being labeled "centrist".--Jersey Devil 11:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I did not see the above discussion. Perhaps we could add "right" to the list, also keeping "centre-right?" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cielomobile (talk • contribs) 18:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would personally agree with Cielomobile about the Democrats' political centrism, though I understand that there exists an opposing view as well. Since the Republican Party covers such a broad political spectrum, though, I think that identifying it as both "center-right" and "right-wing" is a good compromise. The Democratic Party page does something similar, after all, identifying the party's position as both "centrist" and "center-left". 20:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Far-right'

message: Intro: "The current President of the United States (2001-present), George W. Bush, is the leader of this party."
I don't believe either the Democrats or the Republicans have an official leader, do they? An unofficial leader perhaps (e.g. Speaker of the House of Representatives, President) and a Chairman, but not a leader as such. Correct me if I'm wrong. Dr Gangrene 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leader 

message: Please help us with the Global warming article. there is currently a small number of editors who are continually refusing to allow any dissenting views. thanks. --Sm8900 13:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: help with [[Global warming]] article

message: Since I may be up against the Wikipedia:3RR, other editors should remove the (as currently written) blatant non-sourced advertising paragraph and undue weight given to a name without a Wiki biography (phew!) from the 2008 nomination section that two accounts are inserting.  Thank you. Settler 00:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional original research 

message: The lead-in section for this article seems odd compared to other political party articles. It consists only of a 'victory brag' about presidential victories, while giving minimal coverage of the current state of the party, and a rather erroneous statement that the President is the leader of the party (technically, the head of the RNC is the head of the party; The President is simply the highest ranking public official in the party's ranks.)
Other party descriptions - see Democratic Party (United States) and Conservative Party (UK) for  examples -  describe the party, leave leadership issues to the infobox or a later part of the article, briefly describe the party's current status (again, handled it detail later in the article) and then gives a brief overview of the party's historical foundations. Which seems a much more informative way of going about it.
I propose rewriting the leading section to match this model, introducing the Republican Party, describing its current position in federal and state government, and having an brief overview of the party's evolution from the Party of Lincoln into the pro-business party that emerged in the 1920s and further into its current iteration.--Primal Chaos 03:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a good idea to me. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking the scope of the leading paragraph