Talk:California Republican Party

message: The article makes it seem that all of California's Republicans are from the Conservative Wing. What makes this questionable is the fact that the Governor is a Moderate Republican. Why not add a column to the list which shows which wing the individual politicians represent. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing the more left side of the GOP we haven't took notice, except FOX News, BET and Telemundo had heavily reported on California has a double personality when it came to politics, morality and social liberalism throughout the state's history. The majority of California Republicans don't share the same brand of social conservatism than the other conservatives in states of the Midwest, interior West and deep South. The state is said to been the origin of neo-conservative Republican ethos by the likes of native-born GOP members like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Earl Warren and now the "Governator" (self-explanatory) with ties to the Hollywood Left, San Francisco and the Kennedy-Shriver connection through his Democrat wife Maria Shriver. + Mike D 26 (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  California Republicans are more moderate or progressive? 

message: I've removed the section on the party platform; it had large sections taken unmodified from the party website.  In any case this is not a good way to address the platform of a state party; please take a look at Talk:Kansas Republican Party for a discussion of this issue and an example of a better way to present the information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed material taken from party website 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on California Republican Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120610075838/http://www.sandiegorepublicans.org/files/RPSDCBylaws2011-2012.pdf to http://www.sandiegorepublicans.org/files/RPSDCBylaws2011-2012.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Google has apologized to Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, for spreading vandalism of this Wikipedia page in its search results. IP 67.180.161.149 vandalized the page at 05:52, 24 May 2018. It remained online for an appalling 6½ days until finally reverted by IP 38.75.52.47 at 21:14, 30 May 2018. It's alarming that Wikipedia's automated processes failed to catch and correct this glaringly obvious libel smear. KalHolmann (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism was caught LITTERALLY within a minute. Look at the revision history. This means that it was most likely the vandal themself who took the screenshot and posted it to online sources. False flag rallying? 96.28.121.222 (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the page was repeatedly vandalized, please specify which vandalism you mean was caught within a minute. We use diffs to precisely identify edits in question. KalHolmann (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Literally everyone of them, from the "Facism" edits to the "Authoritarian" edits; were caught between 1-2 minutes going back weeks.. 96.28.121.222 (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But why are you overlooking the "Nazism" edit that did real damage? As I indicated in opening this thread, IP 67.180.161.149 vandalized the page at 05:52, 24 May 2018. It was reverted at 21:14, 30 May 2018. That's the vandalism from which Google extracted metadata for its knowledge panel, and it remained online for a week. KalHolmann (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

text: six and a half days doesn't seem that astonishing to me given that the article typically gets less than 200 page views per day (maybe less when elections aren't looming). Not saying that justifies it, of course, just saying that low-traffic pages probably hide a lot of ickiness (because no one is looking). - Scarpy (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What surprises me is 6½ days online despite the keyword "Nazism." Doesn't Wikipedia use filters & bots or whatever to catch obvious vandalism? If adding "Nazism" to the Infobox of a major political party in our nation's most populous state—regardless of how few page views it gets—does not set off alarms at Wikipedia, something is very wrong. KalHolmann (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: We do, it's called the WP:Edit filter. This is another reason why I think putting a band-aid on the problem with 50 million s and s (used for workplace, public terminal, etc. blocks) is asinine. For one thing, it's easier to monitor a problematic school or corporate range, snipe the nonsense missed by the Wikipedia:RC patrols, and report patterns of garbage to the network administrator than to monitor a sea of edits from cable/DSL/cellular ranges, and for another thing, improving the automated mechanisms we have to stop vandalism will stop more nonsense and affect less good faith contributors. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 03:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

text: This edit, which is the one that remained up for nearly a week, used a piped link, with "Nazism" in the link but "Conservatism" in the text.  Anyone looking at the page would see "Conservatism" and not suspect anything was wrong unless they happened to hover the mouse over the link, or follow it.  -- 209.150.231.38 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of a piped link worries me most; I was under the impression that Google did not use piped links from Wikipedia when forming search results. If they are, then the potential for abuse is huge given the number of infoboxes on Wikipedia. It also discourages me that no editor watching this article saw that the IP clearly added "Nazism" in any form to the article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: 209.150.231.38, you are correct. I appreciate the explanation. I've been editing Wikipedia for almost a year, and have never seen a piped link used to deceive this way. It suggests the vandal was targeting Google, not Wikipedia, all along. Why else make an edit that Wikipedia readers cannot see? KalHolmann (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google apologizes for spreading Wikipedia vandalism 

message: Add Section "Controversy"
In May 2018 it was reported that Google had been returning results in their search of the CA Republican Party that listed "Nazism" as one of their ideologies. Although treated as a controversy, it is true that the a Nazi was chosen by the voters of the party to represent them. Running as a Senate Candidate in November 2018 is Patrick Little, who has called to create a United States “free from Jews,” has enjoyed a surge of popularity. His platform includes his Campaign Slogan: "Liberate the US from the Jewish Oligarchy" and he states "I want to crush manifestations of anti-White racism in US institutions".
The controversy is based in truth. Google did not report anything inaccurate, and it is true that the California Republican Party did vote in their primary to include a Neo-Nazi as a Senate Candidate. 
Sources: 
https://qz.com/1294062/why-did-google-identify-california-republicans-as-believers-in-nazism/
https://littlerevolution.us/2018/01/21/platform/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Neo-Nazi-running-second-to-Feinstein-in-Senate-12886257.php
(and many others as needed)
Note:
Please add this section. If it is not added by the current editorial staff of this wiki, we will insure that it does get added as it is truthful and the controversy was created by the republican party itself! 71.231.59.132 (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: This is a good example of content that shouldn't be added per WP:NOTNEWS. There will not be long-term ramifications from this, just a quick opportunity for Kevin McCarthy and other California Republicans to go in front of cameras and act aggrieved. Also, your edit violates WP:NPOV (even though Patrick Little is a neo-Nazi and running as a Republican). The story has been included on the talk page towards the top using . – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018 

message: In regard to the recent controversy about Google listing Nazism as an ideology of the California Republican Party I have to ask: who determines what are the specific ideologies of political party?
Currently three ideologies are listed: conservatism, economic liberalism, and fiscal conservatism.
Is it up to the political party to determine what their ideologies are listed as on Wikipedia? 
108.252.124.176 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In view of ongoing copycat vandalism—such as this 6½ hours after page status was changed to semi-protected—I took the precaution of vacating the Infobox ideology parameter until WP:RS can be provided. KalHolmann (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

text: It is probably good practice to actually check with the CAGOP and see what they list as their ideologies.  Their platform is probably a reliable source. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me  17:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The California Republican Party platform does not mention ideology. Any attempt to construe their ideology from this primary source would violate WP:NOR. KalHolmann (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who determines what are the ideologies of the California Republican Party? 

message: Users have repeatedly edited the party color from blue to red to blue to red, etc.  Does anyone know what color was adopted by the party as its color and not just the anecdotal "Republicans are Red, Democrats are Blue" mantra that has existed in the US since roughly the year 2000?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinceFerrer (talk • contribs) 15:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party Color 

message: Someone reverted the edit so that Ideologies is now included again - I am removing this section. Whoever reverted the edit, please contribute to the talk section of this page to discuss why you felt that it should be included and cite your sources.
California Republican Party is a center-right party in California, its ideology include economic liberalism, though many of them have social liberal ideology, compare to social conservatism in mainstream national Republican Party.Paul Lincoln (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted Ideology edits 

message: https://calwatchdog.com/2014/03/11/ca-republicans-seek-return-to-reagan-blue/
The California Republican Party is not the U.S. Republican Party. Since its 2014 convention the party has used a green and blue scheme, though as can be seen on the party's website it tends towards using blue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.173.20 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party color field