Talk:Republican Liberty Caucus

message: Updating RLC Wiki Entry
We will occasionally be making updates and corrections to the Wiki entry for the Republican Liberty Caucus. Please leave a note here before making revisions.
Westmiller 04:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old comments

message: The article Appears to have been written by a member RLC or to have been copied from an RLC publication or website. It needs to be rewritten so it describes the RLC and it's view in a more NPOV manor and in an encyclopedic tone. Also, the article should have an intro paragraph before the table of contents as with other Wikipedia articles.
--Cab88 01:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this motion. Anyone have the time? Njerseyguy 15:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A month and a week later, it still reads like it was pulled straight off the RLC website, and contains a fair amount of unencyclopedic content, as well as the tone issues cited above. Tagged for rewrite. MrZaiustalk 20:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov, style, and format issues 

message: There are links to two individual RLC state committees. Rather than encourage them, I've bumped them, posting the link to the RLC page with all 51 committees. Granted, it is easy enough to find from the main page (listed), that I'm guessing even that should be superfluous. If anyone else wants to chuck the state listing, please do. samwaltz 22:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State committees

message: I've significantly changed the article. You can see my changes here.  The problem was of course the fact that the entire article sounded like it came strait from the website of this political organization. The article was tagged for months now and it was about time something was done about it.--Jersey Devil 00:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. Could still use some review for tone, but it's a lot better than it was. Tagged with refimprove to remind me to fix the malformatted inline links, but if anyone wants to beat me to it (Template:Citeweb&&Template:Reflist=good), go right ahead. Also, restored See Also - The only link is a redlink, but I can't see any cause to believe it unreasonable to expect its creation, and thus it seems warranted under the redlink caveat in the manual of style. MrZaiustalk 01:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that article which was red linked has been deleted several times so I removed the see also section. By all means though if there are relevant articles to link in a see also section feel free to recreate it with such links.--Jersey Devil 03:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair 'nuff MrZaiustalk 05:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Hi Everyone :)
I have a college project to improve Wikipedia pages and was wondering if I could add the RLC's official Statement of Principles to the page. As a Caucus member, I thought if I could add the Caucus'officially agreed upon principles to its page it might give individuals a better idea about what the RLC stands for and represents. Please let me know if anyone has any major objections As I wrote earlier, this is for a college project. Thanks and take care.
Rpchristiano 01:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding The Statement of Principles. [[User:Rpchristiano|Rpchristiano]] 01:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC) 

message: Hi Everyone :)
I am a college student and a member of the caucus. I had a project that I wrote to all of you about several months ago (the direct posting above this one) that I had to edit Wikipedia pages for a course project. I added the following sections:RLC Principles. Government Powers, Bill of Rights, Government Reforms, National Defense, Abortion. Everything sourced properly from RLC Official Statement of Principles and Positions. If everyone could just hold off until the 18th of December (this month :) before you edit my sections so that my Professor has a chance to evaluate it, I would very much appreciate it. Thanks again, everyone, and Take Care :) Rpchristiano (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added RLC Principles. Government Powers, Bill of Rights, Government Reforms, National Defense, Abortion. Everything sourced properly from RLC Official Statement of Principles and Positions. [[User:Rpchristiano|Rpchristiano]] ([[User talk:Rpchristiano|talk]]) 09:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) 

message: The strategy section is ridiculous as it currently stands. It talks about "the best strategy" etc... "Best" is a POV term and Wikipedia does not allow POV. Suggest this article needs a major rewrite. JettaMann (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy Section 

message: I'm not quite ready to remove the tag. But in fairness did a quick news archive search which does show some WP:RS about this group. But I don't have energy to improve article. So improve quick if you want to keep it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that it needs to be deleted, but there isn't a single secondary source in the whole article. There's one blog ref (probably allowable for its limited use), one primary source, one video link that I haven't watched yet, and the rest of the article is all sourced to the RLC websites. Rather than deleting it I'd suggest stubbing it down to a few paragraphs. We're not here just to reprint material from the RLC. As it stands, the article violates NPOV by only giving one viewpoint.   Will Beback  talk   18:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this article be deleted?

message: Please read that policy page. Organizational members, people endorsed by BLP can be sourced from the RLC web page. People mentioned in historical references from the RLC web page usually OK unless it is at all controversial or negative - or they don't want it known that they were associated and you don't have a third party source to prove it. But third party sources always best when and if you can find any. Other unsourced material, which he article abounds in, also can be removed so there wouldn't be much left. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't name names without sourcing per [[WP:BLP]]

message: Particularly in the section "Projects"... there is a frequent use of the word "we" without any quotes, as well as words like "pro-liberty" and "pro-freedom." magicOgre (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: Why are we listing all of the members, endorsed candidates, etc? That information is on the RLC's website, and we can simply link to it. We're not here just to reproduce their listings.   Will Beback  talk   19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing no response, I'm going to delete the lists.   Will Beback  talk   17:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Long lists

message: I removed this claim from the lead because it's a POV statement which requires sourcing and possibly attribution.   Will Beback  talk   21:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding "member-run". I took a look at the bylaws, which are posted online. It specifies that the leadership is elected biannually at a convention of all regular members. That is significantly different from many political committees which are run by self-perpetuating boards. While "member-run" is more than we can say based on those bylaws, I think we can find references to the conventions and thus indicate the general governance structure.   Will Beback  talk   23:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "grassroots, member-run"

message: Can photos related to the organization (leadership or photos of endorsed candidates) be requested of the organization and / or the endorsed candidates in order to post here? Where do we find those resources?--Libertyconsulting (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many individual politician biographies have photos. Photos belonging to the RLC may be released by them under a free license (which has to include possible commercial use). For more info, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Keep in mind that extensive use of photos is controversial. In this case, it's not clear what a bunch of photos of people who are not members of the RLC would add to the article. OTOH, articles like United States presidential election, 2000 typically include portraits. My advice it to see what articles on similar groups which make endorsements do. My impression is that most do not include photos of the endorsed candidates.   Will Beback  talk   21:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Photos