Talk:Republican in name only: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 16:58, 9 September 2024

Vichy Republican was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 August 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Republican in name only. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Republican in name only article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Republican in name only. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Republican in name only at the Reference desk.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Deletion discussions:
Keep, 24 December 2007, see discussion. Keep, 18 September 2005, see discussion. Keep, 22 November 2004, see discussion.

On 1 September 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Republican in Name Only to Republican in name only. The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives

Archive 1

Proposed merge with Democrat In Name Only

There were half a dozen AfDs and 90% of the keep votes weren't based on any policy, and there was plenty of merge votes. This article does not go beyond a WP:DICDEF, and has not been expanded after half a dozen AfDs, and likely will never be expanded, even though some sources were alleged to have information (and I wonder if they have anything now that this article is still a two-sentence, unsourced stub). Therefore I propose that the article is merged. wumbolo ^^^ 20:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only (5th nomination), and it quickly became apparent that article is likely to stay. The many references cited seem to all be writers back-forming it from RINO, an obvious invention that's easy to imagine occurring repeatedly. The term lacks significance beyond WP:DICDEF; however, conservative editors push for parity with the RINO article.

In my opinion, DINO is not even worth merging into this article until it gets notable coverage as a term of interest, as RINO clearly has. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no credible uses of this word. No references exist. The only time anyone has used this article is in defense of the Republicans that have been called out on the use of the term RINO. They need a counterpart to even out the argument that the term RINO is an extremist term used by extreme right-wing Republicans. Without a counterpart, they would have to admit their extremism. With the term, they can appear to be "balanced". This page should simply be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.240.241 (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose makes more sense to keep both articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wanted to refer to the DINO article today, in reference to Southern conservative Democrats ("Dixiecrats"), "who increasingly supported Republican positions on many national issues," e.g. James Eastland's 1972 electoral detente with his personal friend Nixon (they did not endorse each other's opponents). It would have been... silly... not to find it. – _•Raven ^.talk 22:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial cartoon art again

File:Rinos.jpg

RINO: ‘Republicans In Name Only,’ the party’s hypocrites.

I'm still not a fan of the editorial cartoon art that some are creating for this article. I think they create an impression that RINO represents an organized group or an otherwise substantial faction of the GOP, when really this is a pejorative term that few seem to identify with.

The latest contribution in particular seems to create both an implicit narrative, and also the appearance of a section title that is unsupported by the article text (or sources). The caption ("the party’s hypocrites.") suggests this is part of a WP:POVPUSH that does not belong in the encyclopedia.

I am commenting on this before removing it because art like this has been repeatedly submitted. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hitlists

By now it's established the term RINO is used as a political invective to mobilize the conservative base, and every election season there will be punditry and blogs denouncing candidates with this term. Wikipedia should not be used as a force multiplier for coordinated political smear campaigns of this type. By now, literally hundreds of political figures have been called RINO (at least 20 having been added and removed from this article), so paragraphs like

Many Republicans have been called RINO, including <MY OPPONENTs>, <MY OPPONENTs>, <GUY I DON'T LIKE>, and <THIS SEASON'S WHIPPING BOY>.^{{{Blog source}}{{Alt-right source}}{{Out-of-contect source}}}

... are not noteable, and should be immediately removed per WP:BLP.

A well-sourced narrative demonstrating how this term has had a significant effect in a politician's career or campaign might be worth including. However, I think only in exceptional cases could such an exception be made without violating the policies Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

/ edg ☺ ☭ 16:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romney's name should be restored, because since McCain's death he is the poster boy for RINOs. He is among the most, if not THE most notorious, unabashed RINO and never Trumper. - JGabbard (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the Term "Cuckservative"

Is what a minority of a very select group of people's use of a phrase helpful for this article? I don't think giving apparent validity to that use is very helpful. Moseley3 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, "cuckservative" was a word in 1-3 areas of the country for a few months in 2015. It is not on par with any other phrase in this article. No one else heard it, as evidenced by this link--just try to find a word that registers at all that cuckservative was more popular than--in this link, at it's peak it hit "dinglehopper," before and after that month, it was completely unknown. --Mrcolj (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Honestly, I never heard of it until this post. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No true scotsman

Unsure if usable but a columnist does mention this is the no true scotsman fallacy.[1] —Paleo Neonate – 00:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Backronym

I disagree with this edit to the lead section, which is contradicted in the article body, and for some reason labelled a "linkfix".

The cited source says the term RINO might be a backronym, without further evidence. Meanwhile, the Origins section suggests the term Republican in name only is well-precedented.

Aside from being a questionable assertion, I don't think the backronym argument belongs in the lead section at all. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Greig's "No RINOs" button design

As the angle of the red slash on the buttons is wrong, these people behind that campaign can’t rank among the brightest. --91.47.29.50 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Undid my edit

@Edgarde: Why did you undo my edit ? -- Calvinsky (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question

This image has been removed repeatedly in the past. It is not suitable for an encyclopedia article because it is not informative. "RINO"'s are not an organized political group — it's really not a group at all, just a pejorative term — and including this image implies that some group of people organize beneath it the way other groups of people organize beneath elephants and donkeys. Aside from that, its placement in this article is promoting new art, which is not something an encyclopedia article should do.

It's a nice image, certainly decorative. It's a good thing to have available under free licensure. It just doesn't belong here. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edgarde: Johnj1995 undid my edit because the image hadn't been uploaded yet then. NOT because it was unsuitable. -- Calvinsky (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

previous discussion ← It has come up before.

Also, I have explained my reasons in my reply, and linked relevant Wikipedia guidelines. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuckservative literal vs metaphor

TheDoober (talk · contribs) has made this edit twice now, removing the racial component of the cuck metaphor and replacing it with a more literal definition of the cuckold fetish. This would make a lot of sense if this article were about the swinger's scene or something. However, sources seem to agree that as a political epithet, this term is at least originally about race.

Revised:

The metaphorical "cuck" is represented in a form of sexual behavior whereas the cuckolded man tolerates, allows, or encourages his female partner to engage in sexual acts with another man (known as a "bull") while the cuckolded man is either present to witness the act or generally aware of the act. ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] In white supremacist vernacular the term is an accusation of yielding to non-white interests on issues such as immigration or modern display of the Confederate flag;^[6]^[7] however, the term gained use (with some controversy)^[3]^[6]^[8] by more mainstream conservatives to denounce Republicans whose compromises included vote trading, rhetorical restraint in deference to donors, cooperation with Democrats on any particular initiative, or attempting to court voters by making appeals to supposedly liberal ideals.^[8]^[9]

The metaphorical "cuck" is represented in a genre of interracial pornography as a masochistic white husband who allows his wife to have sex with a stronger black man, thereby participating in his own symbolic emasculation.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] In white supremacist vernacular the term is an accusation of yielding to non-white interests on issues such as [...]

References

^ ^a ^b Kovacs, Kasla (14 February 2017). "What Is A Cuckservative? Alt-Right Insult Used By White Nationalists To Describe The Republican Establishment". Retrieved 16 February 2020. Cuckold pornography portrays a white man watching his wife have sex with another man — usually well-endowed, and usually black.
^ ^a ^b Nordlinger, Jay (19 February 2017). "What Is a Conservative?". National Review. Retrieved 16 February 2020. The idea is, white conservative men enjoy seeing their wives have sexual relations with dark-skinned men, for the purpose of making the country at large darker.
^ ^a ^b ^c Heer, Jeet (July 26, 2015). "Conservatives Are Holding a Conversation About Race". New Republic. Retrieved 2015-08-21.
^ ^a ^b Walsh, Joan (3 August 2015). "The GOP crack-up continues". Salon. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
^ ^a ^b Bernstein, Joseph (27 July 2015). "Behind The Racist Hashtag That Is Blowing Up Twitter". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference splcenter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Weigel, David (July 29, 2015). "'Cuckservative' – the conservative insult of the month, explained". The Washington Post.
^ ^a ^b Rappeport, Alan (August 13, 2015). "From the Right, a New Slur for G.O.P. Candidates". New York Times. Retrieved 2015-08-21. The radical nature of those ideas along with the pornographic connotations associated with "cuckold" have made the word a subject of hand-wringing among some conservative commentators.
^ Yuhas, Alan (August 13, 2015). "'Cuckservative': the internet's latest Republican insult hits where it hurts". The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-05-03. The insult's most general gist is conservatives accused of bowing to one non-conservative idea or another, eg immigration reform, should feel humiliated, their ideology adulterated.

I'm not reverting this twice. However, I think the racial component is supported by the many cited sources, and the previous text, aside from being more concise, gives a better description of where /pol/ posters were coming from, and for the visceral disgust that the far right wish to convey.

There have been other attempts to make this passage less distasteful; I think these have the effect of defending the term's use by pretending no one knows about the abovementioned entertainment media. For what it's worth, TheDoober is not objecting on taste, but because he considered the previous description as having a "political agenda". / edg ☺ ☭ 02:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Vichy Republican" Suggestion

Removing this before the article becomes an unsorted list of different flavors of Republican. The term Vichy Republican is not something conservative Republicans call moderate ones.

===Vichy Republican===

The term "Vichy Republican" was used in 2016 for members of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] who had chosen to abandon values traditionally espoused by the Republican Party and to instead support Donald Trump's candidacy, due to political expediency rather than genuine agreement with his beliefs or campaign.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://politicaledu.org/index.php/2016/12/30/vichy-republicans/|title=Vichy Republicans - PoliticalEdu|date=2016-12-30|work=PoliticalEdu|access-date=2018-04-07|language=en-US}}</ref> The term originates from [[Vichy France]], the French government which collaborated with the [[Axis powers|Axis Powers]] during the [[German military administration in occupied France during World War II|Occupation of France]] during [[World War II]].

Since it also appears to be a neologism that is not in wide use, I'm not confident it needs to be merged elsewhere, but I am listing it here in case someone finds a merge target. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Cheney

I'm not good at finding reliable sources. Just stating what I've witnessed. Should Liz Cheney be included? An example is she was on the Jan 6 committee which most Republicans are super against. If so, maybe someone can find a good source? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Oppose views do not cite any policy or guidelines. At this time there is not sufficient evidence that RINO is a more common name than "Republican in name only" and no one provided evidence that this is a proper noun and thus needs to be capitalized. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republican in Name Only → Republican in name only – Use sentence case. This term is not a proper name, not a title, not a trademark, nor any other reason to be in title case. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Best not to have a page title, in sentence form. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using sentence case for page titles is, and always has been, WP:POLICY. See WP:NCCAPS and WP:TITLEFORMAT. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposal would also put this page out of sync, with Democrat in Name Only. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I assume that would also be fixed, since it's also about the same in sources. Thanks for noticing it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Looks like it's more often capitalized when spelled out in the sourcing since the acronym became more popular. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're looking at. In sentences (per WP:NCCAPS), it's almost always not capped. For defining the acronym, yes, it is commonly presented capped recently, but that's not what we go by. Per MOS:CAPS we look for "consistently capitalized" in sources to decide to capitalize in WP, and this is not nearly so. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The links above make it clear that Wikipedia does not capitalize just because some other sources do or because it is an acronym. Why would it be capitalized? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Garden variety unnecessary capitalization. Primergrey (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This phrase would only be capitalized to indicate significance or explain its abbreviation, which is not Wikipedia's style. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RINO , and if not, Oppose the suggested move. Per the n-grams. RINO has redirected here since 2005, is the common name, and the most familiar name in English for the term. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That n-gram doesn't give you much clue about how many of those RINO hits refer to Republicans in name only. Actually, since the RINO hits peak around 1960, that's a pretty good clue that they are mostly about something else, or were back then at least. Did you check books to see how many things RINO might refer to in recent decades? Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. What has RINO been referring to? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to tell. There are a lot of author first and last names Rino, sometimes set in all caps, but I'm not sure that's most of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious that since 1988 RINO is the common term when discussing the topic under advisement here. Since RINO correctly redirects to this page there should be no reader confusion in either direction. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, the term didn't appear in print with this meaning until 1992. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Ngrams are wildly inaccurate when common words are used and, when focusing on relevant sources, it appears to be pretty commonly uppercased to a level that we should keep consistent with. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Pretty commonly uppercased" is far short of what our guidance say to look for. Review the lead at MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:NCCAPS and WP:TITLEFORMAT. AusLondonder (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[IBTimes-1] Kovacs, Kasla (14 February 2017). "What Is A Cuckservative? Alt-Right Insult Used By White Nationalists To Describe The Republican Establishment". Retrieved 16 February 2020. Cuckold pornography portrays a white man watching his wife have sex with another man — usually well-endowed, and usually black.

[NatReviewCorner-2] Nordlinger, Jay (19 February 2017). "What Is a Conservative?". National Review. Retrieved 16 February 2020. The idea is, white conservative men enjoy seeing their wives have sexual relations with dark-skinned men, for the purpose of making the country at large darker.

[NewRepublic-3] Heer, Jeet (July 26, 2015). "Conservatives Are Holding a Conversation About Race". New Republic. Retrieved 2015-08-21.

[Crackup-4] Walsh, Joan (3 August 2015). "The GOP crack-up continues". Salon. Retrieved 18 November 2015.

[Behind_The_Racist_Hashtag_That_Is_Blowing_Up_Twitter-5] Bernstein, Joseph (27 July 2015). "Behind The Racist Hashtag That Is Blowing Up Twitter". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 18 November 2015.

[splcenter-6] Cite error: The named reference splcenter was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[WAPOcuck-7] Weigel, David (July 29, 2015). "'Cuckservative' – the conservative insult of the month, explained". The Washington Post.

[nytimes-8] Rappeport, Alan (August 13, 2015). "From the Right, a New Slur for G.O.P. Candidates". New York Times. Retrieved 2015-08-21. The radical nature of those ideas along with the pornographic connotations associated with "cuckold" have made the word a subject of hand-wringing among some conservative commentators.

[Guardian-9] Yuhas, Alan (August 13, 2015). "'Cuckservative': the internet's latest Republican insult hits where it hurts". The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-05-03. The insult's most general gist is conservatives accused of bowing to one non-conservative idea or another, eg immigration reform, should feel humiliated, their ideology adulterated.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{afd-merged-from|Vichy Republican|Vichy Republican|24 August 2022}}
 {{Talk header}}
-{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1=
+{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=Start|1=
-{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=Start|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
-{{WikiProject Politics|class=Start|importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject Politics|importance=low}}
-{{WikiProject United States|class=Start|importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject United States|importance=low}}
 }}
 {{Annual readership|days=120}}
@@ Line 9: / Line 10: @@
 {{Calm|#FFCCCC}}
 {{Controversial}}
-{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=ap|style=long}}
+{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap|style=long}}
 {{Not a forum}}
+{{Canvass warning|short=yes}}
-{{Recruiting}}
 {{Round in circles|search=no}}
 {{Old XfD multi
@@ Line 27: / Line 28: @@
 }}
+{{old move|date=1 September 2024|from=Republican in Name Only|destination=Republican in name only|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1244446335#Requested move 1 September 2024}}
 {{Archives}}
@@ Line 62: / Line 65: @@
 Is what a minority of a very select group of people's use of a phrase helpful for this article? I don't think giving apparent validity to that use is very helpful.
 [[User:Moseley3|Moseley3]] ([[User talk:Moseley3|talk]]) 20:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
+:Indeed, "cuckservative" was a word in 1-3 areas of the country for a few months in 2015.  It is not on par with any other phrase in this article.  No one else heard it, [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2014-01-02%202022-02-02&geo=US&q=cuckservative,dinglehopper as evidenced by this link]--just try to find a word that registers at all that cuckservative was more popular than--in this link, at it's peak it hit "dinglehopper," before and after that month, it was completely unknown.  --[[User:Mrcolj|Mrcolj]] ([[User talk:Mrcolj|talk]]) 17:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
+::Yeah. Honestly, I never heard of it until this post. [[User:GamerKlim9716|GamerKlim9716]] ([[User talk:GamerKlim9716|talk]]) 01:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 == No true scotsman ==
@@ Line 80: / Line 85: @@
 == Undid my edit ==
+: [[File:Logo RINO.svg|right]]
 {{Ping|Edgarde}} Why did you undo my edit ? -- [[User:Calvinsky|Calvinsky]] ([[User talk:Calvinsky|talk]]) 07:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
-: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republican_In_Name_Only&diff=prev&oldid=1014746328 The edit in question]
+: [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republican_in_Name_Only&diff=prev&oldid=1014746328 The edit in question]
+: {{See also|Talk:Republican in Name Only/Archive 1#image?|label1=previous discussion|MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE}}
-: [[File:Logo RINO.svg|File:Logo RINO.svg]]
-: {{See also|[[Talk:Republican_In_Name_Only/Archive_1#image?|previous discussion]]|[[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE]]}}
 : This image has been removed repeatedly in the past. It is not suitable for an encyclopedia article because it is not informative. "RINO"'s are not an organized political group &mdash; it's really not a group at all, just a pejorative term &mdash; and including this image implies that some group of people organize beneath it the way other groups of people organize beneath elephants and donkeys. Aside from that, its placement in this article is promoting new art, which is not something an encyclopedia article should do.
 : It's a nice image, certainly decorative. It's a good thing to have available under free licensure. It just doesn't belong here.  / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 16:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 ::{{Ping|Edgarde}} Johnj1995 undid my edit because the image hadn't been uploaded yet then. NOT because it was unsuitable. -- [[User:Calvinsky|Calvinsky]] ([[User talk:Calvinsky|talk]]) 19:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
+:::[[Talk:Republican in Name Only/Archive 1#image?|previous discussion]] ← It has come up before.
+:::<small>Also, I have explained my reasons in my reply, and linked relevant Wikipedia guidelines.</small> / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 19:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
+== Cuckservative literal ''vs'' metaphor ==
+{{User|TheDoober}} has made [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republican_In_Name_Only&oldid=prev&diff=1020595421 this edit] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republican_In_Name_Only&diff=prev&oldid=1004909695 twice] now, removing the racial component of the ''cuck'' metaphor and replacing it with a more literal definition of the cuckold fetish. This would make a lot of sense if this article were about the swinger's scene or something. However, sources seem to agree that as a political epithet, this term is at least originally about race.
+Revised:
+<blockquote>The metaphorical "{{dfn|1=cuck|title=short for &quot;cuckold&quot;}}" is represented in a [[Cuckold#Cuckoldry as a fetish|form of sexual behavior]] whereas the cuckolded man tolerates, allows, or encourages his female partner to engage in sexual acts with another man (known as a "bull") while the cuckolded man is either present to witness the act or generally aware of the act. <ref name="IBTimes">{{cite web|last=Kovacs |first=Kasla |title=What Is A Cuckservative? Alt-Right Insult Used By White Nationalists To Describe The Republican Establishment |date=14 February 2017 |url=https://www.ibtimes.com/what-cuckservative-alt-right-insult-used-white-nationalists-describe-republican-2491918 |quote=Cuckold pornography portrays a white man watching his wife have sex with another man — usually well-endowed, and usually black. |access-date=16 February 2020}}</ref><ref name="NatReviewCorner">{{cite web |last=Nordlinger |first=Jay |author-link=Jay Nordlinger |title=What Is a Conservative? |date=19 February 2017 |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-conservative-question-c-pac-and-milo-yiannopoulos/ |website=[[National Review]] |quote="The idea is, white conservative men enjoy seeing their wives have sexual relations with dark-skinned men, for the purpose of making the country at large darker." |access-date=16 February 2020}}</ref><ref name="NewRepublic">{{cite news |last=Heer |first=Jeet  |date=July 26, 2015 |title=Conservatives Are Holding a Conversation About Race |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/122372/conservatives-are-holding-conversation-about-race |newspaper=New Republic |access-date=2015-08-21}}</ref><ref name="Crackup">{{cite web|last1=Walsh|first1=Joan|author-link=Joan Walsh| title=The GOP crack-up continues|date=3 August 2015|url=http://www.salon.com/2015/08/03/the_gop_crack_up_continues_the_raging_civil_war_over_the_disgusting_%E2%80%9Ccuckservative%E2%80%9D_slur/|website=Salon|access-date=18 November 2015}}</ref><ref name="Behind The Racist Hashtag That Is Blowing Up Twitter">{{cite web|last1=Bernstein|first1=Joseph|title=Behind The Racist Hashtag That Is Blowing Up Twitter|date=27 July 2015 |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/behind-the-racist-hashtag-some-donald-trump-fans-love#.tfxNevKpWb|website=[[BuzzFeed]]|access-date=18 November 2015}}</ref> In [[White supremacy|white supremacist]] vernacular the term is an accusation of yielding to non-white interests on issues such as [[Immigration to the United States|immigration]] or [[modern display of the Confederate flag]];<ref name="splcenter" /><ref name="WAPOcuck">{{cite web |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/29/cuckservative-the-conservative-insult-of-the-month-explained/ |title='Cuckservative' – the conservative insult of the month, explained |last=Weigel |first=David |author-link=David Weigel |work=The Washington Post |date=July 29, 2015 }}</ref> however, the term gained use (with some controversy)<ref name="NewRepublic" /><ref name="splcenter" /><ref name="nytimes" /> by more mainstream conservatives to denounce Republicans whose compromises included [[vote trading]], rhetorical restraint in deference to donors, cooperation with Democrats on any particular initiative, or attempting to court voters by making appeals to supposedly liberal ideals.<ref name="nytimes">{{cite news |last=Rappeport |first=Alan |date=August 13, 2015 |title=From the Right, a New Slur for G.O.P. Candidates |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/us/from-the-right-a-new-slur-for-gop-candidates.html |newspaper=New York Times |access-date=2015-08-21 |quote=The radical nature of those ideas along with the pornographic connotations associated with "cuckold" have made the word a subject of hand-wringing among some conservative commentators.}}</ref><ref name="Guardian">{{cite news |last=Yuhas |first=Alan |date=August 13, 2015 |title='Cuckservative': the internet's latest Republican insult hits where it hurts |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/13/cuckservative-republicans-conservatives-jeb-bush |newspaper=The Guardian |quote=The insult's most general gist is conservatives accused of bowing to one non-conservative idea or another, ''eg'' immigration reform, should feel humiliated, their ideology adulterated. |access-date=2016-05-03}}</ref></blockquote>
+Previous:
+<blockquote>The metaphorical "{{dfn|1=cuck|title=short for &quot;cuckold&quot;}}" is represented in a [[Cuckold#Cuckoldry as a fetish|genre]] of [[Ethnic pornography#Interracial pornography|interracial pornography]] as a masochistic white husband who allows his wife to have sex with a stronger black man, thereby participating in his own symbolic emasculation.<ref name="IBTimes">{{cite web|last=Kovacs |first=Kasla |title=What Is A Cuckservative? Alt-Right Insult Used By White Nationalists To Describe The Republican Establishment |date=14 February 2017 |url=https://www.ibtimes.com/what-cuckservative-alt-right-insult-used-white-nationalists-describe-republican-2491918 |quote=Cuckold pornography portrays a white man watching his wife have sex with another man — usually well-endowed, and usually black. |access-date=16 February 2020}}</ref><ref name="NatReviewCorner">{{cite web |last=Nordlinger |first=Jay |author-link=Jay Nordlinger |title=What Is a Conservative? |date=19 February 2017 |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-conservative-question-c-pac-and-milo-yiannopoulos/ |website=[[National Review]] |quote="The idea is, white conservative men enjoy seeing their wives have sexual relations with dark-skinned men, for the purpose of making the country at large darker." |access-date=16 February 2020}}</ref><ref name="NewRepublic">{{cite news |last=Heer |first=Jeet  |date=July 26, 2015 |title=Conservatives Are Holding a Conversation About Race |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/122372/conservatives-are-holding-conversation-about-race |newspaper=New Republic |access-date=2015-08-21}}</ref><ref name="Crackup">{{cite web|last1=Walsh|first1=Joan|author-link=Joan Walsh| title=The GOP crack-up continues|date=3 August 2015|url=http://www.salon.com/2015/08/03/the_gop_crack_up_continues_the_raging_civil_war_over_the_disgusting_%E2%80%9Ccuckservative%E2%80%9D_slur/|website=Salon|access-date=18 November 2015}}</ref><ref name="Behind The Racist Hashtag That Is Blowing Up Twitter">{{cite web|last1=Bernstein|first1=Joseph|title=Behind The Racist Hashtag That Is Blowing Up Twitter|date=27 July 2015 |url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/behind-the-racist-hashtag-some-donald-trump-fans-love#.tfxNevKpWb|website=[[BuzzFeed]]|access-date=18 November 2015}}</ref> In [[White supremacy|white supremacist]] vernacular the term is an accusation of yielding to non-white interests on issues such as ''[...]''</blockquote>
+{{Reflist-talk}}
+I'm not reverting this twice. However, I think the racial component is supported by the many cited sources, and the previous text, aside from being more concise, gives a better description of where [[Pol/|/pol/]] posters were coming from, and for the visceral disgust that the far right wish to convey.
+There have been other attempts to make this passage less distasteful; I think these have the effect of defending the term's use by pretending no one knows about the abovementioned entertainment media. For what it's worth, TheDoober is not objecting on taste, but because he considered the previous description as having a "political agenda". / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 02:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
+== Removed "Vichy Republican" Suggestion ==
+[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Republican_in_Name_Only&diff=1107429433&oldid=1106813571 Removing this] before the article becomes an unsorted list of different flavors of Republican. The term ''Vichy Republican'' is not something conservative Republicans call moderate ones.
+<pre>===Vichy Republican===
+The term "Vichy Republican" was used in 2016 for members of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] who had chosen to abandon values traditionally espoused by the Republican Party and to instead support Donald Trump's candidacy, due to political expediency rather than genuine agreement with his beliefs or campaign.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://politicaledu.org/index.php/2016/12/30/vichy-republicans/|title=Vichy Republicans - PoliticalEdu|date=2016-12-30|work=PoliticalEdu|access-date=2018-04-07|language=en-US}}</ref> The term originates from [[Vichy France]], the French government which collaborated with the [[Axis powers|Axis Powers]] during the [[German military administration in occupied France during World War II|Occupation of France]] during [[World War II]].</pre>
+Since it also appears to be a [[WP:NEO|neologism]] that is not in wide use, I'm not confident it needs to be merged elsewhere, but I am listing it here in case someone finds a merge target. / [[User:Edgarde|edg]]<small> [[User_talk:Edgarde|☺]] [[Special:Contributions/Edgarde|☭]]</small> 00:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
+== Liz Cheney ==
+I'm not good at finding reliable sources. Just stating what I've witnessed. Should Liz Cheney be included? An example is she was on the Jan 6 committee which most Republicans are super against. If so, maybe someone can find a good source? [[User:GamerKlim9716|GamerKlim9716]] ([[User talk:GamerKlim9716|talk]]) 01:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
+== Requested move 1 September 2024 ==
+<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #efe); color: var(--color-base, #000); margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted var(--border-color-subtle, #AAAAAA);"><!-- Template:RM top -->
+:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color: var(--color-error, red);">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
+The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' Oppose views do not cite any policy or guidelines. At this time there is not sufficient evidence that RINO is a more common name than "Republican in name only" and no one provided evidence that this is a proper noun and thus needs to be capitalized. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> [[User:Bensci54|Bensci54]] ([[User talk:Bensci54|talk]]) 16:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
+----
+[[:Republican in Name Only]] → {{no redirect|Republican in name only}} – Use sentence case.  This term is not a proper name, not a title, not a trademark, nor any other reason to be in title case. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 15:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' - Best not to have a page title, in sentence form. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
+*:Using sentence case for page titles is, and always has been, [[WP:POLICY]].  See [[WP:NCCAPS]] and [[WP:TITLEFORMAT]]. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 16:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
+*::Your proposal would also put this page out of sync, with [[Democrat in Name Only]]. -- [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
+*:::Good point.  I assume that would also be fixed, since it's also about the same in sources.  Thanks for noticing it. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 03:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''' - Looks like it's more often capitalized when spelled out in the sourcing since the acronym became more popular. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
+*:Not sure what you're looking at.  In sentences (per [[WP:NCCAPS]]), it's [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=a+Republican+in+Name+Only&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&case_insensitive=true&corpus=en&smoothing=3 almost always ''not'' capped].  For defining the acronym, yes, it is [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Republican+in+Name+Only&year_start=1970&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=1&case_insensitive=true commonly presented capped recently], but that's not what we go by.  Per [[MOS:CAPS]] we look for "consistently capitalized" in sources to decide to capitalize in WP, and this is not nearly so. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 22:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Support''': The links above make it clear that Wikipedia does not capitalize just because some other sources do or because it is an acronym. Why would it be capitalized?&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike&nbsp;]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Support''' - Garden variety ''unnecessary capitalization''. [[User:Primergrey|Primergrey]] ([[User talk:Primergrey|talk]]) 06:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Support''' – This phrase would only be capitalized to indicate [[MOS:SIGCAPS|significance]] or explain its abbreviation, which is not Wikipedia's style. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
+*'''RINO ''', and if not, '''Oppose''' the suggested move.  [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=RINO%2CRepublican+in+Name+Only%2CRepublican+in+name+only%2CRepublican+In+Name+Only&year_start=1988&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false Per the n-grams]. RINO has redirected here since 2005, is the common name, and the most familiar name in English for the term. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
+*:That n-gram doesn't give you much clue about how many of those RINO hits refer to Republicans in name only.  Actually, since the RINO hits peak around 1960, that's a pretty good clue that they are mostly about something else, or were back then at least.  Did you check books to see how many things RINO might refer to in recent decades? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 00:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
+*::Indeed. What has RINO been [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=RINO%2CRepublican+in+Name+Only%2CRepublican+in+name+only%2CRepublican+In+Name+Only&year_start=1900&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false referring to]? —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 03:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
+*:::It's hard to tell.  There are a lot of author first and last names Rino, sometimes set in all caps, but I'm not sure that's most of it. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Pretty obvious that since 1988 RINO is the common term when discussing the topic under advisement here. Since RINO correctly redirects to this page there should be no reader confusion in either direction. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 15:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
+::::::According to the article, the term didn't appear in print with this meaning until 1992. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 15:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
+*'''Oppose''': Ngrams are wildly inaccurate when common words are used and, when focusing on relevant sources, it appears to be pretty commonly uppercased to a level that we should keep consistent with. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 15:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
+*:"Pretty commonly uppercased" is far short of what our guidance say to look for.  Review the lead at [[MOS:CAPS]]. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
+*''' Support''' Per [[WP:NCCAPS]] and [[WP:TITLEFORMAT]]. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 19:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
+<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: var(--color-error, red);">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
+</div><div style="clear:both;" class=></div>