Jump to content

Talk:Republican in name only

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Calvinsky (talk | contribs) at 07:54, 30 March 2021 (→Undid my edit). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]

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]

No true scotsman

Unsure if usable but a columnist does mention this is the no true scotsman fallacy.[1] —PaleoNeonate – 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republican_in_name_only&oldid=1015024075"