Talk:Republican in name only

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.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes 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.

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]

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]