Talk:Colorado Republican Party

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colorado 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/20100724025010/http://www.adcorepublicans.com/2010/06/the-official-platforms-of-the-colorado-republican-and-democratic-parties/ to http://www.adcorepublicans.com/2010/06/the-official-platforms-of-the-colorado-republican-and-democratic-parties/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425150745/http://coloradorepublicanparty.com/read_article/2.html to http://coloradorepublicanparty.com/read_article/2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119143111/http://coloradocr.com/ to http://www.coloradocr.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Political bias toward the left

Suggesting the removing the term "far-right" on the page, as well as this ideology of "Trumpism." The Denver Post has explained their bias to be toward the left on several occasions, so this is not a reliable source. If this is not changed, I would also suggest changing the political bias of the CO Dems page, which is currently defined as "center." I believe this creates division among party lines, misleads people attempting to educate themselves on these topics, and is potentially dangerous to our Constitutional Republic. I would label the CO Dems as "far left" as the 5% of democrats would fit in this category, while most would be farther left than "center," exactly the same way the Republican party is. This page is extremely biased and in my opinion should be extensively rewritten with better sources. I understand it is difficult to find unbiased sources, which goes to a much larger problem with mainstream media and the continuous attempt to paint certain people or groups in a bad light, on both the left and right. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"I understand it is difficult to find unbiased sources" How long have you been editing Wikipedia? We are not looking for unbiased sources. Per the guideline on biased or opinionated sources:

• • "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  But this is not an opinion column, Wikipedia should be a platform for factual information. Just because it doesn't appeal to your agenda, doesn't make it valid, sorry. If that is the case, I will make my addition to the left's page. https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/colorado-lurches-to-the-far-left/ or an even better example, https://www.joeodea.com/press-releases/far-left-democrats-try-to-hijack-colorado-gop-senate-primary But it appeals to my viewpoint, so why are these poor sources? No, these are not what you would call "reliable sources," but who defines what a reliable source is? Why would you not look for an unbiased source? I am genuinely curious, since any time someone tells me "well Fox News said," or "well MSNBC said," I instantly lose my trust in their viewpoint. Why would it be acceptable to use a self proclaimed "left wing" article on the position of Colorado GOP being far-right? AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  Orwellian 2600:4040:445D:C200:D31B:DBE2:1B85:6EF5 (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Illinois State University supported by WikiProject Politics and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing far-right from page

I have changed the ideology section, and this is my reasoning as to why. I have discussed this previously, but to no avail have I managed to overcome the left-leaning overlords that rule this page. I doubt this will change your mind, but the sources used are completely biased. They have even come out about their bias previously. At this point, it is nothing but propaganda, either stretching the truth to just barely make it believable to downright lying. According to the Wikipedia page, far-right politics are associated with fascism. Fascism, as defined by Merrian Webster, is a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Now how do the sources provided line up with this definition? The term far-right is so loosely used in these articles, purely for political gain. This is propaganda at its finest, and if you cannot see that, you should not be editing these pages. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not a lace for your WP:SOAPBOXING. Feel free to start a WP:RFC though but I would advise that you leave the WP:PAs out of it. MarnetteD|Talk 20:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I may have been a bit agitated at the poor sources summing up 1,000,000 people to being fascist Nazis and let my anger get in the way. However, I still believe these are extremely misleading, biased sources and should be removed and replaced with more reliable sources that actually show clear indications of far-right ideologies. Dare I say these are cherry picked sources? AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

When your godawful party stops calling for the burning of pride flags, and stops calling our community "groomers" for no reason, we'll tone down the "Nazi" talk.

Until then, we will call a spade a spade. Simple as that. 67.81.217.193 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

anti-lgbt as an ideology

"Anti-LGBT+" is not an ideology, there is basically no such ideology. Remove it 62.217.185.86 (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As a reply to your most recent revert, I did "see talk page". I, however, find a one sentence summary of the removal of sourced information unconvincing, as I'm sure most of Wikipedia also would. You also seem to have a very decent history on this IP of WP:SOAPBOXing, as well as just general POV-pushing of political parties and their belief systems, of which you were previously blocked for doing so due to edit warring with other users.

Please find consensus in your claims before removing sourced information, and offer your own sources as well, as opposed to just summarily removing information, especially on articles deemed contentious by administrators.

You have been given a level 4 warning, but I will consider this your final warning instead. Do not revert or attempt to add your unsourced content to articles again. I have reverted the changes you made. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 22:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What is going on??

Okay, there have been a ton of biased edits lately that are clearly supporting Williams. It seems like Dave Williams or associates are editing this page 24/7. I think we might need to lock it to prevent vandalism. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Dave Williams as party chair

The Colorado Secretary of State's own website still lists Dave Williams as the party chair under its political party directory (Political Party Directory). Therefore, until the Secretary of State lists Eli Bremer as the chair of the Colorado GOP, Dave Williams should be the one listed and named as chairperson of the Colorado GOP in this page and affiliated pages. EnragingFireMC (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)