This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
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)
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)
As one of the people who contributed to the original page I can tell you that it didn't draw on anything from the RLC website except for specific facts about leadership and the board. It may have been largely written by RLC members, though I don't know who, but it definitely was never a direct repost of anything from the organization's site. -- graball (yeah, i'm not logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.16.6 ( talk) 03:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
I've significantly changed the article. You can see my changes here. [1] 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)
RLC just held their every 2yr national convention and elected new officers. http://www.rlc.org/about/national-committee-2/ Robi2106 ( talk) 22:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
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) rp
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Neutrality has been improved. Removing disputed state for now. 206.180.38.20 ( talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
I also removed "in a civil and cooperative fashion" because the citation for that mentions neither of those attributes, and instead discusses a lawsuit and some other acrimony. Will Beback talk 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The whole Former elected officials section doesn't seem to belong. It seems that someone just posted a list of famous conservative or libertarian-leaning conservatives to the RLC website and than someone else posted that to wikipedia. If the RLC was formed in 1991, how could people that died in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s have been members of the RLC? Whatitisallabout ( talk) 11:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I think one particular value in illustrating past endorsements (especially those who can be cited through third party sources as Will Beback states) is it fleshes out the organization's ideological commitments beyond a simple narrative of a few ideas the organization supports (although I'd be interesting in researching RLC a bit more and fleshing that out - issues, etc.). I think there's something to say about an endorsement for someone like Governor Mark Sanford in the past: I wouldn't think of Ron Paul in the same political space as Mark Sanford, so I feel having that information on this organization's page seems worthwhile, much like (and I was surprised by this) the entry on Forbes' endorsement in 96. I think there is definitely utility in looking back at some portion of past endorsement history. I'm curious to do some googling and add a section to see what others think. (I know Sanford is not currently in office, but I think that's a noteworthy endorsement to recognize in the history of this particular group).-- Libertyconsulting ( talk) 09:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll work on finding better sources for this: is there a way to track any other comparable political pages that could use this type of improvement? It seems worthwhile making the effort. Feedback? -- Libertyconsulting ( talk) 21:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
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)
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)
As one of the people who contributed to the original page I can tell you that it didn't draw on anything from the RLC website except for specific facts about leadership and the board. It may have been largely written by RLC members, though I don't know who, but it definitely was never a direct repost of anything from the organization's site. -- graball (yeah, i'm not logged in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.16.6 ( talk) 03:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
I've significantly changed the article. You can see my changes here. [1] 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)
RLC just held their every 2yr national convention and elected new officers. http://www.rlc.org/about/national-committee-2/ Robi2106 ( talk) 22:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
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) rp
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Neutrality has been improved. Removing disputed state for now. 206.180.38.20 ( talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
I also removed "in a civil and cooperative fashion" because the citation for that mentions neither of those attributes, and instead discusses a lawsuit and some other acrimony. Will Beback talk 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The whole Former elected officials section doesn't seem to belong. It seems that someone just posted a list of famous conservative or libertarian-leaning conservatives to the RLC website and than someone else posted that to wikipedia. If the RLC was formed in 1991, how could people that died in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s have been members of the RLC? Whatitisallabout ( talk) 11:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I think one particular value in illustrating past endorsements (especially those who can be cited through third party sources as Will Beback states) is it fleshes out the organization's ideological commitments beyond a simple narrative of a few ideas the organization supports (although I'd be interesting in researching RLC a bit more and fleshing that out - issues, etc.). I think there's something to say about an endorsement for someone like Governor Mark Sanford in the past: I wouldn't think of Ron Paul in the same political space as Mark Sanford, so I feel having that information on this organization's page seems worthwhile, much like (and I was surprised by this) the entry on Forbes' endorsement in 96. I think there is definitely utility in looking back at some portion of past endorsement history. I'm curious to do some googling and add a section to see what others think. (I know Sanford is not currently in office, but I think that's a noteworthy endorsement to recognize in the history of this particular group).-- Libertyconsulting ( talk) 09:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll work on finding better sources for this: is there a way to track any other comparable political pages that could use this type of improvement? It seems worthwhile making the effort. Feedback? -- Libertyconsulting ( talk) 21:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
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)