Talk:California Republican Party

California Republicans are more moderate or progressive?

The article makes it seem that all of California's Republicans are from the Conservative Wing. What makes this questionable is the fact that the Governor is a Moderate Republican. Why not add a column to the list which shows which wing the individual politicians represent. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the more left side of the GOP we haven't took notice, except FOX News, BET and Telemundo had heavily reported on California has a double personality when it came to politics, morality and social liberalism throughout the state's history. The majority of California Republicans don't share the same brand of social conservatism than the other conservatives in states of the Midwest, interior West and deep South. The state is said to been the origin of neo-conservative Republican ethos by the likes of native-born GOP members like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Earl Warren and now the "Governator" (self-explanatory) with ties to the Hollywood Left, San Francisco and the Kennedy-Shriver connection through his Democrat wife Maria Shriver. + Mike D 26 (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed material taken from party website

I've removed the section on the party platform; it had large sections taken unmodified from the party website. In any case this is not a good way to address the platform of a state party; please take a look at Talk:Kansas Republican Party for a discussion of this issue and an example of a better way to present the information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California 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/20120610075838/http://www.sandiegorepublicans.org/files/RPSDCBylaws2011-2012.pdf to http://www.sandiegorepublicans.org/files/RPSDCBylaws2011-2012.pdf

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) 07:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Google apologizes for spreading Wikipedia vandalism

Google has apologized to Kevin McCarthy (California politician), Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, for spreading vandalism of this Wikipedia page in its search results. IP 67.180.161.149 vandalized the page at 05:52, 24 May 2018. It remained online for an appalling 6½ days until finally reverted by IP 38.75.52.47 at 21:14, 30 May 2018. It's alarming that Wikipedia's automated processes failed to catch and correct this glaringly obvious libel smear. KalHolmann (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The vandalism was caught LITTERALLY within a minute. Look at the revision history. This means that it was most likely the vandal themself who took the screenshot and posted it to online sources. False flag rallying? 96.28.121.222 (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Since the page was repeatedly vandalized, please specify which vandalism you mean was caught within a minute. We use diffs to precisely identify edits in question. KalHolmann (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Literally everyone of them, from the "Facism" edits to the "Authoritarian" edits; were caught between 1-2 minutes going back weeks.. 96.28.121.222 (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

But why are you overlooking the "Nazism" edit that did real damage? As I indicated in opening this thread, IP 67.180.161.149 vandalized the page at 05:52, 24 May 2018. It was reverted at 21:14, 30 May 2018. That's the vandalism from which Google extracted metadata for its knowledge panel, and it remained online for a week. KalHolmann (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This vandalism is on the front page of the Drudge Report. Suggest this be made a semi protected page? Tvillars (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've lost faith in Wikipedia's integrity not to spread "fake news" regarding a party's ideology. Please change status of page. We are not Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.236.18.52 (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• To prevent copycat vandalism, page status was changed to semi-protected at 20:11, 31 May 2018, meaning only autoconfirmed users can edit it. KalHolmann (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

six and a half days doesn't seem that astonishing to me given that the article typically gets less than 200 page views per day (maybe less when elections aren't looming). Not saying that justifies it, of course, just saying that low-traffic pages probably hide a lot of ickiness (because no one is looking). - Scarpy (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

What surprises me is 6½ days online despite the keyword "Nazism." Doesn't Wikipedia use filters & bots or whatever to catch obvious vandalism? If adding "Nazism" to the Infobox of a major political party in our nation's most populous state—regardless of how few page views it gets—does not set off alarms at Wikipedia, something is very wrong. KalHolmann (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

We do, it's called the WP:Edit filter. This is another reason why I think putting a band-aid on the problem with 50 million {{schoolblock}}s and {{anonblock}}s (used for workplace, public terminal, etc. blocks) is asinine. For one thing, it's easier to monitor a problematic school or corporate range, snipe the nonsense missed by the Wikipedia:RC patrols, and report patterns of garbage to the network administrator than to monitor a sea of edits from cable/DSL/cellular ranges, and for another thing, improving the automated mechanisms we have to stop vandalism will stop more nonsense and affect less good faith contributors. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 03:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia has responded via Twitter with a message that leaves me confused. "Earlier today," they explain, "several media outlets reported that a Google knowledge panel result for the California Republican Party included a link to the ideology of Nazism. This panel result was drawn from a vandalized version of a Wikipedia article. This vandalism was not visible to Wikipedia readers in the text of the article, and has been removed by volunteer editors." (Emphasis added.) I don't understand what is meant by "not visible to Wikipedia readers." Since the vandalism went uncorrected for 6½ days, surely it was visible during that period to Wikipedia readers. Please, what am I missing here? KalHolmann (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit, which is the one that remained up for nearly a week, used a piped link, with "Nazism" in the link but "Conservatism" in the text. Anyone looking at the page would see "Conservatism" and not suspect anything was wrong unless they happened to hover the mouse over the link, or follow it. -- 209.150.231.38 (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The use of a piped link worries me most; I was under the impression that Google did not use piped links from Wikipedia when forming search results. If they are, then the potential for abuse is huge given the number of infoboxes on Wikipedia. It also discourages me that no editor watching this article saw that the IP clearly added "Nazism" in any form to the article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

209.150.231.38, you are correct. I appreciate the explanation. I've been editing Wikipedia for almost a year, and have never seen a piped link used to deceive this way. It suggests the vandal was _targeting Google, not Wikipedia, all along. Why else make an edit that Wikipedia readers cannot see? KalHolmann (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

IP address blocked for 2 weeks. At 23:06, 31 May 2018, administrator Ronhjones blocked IP 67.180.161.149, where the calumny originated, "for persistent vandalism" with an expiration time of 2 weeks. "Two weeks is a long time for a first block and reflects the edits made," Ronhjones explained, "also it's a dynamic IP - the user is likely to change IP at any time…then [someone else] will have it." So there you go! Deface Wikipedia with the vile smear "Nazism" in such a sophisticated way that your edit is invisible to readers yet shows up in a Google search-result knowledge panel reaching millions more eyeballs than the maliciously altered Wikipedia page could ever hope to, and creates headline news around the world. This discredits both Google and Wikipedia—especially the latter, whose reputation takes a devastating hit. And your punishment? You are blocked for two weeks. KalHolmann (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This incident is probably for the better in the long run. It's important that more people understand how easy it is to manipulate information on here. Great as Wikipedia may be, people cannot regard it or Google as infallible. 108.252.124.176 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

Please undo revision 825492482 by Ionol. Revert vandalism.

The California Democratic Party is classified as "Center-left" on their Wiki page. There is no reason to classify the California Republican Party as "Right-wing".

Thanks. Wayubi (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. KalHolmann (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. This is fine, but it was OK to leave "Center-right" as that is what it was originally prior to 825492482. Only "Right-wing" (the change introduced in 825492482) was pejorative. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=California_Republican_Party&type=revision&diff=825492482&oldid=820902335)

Due to ongoing copycat vandalism—such as this by Tuckertrash25 6½ hours after page status was changed to semi-protected—we must insist on WP:RS to support populating the Infobox party position parameter. KalHolmann (talk) 04:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not Center-Right? Why Right Wing? What references?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2018

Add Section "Controversy"

In May 2018 it was reported that Google had been returning results in their search of the CA Republican Party that listed "Nazism" as one of their ideologies. Although treated as a controversy, it is true that the a Nazi was chosen by the voters of the party to represent them. Running as a Senate Candidate in November 2018 is Patrick Little, who has called to create a United States “free from Jews,” has enjoyed a surge of popularity. His platform includes his Campaign Slogan: "Liberate the US from the Jewish Oligarchy" and he states "I want to crush manifestations of anti-White racism in US institutions".

The controversy is based in truth. Google did not report anything inaccurate, and it is true that the California Republican Party did vote in their primary to include a Neo-Nazi as a Senate Candidate.

Sources: https://qz.com/1294062/why-did-google-identify-california-republicans-as-believers-in-nazism/ https://littlerevolution.us/2018/01/21/platform/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/Neo-Nazi-running-second-to-Feinstein-in-Senate-12886257.php (and many others as needed)

Note: Please add this section. If it is not added by the current editorial staff of this wiki, we will insure that it does get added as it is truthful and the controversy was created by the republican party itself! 71.231.59.132 (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This is a good example of content that shouldn't be added per WP:NOTNEWS. There will not be long-term ramifications from this, just a quick opportunity for Kevin McCarthy and other California Republicans to go in front of cameras and act aggrieved. Also, your edit violates WP:NPOV (even though Patrick Little is a neo-Nazi and running as a Republican). The story has been included on the talk page towards the top using {{press}}. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Who determines what are the ideologies of the California Republican Party?

In regard to the recent controversy about Google listing Nazism as an ideology of the California Republican Party I have to ask: who determines what are the specific ideologies of political party? Currently three ideologies are listed: conservatism, economic liberalism, and fiscal conservatism. Is it up to the political party to determine what their ideologies are listed as on Wikipedia? 108.252.124.176 (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

In view of ongoing copycat vandalism—such as this 6½ hours after page status was changed to semi-protected—I took the precaution of vacating the Infobox ideology parameter until WP:RS can be provided. KalHolmann (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It is probably good practice to actually check with the CAGOP and see what they list as their ideologies. Their platform is probably a reliable source. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 17:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The California Republican Party platform does not mention ideology. Any attempt to construe their ideology from this primary source would violate WP:NOR. KalHolmann (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

At the time of writing, 5:28 PST, Google searching 'California Republican Party' displays an information box but in it there is no longer any mention of "Ideologies". This is probably the result of the "Nazism" controversy. This is a legacy of the controversy as I will be starting a new section on the talk page of the California Democratic Party regarding the same information box. Worth checking the references for the ideology information box of any political party really. Google searching 'California Democratic Party' displays an information box that does mention "Ideologies". I'm proposing that the ideologies section be left blank until anyone can provide a source for what these ideologies are. Thanks KalHolmann for checking the CA GOP platform. 108.252.124.176 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I removed the ideology section on the California Democratic Party page. I mention it here because I believe this is a part of the legacy of this controversy. I believe this controversy deserves a Wikipedia article for itself to track the effects. For example, I checked to see if both the Colorado Democratic Party and Colorado Republican Party have Ideologies listed on their Wikipedia pages and they both do. I cannot find a reputable reference that states that either party claims the alleged ideologies. I think that it could be worth investigating at what point ideologies got added to these pages and why. Regardless, I'm removing the ideology sections from the Colorado Democratic Party and Republican Party articles.

Now glancing at the Texas Republican Party (TRP) article. The TRP article has one reference for their ideologies and it links to the TRP platform which makes no mention of ideologies.

This is probably an issue that spans multiple Wikipedia articles and deserves a deeper look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.252.124.176 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

This issue has sprung up on the Colorado Democratic Party article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.252.124.176 (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Party Color

Users have repeatedly edited the party color from blue to red to blue to red, etc. Does anyone know what color was adopted by the party as its color and not just the anecdotal "Republicans are Red, Democrats are Blue" mantra that has existed in the US since roughly the year 2000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinceFerrer (talk • contribs) 15:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverted Ideology edits

Someone reverted the edit so that Ideologies is now included again - I am removing this section. Whoever reverted the edit, please contribute to the talk section of this page to discuss why you felt that it should be included and cite your sources.

California Republican Party is a center-right party in California, its ideology include economic liberalism, though many of them have social liberal ideology, compare to social conservatism in mainstream national Republican Party.Paul Lincoln (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a claim that isn't supported by any verified sources. That's entirely your opinion. The California Republican Party Platform is provided on their website and nowhere within the Platform is the word Ideology mentioned. The word Ideology has simply fallen out of common parlance in regard to how political parties describe themselves. If you choose to determine the ideologies of a political party that is your judgement, not theirs. I have reviewed the Platform section of many state level republican and democratic party pages since this controversy and none of them mentions the word Ideology. The Ideology seems more commonly used to describe groups by individuals from outside those organizations, not from within. In short, it's your label not their own. Please provide sources to your claims. Links to Wikipedia articles on said ideologies are not reliable sources in regard to what we are discussing. Kalhoffman provided a link to the California Republican Party Platform above. 108.252.124.176 (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Party color field

https://calwatchdog.com/2014/03/11/ca-republicans-seek-return-to-reagan-blue/

The California Republican Party is not the U.S. Republican Party. Since its 2014 convention the party has used a green and blue scheme, though as can be seen on the party's website it tends towards using blue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.173.20 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2020 (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 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)