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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
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 articles
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
College Republicans was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Republican Party (United States)#State and territorial parties|state Republican Party]] The anchor (#State and territorial parties) has been deleted by other users before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
Need to verify the claim made by the CFCR, they say they have Lousiana but they don't have a single chapter in the state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:138C:4500:BD5F:FEF2:58CA:C965 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never seen college republicans try and register voters, ever.. the only time they get involved in voter registartion seems to be when they're harassing people for registering to vote, thus the accuracy tag--64.12.116.133 03:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, e.g., in their official manual for campus chapters (get the PDF here), they give instructions on conducting a canvass of campus, and include the following instructions: "If the student is a Republican or leans Republican, offer him a voter registration form and have him fill it out right there, telling him you would be happy to send it in for him". Also, a quick google shows CRs registering voters at Wellesley, University of Texas, agitating for the right to do so at Princeton, and again at University of Pennsylvania and the University of Chicago. HTH. Is this sufficient to remove the accuracy tag? Best, Meelar(talk) 07:57, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
My two cents? Even your own research says that "If the student is a Republican or leans Republican ..." That's campaigning, not a voter registration drive. By the same token, College Democrat chapters have been acused of the exact offense. Perhaps a compromise? YearginSM 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have been told by multiple credible (Republican) sources that there was chicanery in the 2005 CRNC elections. I don't think anyone has seriously disputed Foers claims in his NR piece either. 23:36, 25 June 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.115.160.212 (talk • contribs)
Someone needs to finish the sections on the CRNC problems. 06:49, 21 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eshatologist (talk • contribs)
CRNC had 52 State Federations about 4 years ago, they are down to 12 or 15 since then. Slightly more then the new CRU rival organization which now has 6. --70.184.119.177 (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of information on this site was unsourced, so I added a few links. Will add more later when I get time. Probably add more about history of CRNC and how it changed from being under the RNC to being a 527. Maybe some stuff about the increase in field reps in the last few years and plans for 2008--2Snazzy (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we create a separate page for Morgan Wilkins? I hear that she's running for some CRNC posts in Kentucky, and is still stirring up trouble. Any thoughts?--2Snazzy 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know how stable that MSNBC video is (it might be taken down at any time). In case that happens, here is an alternate link: [[1]]. Yeah, it is from a liberal group, but they have an accurate transcript of the segment. It isn't opinion, since this article doesn't list the content of what Olbermann said. --RedShiftPA (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On two occasions (one and two) User:Thomastedder has blanked the well-sourced section about Rove. You must establish consensus on the talk page in order to delete something like this. --Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to know what people think about the title, since the organization is technically the "College Republican National Committee," but I think "College Republican" is better since it can encompass the entire history of the organization under different names dating back to 1892. --Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Those supporting this move have not made a policy based rationale for the move, and the opposition's argument on common name usage, Tony's in particular, as well as anon 125.9.31.50, along with the argument that the article title is capitalised as the name of the organisation, and the article discusses the organisation and not college attendees that are Republicans, meaning reader confusion is less likely, is compelling enough to close this RM as not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) StevenCrossinHelp resolve disputes! 03:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
College Republicans → College Republican National Committee – This article is titled "College Republicans", which is a general descriptor. However, this page's content discusses the College Republican National Committee, an independent 527 PAC. As an organization, it does not necessarily represent all college republicans, but rather the college republicans that register or participate in the College Republican National Committee organization. The new name would serve to clarify the subject matter and eliminate any confusion that the College Republican National Committee inherently speaks for all college republicans. 76.176.202.180 (talk) 03:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose no policy based rationale for a move has been presented. WP:COMMONNAME controls, and all we have been given is an official name. Like any organization, use of the name "College Republican" in caps is only allowed by organizations affiliated with the main group, so the silly objection that not all registered Republicans in university are associated with this is quite pointless. A random clicking of Google News links ([2], [3], [4], [5]) clearly demonstrates that it is currently at the common name, and the nom that has no policy basis and the support per that nom should be weighted as such by the closer. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Tony’s rationale is incorrect. State College Republican federations are also independent 527 PACs, and not all are part of the College Republican National Committee (CRNC). For example, the California College Republicans were just dechartered from the CRNC, but they continue to operate as an independent 527 PAC separate from the CRNC. Therefore the CRNC does not represent them. Therefore this name, “College Republicans”, when entirely describing the CRNC, is misleading. The CRNC does not represent all College Republican organizations or individuals. 76.176.202.180 (talk)
But they won't be referred to as "College Republicans" going forward. The organization will be referred to as the "California College Republicans". Actually since they were just dechartered any previous references to "College Republicans" in California are still accurately talking about this article's topic. 125.9.31.50 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The WP:COMMONNAME is simply "College Republicans", and as there is no other article of the same title, this attempt at WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION by using the official name is simply not needed.
Support per nom's argument that there are other College Republicans orgs that are not part of the topic of this article. The commonness of the term College Republicans in news and other sources does not address that; it's hard to tell how many refer to this topic. Dicklyon (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't say that there are other College Republicans organizations, just that some people who identify as Republicans who are in college are not in the organization called the College Republicans. I doubt there are any sources at all that are referring to other orgs as "College Republicans". 125.9.31.50 (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I will be reassessing this article to determine whether it still meets the Good Article criteria. Any user is encouraged to assist in improving the article to keep it up to GA standards. Thanks. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
See below.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
A majority of the "Notable Organizations" section is unsourced, and almost all of the "Notable members" section is unsourced as well. "Activities" also needs more sourcing, with the first paragraph entirely uncited.
The lead of the article contains several lines that are a little too close to this source, which is not directly cited in the article (as far as I can tell)
This one is close, but a little more prose on the organizations themselves, in addition to the prose describing the organizational style and governing setup of the organizations, would definitely be helpful.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Only five edits (including mine) in the whole of the calendar year up to this point.
6.Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
"and introduced more party members to the Republican party" → phrased as if the people are already members of the party; also "Republican Party" should be capitalized
Notable Organizations
"Organizations" in the section header should be lowercase
Links should be to the College Republican National Committee and the College Republicans United, rather than including the parentheses and abbreviations in the link as well. I'd be cautious about describing an organization as notable if it is a redlink, as well, as that is often used as the working definition of "notable" in instances like this
"As of 2021, notable independent state College Republican organizations include" → this should be updated to 2022. Also, again, "notable" is iffy here given only two are linked.
Governance of organizations
"The College Republican National Committee (CRNC)," → this abbreviation has already been given twice, no need to explain or define it again, just use it
"The CRNC National Chairman and his or her national" → "his or her" to "their" for simplicity
"College Republicans United (CRU)" → this abbreviation has already been given two or three times, no need to define it again, just use it
"The state federations of New York, Texas, Mississippi, and North Dakota, as well as the federation for U.S. territory of Puerto Rico" → link New York, Texas, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Puerto Rico
"and the national College Republican National Committee" → use the initialism
Notable members
Orange-tagged for lack of citations, which seems appropriate given there's only one
"Matt Wiltshire, Guinness World Record holder for most political utilizations" → seems like a stretch for "notability", given he's not linked
There is inconsistency between "US", "U.S.", and "United States"
Activities
"During election season, campus chapters are responsible for organizing and implementing the campus canvas" → canvassing is mentioned above already
The entire first paragraph is unsourced
"Members use door-to-door canvassing" → mentioned now twice already
See also
I feel as though the CRNC is linked and referred to enough already that it doesn't need to be listed here
Referencing issues
Author of Ref 2 and 8 doesn't have to be linked since it's a redlink and there are other authors who aren't linked at all
Links should be added to all website fields where applicable
While Twitter is not the absolute worst source to be using for these sorts of things, it would be much better to find something more reliable, especially given that only two of the five Twitter sources come from verified accounts.
I have run a script to convert all date formats to mdy, so that is taken care of.
Overall review conclusion
WP:GAR states that An individual assessment may be closed after seven days of no activity. As there has been no activity on the review for seven days, I am closing the review. My conclusion is that the article fails GA criteria 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, and 3a at least, and therefore will be delisted. If improvements are made in the future, and the article is brought up to par, it can be renominated for GA. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Diff and ping Secarctangent. I don't think this person should be included in this list. While it could be valid for a more inclusive list, I don't see how this one relatively minor figure is really noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion, as not every member of an organization who has a flash in the news should be mentioned. Curbon7 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This individual is more notable as a College Republican (leader of a statewide chapter!) than many individuals on the list, that were not leaders of their organizations, are no longer in college, and also in some instances (e.g. Hillary Clinton) are no longer Republicans. Also unlike most other items on the list, I have sourced it. Secarctangent (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Secarctangent, If we were going by that logic, then we would have to list every state chair, which of course would be nonsensical. He is likely not notable per our criteria enough for inclusion in a list of notable people. I agree with you in that I think the list is should be removed altogether or should at least be culled significantly, as I find it generally unencyclopedic in the current state. However, in my opinion, the inclusion of someone minor like Hernandez contributes to that unencyclopedic-ness. Curbon7 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I noted in my edit, by WP:N, the individuals in a list need not meet the requirements of notability for an independent article. Secarctangent (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Secarctangent, Then why do you suggest he be included? Because of a brief flash in the news? I'm just saying because it seems WP:UNDUE to include him. Curbon7 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many times information about the NFCRs, CRA, and CRU have been removed via unnamed accounts. This is despite the fact that both the NFCRs and CRAs are a larger organization than the CRNC, and the CRU has been relatively newsworthy (news articles popping up once every few months). It is dishonest to remove information about these organizations, and I suspect it serves the interest of the CRNC and their donors. Lohengrin03 (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]