Jump to content

Talk:Colorado Republican Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

anti-lgbt as an ideology

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Recent edit, again, stating the same as the above IP (which resolves btw to the same area...) re:"not an ideology". The Colorado Republican Party is against LGBTQIA+ rights, they have a set of beliefs, beliefs or philosophies held in common by a group do actually ipso facto constitute an ideology. Denying a group of people their rights as American citizens is a set of beliefs of the Colorado Republican Party and is backed-up by the cited sources. - Shearonink (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
just because it is sourced, doesn't mean it's relevant. Give me a source, that describes "anti-lgbtqia+" as an ideology. Is it even an ideology? Seems like you don't know what ideology is. As per said, remove it 5.35.115.76 (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per previous posts & edits, looks like that would be against editorial consensus. If you disagree, perhaps a Request for Comment is needed. - Shearonink (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an ideology:
Anti LGBTQIA+ terminology & rhetoric & actions are an integral part of the Colorado Republican Party's beliefs, the group proves by rhetoric and action that they think people who are lesbian, who are gay, bi-sexual, transgender, queer, and asexual should not have certain rights in the United States. Just because the Colorado Republican Party's beliefs are not listed in the Wikipedia List of political ideologies does not mean that the Party's anti-LGBTQIA language does not in and of itself constitute an ideology. - Shearonink (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and I can bring a lot of sources, that say, that "anti-lgbtqia+" is not an ideology. Even in the last sources, that you brought it says that. 5.35.115.76 (talk) 09:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh do tell...you can "bring a lot of sources"? A lot of reliable sources that unequivocally state anti-lgbtqia+ is not an ideology... Well have at it then... - Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
none of the sources that you brought explicitly claims, that "anti-lgbtqia+ is an ideology". Opposition to homosexuality is a part social conservatism, so isn't it better just to write "social conservtism" in the infobox, than ideologically charged terms like "anti-lgbtqia+"? 5.35.115.76 (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can, indeed, bring a lot of sources, then please do so. But also remind yourself of WP:NPOV in that you have to remain neutral in your writing, as well as keep in mind the fact that conflicting sources do not mean you can pick or choose one or the other as "correct"; you have to weight both equally WP:PROPORTIONAL to its use in reliable sources. You're welcome to add content if you can meet this criteria. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 21:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]