Talk:Liz Cheney: Difference between revisions
Restored revision 1097721170 by Twotwofourtysix (talk): WP:NOTAFORUM or a means of contacting the subject |
→General statement regarding edit requests: new section |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/rnc-censure-resolution/58226d40412e4f18/full.pdf [[User:NTAbbott|NTAbbott]] ([[User talk:NTAbbott|talk]]) 14:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC) |
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/rnc-censure-resolution/58226d40412e4f18/full.pdf [[User:NTAbbott|NTAbbott]] ([[User talk:NTAbbott|talk]]) 14:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC) |
||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> I don't think extending the quote is useful in this situation. The current summary is more than sufficient, and doesn't require the use of a primary source. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC) |
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> I don't think extending the quote is useful in this situation. The current summary is more than sufficient, and doesn't require the use of a primary source. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC) |
||
== General statement regarding edit requests == |
|||
There is some sense in an earlier statement that the bar for suggesting changes to this article is being set artificially high. |
|||
WP editors are called on to edit boldly. This fact does not change in the case of an article's semi-protected status. To suggest that all edits, including ones that seek to provide additional or clearer sources (or ones aiming to improve article compliance with WP:VERIFY and other guidelines) must seek prior consensus for suggested changes is to make all editing of this article onerously time consuming (even more so than is the semi-protected process already). ''The point of the current status is to protect it from vandalism, not to protect it from change.'' |
|||
To require consensus building before ''all'' edits is to suggest the article is technically, editorially, and intellectually perfect already. This has never been a presumption here. We need keep the bar where it has always been, and process all reasonable edit requests that clearly improve article quality (as addition of a further source with more expansive coverage of a sentence's content almost always does). |
|||
Cheers, a former professor, and old former logging editor with many tens of thousands of edits over a decade. [[Special:Contributions/2601:246:C700:C:8D5C:71C1:CFE9:5128|2601:246:C700:C:8D5C:71C1:CFE9:5128]] ([[User talk:2601:246:C700:C:8D5C:71C1:CFE9:5128|talk]]) 15:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:56, 16 July 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liz Cheney article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | 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 is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Effort to Remove Liz Cheney from Chair of House Republican Conference was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 May 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Liz Cheney. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | The contents of the Liz Cheney controversies page were merged into Liz Cheney on July 16, 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Change Cheney's Party affiliation from "Republican" to "Independent", at least at the State level.
As of November 15th, 2021, The Wyoming GOP voted 31-29 to stop recognizing her as a member of the party, as reported by the Associated Press in "Wyoming GOP votes to stop recognizing Cheney as a Republican". If the state GOP no longer recognizes her as a member, then her affiliation should be changed to "Independent" on the State level.
Since political parties in the United States are vested on the state level, its possible that she also now an Independent (Caucused with Republicans) on the National Level, though an argument could be made otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.80.95 (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- She is still a Republican, whether or not the Wyoming Republican Party likes it. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- The news article above should be included as a reference in the article as prose, although I agree with Muboshgu that she should still be considered as a Republican. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 00:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree with twotwofourtysix. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 07:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Disagree Let's take this to an objective point-of-view to solve the problem. It should be noted that "affiliation" mean that a person is "closely attached or connected to an organization".[1] Political parties are not identities, they are organizations. Definitively, Political parties are political organizations that supports the election of a group of candidates.[2] Is the Republican Party currently supporting the election of Liz Cheney? Does the Republican Party have a cooperative relationship with Liz Cheney? If not, then definitively, Liz Cheney is no longer a Republican. Reavery (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's not the definition we use. She is a registered Republican and publicly identifies as a Republican, so we consider her to be a Republican. If we went by the decision of the state party, we'd be opening up a whole can of worms. If she moves to Idaho, is she once again a Republican because she's now under the jurisdiction of the Idaho GOP and they haven't voted not to recognize her? And if we're going off of the "closely attached or connected to an organization" definition, then wouldn't every single person need to be personally well-known to state party leadership such that there could even be a "relationship"? The standard your suggesting is extraordinarily murky, and it should make it apparent why we don't decide party affiliation that way. Cpotisch (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Former US president John Tyler is listed as an independent on his own page as well as on List of presidents of the United States for the time period following his expulsion from the Whig party in 1841. Is this expulsion any different from Cheney's expulsion from the GOP or is Cheney's more symbolic or something? I'm just wondering if this might count as precedent for changing Cheney's listed affiliation as well. --pluma♫ ♯ 21:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree , if you can find some articles that could dispute the main stream idea she is still a Republican. Eruditess (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
References
Contradictory Section
"Regarded as a leading ideological conservative[4] in the Bush–Cheney-era tradition and a representative of the Republican establishment,[5] Cheney is a neoconservative". This doesn't make a great deal of sense; "neoconservative" (per various sources linked in our very own wikipedia article) refers to ideologically liberal members of the Republican party. It does not seem logically possible for Cheney (neither Liz nor Dick) to be regarded as "leading ideological conservatives" yet also neoconservatives (a tongue-in-cheek term referring to liberal GOP members). Could the first sentence be changed to "regarded as a leading ideological neoconservative" for consistency and clarity? 98.246.150.92 (talk) 15:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- That sentence should be improved and I can try to take a stab at it. Neoconservatives are not
ideologically liberal
, though. They are hawks. Neocons may have started off more liberal in the 1960s, but they weren't in the 2000s. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Legitimate Political Discourse
The article says that "On February 4, 2022, the Republican National Committee called the events of January 6, 2021, "legitimate political discourse". It cites to a Boston Globe article that says this. The full statement by the RNC can be found here https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/rnc-censure-resolution/58226d40412e4f18/full.pdf. The actual censure never says what the media has portrayed. Instead it says "WHEREAS , Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger are participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse." The media might argue that this is the same thing. The other side may argue that it is not the same thing. The RNC may not have been referring to those who stormed the capitol but may have been referring merely to those who engaged in "legitimate political discourse" and who are now being subpoenaed, investigated, etc. by the Democrats. It isn't fair to reword the censure to make it sound worse for the RNC. The section should be changed to read
"On February 4, 2022, the Republican National Committee overwhelmingly voted to censure Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger by voice vote for "participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse." NTAbbott (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2022
![]() | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change
On February 4, 2022, the Republican National Committee called the events of January 6, 2021, "legitimate political discourse" and overwhelmingly voted to censure Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger by voice vote for taking part in the House investigation of the Capitol assault.
to
On February 4, 2022, the Republican National Committee overwhelmingly voted to censure Cheney and Representative Adam Kinzinger by voice vote for "participating in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."
and cite to
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/rnc-censure-resolution/58226d40412e4f18/full.pdf NTAbbott (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. I don't think extending the quote is useful in this situation. The current summary is more than sufficient, and doesn't require the use of a primary source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
General statement regarding edit requests
There is some sense in an earlier statement that the bar for suggesting changes to this article is being set artificially high.
WP editors are called on to edit boldly. This fact does not change in the case of an article's semi-protected status. To suggest that all edits, including ones that seek to provide additional or clearer sources (or ones aiming to improve article compliance with WP:VERIFY and other guidelines) must seek prior consensus for suggested changes is to make all editing of this article onerously time consuming (even more so than is the semi-protected process already). The point of the current status is to protect it from vandalism, not to protect it from change.
To require consensus building before all edits is to suggest the article is technically, editorially, and intellectually perfect already. This has never been a presumption here. We need keep the bar where it has always been, and process all reasonable edit requests that clearly improve article quality (as addition of a further source with more expansive coverage of a sentence's content almost always does).
Cheers, a former professor, and old former logging editor with many tens of thousands of edits over a decade. 2601:246:C700:C:8D5C:71C1:CFE9:5128 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Active politicians
- Biography articles of living people
- B-Class biography articles
- B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- B-Class Chicago articles
- Low-importance Chicago articles
- WikiProject Chicago articles
- B-Class Conservatism articles
- High-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- B-Class Wyoming articles
- High-importance Wyoming articles
- WikiProject Wyoming articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class U.S. Congress articles
- High-importance U.S. Congress articles
- Unknown-subject U.S. Congress articles
- B-Class WikiProject Women articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women articles
- B-Class Women writers articles
- Low-importance Women writers articles
- WikiProject Women writers articles
- B-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- High-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report