Talk:College Republicans

NFCR Lies

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)

Voter registration

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)

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)

CRNC problems

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)

Unsourced material

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)

Separate Wilkins Page?

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)

• • No, that is pretty ridiculous.--Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 05:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

Blanking

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)

Title

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)

Ashley Todd

Should Ashley Todd be include as a notable CR? Good or bad, she is notable. Here is here YouTube Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqsBlXhnFng —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.221.134 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Material has been added. No need for the youtube link, though.--Dr. Ivo Shandor (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 27 July 2019

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) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

---

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)

• Support per reason stated. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 12:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support as per nom. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:College Republicans/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

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)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	See issues below.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	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).	See issues with Twitter sources below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	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.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	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)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	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:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Three images present: File:College Republicans at OSU.jpg – all good File:College Republicans at George Fox.jpg – all good File:North Florida College Republicans for McCain.jpg – all good
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are relevant and have good captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Issues with criterion 1a

Lead

• The article is orange-tagged as a whole, which could qualify for a quickfail but I will do the full review anyways in hopes that it can be salvaged.
• Content in the lead should not be directly sourced; rather, it should be repeated and expanded upon in the body of the article and sourced there.
• Republican Party (United States) is double-linked in the lead - this is not necessary
• "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)

Inclusion of Jonathan Hernandez?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Repeated anti NFCR, CRA, and CRU edits

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)

"Ohio College Republican Federation" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ohio College Republican Federation has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3 § Ohio College Republican Federation until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)