Jump to content

Talk:Colorado Democratic Party

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

please no edit war

[edit]

removed ideology section again - cite references if trying to include an ideology. the abuse of the ideology category is discussed in the California Republican Party talk section.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:California_Republican_Party

2600:1700:7A51:10B0:5008:583A:BE11:5D41 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I'd like to add once again that the Ideology section is entirely unfounded and without reference and needs to be removed. I don't need to provide a citation about why the Ideology of the party doesn't exist - it just doesn't exist. The political party platform doesn't espouse one. The ideology of the party is an allegation, not something actually stated anywhere. Not sure why my edit has been reverted twice without contribution to this talk section. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Finally, the Colorado Democratic Party Platform does not mention ideology. Any attempt to construe their ideology from this primary source would violate WP:NOR. Conesus was reached on the California Republican Party talk page. That discussion applies to this Ideology section and every other one. 2600:1700:7A51:10B0:F0AD:723C:E915:D034 (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, no consensus was reached at California Republican Party. 3 messages sent only by 2 people is not consensus. Consensus never exited to begin with. And 108.252.124.17 has consistently been disruptive about "there is no citations for this ideologies section" on various States' political party pages yet does not offer a solution.

108.252.124.17 has opened 3 sections on articles talk pages: one, two, and three. On Two and Three, 108.252.124.17's messages on these talk pages are identical in message:

Two: "I removed the Ideology infobox. I am removing all the ideology infoboxes from State Democratic and Republican Party articles. This is regarding the "Nazism" Ideology vandalism on the California Republican Party which revealed that the CRP does not claim any "Ideology" on their platform and neither does the California Democratic Party, the Colorado Dem or Rep Party, same in Texas, and Oregon. More information can be found in the Talk section of the California Republican Party article."
Three: "The term Ideology does not appear anywhere in the Democratic Party of Georgia's Platform [1] and so I removed it. At the time of writing, "Ideology" appears in the infobox for many United State's State level Democratic and Republican Political Party articles. This section was vandalized to include "Nazism" on the California Republican Party article which resulted in some widespread media attention, more information can be found in the Talk section of that article."
Every single time when there has been a manufactured conflict with Ideologies, 2/3 times no one responds to the corresponding talk page and you guys think "consensus has been reached" while at the same time never providing evidence to otherwise contest the other Ideologies box and why it contains whatever. Aviartm (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in an infobox needs to be sourced or easily sourceable. There are also WP:Discretionary sanctions for infoboxes. Adding to talk page. Doug Weller talk 08:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller Hi Doug. Wouldn't a wikilink to said ideology provide enough information for the reader to conclude that is the appropriate ideology for the appropriate party? I also checked dozens of state political parties wikis and I found only 4 pages with 1 citation by a ideology on their page. I truly believe this is just a nonissue especially for for American politics. You do not need a citation to know that the Republican Party or a State Republican Party is conservative and fiscally conservative, etc. same with State Democratic Party with progressivism and and social liberalism. I just think these activities are WP:DISRUPT. And I know this is an unrelated matter but my sockpuppet inquiry was essentially disregarded despite 2 different IPs saying the exact same phrase in different places. Aviartm (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviartm: a lot of our political articles have this same problem. WP:VERIFY really allows no exceptions for anything that might be disputed. Neither party is as cohesive as you suggest. You can't get an SPI on just IPs, by the way (speaking as a Checkuser). And for any SPI you need some convincing evidence, fishing is not allowed. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info and clarifications Doug but what is fishing? Aviartm (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change the ideology to Left-wing to Far-left

[edit]

The Colorado Democratic Party has moved to the far-left ideologies, or sorry, a portion of the CDP has.https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/colorado-captiol-vandalism-graffiti/ I believe this should be changed as per the source provided. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in that article to support your statement. MarnetteD|Talk 20:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This could classify as domestic terrorism, which is a method of the far-left, just as is the far-right who vandalized the US capitol. Domestic terrorism is, as I would hope you're aware of, using violent methods for political gain, including destroying property and attacking and even killing individuals. I would classify this attack on the streets of Denver a politically motivated attack, as would many others. How is that not far-left? AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not make any connection between the Colorado Democratic Party and the vandalism. There isn't even any info or proof that the graffiti was performed by a Democrat. Aside from that graffiti is a long way from killing individuals so you can drop the WP:POLEMIC. Seeing as how you are an SPA I can only suggest that you will be far happier editing at Conservapedia. MarnetteD|Talk 06:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the news item is dated July 15, 2020 which only increases the irrelevance of your post. MarnetteD|Talk 06:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ANTIFA is a far-left milita, not just an ideology. A man was shot and killed in Denver by one of these Antifa rioters Man killed in downtown Denver amid dueling 'anti-fascist' and 'patriot' rallies - Denverite, the Denver site! They burned flags in front of the CO capital Antifa burn American flags at Colorado Capitol as protests erupt on Biden's Inauguration Day | The US Sun (the-sun.com) Sure, this is a small group of people, but you are attempting to group in a small group of people to the Colorado Republican party to call them "far right," and all you need to do to be classified as this is to say you don't believe the 2020 election was legitimate. In your articles provided on said page, there is no real ideas that push "far right" as defined by the Wiki page on Far-right politics. There is no nationalism, xenophobia, etc. It does say that they "promote baseless claims that the 2020 election was stolen." This is not a far-right ideology as defined, however, using violence to push toward a political goal like abolition of the police is a far-left ideology. These groups also push for abolition of the state, or more commonly known as communism or anarchy, a far-left movement, and not just saying the election was sketchy. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how is information two years ago irrelevant? I understand we differ on political views greatly, but c'mon man. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you've used another outdated reference that makes absolutely no mention of the ideology of the party. Your attempts to use WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to make changes are better suited to Conservapedia or a blog. MarnetteD|Talk 20:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are also cherry picking numbers off of the PDF. A party that won the 2022 election has not had a reduction in the number of registered membersa. MarnetteD|Talk 20:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is my number "cherry picking?" Respectfully, did you read the source? It clearly showed a drop in registration numbers across the board, not just democrats saw a reduction in numbers. Also, I summed up voters from active, inactive, and preregistered, just how you did on the current number. If there was a calculation error, that is my fault and we can fix it, but there was a clear reduction, nonetheless. Just because they won the election doesn't mean their numbers don't drop. Voters could have switched parties, moved away, or passed away as well. Or perhaps you are suggesting the Secretary of State reported incorrect figures, which really wouldn't surprise me either. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, we are once again to butt heads over ideology. I have found new sources to change the ideology, as, may I point out, there are no sources to back up your claim of centrism in the CO democratic party. *Colorado+Democrats+2022+Platform.pdf (squarespace.com) Left | Definition & Facts | Britannica As you may read from the PDF, this is directly from the CO dems webpage on their ideologies, heavily pointing out their alleged high respect for equality among all. As you may also read from the Britannica page, the left is geared toward equality and justice for all. Left wing is also associated with socialism, and regulating environmental standards and allowing labor unions are more socialist and communist ideologies, according to the Wikipedia page on left-wing politics as I tagged on my previous edit. Socialism and communism are left-wing ideologies. Furthermore, how are sources from 2022 "outdated?" AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again the ref you are trying to use makes no mention of party ideology. You are using WP:SYNTH when you claim that one bill introduced in 2022 in the legislature determines an overall ideology. The Gazette is a right wing mouthpiece and not reliable for describing ideology - by the way it says "drifting left" rather than already there. The comment above is also full of assumptions that are not born out by the facts in the state. Your WP:SOAPBOXing really needs to stop. MarnetteD|Talk 17:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and the Denver post is a left-wing mouthpiece, yet that doesn't stop you from using it. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Denver Post is not a left-wing mouthpiece. Statements like that as well as others you have made above show that you do not have an understanding of how Wikipedia works. Again you would be much happier editing the fact free website Conservepedia. MarnetteD|Talk 18:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Denver Post has time and time again shown their bias toward the left and has even admitted their bias on one or two occasions. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bull. You obviously don't read it or you would know that its editorial board is conservative. Extremely so in a couple cases. Again there are plenty of venues on the web to post your fact free WP:OR please avail yourself of them. MarnetteD|Talk 20:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lauren Boebert almost lost her district and underperformed other Republican candidates (denverpost.com)
Denver Post endorsement for Colorado governor: Jared Polis
Phil Weiser vs. John Kelner for Colorado AG: We endorse Weiser (denverpost.com)
Michael Bennet vs. Joe O'Dea Endorsement: We pick Bennet for Senate (denverpost.com)
Election denialism and far-right activism sit firmly within the Colorado GOP mainstream (denverpost.com)
Doesn't seem very conservative to me. Just a few examples of their bias. I can't remember the article where I saw them admit their bias. It was an article for something related to the midterms. Maybe they used to be conservative, but they have certainly shifted away from that. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can cherry pick to the end of time. It just shows that you don't have as clue. They have endorsed conservative candidates as well. MarnetteD|Talk 21:56, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly far younger than you, considering you've been editing Wikipedia for 14 years or so, though I've lived in this state my whole life and my grandparents used to get a paper in the mail every day. They may have been more conservative years before, but so was 9news. Their editorial board has shifted quite left over the years. Just because they endorsed Pam Anderson over Jena Griswold doesn't mean their entire editorial board is conservative. They endorsed just about every single democratic candidate except Griswold. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

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 16:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colorado_Democratic_Party&oldid=1212207538"