Talk:National Republican Congressional Committee

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

Hill committees[edit]

All four hill committee articles had redundant and partly incorrect or misleading information. I have created a hill committee article and removed the material not specific to the individual committees from their respective articles. It's actually arguable whether we need separate articles at all, given how similar all four are in structure and function. RadicalSubversiv E

Telemarketers[edit]

Is it appropriate to include information about the NRCC's use of telemarketers(particularly Infocision) here? It's information that has been in the news, is an issue that causes debate within the Republican party, and takes a bit of searching to find information about. I'm not a wiki member so I'm not sure if this crosses the line into editorializing or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.237 (talk • contribs)

Corrected[edit]

The address that removed all controversy history is at the RNCC. --Acham 21:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "controversies"[edit]

This is just pathetic- while I'm a Democrat, and I personally think that the "controversies" mentioned may be worth keeping, the rest of the article needs development first. It appears that prior to my deletion, more than 80% of the article was "controversies". This article should not be an attack piece against the NRCC- even with the most neutral writing, content must also reflect the group's positive actions as well as their negative actions, even if the latter draw more press attention. Ral315 » 07:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not try to balance articles by removing valid, sourced information. If we did that, someone a month from now might add all kinds of positive stuff to the article, then someone else following your approach would remove it with the statement that the article shouldn't be one-sidedly favorable. The result would be that it would be much harder for an article on a controversial subject to grow through the normal wiki process.
If an article gives more attention to one aspect of the subject than to another, the solution is not to deprive the reader of information, but to add the additional material that should be included.
Accordingly, I'm restoring the deletions. The article is better with that information than without it. The way a wiki works is that you or someone else will eventually add any appropriate positive material. "With enough eyeballs...." JamesMLane t c 15:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That line of thought is completely contradictory of the stance taken by others in editing. The perfect example is the Kevin Rudd article. They refuse to add a section about his strip club romp because it would make it to negative. They claim it would add to much negativity because the article is not developed enough. The same line of thought should apply here. If that's the case the controversies here should be removed until more positive info. is found to balance it and make the article more fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.177.205 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If other people editing another article are making a mistake, the solution is to correct the mistake there, not to repeat it here. I'm restoring the properly sourced material about the NRCC. We aren't going to put this article on hold pending achievement of consensus on an unrelated article. JamesMLane t c 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this is why people claim that Wikipedia is biased or unreliable. On one hand they are unwilling to put in a controversies section and on the other its all that s put in. This article is biased against the NRCC especially since the Dem. equivalent is far more developed. Perhaps this part of a wider problem with Wikipedia as a whole but you cannot simply not address it and try and sweep it under the rug. This article at least needs to be expanded upon ASAP if wikipedia wants to maintain neutrality and this issue as a whole needs to be addressed in some kind of wider forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.177.205 (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to expand it, go ahead and expand it, provided you follow applicable policies in doing so (such as WP:NPOV, WP:ATT, and WP:CITE). Your criticism of the coverage would be valid if the Editorial Board had decreed that the encylopedia had to give more information about a particular subject because it suited the Board members' political biases. That didn't happen, however. In fact, there is no Editorial Board.
The "issue as a whole" is that Wikipedia is a volunteer project. Volunteers work on what interests them, not on what the nonexistent Editorial Board orders the nonexistent paid staff writers to work on. Some of the issues arising from this feature of the project are addressed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. As long as the content is volunteer-written, however, someone doing a comprehensive examination will be able to point to inconsistencies between articles. That's not a justification for making one article worse to try to bring it down to the level of another article. JamesMLane t c 02:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another "Award"[edit]

Phone bankers are now offering the Congressional Order of Merit - no overt plea for money, but it's an award for people who "support" the NRCC. Ira Flatow was solicited Samatva 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Tom[edit]

MSNBC corrected their story - pasted here as the relevant text is halfway down the page from the link. "Whoops. My sincere apologies to Congressman Tom Davis (R-Va). I mistakenly wrote he had met with the lobbyists about the NRCC. Congressman Tom Reynolds (R-NY) is the NRCC chair who warned K Street lobbyists."

Danack (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section[edit]

There is really no point to this article if it's just a stub about the organization, and then pages and pages of controversy. They should not be included here unless someone is going to write a detailed article. I don't need to quote the policies here, as I think all established editors know what I'm referring to. MrPrada (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(from Talk:Barack Obama) Q3: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?

A3: Because a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article.

Whitewashing the main article by moving all the critical material to a separate article is clearly improper. This approach has been extensively considered and rejected in the cases of Giuliani and Hillary Clinton. See Talk:Rudy Giuliani#Keeping "Controversies" section on a separate page. It's even more inappropriate here, where the entire article is so short that we can include all the encyclopedic and properly sourced material that we have in a single article without expanding it to problematic length. (Even if length were a concern, the correct remedy is to spin off a daughter article to accommodate the detail, but to leave behind a summary in the main article.) If you want to write a "detailed article" about NRCC, go ahead and augment this one, but in the meantime there's no reason to force a reader to click on a link to read significant information about the article subject. JamesMLane t c 04:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
James, I think 95% of the time you and I agree on things, but we are widely divergent here. Moving the section was not "Whitewashing" the article. From a cursory glance at the edit history, I see others have have come in and tried to present information from an opposite viewpoint—if anything, THAT was whitewashed as a "Conflict of interest" or "primary sources". We have to ask ourselves here, what is this article about? The NRCC, right? Right now, it reads just like an article that should be titled "Controversies involving the NRCC" that has a brief description of the organization at the top. This is why I moved that section to its own article. This has nothing in common with the Rudy Guiliani or Hillary Clinton bios, those articles are full biographies, not stubs. I think you realize that, we can't cloak it as "encyclopedic and properly sourced" without first acknowledging this is an article about the NRCC. Encyclopedic and properly sourced information should be a history of the organization (as it pertains to its creation, involvement in races, 1994, etc), list of leaders, and a variety of other things which would go before any of the other ancillary information about controversies. That information is insignificant compared to the rest, you know that. The article doesn't even mention where the office is located, or when it was founded. I shouldn't have to explain this any further and post the Wiki-acronyms to support my position. MrPrada (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the properly sourced information, but I do agree wtih your point about a "Controversies" section, so I've reorganized the material accordingly. JamesMLane t c 04:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest, for now, keeping the paragraphs about soft-money and embezzlement, and then summarizing the rest with a link to the controversy article. If you want me to come back and give the usual litany about undue weight and quotes from Jimbo, I will, but I think we can reach an amicable solution before that is necessary. I have no inclination to write a full article on the NRCC, I'm not familiar with the subject matter, but as it stands right now this article needs to be fixed. MrPrada (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in, I think the problem arises partly because reporters for an "encyclopedia-quality" news source tend to cover controversial events with maybe just a paragraph of backstory description. The problem also arises partly because this group, for whatever reason, seems to have generated a larger number of controversies than, say, the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Those controversies deserve coverage here. What might give more balance would be for somebody to dredge up what NRCC spokespeople said to defend their position when each of these various controversies made news. betsythedevine (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be sensible, but still does not merit inclusion here. This organization has been around since 1866, in an encyclopedic article there would be pages of relevant information from 1866-2008 before we got to these, which are the majority of the article. Again, the title here is "NRCC", not "Controversies involving the NRCC" (which is why I created a seperate article). MrPrada (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The general principle is that we do not move or remove valid information simply because there's other valid information that isn't yet included. We could get in a never-ending loop where the negative stuff is deleted in the name of a spurious "balance", then a largely positive article is written, but someone comes along and deletes a lot of the positive information because the article isn't "balanced" by inclusion of negatives. That's not how a wiki works. Inclusion of the negative information doesn't make the article perfect, but it makes it better than it was before. (I agree with you that this applies only when the information is about the article subject. I don't understand why you raise that point here, though. It's absolutely clear that the information in question is about the NRCC.)
I don't remember any whitewashing of favorable information, although I haven't reviewed the history to see what you might be referring to. The only incident I remember that involved removing information based on ideology went the other way, when the NRCC itself edited the article to remove whatever it didn't like. If there's favorable information about the NRCC that's been excluded, I'll join you in championing its addition. As to your specific examples: The article does say when the NRCC was founded (1866), but including its current office address seems to me to be of dubious encyclopedic value. I just checked the better-developed articles about the two major parties' national committees; neither gives an office address.
I agree with betsythedevine's point about controversial organizations. A political entity is much more likely to make the news (and to generate Wikipedia-ready information that can be cited to a reliable source) when it's criticized or indicted or the like. JamesMLane t c 16:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your committee is attacking Harry Mitchel in Arizona about lieing on the dole boy Schweker who whole family has been in government forever. Tell me the lies Mr Mitchel is telling abouty Scweker I can't sell his name right mainly because it's not worth remembering but please tell me the lies. I'm an independent who wants information.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.15.93 (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’d love to know details about WHY User:MrPrada pages were removed! MrPrada was absolutely correct about everything he said! The ONLY exception to that is when MrPrada caves to betsythedevine’s “reasoning” about yadayadayada”... maybe just a paragraph of backstory description.” bestsythedevine’s “argument” is not the ONLY opposing INVALID arguments/reasons MrPrada was facing. Sadly, MrPrada was bullied in this set of talks by a group of politically opposing parties beating down the only VALID arguments in this whole mess, all the while smiling in MrPrada’s face as they stabbed repeatedly at MrPrada’s gut. If he left the wiki talks on his own accord it’s certainly easy to decipher that, regardless of anything MrPrada may have said to the contrary while trying to save face following this attack by sanctimonious peers of the opposing parties. And even if there were other reasons given for MrPrada’s withdrawal, what is demonstrated here is pure bullying. Btw this case of Wikipedia’s UNfair & UNbalanced delivery of what is supposed to be factual—encyclopedic (which betsythedevine used when referencing factual news sources, as if the U.S. still has or ever had purely factual news sources!)—information is merely one case, a drop of water in an ocean. This kind of nonsense is one reason the vast majority of entries in this so-called encyclopedia are made with more holes than solids, of more politics than facts, and more missing citations than a kindergartner’s book report (if the latter existed). If Wikipedia groups don’t change their ways I suspect they’ll continue down this shortcut doomed to failure. Have u not noticed that President Trump’s numbers show that at least half (and in most places more than that) of the population sit on the Conservative if not also the Republican, side of the aisle? If I were one of u folks with any power in this organization, I’d be doing a great deal of thought about your product, but only AFTER a great deal of all-inclusive research Dbreyna (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on National Republican Congressional Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Republican Congressional Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Republican Congressional Committee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This entire wikipedia topic is bullshit[edit]

the self-sponsored material that has been allayed onto this page is entirely untrustworthy, and the public purposes and missions of the NRCC cannot be considered the official or true purposes of that organisation. There is zero information about the constitution of the NRCC or its financial support. to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Republican_Congressional_Committee&oldid=1209121302"