Talk:Colorado Republican Party

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Colorado Republican Party. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724025010/http://www.adcorepublicans.com/2010/06/the-official-platforms-of-the-colorado-republican-and-democratic-parties/ to http://www.adcorepublicans.com/2010/06/the-official-platforms-of-the-colorado-republican-and-democratic-parties/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425150745/http://coloradorepublicanparty.com/read_article/2.html to http://coloradorepublicanparty.com/read_article/2.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081119143111/http://coloradocr.com/ to http://www.coloradocr.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Political bias toward the left
Suggesting the removing the term "far-right" on the page, as well as this ideology of "Trumpism." The Denver Post has explained their bias to be toward the left on several occasions, so this is not a reliable source. If this is not changed, I would also suggest changing the political bias of the CO Dems page, which is currently defined as "center." I believe this creates division among party lines, misleads people attempting to educate themselves on these topics, and is potentially dangerous to our Constitutional Republic. I would label the CO Dems as "far left" as the 5% of democrats would fit in this category, while most would be farther left than "center," exactly the same way the Republican party is. This page is extremely biased and in my opinion should be extensively rewritten with better sources. I understand it is difficult to find unbiased sources, which goes to a much larger problem with mainstream media and the continuous attempt to paint certain people or groups in a bad light, on both the left and right. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "I understand it is difficult to find unbiased sources" How long have you been editing Wikipedia? We are not looking for unbiased sources. Per the guideline on biased or opinionated sources:


 * "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But this is not an opinion column, Wikipedia should be a platform for factual information. Just because it doesn't appeal to your agenda, doesn't make it valid, sorry. If that is the case, I will make my addition to the left's page. https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/colorado-lurches-to-the-far-left/ or an even better example, https://www.joeodea.com/press-releases/far-left-democrats-try-to-hijack-colorado-gop-senate-primary But it appeals to my viewpoint, so why are these poor sources? No, these are not what you would call "reliable sources," but who defines what a reliable source is? Why would you not look for an unbiased source? I am genuinely curious, since any time someone tells me "well Fox News said," or "well MSNBC said," I instantly lose my trust in their viewpoint. Why would it be acceptable to use a self proclaimed "left wing" article on the position of Colorado GOP being far-right? AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Orwellian 2600:4040:445D:C200:D31B:DBE2:1B85:6EF5 (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Illinois State University supported by WikiProject Politics and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing far-right from page
I have changed the ideology section, and this is my reasoning as to why. I have discussed this previously, but to no avail have I managed to overcome the left-leaning overlords that rule this page. I doubt this will change your mind, but the sources used are completely biased. They have even come out about their bias previously. At this point, it is nothing but propaganda, either stretching the truth to just barely make it believable to downright lying. According to the Wikipedia page, far-right politics are associated with fascism. Fascism, as defined by Merrian Webster, is a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Now how do the sources provided line up with this definition? The term far-right is so loosely used in these articles, purely for political gain. This is propaganda at its finest, and if you cannot see that, you should not be editing these pages. AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles are not a lace for your WP:SOAPBOXING. Feel free to start a WP:RFC though but I would advise that you leave the WP:PAs out of it. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I may have been a bit agitated at the poor sources summing up 1,000,000 people to being fascist Nazis and let my anger get in the way. However, I still believe these are extremely misleading, biased sources and should be removed and replaced with more reliable sources that actually show clear indications of far-right ideologies. Dare I say these are cherry picked sources? AmericanFarmer1 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * When your godawful party stops calling for the burning of pride flags, and stops calling our community "groomers" for no reason, we'll tone down the "Nazi" talk.
 * Until then, we will call a spade a spade. Simple as that. 67.81.217.193 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)