Talk:Ripon Society

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Mid‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The Irony of Photos of Conservatives in This Article[edit]

"I think we all have to take a new look at what price we are willing to pay individually, as Republicans and as Americans, to fight Goldwaterism (Conservatism) to the bitter end." - John Saloma III, 1964 (Ref: Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, from Eisenhower to the Tea Party - Studies in Post War Political Development, Geoffrey Kabaservice, (Oxford Press, 2012))

Considering the founder of the Ripon Society, John Soloma III, vowed to rid the both the Republican party and the USA of radical conservatives (even by 1960's standards) I think the over deployment of photos of stalwart and even self labeled extreme-Conservatives (ref: John Boehner) is a laughing stalk to those supervising this article. I started changing out photos with centrist role models mentioned in the article, like Portman. --50.128.155.168 (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Centrist Republican'?[edit]

Surely that's a contradiction in terms? Our article on centrism suggests it usually means being unaffiliated to either left-wing or right-wing politics, but combining elements of both. Whereas this is unmistakenly an organisation of the political right. 'Moderate conservative' or 'centre-right' might be better descriptions for it. Robofish (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted several revisions that were made on December 6, 2013[edit]

I've contested and reverted many revisions. Below is an explanation:

Revision made 17:07, 6 December 2013 by Bdb484[edit]

The revision[edit]

User Bdb484 deleted a large passage of text within “The Ripon Papers” heading.

The reason for the revision[edit]

In Bdb484’s edit summary, he wrote that the source does not say this text became the Ripon Papers.

The problem[edit]

Bdb484’s reason for the revision applies to only one sentence, but he instead deleted not only that one sentence but a large passage of text surrounding that one sentence.

New revision[edit]

Instead, just the sentence that said the text became the Ripon papers should be deleted, and the surrounding content not addressed in Bdb484’s edit summary should be restored. I have made these changes today.

Revision made 16:56, 6 December 2013 by Bdb484[edit]

The revision[edit]

Bdb484 deleted the Republican of the Year Award heading and the text within that heading that discussed the society giving its award to then-VP George H.W. Bush and two U.S. senators.

The reason for the revision[edit]

In Bdb484’s edit summary, he wrote that the text is not encyclopedia and not from a reliable source.

The problem[edit]

The arguments made in his edit summary are not valid.

Regarding “not encyclopedic.” The text in question shows a link between the nominal subject and a former, (somewhat) recent American president, as well as two prominent U.S. senators.

According to Wikipedia’s policies regarding content, "Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines about encyclopedic content. These standards require verifiability, neutrality, respect for living people, and more.” (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Content).

The text in question is verified by two New York Times articles. The text is neutral; it does not make any subjective arguments or opinions. I would argue that the text is respectful.

Regarding “not reliable sources.” The text in question cites two New York Times articles. The New York Times is certainly a reliable source. Ironically, even the Wikipedia page “Identifying reliable sources” actually cites the New York Times as one of its sources. (See Citation #3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Notes)

New revision[edit]

The deleted text should be restored. I have made these changes today.

Revision made 16:54, 6 December 2013 by user Bdb484[edit]

The revision[edit]

Bdb484 deleted text that discussed the Ripon Society's founder.

The reason for the revision[edit]

In Bdb484’s edit summary, he cites Wikipedia’s rules against coat racking.

The problem[edit]

The arguments made in his edit summary are only valid for SOME of the text he deleted, not all of it.

According to Wikipedia’s article about coat racking: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject.” (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Coatrack)

Regarding "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject”: The Ripon Society article, as it is currently written, goes into quite a bit of detail about the nominal subject (the Ripon Society). The definition of “ostensibly” is “seemingly, apparent, on the surface.” If the article goes into quite a bit of detail about the nominal subject, that means that the article is not “ostensibly discuss[ing] the nominal subject.”

Regarding "but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject.”: Bdb484 targets text about John Saloma, the founder of the group, citing the coat racking rule as his reason. I do not see any evidence that a short discussion of the founder of the nominal subject could be reasonably considered a “tangentially related biased subject.”

I agree that the length/amount of information about the Ripon founder might have been too high. But I think that a short description of the founder is appropriate and would fall within the norms, practices and rules of Wikipedia.

Many other political think tanks have short discussions of their founders on their Wikipedia page. Some examples that represent both sides of the political spectrum include:

New revision[edit]

Instead of deleting all the text that Bdb484 deleted about the founder, some of that text should remain (and some of it should remain deleted). I have made these changes today.

Revision made 16:50, 6 December 2013 by user Bdb484[edit]

The argument made in his edit summary is valid. However, instead of deleting the content, it would have been more appropriate to insert a “citation needed” editor’s mark.

I have restored the deleted content and added the missing citation.

Additional notes[edit]

I kept the deletion of the MIT building deleted. It is not relevant.

I added a caption to the JFK photo to give it context and relevancy.

Thanks for reading! DellGriffith899 (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

added a timeline box w/ images[edit]

Due to the historical richness of the topic, I thought it would be appropriate to display a series of pictures of the cover of the Ripon Forum magazine, which has been around since 1965. U.S. presidents and nominees have written guest columns. Added a timeline info box with images with select issues, mostly involving U.S. presidents or party's nominee for president. send any questions, comments, concerns, my way. thanks! DellGriffith899 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effectiveness of group?[edit]

Of the six objectives listed in the lead, only one has come to pass:

Ensure a strong, effective national defense.

Since five of the six objectives have failed, shouldn't the group disband itself? What's the point of this group if they can't achieve their goals after so many years? They've had 51 years to meet six objectives and only met one. What's the point of this group? It could be reasonably argued, for example, that the very policies this group supports have damaged and weakened the American family, the American educational system, the healthcare system, the economy, and the government. In fact, one could very easily argue that this group is their own worst enemy. Shouldn't the group simply admit their mistakes and move on? 51 years is a long time to get things utterly wrong. Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undisclosed paid edits[edit]

I have added an {{undisclosed paid}} tag to this article because of extensive editing by a UPE sockfarm, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Frost joyce for evidence. Users relevant to this page include: Kenenjaye Saidykahn (talk · contribs), Guinnessjerry44 (talk · contribs), Henry3898383 (talk · contribs), Jonnguyentoledo (talk · contribs), DellGriffith899 (talk · contribs), Aaronkytersly4 (talk · contribs), Jordanrolsen (talk · contribs), Lopsidedsuccess (talk · contribs), Barbarousbunch815 (talk · contribs) The article will need a thorough review ensuring due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed. MarioGom (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]