Talk:Republican in name only

Proposed merge with Democrat In Name Only

There were half a dozen AfDs and 90% of the keep votes weren't based on any policy, and there was plenty of merge votes. This article does not go beyond a WP:DICDEF, and has not been expanded after half a dozen AfDs, and likely will never be expanded, even though some sources were alleged to have information (and I wonder if they have anything now that this article is still a two-sentence, unsourced stub). Therefore I propose that the article is merged. wumbolo ^^^ 20:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only (5th nomination), and it quickly became apparent that article is likely to stay. The many references cited seem to all be writers back-forming it from RINO, an obvious invention that's easy to imagine occurring repeatedly. The term lacks significance beyond WP:DICDEF; however, conservative editors push for parity with the RINO article.

In my opinion, DINO is not even worth merging into this article until it gets notable coverage as a term of interest, as RINO clearly has. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

There are no credible uses of this word. No references exist. The only time anyone has used this article is in defense of the Republicans that have been called out on the use of the term RINO. They need a counterpart to even out the argument that the term RINO is an extremist term used by extreme right-wing Republicans. Without a counterpart, they would have to admit their extremism. With the term, they can appear to be "balanced". This page should simply be eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.240.241 (talk) 12:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose makes more sense to keep both articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose I wanted to refer to the DINO article today, in reference to Southern conservative Democrats ("Dixiecrats"), "who increasingly supported Republican positions on many national issues," e.g. James Eastland's 1972 electoral detente with his personal friend Nixon (they did not endorse each other's opponents). It would have been... silly... not to find it. – _•Raven  ^.talk 22:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Editorial cartoon art again

File:Rinos.jpg

RINO: ‘Republicans In Name Only,’ the party’s hypocrites.

I'm still not a fan of the editorial cartoon art that some are creating for this article. I think they create an impression that RINO represents an organized group or an otherwise substantial faction of the GOP, when really this is a pejorative term that few seem to identify with.

The latest contribution in particular seems to create both an implicit narrative, and also the appearance of a section title that is unsupported by the article text (or sources). The caption ("the party’s hypocrites.") suggests this is part of a WP:POVPUSH that does not belong in the encyclopedia.

I am commenting on this before removing it because art like this has been repeatedly submitted. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hitlists

By now it's established the term RINO is used as a political invective to mobilize the conservative base, and every election season there will be punditry and blogs denouncing candidates with this term. Wikipedia should not be used as a force multiplier for coordinated political smear campaigns of this type. By now, literally hundreds of political figures have been called RINO (at least 20 having been added and removed from this article), so paragraphs like

Many Republicans have been called RINO, including <MY OPPONENTs>, <MY OPPONENTs>, <GUY I DON'T LIKE>, and <THIS SEASON'S WHIPPING BOY>.^{{{Blog source}}{{Alt-right source}}{{Out-of-contect source}}}

... are not noteable, and should be immediately removed per WP:BLP.

A well-sourced narrative demonstrating how this term has had a significant effect in a politician's career or campaign might be worth including. However, I think only in exceptional cases could such an exception be made without violating the policies Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

/ edg ☺ ☭ 16:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Romney's name should be restored, because since McCain's death he is the poster boy for RINOs. He is among the most, if not THE most notorious, unabashed RINO and never Trumper. - JGabbard (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Term "Cuckservative"

Is what a minority of a very select group of people's use of a phrase helpful for this article? I don't think giving apparent validity to that use is very helpful. Moseley3 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, "cuckservative" was a word in 1-3 areas of the country for a few months in 2015. It is not on par with any other phrase in this article. No one else heard it, as evidenced by this link--just try to find a word that registers at all that cuckservative was more popular than--in this link, at it's peak it hit "dinglehopper," before and after that month, it was completely unknown. --Mrcolj (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Honestly, I never heard of it until this post. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 01:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No true scotsman

Unsure if usable but a columnist does mention this is the no true scotsman fallacy.[1] —PaleoNeonate – 00:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Backronym

I disagree with this edit to the lead section, which is contradicted in the article body, and for some reason labelled a "linkfix".

The cited source says the term RINO might be a backronym, without further evidence. Meanwhile, the Origins section suggests the term Republican in name only is well-precedented.

Aside from being a questionable assertion, I don't think the backronym argument belongs in the lead section at all. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Celeste Greig's "No RINOs" button design

As the angle of the red slash on the buttons is wrong, these people behind that campaign can’t rank among the brightest. --91.47.29.50 (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Undid my edit

@Edgarde: Why did you undo my edit ? -- Calvinsky (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The edit in question

See also: previous discussion and MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE

This image has been removed repeatedly in the past. It is not suitable for an encyclopedia article because it is not informative. "RINO"'s are not an organized political group — it's really not a group at all, just a pejorative term — and including this image implies that some group of people organize beneath it the way other groups of people organize beneath elephants and donkeys. Aside from that, its placement in this article is promoting new art, which is not something an encyclopedia article should do.

It's a nice image, certainly decorative. It's a good thing to have available under free licensure. It just doesn't belong here. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Edgarde: Johnj1995 undid my edit because the image hadn't been uploaded yet then. NOT because it was unsuitable. -- Calvinsky (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

previous discussion ← It has come up before.

Also, I have explained my reasons in my reply, and linked relevant Wikipedia guidelines. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:21, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Cuckservative literal vs metaphor

TheDoober (talk · contribs) has made this edit twice now, removing the racial component of the cuck metaphor and replacing it with a more literal definition of the cuckold fetish. This would make a lot of sense if this article were about the swinger's scene or something. However, sources seem to agree that as a political epithet, this term is at least originally about race.

Revised:

The metaphorical "cuck" is represented in a form of sexual behavior whereas the cuckolded man tolerates, allows, or encourages his female partner to engage in sexual acts with another man (known as a "bull") while the cuckolded man is either present to witness the act or generally aware of the act. In white supremacist vernacular the term is an accusation of yielding to non-white interests on issues such as immigration or modern display of the Confederate flag; however, the term gained use (with some controversy) by more mainstream conservatives to denounce Republicans whose compromises included vote trading, rhetorical restraint in deference to donors, cooperation with Democrats on any particular initiative, or attempting to court voters by making appeals to supposedly liberal ideals.

Previous:

The metaphorical "cuck" is represented in a genre of interracial pornography as a masochistic white husband who allows his wife to have sex with a stronger black man, thereby participating in his own symbolic emasculation. In white supremacist vernacular the term is an accusation of yielding to non-white interests on issues such as [...]

References

I'm not reverting this twice. However, I think the racial component is supported by the many cited sources, and the previous text, aside from being more concise, gives a better description of where /pol/ posters were coming from, and for the visceral disgust that the far right wish to convey.

There have been other attempts to make this passage less distasteful; I think these have the effect of defending the term's use by pretending no one knows about the abovementioned entertainment media. For what it's worth, TheDoober is not objecting on taste, but because he considered the previous description as having a "political agenda". / edg ☺ ☭ 02:16, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Removed "Vichy Republican" Suggestion

Removing this before the article becomes an unsorted list of different flavors of Republican. The term Vichy Republican is not something conservative Republicans call moderate ones.

===Vichy Republican===

The term "Vichy Republican" was used in 2016 for members of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] who had chosen to abandon values traditionally espoused by the Republican Party and to instead support Donald Trump's candidacy, due to political expediency rather than genuine agreement with his beliefs or campaign.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://politicaledu.org/index.php/2016/12/30/vichy-republicans/|title=Vichy Republicans - PoliticalEdu|date=2016-12-30|work=PoliticalEdu|access-date=2018-04-07|language=en-US}}</ref> The term originates from [[Vichy France]], the French government which collaborated with the [[Axis powers|Axis Powers]] during the [[German military administration in occupied France during World War II|Occupation of France]] during [[World War II]].

Since it also appears to be a neologism that is not in wide use, I'm not confident it needs to be merged elsewhere, but I am listing it here in case someone finds a merge target. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Liz Cheney

I'm not good at finding reliable sources. Just stating what I've witnessed. Should Liz Cheney be included? An example is she was on the Jan 6 committee which most Republicans are super against. If so, maybe someone can find a good source? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2024

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: moved. Oppose views do not cite any policy or guidelines. At this time there is not sufficient evidence that RINO is a more common name than "Republican in name only" and no one provided evidence that this is a proper noun and thus needs to be capitalized. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Republican in Name Only → Republican in name only – Use sentence case. This term is not a proper name, not a title, not a trademark, nor any other reason to be in title case. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Best not to have a page title, in sentence form. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Using sentence case for page titles is, and always has been, WP:POLICY. See WP:NCCAPS and WP:TITLEFORMAT. Dicklyon (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Your proposal would also put this page out of sync, with Democrat in Name Only. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. I assume that would also be fixed, since it's also about the same in sources. Thanks for noticing it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Looks like it's more often capitalized when spelled out in the sourcing since the acronym became more popular. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure what you're looking at. In sentences (per WP:NCCAPS), it's almost always not capped. For defining the acronym, yes, it is commonly presented capped recently, but that's not what we go by. Per MOS:CAPS we look for "consistently capitalized" in sources to decide to capitalize in WP, and this is not nearly so. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support: The links above make it clear that Wikipedia does not capitalize just because some other sources do or because it is an acronym. Why would it be capitalized? SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Garden variety unnecessary capitalization. Primergrey (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support – This phrase would only be capitalized to indicate significance or explain its abbreviation, which is not Wikipedia's style. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
• RINO , and if not, Oppose the suggested move. Per the n-grams. RINO has redirected here since 2005, is the common name, and the most familiar name in English for the term. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

  That n-gram doesn't give you much clue about how many of those RINO hits refer to Republicans in name only. Actually, since the RINO hits peak around 1960, that's a pretty good clue that they are mostly about something else, or were back then at least. Did you check books to see how many things RINO might refer to in recent decades? Dicklyon (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. What has RINO been referring to? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  It's hard to tell. There are a lot of author first and last names Rino, sometimes set in all caps, but I'm not sure that's most of it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Pretty obvious that since 1988 RINO is the common term when discussing the topic under advisement here. Since RINO correctly redirects to this page there should be no reader confusion in either direction. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

According to the article, the term didn't appear in print with this meaning until 1992. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Ngrams are wildly inaccurate when common words are used and, when focusing on relevant sources, it appears to be pretty commonly uppercased to a level that we should keep consistent with. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

  "Pretty commonly uppercased" is far short of what our guidance say to look for. Review the lead at MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:NCCAPS and WP:TITLEFORMAT. AusLondonder (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.