Talk:Log Cabin Republicans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class. |
Um, about this bit of the article:
"The name has been harshly criticized by other LGBTI groups because it does not specifically identify the organization as representing persons who self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersexual.[citation needed] However, such harsh criticisms have not been launched against The National Stonewall Democrats nor its local chapters."
Most gay groups would consider the word Stonewall to be a reference to the Stonewall riots, a major event in the history of gay rights in the US. So Stonewall Democrats don't get criticized for their name not specificially identifying them as gay because it does specifically identify them as gay, the same way Outright Libertarians and Lavender Greens have names that specifically identify them as gay. Log Cabin Republicans picked a name that, aside from the fact that they use it, doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality. Weither you feel that merits criticism or not, it makes them pretty much unique. 68.234.12.90 06:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The "British" spellings in this article are actually Australian, and they get there because the article was written by an Australian. There is no rule that says that American spellings have to be used in any article on any topic. It's not my fault that Americans were too lazy to write this article themselves. :) Adam 06:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Who said the article had to be written at all.219.93.174.110 04:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody, but it is clear that you had some reason in wanting to read it. 66.108.4.183 11:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Nash's Companion
Contents |
[edit] list of Stonewall Democrats chapters
I've removed said listing (while leaving the overall paragraph intact), as it doesn't really have a purpose here. If people want to know what the chapters are, they can visit its page. Quentin mcalmott 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No List of Gay Republicans?
Wikipedia has no article for List of Gay Republicans, this article is the only mentioned for that search. It seems a useful topic given the Mark Foley scandal.
[edit] Log Cabin Republican Members
"The group consists of gays, lesbians and bisexuals who are also supporters of the Republican Party."
The party is not made up of only gays, lesbians and bisexuals, but simply made up of those who support LGBT rights; the definition of Log Cabin Republican should be changed, and I will try to do so myself. Gronkmeister | Talk/ Contrib 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I do not believe you are correct. Clearly, they do not investigate a person's sexual orientation if he wants to join LogCabinRepublicans, but I do believe that the group is of gays who are Republicans, not people who are Republicans who support gay rights. 66.108.105.21 18:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
-
-
- They definitely accept heterosexual allies as members too. See their membership page which gives a very wide definition of who a Log Cabin Republican is: We are like-minded Americans who believe in limited government, a strong national defense, lower taxes, personal responsibility and free markets. That's it. And then About Log Cabin, which says No matter your race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation-please join the Lob Cabin family as we work to build a more inclusive GOP and a better America. So they clearly invite members of all sexual orientations, including heterosexuals. — coelacan talk — 15:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarification and the sourcing. 66.108.105.21 16:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth
-
[edit] Trivia
If anyone decides to add a Trivia section, or some sort of pop culture references section, it should be noted that the Log Cabin Republicans were at the center of the plot of last week’s American Dad! --Chewbacca1010 07:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ???
"In 2005, these groups united to do political combat with the Religious Right, and to re-assert the role of moderates and liberals within the Republican party."
What is this, a comic book? 190.8.64.74 14:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Filling gaps in history
A great deal happened between the late 1970s and George W Bush directly related to the subject of this article, arguably what has been missing has been why this group is known and why under normal Wikipedia standards of notability it should have an article. I've added in highly sourced NPOV content regarding its rise to prominence during the 1996 presidential campaign. Much of it comes from two published books from Simon and Schuster. Also, there was little internet activity in 1995 and 1996 to produce highly linkable raw content beyond published books or for-pay archives of news articles. But the sources are all there for what I added. There is probably more I've missed, as well as information subsequent to that period leading up to Log Cabin's criticism of GWBush. Perhaps other editors can pitch in?NYDCSP 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Poor sourcing of Briggs "research"
There is no adequate verifiable sourcing of the content about a "researcher" looking into the Reagan-Briggs connection. Until there is, this looks a lot like independent research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia and should be deleted. I'll let the author give it a shot at cleaning it up for about a month or so, then it should be deleted.NYDCSP 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
