Talk:Arizona Republican Party

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arizona 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/20100509195244/http://www.azgop.org:80/site/c.qtK2KeMSKuG/b.5709095/k.BEC2/Home.htm to http://www.azgop.org/site/c.qtK2KeMSKuG/b.5709095/k.BEC2/Home.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929010552/http://www.azgop.org/elected-officials/ to http://www.azgop.org/elected-officials/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070608111738/http://www.azfrw.org:80/ to http://www.azfrw.org/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to call the Arizona Republican Party "dominated by Christian Nationalists" or "White Supremacists." The party was the first party to elect a Jewish person to statewide office. It was the first party to elect an Asian American to statewide office. It was the only party to elect an African American in 2022. It has a Latino immigrant as the current Speaker of the House.

The edits made by Jon698 edits are extremely inaccurate. If he wants to keep the sources, please reword them to not be inaccurate. Your current edit, which you have forced on the page despite multiple legitimate attempts to remove it, falls underUndue Weight and does not abide by a non-partisan view point. Since Jon698 is a self-disclosed DSA member, it appears he has a political bias in editing this page and I request that he acts in good faith to not vandalize the page any further.

Azpol (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• As I indicated here, "they elected a Black or Jewish member" does not counter the charge of white nationalism or whatever those sources have. (It's equivalent to I'm not racist, I have black friends.) What you need to do is explain how those three very solid sources have it wrong. User:Jon698, I would appreciate a few more words/explanations/edit summaries out of you, since you're also pretty close to edit warring. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

  Those sources do not back up the claim that the party is dominated by white nationalists or christian nationalists. The point being made by the GOP electing these people is that it is impossible to be a Christian nationalist party or a white nationalist party when you literally have a Jewish person as a statewide elected official and a Latino immigrant as speaker of the House. It's absurdism. Also, the claims presented by Jon violate NPOV standards and are not backed up by the sources whatsoever. In fact, the claims are rejected by just about everything. Azpol (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• 1. These are not my claims, they were added by a different user in 2023 2. My complaint was that you were removing sourced content 3. I support having both the factional domination and what Azpol added being in the article as they are not contradictory 4. I am happy that Azpol is honest about his COI, like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon698 (talk • contribs)

The list of elected officials as being the "first" in specific demographics/positions seems to be WP:UNDUE, so I have removed it. I randomly looked up 6 other state political party articles, and their history sections do not include anything similar. Even without the comparison to what's considered standard on articles like these on Wikipedia, I still don't think that section really reads as an encyclopedic overview on the "History" of the Arizona Republican Party.

Unfortunately I don't have time right at this moment, but I think the history section needs to be expanded overall to give a longer-term overview of the party; it's skewed towards recent events (unless, somehow, the party started in the 1990s). - Whisperjanes (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it should be expanded. The "firsts" were to combat the nonpartisan point of view being forced by another editor. I agree that they are not in line with other articles and that their point has been used in bringing this to the attention of other editors such as yourself. I believe the NPOV issue has been adequately solved. Azpol (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

In the future, please do not make edits you don't agree with just to make a WP:POINT. If you are having a dispute with another editor, you should post on a noticeboard instead.

To be clear, my attention was brought to this article only because Rhododendrites posted to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. I know you are new to editing Wikipedia. But now, if you have any future disputes, I hope you know where it is better to bring them to attention. If you are not sure where to get outside help on an article, you can always ask on the WP:TEAHOUSE page as well. - Whisperjanes (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Not new to editing. Been around for 10+ years. Trying to ensure the articles are accurate and not forcing a politically biased point of view based on opinion articles that don't even hold up the claims being made in the Wikipedia article. It looks like there are enough eyes on this article at the moment so I'll return in a few weeks to make any edits if I believe there are necessary ones to uphold Wikipedia's editing standards. Azpol (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha, sorry about my mistake on how long you've been editing. I now see that you have an older alternative account listed in a userbox. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)