Talk:Liberal Republican

RFV
From Requests for Verification:

Rfv-sense: Does this term exist with this definition except as an alternative form of SoP liberal + Republican? DCDuring TALK 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I had a final look, and all quotes I found with this capitalization refer to the Liberal Republican party (or movement) of the 1870s. As no one else has produced citations with this capitalization in over a year, I am calling this RFV-failed. Kiwima (talk) 04:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Analogous to above. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * DCDuring, these two terms have a set meaning, which encompasses parts (but not all) of the two words they are composed of. Liberal Republicans tend to be liberal on certain issues; conservative Democrats tend to be conservative on the same issues.  I can produce stacks of Google Books citations that use the term (for example, search for "Liberal Republican" and civil rights); and I believe the terms should be kept, SoP or no. Pur ple back pack 89   15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Facts before arguments. Let's see the citations. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't even an RfV, . This is just and RfD pretending to be an RfV.  I will cite the definitions as written.  SOP is not a question for RfV and I will not bother trying to meet your off-topic SOP threshold. Pur ple back pack 89   17:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added citations for LR. Those citations bear out the definition as written.  If they pass muster, I'll add citations for CD later. Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   18:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not one of the three citations offered at Liberal Republican is for the headword. Try again. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're complaining that they are for "liberal Republican" instead of "Liberal Republican", by god, I can just flip which is the primary and which is the alternative. Otherwise, the citations are valid. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Virtually no-one, bar a handful of ideologues, is liberal or conservative on every single issue. There are at least two groups of "conservative Democrats" in the US - social-conservative Blue Dogs and fiscal-conservative New Democrats (I can find cites calling both conservative Democrats). Not all conservative Democrats fit the definition given, it seems, and I'd be surprised if all "liberal Republicans" do either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I doubt they use LR and CD to refer to people who are 90-10. But you do concede that this definition is a valid description of some people, Murray? <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I think that there are Republicans who are (relatively) liberal and Democrats who are (relatively) conservative? Sure (as you can see from the citations I linked). Do I think that liberal Republican means anything more than a Republican who is liberal? No. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But, Murray, isn't your second question an RfD one instead of an RfV one? <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Following 's concerns about headwords, I have moved the primary definitions to liberal Republican and conservative Democrat. I have left the RfV templates on.  <font face="Verdana"><font color="#3A003A">Pur <font color="#800080">ple <font color="#991C99">back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * SOP. These "terms" exist, but as no more than collocations of “liberal | conservative” + “Republican | Democrat”.  The definitions as given in the current terms at liberal Republican and conservative Democrat are unsupportably narrow, as noted by Smurrayinchester above.
 * Delete, or move to RFD, then delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the only way to find out if this is SOP is to read every use of LibRep and ConsDem on Google Books and find out if, in practice, the terms are always used the way Purplebackpack89 has defined them. Let's do some researching! Khemehekis (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This has been sitting here for over a year, because it is an argument that belongs in RFD not RFV. I have cited both entries. I would vote for delete if this were moved to RFD, but as an RFV issue, I must say it has passed. Kiwima (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)