Talk:Republican Party (United States)

political position 2

I think its REALLY REALLY important for a political party to state their political position! the Republicans are centre-right/right-wing and it needs to be stated just like the Democrats being centre-left. or is it different over there in the states? cause almost every party here on Wikipedia has clearly stated their political position except maybe for the CCP but duhh thats expected. requesting the admins to take necessary actions Credmaster 20 (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand this obsession with applying these simplistic labels. How do you determine the position of a party with some positions on the left and some on the right? Do certain positions take precedence over others for this determination? Could two such mixed parties wind up labelled the same, yet be diametrically opposed to each other? Are "right" and "left" related to the politics of the country in question or to some hypothetical world-wide standard? A clear description of the party's stated positions would seem much more useful than just slapping these tags on them. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a lot of research by scholars and research institutions about the left-right spectrum in political science. It is particularly studied in comparative politics and international relations to understand political trends globally and sometimes coordination across country boundaries. The formation of political groups of the European Parliament, like the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D), Renew Europe, or the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) is one demonstration of parties from different countries that are similarly positioned coordinating with each other. These parties also claim partners outside of Europe. The ECR claims the Republican Party as a partner, and supported the candidacy of Donald Trump in 2020 [1]. Another example are political internationals. Experts in this field have done research, gone through peer review, and have established how to define political positions. Center-left, center-right, and right-wing are also all defined here on Wikipedia with citations. How an individual editor defines these does not matter. The majority opinion found in the literature on this topic is what would be added. Editors should not be asked to rely on their own opinions. This has been stated many times by many editors. The insinuation that editors who suggest adding a political position are "slapping these tags on them" at this point is insulting when you have been engaged in this discussion over a long time. Ray522 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

In comparative politics, political scientists group parties according to ideology, not position in the poltical spectrum. They use groupings such as liberal, socialist/social democrtic and Christian democratic. They place for example the Labour Party (UK), Social Democratic Party of Germany and Socialist Party of France in the same ideological group. They don't use the groupings of center left, left, centrist etc. because of their lack of precision.

We cannot use Wikipedia articles such as center left and information about parties to place them on the political spectrum, per WP:SYN. TFD (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of referencing the other pages was to see that sources exists, and others can be found if needed. And that asking for individual editors to define words would be asking them to do original research WP:NOR. Yes, ideologies are studied in comparative politics. Additionally, there is also research that looks at the left-right specturm, like this from the Manifesto Project Database, which was referenced by another editor a while ago, and written about in the New York Times. There are also articles like this article [2], which discusses and references both ideologies and the left-right spectrum in comparing political events in two different countries, or this book chapter [3]. Ray522 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Support If for no other reason than to stop this issue from being brought up ad nauseam. To my knowledge, the Democratic party article also does not list it's political position either, however, we can all assume this issue will be raised over and over until it is addressed, as it has been for years. DN (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

And then we argue ad nauseum about where specifically in the political spectrum each party lies. Presumably the two parties together cover the entire range of the political spectrum and in fact overlap, although not so much now as in the past. TFD (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

support

All other country parties do this

The Republican Party should be designated as right to far right

Democrats centre left to centre right 174.89.12.70 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

No democrats should be labeled as center-right. Maybe in economics, but I assure you not in social policies. 2600:1007:B050:1433:9581:313A:75F:CC5D (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove political position. The political position should not be included here just as it is not included in the Democrat article. Americans in general don’t have a true grasp of the left/right spectrum and with only two major parties each contain views from the center to the extreme. To label the Republican Party as right-wing but the Democrat Party not left-wing rings of bias which should always be avoided on a Wikipedia page. The sources cited themselves have been heavily accused of being left leaning to lift-wing making them impartial. I’m certain with just very little research there would also be enough right leaning to right-wing sources to label the Democrat Party as left-wing as well. It’s all about how both sides choose to spin the data. At the most each party should be labeled as ether left or right or both not labeled at all. Straykat99 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

""but the Democrat Party not left-wing" What do the Democrats have in common with left-wing politics? Per the main article on the topic: "Today, ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy are considered to be centre-left, while the Left is typically reserved for movements more critical of capitalism, including the labour movement, socialism, anarchism, communism, Marxism and syndicalism, each of which rose to prominence in the 19th and 20th centuries." Last I checked, the Democrats are supporters of capitalism. Dimadick (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Support. Just because you do not believe that Americans have a grasp on the left-right political spectrum does not mean that it is not there in our two political parties. Also in response to the comment that Democrats are not a left-leaning party, that is not fully true. The Democrats support a capitalist-socialist system. They support capitalism in that they support the free market, but they support socialism in that they support regulations by the government on that market, as well as supporting many social systems set up. They also support the left in their social policies. 174.240.149.73 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the Democrats are definitely not centre-left. More like centre to centre-right, with the republicans being right-wing to far-right. Rares Kosa (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Should the article mention support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP?

Should the article mention support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP?

• A: Mentioning of support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP should be included in the article.
• B: Mentioning of support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory among the GOP should not be included in the article.

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Background

Content regarding GOP support for the Great Replacement conspiracy theory has been removed from the article, and at least two editors have voiced opposition to include mentioning GRCT in the article altogether. While the discussion around a recent edit started only recently, this topic has been discussed her before earlier this year and has been unresolved for several weeks (see here). Since general opposition to including information on the GOP and GRCT anywhere in the article has been voiced, I suggest to keep this RfC simple and determine whether or not this topic should be included at all. We have an article on GRCT in the US if you are not familiar with the topic.

Poll (GRCT)

• A: There a a lot of RS covering the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, both in the US in general and in the context of the GOP specifically. Cortador (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Per discussion below this question is too vague to be useful. I suggest proposing a specific or reasonably specific edit (text and location) rather than suggesting that somewhere, someplace this content might be included. Springee (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  What if we determine which historians and academics understand GRCT well enough to rely on before we get into where we put it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't their opinions help us determine the answers to those questions? Cheers. DN (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• B - because it is not really a part of the Republican Party so much as a belief among some Republicans, politicians and supporters. Relevant in the pages of those notable Republicans that do espouse such views, less so in the article on the party itself. nableezy - 14:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• B - Agree with User:Nableezy's reasoning. MonMothma (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• B, it's not a mainline belief of the GOP specifically.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• B, doesn't appear to be the political party's official stance. Best keep the info within the aforementioned GRCT article. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
• B It's not a part of the Republican Party. The fact that some of the 300 million Democrats and Republicans use or believe in the term does not make it a part of either party. North8000 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

A secondary comment, it would be better to word the proposal/RFC as GRT rather than GRCT. Adding "conspiracy" to GRT mostly turns it into a straw man description of the allegations. I think that most persons using the term allege that it is a general direction or initiative without alleging that there is a conspiracy. Adding "conspiracy" to allegations usually mis-describes allegations as an implausible straw man version of them. North8000 (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources widely describe GRT as a conspiracy theory. There's not basis for dropping that descriptior. Cortador (talk) 09:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

• B It is not a significant aspect of the party in reliable sources to justify inclusion. Furthermore, the few sources that use polling do not actually ask respondents if their believe in the theory. TFD (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment At this point I agree with Springee, and given the recent responses above I think it's possible the RfC would be better off being withdrawn. There needs to be clarification as to what, where, and how the proposed addition would fit into the current article, what source(s) it is attributed to, etc. DN (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• B - I agree with most above that it is not an official party stance and does not appear to be a mainstream belief in the party amongst supporters. Grahaml35 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• B - Per reasons already given. KlayCax (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (GRCT)

I'm not sure this is helpful as there is a big difference between "don't mention at all" and putting this is the section on GOP immigration policy as was recently done. Perhaps pulling this RfC back and replacing it with something that is closer to a proposed change would be helpful. Springee (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

You voiced blanket opposition to inclusion of mentioning of GRCT in this article, therefore determining whether that should be included at all is the way to go. Cortador (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that A is vague at best. Would we then have an RfC on positioning and one on weight? — Czello ^(music) 14:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:Czello. This RfC is too vague, and I think we should start over with something more specific (e.g. some proposed language to consider). At present, my response to this RfC is "it depends". If someone proposed to add a sentence stating, "Polls show that x percent of Republican voters believe the GRCT", that would be worth considering (I believe some polling along those lines was referenced above in the endless talk page discussion). However, if someone proposed to add a sentence stating that the Republican Party as an entity supports the GRCT, that would be unacceptable unless there was some mention of it in a GOP platform or some other GOP document. MonMothma (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The reason why mentioning of GRCT has repeatedly been removed from this article is because one editor stated that it shouldn't be mentioned be included in the article at all. I opened this RfC to determine whether or not GRCT should be mentioned or not.Cortador (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) I'm not staking a position on whether or not it is appropriate to mention this particular subject matter in this particular article, especially given the very broad (and as others have noted, overly-flattened) yes/no dichotomy of the OP inquiry. I'm very hesitant to endorse any inclusion without more particularized discussions about the exact context and wording (largely because of concerns regarding WP:EXCEPTIONAL), but I also can't completely rule out the possibility of connecting the two subjects in this article, depending on the specific connection being identified and how the sources discuss said connection.

So, insofar as my first paragraph there goes, I think we are in strong agreement. However, I also want to point out that when you go on to say "However, if someone proposed to add a sentence stating that the Republican Party as an entity supports the GRCT, that would be unacceptable unless there was some mention of it in a GOP platform or some other GOP document.", that is absolutely and without question not how inclusion on this project is determined, and would be unambiguous WP:Original research. It is not the place of our editors to scrutinize the conduct and actions of a subject to analyze whether or not some value or belief ascribed to that subject is an accurate representation (whether we are using the official statements of the subject or any other measure).

Rather, if enough WP:Reliable sources created enough WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT, through their coverage, for the claim that the Republican Party as a whole embraces this (or any other) conspiracy theory, then we would follow suit and relay that this has been an observation made about the party. We might do it with scrupulously attributed statements, but we would mention it, if there was enough WEIGHT, because our role as editors here is not to ascertain to the "truth" through our own individual lenses and faculties, but to relay what has been observed by reliable sources (WP:NPOV/WP:OR).

Now, do I think there is enough WP:WEIGHT to justify a blanket statement about the GOP as an institution embraces this particular belief system? Well, I'd have to dig much, much deeper into the sourcing to give an absolutely conclusive answer to that, but my initial inclination is to say that a truly huge volume of high quality sources would be necessary to support an un-qualified, un-attributed statement like that in Wikivoice, given the size of the overall corpus of sources and the variety of opinions about the Republican Party--and, again, the WP:EXCEPTIONAL nature of the claim.

Nevertheless, it bears remembering that any such decision has to be based exclusively upon the weight of the sources, and not our own individual, idiosyncratic views about what makes something a product of the party as a whole (such as a test based on whether or not the party had formally, affirmatively endorsed it through an explicit statement in their platform, or any other measure we as individuals think might make such an observation a "fair" one). That's just not the standard on this project; our role here is not to make sure that the observations we put in our content are rational and reasonable, but rather that they reflect what reliable sources say on the matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussing a "proposed" sentence which describe all of the GOP as GRCT supporters is a pointless hypothetical. Nobody has made such a suggestion, and it has never been in the article. Cortador (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That fact is merely incidental to the point I was stressing for MonMothma (whose perspective I otherwise align with). Regardless of what particular statement is or is not proposed for inclusion, the metrics for inclusion must be based exclusively upon the weight of discussion in reliable sources, not our own feelings as individuals about whether or not ascribing this or that label is reasonable, logical, or fair, based on our own analysis of the facts and how the party in question has behaved. As the old Wikipedia adage goes, it's about WP:WEIGHT, not WP:TRUTH.

As a side note, I think you very much need to drop the ambivalence to the primary piece of advice pretty much every respondent and participant of this discussion so far has given you about your opening prompt. Everyone gets what you are saying when you state that you structured the options as you did because at least one other editor has implied there should be no mention of the 'Great Replacement Theory' whatsoever. Nevertheless, approaching the discussion with that dichotomy, especially on such a high traffic talk page, is still next to useless. Because almost every veteran editor is going to agree that we don't permanently proscribe any subject from any article. Therefor all you are doing by wording the prompt as you have is scoring a philosophical victory by getting a bunch of respondents to agree with you in the broadest of possible terms, at the cost of a lot of wasted volunteer time. But after that point is established, you are still going to have to engage in further discussion to resolve the exact disputed content.

It is therfore infinitely better to first establish a prompt that directly inquires about the actual content that may or may not be appropriate. And refusing the accept that time-saving advice and instead insisting upon having this high level (but essentially functionless) debate about whether mention of the Great Replacement Theory in any capacity would be acceptable under any circumstances, purely on principle, is not going to help you with support on the underlying and more specific issues. Each of us can only afford to respond to so many FRS requests, so make this RfC count for something concrete. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Snow Rise, I hear you, and I stand corrected. If reliable sources say the GOP adheres to the GRCP, that is what the encyclopedia should say--whether or not there is a GOP policy statement on the subject. On a related note, I resonate strongly with your statement that "a truly huge volume of high quality sources would be necessary to support an un-qualified, un-attributed statement like that in Wikivoice". I am concerned that biased sources--including some that might be considered reliable--might carelessly smear the GOP by connecting the GOP to the GRCP without any real justification. MonMothma (talk) 00:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see what the issue is with having a second discussion should the outcome of this RfC be that GRCT should be included in this article. Quite the opposite: the discussion where and what specific wording to include is going to be more productive once blanket refusing is off the table. Cortador (talk) 15:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment - Since January there hasn't been much discussion on this topic. For clarity I'm copy-editing Cortador's most recent edit from the bottom of the Immigration section to this discussion for easier examination.

• A number of Republicans support the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory based on the idea that immigration is used as a tool by certain groups in power to displace white Americans in favour of racial minorities. It was a largely fringe believe until 2014. According to a 2022 study by AP and NORC, half of Republicans believed in the conspiracy theory, compared to a third of all and 20% of Democrats surveyed. A poll by Yahoo News and YouGov in the same year showed that 61% of Trump voters agreed with the core message of the conspiracy theory. This is a shift from the party's 2013 post-election assessment, which had come to the conclusion that the Republican Party needed to appeal to minorities in order to be successful.

Refs

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding to this since this cites the repeatedly removed section:

NPR: GRCT has been replaced by Republicans, explicitly and implicitly.

NPR: Republicans politicians, including high-ranking ones, have embraced GRCT.

USA News: The concept of GRCT has been "woven into the campaigns against Democrats".

The Guardian: GRCT is "Republican orthodoxy" and "Republican party mainstream".

PBS: Several Republican 2022 cnadidates promoted GRCT.

WP: The Republican Party has increasingly been embracing GRCT.

ABC News, citing Larry Rosenthal: Expression of GRCT has "assumed rhetorical predominance" in the GOP.

NPR: GRCT "has come to dominate mainstream Republican discourse on immigration, extremism researchers warn". Cortador (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

WP: "Versions of the same ideas [...] have become commonplace in the Republican Party".

• I moved the central question to the top of the RfC and signed it so that part is copied over to WP:RFCA. Cortador, you may want to substitute your own signature for mine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have any articles about the Republican Party that say it is significant? Also, you need an expert to interpret the polls. While likely most Republicans and many Democrats don't want to see non-white people immigrate, that doesn't necessarily mean they think we're in the beginnings of a genocide against white folks. TFD (talk) 02:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  We don't need a source that states that this is signifiant. Significance is established by RS covering the topic. Likewise, we don't need an expert to interpret the poll. The poll isn't directly cited from the polling company, but from a source reporting on it. That is sufficient. Cortador (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually we should have such a source. When dealing with a topic as big as and with as much source material as the GOP we do need some way to help filter what is WP:V but not due for inclusion. RSs that tend to summaries a topic are excellent guides for us to decide what expert/professional editors think is important to include in an article that is meant to summarize a topic. Springee (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  No, we should not. If a high enough number of quality sources cover this topic, it should be included. Don't try to create artificial requirements here. Cortador (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  So how many is enough? If this is really due then why aren't summary sources including it? Springee (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  A number that editors agree is sufficient. "Summary sources" is a requirement you made up. Cortador (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  It has been discussed more heavily since the string of attacks ending with Buffalo in 2022.

  1. Greenblatt, Gertz and Miller-Idriss say claims of an orchestrated "immigrant invasion" have gained legitimacy through the endorsement of some elected Republicans, most notably former President Donald Trump. But they note that the messaging has continued after Trump left office. NPR

  2. Cas Mudde In few countries has this process of mainstreaming has been as successful and visible as in the United States, where the main representatives of the mainstream right wing, like Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, are propagating the Great Replacement Theory with great success. Just a few days before the terrorist attack, a poll showed that nearly half of Republicans believe the conspiracy theory...The Grand Old Party has become a far-right party that advances racist arguments in both implicit and explicit form. And many organizations within the broader “conservative” movement have followed suit, from Fox News to Turning Point USA. The Guardian

  3. Joseph Lowndes - "But scholars and journalists have noted that in recent years, right-wing pundits and Republican politicians have also begun using the term “replacement” to assert without evidence that there is a liberal plot to outnumber Republicans with Democrats by opening the borders to migrants, refugees and asylum seekers. This political version of replacement is neither an exotic import from European white nationalists, nor is it novel. The contemporary notion of political replacement draws on this longer history of perceived threats posed by non-White populations to White democracy, but it is more immediately rooted in the history of the modern Republican Party." WaPo

  4. Mark Pitcavage Some of the Republican campaigns denied that their statements amounted to replacement theory, but among the experts, there is little question. Five experts on hate speech who reviewed the Republican candidates’ comments confirmed that they promote the baseless racist theory, even though the Republicans don’t mention race directly. Indeed, a mainstream interpretation of replacement theory in the U.S. baselessly suggests Democrats are encouraging immigration from Latin America so more like-minded potential voters replace “traditional” Americans, says Mark Pitcavage, senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League Center on Extremism. PBS

  5. Kathleen Belew - So I think the very different thing here is that this is no longer a fringe idea. And what we are seeing is the move from sort of a looking away position where, for instance, after the El Paso shooting of Latina and Latino people in the Walmart a number of years back, there was a memo by the GOP directing our attention away from white power activism and towards mental health. So this directing our attention away has now moved to an open embrace by pundits, by people in the party of a overtly white power tenant. NPR DN (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Summary sources" is not a requirement that was made up.

  "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

  "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight."

  The Republican Party is a huge big topic. You need reliable sources to determine what is significant, not what you find to be significant.

  Editors should watch Gangs of New York, which is about New York politics circa 1860. New Irish Catholic immigrants were welcomed by Tammany Hall and sent to fight in the Civil War. Reactionaries set up organizations to protect "true Americans." Nothing has changed. TFD (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  "Can", "may" - they are not a requirement. Also, as DN has shown above, there's plenty of material. Cortador (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  It's worth noting that it's not typically a word for word recitation of the original replacement theory by Renaud Camus. Reports often use the term "echoes" to describe rhetoric "espousing" or "overlapping" with GRCT. The rhetoric experts commonly associate it with involves mention of an organized plot by Democrats to subvert elections and "invade" the US to undermine and or destroy white American culture, but seems to rarely mention any elite cabal of Jewish people.

  6. The once-fringe immigration proposals pushed by former President Trump are now the backbone of the GOP’s immigration and border security platform. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Monday launched his official immigration and border security platform titled “Stop the Invasion” — a term civil rights organizations associate with the Great Replacement Theory...“And what do we mean by that? We mean that you have elected officials and public figures like media personalities promoting things like the Great Replacement Theory, or promoting conspiracy theories about all sorts of things...“It’s important to point out that the word invasion has been used for many, many years by various political figures on the right who don’t want undocumented immigrants coming into the country,” said Marilyn Mayo, a senior research fellow at the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. “It doesn’t necessarily mean that DeSantis is promoting the Great Replacement Theory. It does mean that he has some viewpoints that overlap with that theory,” added Mayo...The Hill

  7. The Global Project Against Hate & Extremism, headed by Heidi Beirich PhD and Wendy Via of the SPLC, have also been tracking GRCT, very closely monitoring statements by politicians.

  8. This conspiracy theory has grown so popular among key GOP figures that the conservative elite can no longer condemn it unreservedly. Instead, some prominent conservatives have chosen to defend it in sanitized form, arguing that the Democratic Party’s support for immigration reform is a plot to, as Representative Elise Stefanik of New York put it in an ad last year, “overthrow our current electorate and create a permanent liberal majority in Washington.” Note the notion that an “electorate” can be “overthrown” by being outvoted, as though Republican electoral defeat is by definition illegitimate—especially if that victory is enabled by the wrong kind of voters. The Atlantic

  9. It is difficult to square this rhetoric with the actions of the Republican National Committee, which insists Latinos are the future of the Republican Party and have held naturalization events for immigrants around the country. The Washington Times reports the Republican National Committee “hosted and planned over 100 events for Hispanic Heritage Month” in swing states that include Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Texas, Florida and others. Over 100 Hispanic House candidates are running as Republicans, a new record, according to the RNC. Immigration Legislation: The conflict between “great replacement” rhetoric and GOP outreach to Latinos affects individuals who need Congress to address their legal status. Forbes

  Cheers. DN (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"But they note that the messaging has continued after Trump left office." No surprise there. Who is the current head of state has little impact on what ideas the various parties and political organizations are promoting. Ideas refuse to die, unlike humans. Dimadick (talk) 04:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying that GOP rhetoric overlaps with GRCT is not saying they are the same thing.

It is a fact that the white percentage of the population has declined every census period since 1940 (See White Americans#Demographic information.) The U.S. will probably become a majority minority country in the 2040s (See Majority minority in the United States.) What makes this a conspiracy theory?

TFD (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that reliable sources call it a conspiracy theory makes it a conspiracy theory. Cortador (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source that says claims that the relative size of the white population in America is declining is a conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Calling certain data factual is one thing, but GRCT is not said data. Adherents have used statistics like that in conflation with GRCT, in an attempt to give GRCT legitimacy. Essentially, quoting data is not the same thing as saying that Democrats are "invading" or "flooding" the US with immigrants to replace/destroy white American culture and it's electorate, ie Republicans. The point is that many of these adherents are high profile GOP members, ranking leaders as well as Republican voters, according to RS.

10. "The theory’s first inaccurate assumption is that white Americans will soon become a minority population. But using any nuanced reading of the data, that’s not true. Yes, in 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau published a population projection that by the year 2044, non-Hispanic white Americans would no longer be a numerical majority in the country. But not being the majority is not the same as being a minority: Even in that projection, non-Hispanic white Americans would still make up a plurality of the population compared with any other race. And non-Hispanic white Americans are not the only white Americans."

"Another plot hole in the mainstream replacement narrative is the assumption that immigrants will solely support the Democratic party...Carlson, too, has repeatedly warned of a so-called Democratic plot to “import an entirely new electorate from the Third World and change the demographics of the U.S. so completely they will never lose again.” But even he concedes that this narrative is flawed, pointing out in his show last week that many non-white and immigrant voters are, in fact, Republican. In the 2020 election, roughly 2 in 5 Latino voters cast a ballot for then-President Donald Trump." fivethirtyeight.com

DN (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not my job to dig out sources for you. Sources state that GRCT is in fact a conspiracy theory. If you want a RS for any other claim, feel free to search for one Cortador (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In addition...

11. "The argument made by Trump in 2016 and by other Republicans at other points is that the Democrats hope to cut this Gordian knot by simply granting immigrants citizenship status. While there have been debates on the left about creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, that is more a function of making such immigrants eligible for citizenship at all which, at this point, they are not. To become a citizen, you must have entered the country legally. Regardless, it’s clear that no such legislation is going to be passed by Congress anytime soon, particularly given the Republican ability to block legislation in the Senate. We can go one step further. Even if there were some magical bestowing of citizenship on newly arrived immigrants, this theory about White voters being “replaced” depends on those immigrants voting. I’m not clear how the conspiracy theory speculates that the cabal of elites will force those newcomers to cast ballots, but I can say, thanks to Census Bureau data, that many naturalized citizens don’t bother voting. In 2020, an estimated 67 percent of native-born Americans voted in the presidential election. Only 61 percent of naturalized citizens did. Among immigrants from Latin America and Mexico, the percentage was lower: 57 percent." WaPo

Cheers. DN (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The SPLC asked three questions:

(1) As you know, the demographic makeup of America is changing and becoming more diverse, with the U.S. Census estimating white people will be a minority in approximately 25 years. Generally speaking, do you find these changes to be very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or very negative?"

(2) Do you feel the changing demographics of america pose a threat to white Americans and their culture ad values, or not? (IF YES) Do you feel that way strongly, somewhat, or only a little?

(3) Agree or disagree: The recent change in our national demographic makeup is not a natural change but has been motivated by progressives and liberal leaders actively trying to leverage political power by replacing more conservative white voters?"

Elsewhere in the SPLC article it says, "The [GRCT] says there is a systematic, global effort to replace white, European people with nonwhite, foreign populations. The ultimate goal of those responsible — Democrats, leftists, “multiculturalists” and, at times, Jews — is to reduce white political power and, ultimately, to eradicate the white race."

Notice the article does not ask respondents whether they believe in the GRCT, but comes to its conclusions based on three questions. Since a reasonable person might come to another conclusion, you would need to show consensus opimion for their conclusions in reliable sources, i.e., among sociologists and political scientists.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "The [SPLC]'s views...should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article." TFD (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What's your point? Any of the points made about GRCT don't rely exclusively in SPLC. Cortador (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not the conclusions you want to include in th article rely exclusively on the SPLC, it doesn't mean that we should not examine each source you provide.

My point is that you are presenting opinions as facts in order to determine the level of support for the GRCT among Republicans. You are confusing facts used to support their conclusions with their actual conclusions. TFD (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What "opinions"? Cortador (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That most republicans believe in the GRCT. You know, what this discussion thread is about. TFD (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

My addition claimed that "[a] number of Republicans support the Great Replacement conspiracy theory" and "[a]ccording to a 2022 study by AP and NORC, half of Republicans believed in the conspiracy theory". None of those are "opinions", they are statements backed up by reliable sources.

"Most republicans believe in the GRCT" is a statement you fabricated. Cortador (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There are studies and polls other than the SPLC's and (12.) AP-NORC, regarding GRCT and it's predominance in Republican party, by different experts and organizations. However the AP-NORC data has been cited repeatedly by experts and academics in discussions about GRCT and the GOP, including...

13. Samuel L. Perry & Philip Gorski "Since 2015, that theory has captured the fringes and some in the mainstream on the right, from angry young men bearing tiki torches in Charlottesville; to pundits like Ann Coulter, Charlie Kirk, Matt Walsh and Tucker Carlson; to at least a half-dozen prominent Republican candidates and lawmakers, including Sen. Ron Johnson (Wis.), Reps. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.) and Scott Perry (Pa.), Arizona state Sen. Wendy Rogers, and J.D. Vance, Ohio’s GOP nominee for the Senate. WaPo

and...

14. Nicole Hemmer In the case of the great replacement conspiracy theory, the ideas are far older than Mr. Carlson’s show, or even the Fox News Channel, on which it appears. It repackages the mass of reactionary ideas and anxieties that have fed nativism, racism and antisemitism in the United States and Europe for centuries... Stephen Miller, the hard-line nativist who served as a senior adviser to Mr. Trump throughout his presidency, also favored the book (“The Camp of the Saints”) as a framework for talking about immigration to the United States...Part of the strategy was to present white-power ideas as more palatable. Another was to draw in new recruits attracted, or at least intrigued, by the ideas they heard...All of this has had an effect. In the years since Mr. Carlson began talking about the conspiracy theory, it has spread rapidly on the right, not just in the dark hollows of the violent white-power movement, but (15) also among Republican politicians and voters. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and Representative Elise Stefanik, the No. 3 Republican in the current House, have echoed the theory, and a recent Associated Press-NORC poll showed that nearly a third of Fox News viewers believe in the tenets of the great replacement conspiracy theory (for viewers of the far-right cable channels Newsmax and OANN, that number is even higher). NYT

among others...

Outside of the AP-NORC there's this study by Garen Wintemute via United States National Library of Medicine.

16. "This report focuses on one specific group that may be at increased risk for political violence: so-called MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republicans. In speeches on August 25, 2022, in Bethesda and Rockville, Maryland [10, 11], and September 1, 2022, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania [12], US President Biden used that term in reference to Republicans who supported Donald Trump and denied the results of the 2020 election. He asserted that MAGA Republicans endorsed political violence, implying that they did so more than others or that others did not. He emphasized his belief that his characterization applied to only a minority of Republicans [13–16]. Critics nonetheless accused him of maligning half the country, apparently referring to persons who had voted for Donald Trump [13, 17–20]. These critics were asserting, in essence, that MAGA Republicans were indistinguishable from other Republicans.

"This study applies a public health approach to political violence. It uses standard methods to investigate variation in self-reported support for and willingness to engage in political violence, which are plausible proximate markers of risk for committing political violence [33]. It also assesses variation in prevalence of extreme beliefs—including the QAnon delusion and great replacement thinking, that have been linked to political violence in specific cases [34–36] and can be considered as potential indicators of risk for political violence. NCBI.NLM.NIH

There's one by the Public Religion Research Institute which Ronald Brownstein has discussed with William H. Frey as an economic argument against Republicans pushing GRCT in a 2021 CNN article.

17. Far right White supremacist groups, conservative media personalities and now (18) Republicans in Congress are trying to inflame nativist feelings among conservative Whites by warning that liberals want immigrants to “replace” native-born Americans in the nation’s culture and electorate...In polling by the nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute, about three-fifths of Republicans in both 2019 and 2020 agreed with the harshly worded statement that “immigrants are invading our country and replacing our cultural and ethnic background.” Among Whites who described themselves as very favorable toward Trump, more than three-fourths in each year endorsed that idea, according to detailed results provided by the institute."

"Already the Public Religion Research Institute polling shows that Republicans who receive most of their information from Fox News are more likely than others in the GOP to embrace the “invading” argument.

The economic realities facing the nation suggest that the “replacement theory” has the equation almost exactly backward. Carlson, Johnson and other proponents of the theory are telling their audience centered on older and working-class Whites that they should fear being “replaced” by immigrants. But the real threat to those constituencies, as more of them step into retirement, is that they won’t be replaced by immigrants in the workforce and the tax base. Without more immigrants, those culturally anxious Whites face the virtual certainty of more financial pressure on their federal retirement benefits and slower economic growth for American society overall. “You talk about ‘replacement,’ well, they need to be replaced in the workforce – that’s the issue,”

"Frey says. “Growing the younger age groups and particularly the younger workforce age groups is essential for us to not get into a situation of accentuated age dependency.” It’s far from the first time, but in pushing the racist “replacement theory,” the voices of the populist right are stirring cultural anxieties to mobilize their blue-collar and older White constituencies behind economic policies that harm their own interests." CNN

19. The great replacement: Strategic mainstreaming of far-right conspiracy claims In the United States, the idea of replacement has been propagated by Fox News star host Tucker Carlson. Carlson has repeatedly expressed the idea that ‘white Anglo-Saxons’ are being replaced by immigrant populations (Åsard, 2020). Moreover, Republican senators such as Ron Johnson have also tapped into ‘The Great Replacement’ theory when addressing questions on (new) voter cohorts. Johnson claimed that immigration policies are a way for Democrat elected representatives to ensure political support: ‘[T]his administration wants complete open borders. And you have to ask yourself why? Is it really, they want to remake the demographics of America to ensure their – that they stay in power forever? Is that what’s happening here?’ (Benen, 2021) (20.) MSNBC "It wasn't long before a toxic echo reverberated in some Republican circles. The Washington Post (21.) noted, for example, that Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) spoke up at a congressional hearing on Central American migrants, delivering rhetoric that sounded awfully similar to Carlson's..But as important as those relevant details are, it's the degree to which Johnson's suggestion dovetails with Tucker Carlson's "replacement" rhetoric that's especially jarring. The wording obviously wasn't identical, but the similarities in sentiments are hardly subtle, and they reinforce larger concerns about the poison spreading, both on Capitol Hill and in conservative media...".

This (22.) WaPo article has commentary from several academics involved in the above other research papers.

I have more to share, but I am pressed for time at the moment...To be continued.

Cheers. DN (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there should be more mention on how the modern Republican Party has embraced and promoted once fringe far-right conspiracy theories, of which the replacement theory would be one of them. A sentence or two on this topic would be relevant to include on this page, although we don't need to have a whole paragraph just on the replacement theory in my opinion. Rather, it should be linked to so readers can learn more about it if they choose to. BootsED (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

TFD's arguments are similar to ones I made not that long ago. First, TFD is correct in saying we really should be looking to summary sources to decide if this is due in this article. The GOP is a very large topic. When a topic is small it might be reasonable for editors to try to decide what RS information is DUE/BALASP. However, when the topic is as big as this we really need external sources to show us what content is due. I don't think their are any summary sources that emphasize this talking point. TFD is spot on in their analysis of the SPLC's survey and leap from it's answers to "believe in GRCT". The survey is flawed in part because some of the questions are asked in a way where someone might say "yes" because they generally agree even if they don't agree with the specific racial implications with the way the question was asked. Certainly someone could answer yes to the last question based on politics without a concern for race. As was discussed previously, it is widely acknowledged that the immigrant vote favors Democrats. The way the SLPC phrased the questions makes it easy to claim someone who says "yes" believes in "a core principle" of the GRCT. When such claims are reported that distinction is often conflated with "believes in GRCT". While DN has provided many sources how many specifically say "the GOP" vs "some conservatives" or "some on the right" etc. I would also note that in January's discussion it was clear that a sizable number of Democrats also answered Yes to the same survey questions. Either they are also racists who believe in the GRCT or perhaps most of these people thought they were answering a different question. Springee (talk) 21:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course there are racist Democrats, racism doesn't discriminate. XD

Cheers. DN (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The AP-NORC poll asked respondents whether the purpose of non-white immigration to benefit Democrats in elections and whether non-white immigration would lead to white folks "losing economic, political, and cultural influence." It did not test for belief in the GRCT itself. It just noted that these two issues related to core GRCT beliefs.

So like the SLC poll, the conclusions of the AP-NORC pollsters are their opinions.

In order to make your claim as fact, you need a poll that asks Republicans outright whether they believe in the GRCT. TFD (talk) 00:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

We know there are also Democratic racists. But following the SPLC article's methodology, we would have to conclude that 17% to 35% of Democrats believe in the GRCT, with 9% to 19& undecided. Wouldn't you see that as a REDFLAG? TFD (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Making interpretations like that feels like WP:OR. I just look at what the sources say. DN (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR says, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Obviously it takes some critical thinking on our part in order to determine whether the statement made in the SPLC article is one of fact or opinion. Even saying that something sounds like OR is itself OR, unless you can find a reliable secondary source that comments on what another editor has written.

How else would one distinguish between fact and opinion in sources, without using critical thinking? TFD (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not against criticism or evaluation of sources for the purpose of "rewriting source material in our own words while retaining the substance", but at the moment there are so many sources to keep track of, (which I only started doing back in January) I barely have time to keep up with that aspect at the moment, let alone audit other editor's interpretations of methods and statistics. I will try to comment on that at some point later on.

There's the NLM study (16)

The PRRI poll (Immigration-Immigrants as Cultural Threat) (17)

...And others, only to be followed by the multitude of news reports and opinions of by multiple academics and experts in research papers and secondary sources...If any of the citations so far has the potential to be a preferred summary source, by all means, please share those evaluations as well.

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

What that means is that you can post opinions and interpretations on talk pages without that content needing the backing of sources like article space does.

You are trying to label sources you don't like as "opinions", or have a fundamental lack of understanding how sourcing on Wikipedia works. Cortador (talk) 06:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

((outdent))Posting onto talk pages facts and opinions in reliable sources without providing references is not original research.Your interpretation of policy is however OR which is true of any interpretation whether good or bad. So is your interpretation of my motives which btw violates policy not because it is OR but because it is a personal attack.

Anyway, How else would one distinguish between fact and opinion in sources, without using critical thinking?

TFD (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Summary sources" is a requirement you fabricated. We have external sources. We also have sources that explicitly state that Republicans agree with GRCT e.g the Washington Post using the wording "Nearly half of Republicans agree with ‘great replacement theory’". Your original research regarding SPLC doesn't change that.

BALASP states: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news."

There are a lot of RS on that topic. This is not a on-off event or recent event. Lastly, you repeated "But what about the "Democrats!" whatbaoutism doesn't matter because this isn't the article about the Democratic Party.

What you are doing here is stonewalling by making up requirements for the inclusion of this content in the article because you don't want it included. Cortador (talk) 06:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

It would take a lot of space to address your issues point by point, so I will address them generally. Also, please don't make personal attacks such as accusing me of "fabricating" things or of rejecting facts I don't like. It is not persuasive and does nothing to further discussion.

It should be obvious that unless respondents are polled whether they believe that there is an international plot by "Democrats, leftists, “multiculturalists” and, at times, Jews...to eradicate the white race," that concluding they do is a matter of analysis and opinion. Certainly original the title used by the SPLC, "Racist 'Replacement' Theory Believed by Half of Americans" brings up redflag issues.

I frequently come across editors who object to using the SPLC desription of "hate group" in articles about conservative groups. And, as Generally Accepted Reliable Sources requires, I say that it is being presented as an attibuted opinion and is done not because it is the opinion of the SPLC but because reliable sources routinely mention the SPLC's assessment when referring to the group. I don't say it is a fact that should be included without attribution.

BALASPS applies only to facts, not opinions. But if the SPLC opinion were a fact, then BALASPS would require it be routinely used in describing the Republicans. The Republicans is such a huge big topic that countless papers are written about even its most minor aspects. For example, numerous Republican politicians, such as Bob Lafollette and Fiorello La Guardia are not mentioned in the article, although they are subject of countless books and well remembered today. TFD (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

While you accused another editor of "fabricating" "summary sources," please see WP:TERTIARY (refers to sources that "summarize.") Can you explain the difference between sources that summarize and summary sources? These sources, as the policy explains, are useful in determining WP:BALASPS and the relative weight of opinions. Is there any reason you think they are not? TFD (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

There's no requirement for summary sources. The bit you linked to merely states that they "can help" or "may help". Cortador (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Your interpretation of the polls (of which there are multiple, not just one by the SPLC) and alleged "red flags" continues to be original research. If you don't like the SPLC as a source in general, you are free challenge it on the reliable sources noticeboard.

"But X isn't included either" is another version of "But what about the "Democrats". Cortador (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Check whether the piece is a news piece or an op-ed/commentary, check whether RS discussions consider the source opinionated, and don't exclude sources because you don't agree with them i.e. doing original research again. Cortador (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

While there is no requirement for summary sources, they "can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight." Do you have a better way to provide due weight in this case"

"Original research says, "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Obviously it takes some critical thinking on our part in order to determine whether the statement made in the SPLC article is one of fact or opinion. Even saying that something sounds like OR is itself OR, unless you can find a reliable secondary source that comments on what another editor has written.

How else would one distinguish between fact and opinion in sources, without using critical thinking? How else would one know if something is a redflag?

Your original research that I dislike the SPLC as a source is a fabrication. I have always supported its use as a reliable source. I also happen to agree with what Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "The [SPLC]'s views...should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION. Take care to ensure that content from the SPLC constitutes due weight in the article."

When you say that my mention of the Democrats is whataboutism, you should explain why you think it is wrong to use it. Throwing out random terms without explaining how they apply is not helpful to any discussion. If I ask why Walmart associates earn minimum wage, while the Waltons are among the wealthiest families in the U.S., you could say that is whataboutism.

Maybe our point of disagreement is that you have a different conception of what facts and opinions are. Facts are statements that rational people consider to be true. Opinions are conclusions about what those facts imply. Rational people can disagree over conclusions. In this case, an analyst has taken three answers from a survey and determined that half the U.S. believes in the GRCT. No other expert source has been provided. I am not arguing that she is wrong, just that another rational person could come to a different conclusion, which puts it in the realm of opinion rather than fact.

TFD (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources covering the topic. There's no requirement for a "summary source". I've explained your misreading of OR above already.

We have multiple other sources in addition to the SPLC. Nobody has argued against attributing anything from SPLC, so I'm not sure what you are arguing against here.

This isn't an article about the Democratic Party. If you want to know whether Democrats believing in GRCT should be included in the article on the party, feel free to discuss that on the respective talk page.

I don't care what conclusion you would come to, because it doesn't matter. Wikipedia reflects what RS report on, not how it's editors interpret data from those soyrcy. Cortador (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually you don't have plenty of sources that discuss the GOP and make the GRCT claim. You have many sources that say some right wing or racists etc believe this or this politician said something associated with the the GRCT. Basically most of the sources are oblique rather than direct which is what we would need here. The reason to discuss the SPLC is obvious. It shows how the survey and the reported results don't align. You are wrong to claim Wikipedia "reflects what RS report on". WP:V specifically says that just because something is in a RS doesn't mean it automatically gets included here (see ONUS). How can we decide if something should be included when dealing with such a large topic like this? Well one of the best ways is look to see what summary sources view as important to include about the topic. I'm sure you would agree that we can find many facts/details about the GOP topic that aren't included here (results of various local elections or even various congressional elections). It's clear you want this material included but given the very few sources that directly tie this topic to the GOP the argument to do so is weak. Springee (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You are confusing excluding information that is verifiable but doesn't add to the article (which is fine per Wikipedia policy) with excluding information that is verifiable based on disagreement with the source - which in this case isn't even SPLC - it is USA Today. You have attempted slandering SPLC before (like above where you claimed they are "manufacturing controversy to generate donations"), but even Wikipedia's consensus regarding the reliability of changes, there's other RS reporting on the poll. Cortador (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The idea that the SPLC drums up controversies to generate donations is hardly my OR [4]. What you fail to see is that just because something can be verified doesn't mean it should be included in an article. This is why we keep mentioning summary articles, they, more than editor opinions that something has enough coverage, can show that RSs view the topic as an important part of the overall topic, not just tangentially related (as many of the provided sources support). Anyway, it's clear neither side is convincing the other. Perhaps we should let others weigh in. Springee (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

You are free to bring up whatever accusations you are making again SPLC - which, as I have stated before, is not directly cited - on the sources noticeboard. Until consensus there changes, it remains a generally reliable source.

"Summary sources" aren't a requirement, they are a barrier you are trying to erect to gate off additions to the article. Cortador (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Policy says that summary sources "can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Of course if policy says something CAN be used it does not mean it MUST be used. But it would be helpful if you could explain WHY you don't want to use them and WHAT you plan to use in order to establish WEIGHT and BALASPS. TFD (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I have provided plenty sources above that confirm that GRCT has become mainstream in the GOP. If you think "summary sources" are needed on top of that, the onus is on you to explain why, not on me. Cortador (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:V "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included." WP:BALASP: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."

You have failed to show how major an aspect of the topic it is in reliable sources.

Also, what do you mean by "has become mainstream?" Do you mean that is what most Republicans believe or that the party refuses to condemn extremist organizations that espouse it? Articles are supposed to be clear. TFD (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There's multiple RS reporting on the issue regularly. Steady and reliable coverage is sufficient for inclusion. "Mainstream" - a term used by at least two sources directly - means that it is a common believe within the party. What else would it mean? Cortador (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"Actually you don't have plenty of sources that discuss the GOP and make the GRCT claim. You have many sources that say some right wing or racists etc believe this or this politician said something associated with the the GRCT."

You've found them all? I haven't had time going back though articles from when Trump was still president over 4 years ago...How many are there?

Did you find more historians, sociologists and political science professors on top of the half dozen or so I already listed? DN (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

No need to reprint what I just wrote. I am not a Democratic Party leader who has difficulty with short term memory.

Your first source at 23:30, 7 March 2024 says, "“Biden’s conduct on our border is by any definition a conspiracy to overthrow the United States of America,” he went on to say in Greensboro, North Carolina. “Biden and his accomplices want to collapse the American system, nullify the will of the actual American voters and establish a new base of power that gives them control for generations.”

"Similar arguments have long been made by people who allege Democrats are promoting illegal immigration to weaken the power of white voters — part of a racist conspiracy [theory]." (AP March 2 2024)

This source does not say Trump or Republicans in general espouses the conspiracy theory. Even if it did, it would not be a reliable source per WP:NEWSORG. Journalists are not experts on sociology or political science but are our best source for what happened today.

Your third source is about Ramaswamy, who got 0.5% of the vote in the Republican primaries.

Instead of deciding what we think should be in the article, looking for sources and posting whatever we think might support our position, we should first determine what is considered important in reliable sources. Just because they do not place the same emphasis on information and opinons that we do does not mean we ar wrong. But it's the only objective test. If we all adhered to that, we could avoid most talk page discussions.TFD (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a NO...So we don't know how many sources say GRCT has been, or is being used by the Republican party, at least in part, although according to RS their current presidential nominee is still using it in his 2024 campaign.

Yet somehow, without knowing how many sources say the GOP (at least in part) uses GRCT, some editors here are surprisingly certain that it's not enough...Or, it's an extremely BOLD assumption that flies in the face of multiple reliable sources and existing expert opinions.

It also sounds like we are placing new specific parameters on this RfC that are not listed in the RfC question. AFAIK, this RfC is not about whether the ENTIRE GOP supports GRCT, just whether it is DUE for inclusion somewhere in some form. However, newer citations seem to be leaning closer to encompassing the party as a whole (see new citations below). If we need clarification, let's get some.

I think the first source I actually posted was from Britannica which says "...key aspects of replacement theory came to be accepted by nearly half of Republicans and by a third of all Americans by 2022. Some Republican politicians endorsed the theory as a way of appealing to far-right members of their party and of demonstrating, to some degree, their continued loyalty to Trump." I forgot to number it though.

Has anyone else included these?...

Most notoriously, Donald Trump has become a fan of “great replacement” talking points. In the last week many of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have called the president a white supremacist. But Trump is far from being alone, and in recent years the idea has caught fire among more and more mainstream Republicans. (Aug 2019)

Donald Trump’s fascistic rhetoric about how immigrants are “poisoning the blood” of the country, as well as the GOP’s embrace of the “great replacement theory,” are repellent to many Americans. (Feb 2024)

A few years ago, the idea that a rootless, cosmopolitan elite was attempting to replace America’s white majority through lax immigration enforcement was a far-right conspiracy theory. Today, it is something approaching Republican orthodoxy. This rhetoric is incomprehensible unless one posits that by “illegals,” Republicans really mean “recent nonwhite immigrants.” Undocumented immigrants cannot vote by definition. And evidence for widespread voter fraud among such immigrants is nonexistent.

A host also asked the RNC co-chair during her interview about the racist "Great Replacement" conspiracy theory, to which she asked if its validity was "even up for debate."

If the far-right, or Trumpist faction, is not at least part of the GOP, that seems like news to me. If there are any dubious claims being made here, the least of which might be that GRCT has been playing some part within the GOP's strategy over the years and therefore might be worthy of some form of inclusion in an article about the Republican party. DN (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be sucking up a lot of oxygen and not getting very far. I'd suggest that everyone interested in this question simply vote in the poll above so we can move forward one way or the other. MonMothma (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@MonMothma You claimed (or rather agreed with) that GRCT is espoused by individual GOP politicians, not by the party. I've provided sources (see list under the collapsed "Refs") that link endorsement of GRCT specifically to the party, not just individual members. Please take that into consideration. Cortador (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

They've already made up their mind because "it is not really a part of the Republican Party so much as a belief among some Republicans, politicians and supporters."....Which has nothing to do with what reliable sources say. DN (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent other editors' arguments which is disruptive. The argument against inclusion is based on weight, which is policy. The article is supposed to provide due weight to each aspect of the topic that it receives in reliable sources on the Republican Party.

As I said, the Republican Party is a huge big topic and there is extensive material about it that does not merit weight. New York Mayors Walker, La Guardia, Lindsay, Guiliiani and Bloomberg for example were national figures but that does not guarantee inclusion.

Note btw that Cortador provides an EB article about the GRCT to justify inclusion. But the relevant article would be the EB article about the Republican Party which does not mention GRCT at all. Do you think that the editors of EB are part of a massive conspiracy to whitewash the Republican Party? TFD (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

False accusations are also disruptive, and should be relegated to personal talk pages (but probably shouldn't be made at all). DN (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You linked to a post by another editor. If you think that their post that they agree with another editor is a false accusation, you need to take it up with them. Personally, I don't think it is, but leave it to the two of you to sort out. TFD (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not misrepresenting any arguments. MonMothma agreed with the previous commenters, who stated that the GRCT "not really a part of the Republican Party", but about individual GOP politicians - yet we have multiple RS that do, in fact, confirm adoption of GRCT by the party, not just individuals. Additionally, as DN pointed out, the RfC isn't about that specifically - it's about whether GRCT should be mentioned here or not. Your weight argument is no counter to that because that wasn't the argument the commenter made.

I have no idea what "EB article" not mentioning GRCT you are talking about. The articles I listed below Refs all explicitly mention GRCT. Cortador (talk) 11:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I dont think your sources are really all that strong to be making such a statement of fact. For example, what you cite as Yahoo News here is actually a Rolling Stone article, and WP:RSP says Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politics. The Guardian piece here says in recent years the idea has caught fire among more and more mainstream Republicans. Which yes points to a wider acceptance among Republicans, but doesnt actually say that it is a part of the Republican Party itself. The Reuters piece is specific to Trump, Newsweek is not the best source generally, and the Vox piece says "Today, it is something approaching Republican orthodoxy." referring to the belief espoused by some Republicans that immigration policies are intended to dilute their base's voting power. I dont think that quite supports the idea that the GRCT is Republican orthodoxy, and in fact the examples it give are not that. It says Mike Johnson, the GOP speaker of the House, has espoused a version of “the great replacement” theory, albeit one shorn of explicit racial content, which isnt quite GRCT. All in all, I dont think you actually have sources that demonstrate that this is a part of the Republican Party. And I dont think a collection of news sources really shows much weight for an article on a political party that is the subject of reams of actual scholarship. nableezy - 16:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy The source I cited (below the Ref bracket) explicitly for the claim that significant parts of the GOP have embraced GRCT are NPR, The Guardian, Washington Post, USA Today, PBS, and ABC News. I cited neither Newsweek, nor The Rolling Stone, nor Reuters. Cortador (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I'm referring to the citations from DN. Going over those articles I am seeing similar issues. The NPR cite says "Replacement" theory began in white supremacist circles, but has since moved more mainstream on the political right in this country and among many Republicans, explicitly or implicitly., that again says that it is something espoused by many Republicans, but not that it is part of the Republican Party. The Hill says that it is common among a majority of Trump voters, which again isnt quite the same as saying that it is part of the party itself. nableezy - 16:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@NableezyThank you for your reply. Those aren't the sources I'm referring to. I'm referring to the ones under the bracketed out Ref section. They confirm that significant elements of the party have embraced GRCT. Cortador (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I must be missing something obvious, can you give a timestamp I can search for to see those sources? nableezy - 22:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy Here you go. 13:36, March 13. Cortador (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That was what I was replying to in my second comment here. I can expand further, the Guardian cite has Republican orthodoxy in its headline, which isnt part of the source we consider, while it does say in its body In recent years the lie has gone from far-right fringe to Republican party mainstream. That is close enough, but is still a news source making an exceptional claim. PBS supports it is used by some Republicans, not that it is a part of the party itself, WaPo supports its usage by some right wing figures of note like Carlson and Gaetz, and that that the party has increasingly been embracing GRCT, but that doesnt really quantify anything for us, if it went from 0 to 3 people then it likewise has been increasingly embraced. I still dont see how these support that this is a tenet of the party itself, but the Guardian comes closest. I think it belongs in the articles on these individuals, but I still dont think it belongs here. nableezy - 23:23, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This isn't an exceptional claim, or at least it doesn't fit what the exceptional claims section lists. Even if it was, guidelines merely states that such a claim would require "multiple high-quality sources". All the sources I used are generally reliable. Even if you believe that these sources only confirm that some Republicans believe in GRCT, I fail to see why that information should be excluded from the article at all. Cortador (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Because the article is about the party itself, not the politicians and supporters. nableezy - 15:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Politicians and members make the party. There's very few believes consistent across all of the party. Cortador (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

But there is a party platform and there are things that are widely described as tenets of the party itself. nableezy - 20:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is a prerequisite, or that it must be some type of official platform or plank of the entire GOP? I think Snow Rise made an important distinction when they addressed this possibility earlier in their discussion with MonMothma...

• However, I also want to point out that when you go on to say "However, if someone proposed to add a sentence stating that the Republican Party as an entity supports the GRCT, that would be unacceptable unless there was some mention of it in a GOP platform or some other GOP document.", that is absolutely and without question not how inclusion on this project is determined, and would be unambiguous WP:Original research. It is not the place of our editors to scrutinize the conduct and actions of a subject to analyze whether or not some value or belief ascribed to that subject is an accurate representation (whether we are using the official statements of the subject or any other measure).

Also, I think it has become clear there is some confusion as to whether or not the intent of this RfC is to include an unclear amount of context in WIKIVOICE without attribution in an undetermined section. For all anyone can tell this could open the door to editors trying to argue that it is somehow lead-worthy, which I myself would sternly disagree with at this point.

In terms of immigration policy, I don't see many sources saying this repackaging of GRCT is necessarily out of line with the hard-line stance that the GOP has taken in the past, only that expert sources have expressed concern at the evolution of this mainstream stance to adopt a more fringe tactic pushed by the extreme right, however I disagree this somehow belongs in the immigration policy section. Cheers. DN (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My mistake on the Rolling Stone source by Tim Dickinson. The raw collection I pull from is extensive (30+ citations) and is constantly being reorganized. I'm busy IRL and forgot Yahoo just reposts articles from random sources.

You mentioned articles within the realm of scholarship. Did you read any of the ones listed so far, before you voted? Pitcavage, Cas Mudde, Philip Gorski, Hemmer, Rosenthal etc...? Or look at the polls from PRRI and UMass Amherst Actually, I'm not sure if I linked Amherst yet. Anyway...Cheers. DN (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to ask if you knew of any RS that says "GRCT is not a part of the Republican Party", scholarly or otherwise? DN (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The NPR article quotes the national director of the ADL as saying, "And then you have theoretically mainstream Republican politicians repeating some of this stuff." Some Republicans repeating some of this stuff is not the same as saying significant parts of the party have embraced the GRCT. Significantly none of them say there is an international conspiracy to undermine Western civilization by bringing in non-white immigrants, which is what the GRCT says, according to the SPLC.

Cortador, the ""EB article" not mentioning GRCT" is the Encyclopedia Britannica article about the Republican Party. You in fact brought up EB as a source. Although the EB article about the GRCT mentions the Republican Party, its article on the Republican Party does not mention the GRCT. In order to persuade me to include the material you need to show it has due weight. One way to do this, to which for some reason you object, is to see whether articles about the Republican Party discuss the GRCT. The reality is that they do not. Therefore you need to provide another method of showing weight. Why should we mention this and not for example the election of a Republican dogcatcher in Lackawanna, NY? TFD (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I cited three articles by NPR, and you cherry-picked one quote from one article. I never brought up Encyclopedia Britannica. The only time I mentioned it is in response to Springee bringing it up.

I have brought up several articles that confirm adoption of GRCT by the GOP, and all you have in response is a single quote from one of them that you don't agree with, and critique of another source that I never cited as one. Cortador (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think this information has Wikipedia:Weight for inclusion? TFD (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have done so above. What viewpoint do you think is not represented? What sources cover this viewpoint?

Also, you have yet to explain why you think tertiary sources are needed, why you falsely claimed I cited sources I didn't cite, or what your issue with the sources I actually cited is, cherry-picked single sentence aside. Cortador (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you think this information has Wikipedia:Weight for inclusion? Please reference the section of that policy thta is relevant.

Note that the onus is on editors who want to include text to show why it meets due weight. The onus is not on editors who object to inclusion. TFD (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll cite the first paragraph of the section you linked to here: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

I have not seen evidence that RS have published a viewpoint differing from what I have claimed. The onus is not on me to find hypothetical viewpoints and RS that cover them. If you feel that whatever additions I (or anyone else, rally) propose to be added leave a significant viewpoint, you are free to bring up whatever viewpoint that is, and back it up with RS. So far, I have not seen RS denying that significant elements the GOP endorse GRCT, should that be a viewpoint you feel is being left out here. Cortador (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Note the words "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources." Why do you believe that any viewpoint about the GRCT is prominent in sources about the Republican Party? TFD (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Because there's sources that talk about GRCT in relation to the GOP. You haven't answered my question: which viewpoint do you think is no represented? That is what that section you linked to is about. Viewpoints on a topic in RS, not whether a topic is covered in RS to begin with. Cortador (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I did not explain my understanding of the policy clearly. The policy "requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." But views on the party and the GRCT are not significant to the topic. We know that because very, very few sources about the party discuss it.

Balancing aspects, which you cited, explains it more clearly, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. [Information] related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."

So my question is. why do you think the GRCT is a signifcant or major aspect of the topic of the Republican Party?

TFD (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

"Cortador, the ""EB article" not mentioning GRCT" is the Encyclopedia Britannica article about the Republican Party. You in fact brought up EB as a source."

TFD, I was the one that cited Britannica. Please stop making accusations and follow WP:AGF. DN (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

That's an understandable mistake and no reason why anyone would see it as an accusation. Since you brought up the EB article, do you feel any shame or embarrassment in doing so? Then why should Cortador? TFD (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Which viewpoint do you think is not represented? You still haven't answered that question.

Mentioning of GRCT/GOP belong into this article because it has been covered by multiple reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, the "which viewpoint" question in response to someone citing WEIGHT is a disingenuous argument. You might have thought it was a legitimate argument when you made it on 6 March but my response noting that it is common for Wiki editors to use WEIGHT when BALASP (a part of NPOV that TFD already mentioned) should have put an edit to this line of tendentious argument. Springee (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If an editor names a section, links to it, and cites it (which is what TDF did), I expect them to be talking about that section. I'm not going to playing guessing games about what policy an editor is talking about when they cite an entirely different policy. Cortador (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Asking as you are doing is TEND. If you want to be pedantic about a common editor miscite you should state why and should instead note why you are asking an otherwise pointless question. Springee (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think expecting someone who copy-pasted part of a policy section to actually talk about is "not maintain[ing] an editorially neutral point of view", I can't help you. Or did you not mention WP:TEND but some other policy, and expect me to, again, know which one that would be? Cortador (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned TEND because that fits your line of questioning. Springee (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

TEND is about disruptive editing, not about expecting people to refer to the policy from whose page they are copying. Cortador (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, TEND is about disruptive editing. That's why I mentioned it with respect to what you are doing. Springee (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you did not. Above you cited that policy as one against pedantry, and now you claim you meant disruptive editing because you, once more, neglected to read the policy you were citing. Cortador (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I would point out that WEIGHT refers to presentation as opinions while BALASP relates to presentation of facts. But they are similar in that facts and opinions should only be presented in articles if they feature prominently in literature about the sources.

Saying that one opinion has greater acceptance or sole acceptance over another is not a reason for inclusion, per weight. If it were, the article could include the tens or thousands of opinions expressed over minor aspects of the Party, for example, why a Republican candidate won or lost the race for dogcatcher in Duxbury Vermont in 1928. TFD (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

How many sources cover the GOP in the context of dogcatcher in Duxbury Vermont in 1928? How does that number compare to sources covering GRCT in the context of the GOP? Cortador (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional citations, if anyone is still interested. Please point out any duplicates that should be removed or struck, but im fairly certain we are close to 30 sources that include comments by historians, peer-reviewed opinion polls and news articles that span years of journalism and research that continues to this day.

Randall Balmer Republican-dominated state legislatures have nevertheless used the big lie as a pretext for limiting access to the ballot box, but one of the more persistent conspiracy theories is the so-called replacement theory, which has gained traction in some precincts of the Republican Party. SantaFeNewMexican Aug 2022

Heidi Beirich, PhD Just for context, research on the insurrectionist movement out of the University of Chicago looked at the people who were at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and they pointed to two things that those people tend to believe. One is the “great replacement” conspiracy theory — this white supremacist idea that’s often antisemitic, that Jews are replacing white people in their homelands with people of color, immigrants, refugees — but the other thing they tend to believe is QAnon. Trump knows this makes up part of his base. He knows, or at least people around him know, that it’s a force in the Republican Party. I think those things are motivating this activity as well. Politico 2022

James Risen The Anti-Defamation League called for Fox News to fire pundit Tucker Carlson last year because he espoused the “great replacement” theory so aggressively and so often, but the racist trope has now become normalized within the Republican Party. The Intercept January 2022

Miles Taylor (security expert) Look no further than how Republicans have pushed the conspiracy theories of QAnon, the 2020 stolen election myth and, chillingly, the “great replacement” lie that hangs over the tragic events in Buffalo. An Associated Press poll in December found that nearly 50 percent of Republicans agree to some degree with the sentiments of the “great replacement theory” NBC News May 2022

That conspiracy, known as “replacement theory,” has a long history at the fringes of American politics, reverberating for decades within the underground worlds of white nationalism and white supremacy. But it gained a recent mainstream foothold under former President Trump, whose “Make America Great Again” campaign launched with a blanket attack on Mexican immigrants, won legions of followers across the country and remains the single most animating force in the GOP even more than a year after Trump’s departure from public office. The Hill May 2022

Whether for ratings or votes, these ideas are now central to the Republican Party’s political messaging: that they are the one thing holding the country back from total chaos; that voting for Democrats will inevitably lead to policy shifts that will, in quick succession, lead to the downfall of the white race. This is the brunt of the political message that half of Republican voters have adopted, thanks in large part to the efforts of figures like Carlson and other Republicans: Ideas that were once shunned are now the foundation of the party’s platform; the best way to turn voters out in November is to ensure that they’re scared out of their minds. The great replacement theory is here to stay. It’s practically a plank in the GOP platform. The New Republic May 2022

Collin Bossen "It is becoming a trend: More and more Republicans have been signing on to “great replacement theory.” Because this worldview posits various versions of a nefarious liberal scheme to replace native-born Americans with non-White outsiders, it’s often analyzed through a racial prism. The “great replacement” nonsense is yet another example of exactly that sort of derangement, and this mental habit is becoming dogma in the GOP. WaPo Op-Ed Sept 2021 cited by Political theology, discovery and the roots of the ‘great replacement’

The massacre by a white supremacist gunman of Black shoppers at a Buffalo grocery store has drawn renewed scrutiny of Republican figures in the US who have embraced the racist “great replacement theory” he is alleged to have used as justification for the murders. In a study of the history of great replacement theory in Republican circles, Vice notes that it “isn’t new to American politicians”. In 2017, the Iowa congressman Steve King, a fierce Trump loyalist, said in a tweet: “We can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.” The Guardian May 2022 "Currently, white replacement theory has been mass popularized and normalized, perhaps chiefly by the American political commentator Tucker Carlson. It is rapidly moving to the center of the mainstream narrative of America’s Republican party." Jason Stanley The Gaurdian Op-Ed May 2022

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC) DN (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Why are you providing additional sources? The issue is whether the topic is sufficiently covered in sources about the Republican Party to merit inclusion. Note that there are a lot of sources about the Republican Party and listing a few dozen about the GRCT is a tiny fraction of the totality of reliable sources. Lincoln alone has had 15,000 books written about him. There must be literally (I mean this in the literal not figurative sense) millions and millions of sources on the party. How do you determine which information is significant? TFD (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Lincoln is also mentioned in the article 30+ times and has entire paragraphs dedicated to him and his presidency. What's your point? Cortador (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

My point is that if an aspect of the t has 15,000 books written about them, it has weight for inclusion. If only a few sources have mentioned it, it doesn't. In between are thousands of aspects of the topic not all of which can be included due to space, but may have had extensive coverage in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What's the threshold then? Cortador (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not know what the threshold is. That's why I use "summary sources" to determine what experts think is important. In any case, since you are trying to persuade us that the threshold is met, you shouldn't have to ask me what the threshold is, you should already know and be ready to tell me. TFD (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

And yet you are convinced that somehow, this topic doesn't meet it. The threshold is the sources I provided. Cortador (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Cortador asked how many sources cover the GOP in the context of dogcatcher in Duxbury Vermont in 1928 compared with ones that cover the GOP and the GRCT. Probably not many. OTOH, there have been 19 Republican presidents of the U.S., a similar number of VPS, numerous Republican governors of New York, Massachusetts and Texas, mayors of New York, speakers of the House of Representatives,and high profice party machine bosses such as D. C. Stephenson, all of whom have had entire books written about them.There are also over GOP 30 gevernors and over 50 senators and a number of high profile members of Congress, all of whom received more new coverage. We cannot put in everything, because it would take up thousands of pages. TFD (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we put in everything. That's called a straw man argument. DN (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

IOW you cannot or will not answer the question.

This article grows every time there is a new event. The November 2024 election will be added and if the Republicans return to power there will be a new section on their new administation. But there is a limit to what can go into the article because there are limitations on size.

You have provided no criteria for determining what belongs in the article. Instead, you counter with RANDOMLINKS: STRAWMAN, WEIGHT, NOPERSONALATTACKS, RELIABLESOURCES, etc., without ever explaining how any of them relate to the issue.

TFD (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have also reponded to this on your talk page (BTW). DN (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

According to the current lead in the article, As of 2024, Trumpists are the dominant faction within the GOP. When we speak of Trumpists, some also refer to them as part of the MAGA movement. We have an entire section on the Trump era, not to mention the Trumpist faction. We also have a section called the Gingrich revolution.

"In just the past year, Republican luminaries like Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and Georgia congressman, and Elise Stefanik, the center-right New York congresswoman turned Trump acolyte (and third-ranking House Republican), have echoed replacement theory. Appearing on Fox, Mr. Gingrich declared that leftists were attempting to “drown” out “classic Americans.”" NYT May 2022

I'm still listing sources for a number of reasons. One of them being there are so many of them over such a long period of time. It is already about halfway through the 10 year test. I'm also adding them with context for those those with limited access and time to more accurately and efficiently address and discuss. My apologies for taking up so much space or if it is not appreciated, but hopefully it improves participation and perspective.

I am of the view that whether or not the Trump wins in Nov is irrelevant, per WP:CRYSTAL, and the odds are that for the next 7-8 months (minimum) there will likely be more articles and research about the Republican party's MAGA-version of GRCT. There's over a dozen or so fairly notable experts (IMHO) that are paying attention to this trend in the GOP with regard to their respective fields, including professors, historians and political scientists like Steven Levitsky, Daniel Ziblatt, Sara Kamali, Joseph Lowndes, Cynthia Miller-Idriss, Mark Pitcavage, Cas Mudde, Philip Gorski, Samuel L. Perry, Nicole Hemmer, Sophie Bjork-James, Kathleen Belew, Larry A. Rosenthal, Jason Stanley, Heidi Beirich, Joseph Chamie, Clarence Lusane, Adam Serwer etc..etc..etc...Some of these scholars have suggested that GRCT also fall in line with other aspects of the MAGA/Trumpist agenda, such as restricting abortion, voter fraud, and loosening gun laws.

• Britannica The MAGA movement is also known for having an antagonistic relationship with mainstream news media, which are thought by a majority in the movement to be biased against MAGA views, at best, and to be lying on behalf of the movement’s enemies, at worst. This belief has resulted in a vulnerability among MAGA members to false news stories and particularly far-fetched conspiracy theories circulated by MAGA-supporting media outlets and repeated by MAGA leaders. Examples include charges that Democratic former president Barack Obama is not a native-born U.S. citizen (“birtherism”), that Democrats’ immigration policies aim to replace white Americans with nonwhite immigrants (see replacement theory), that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump by Democrats through massive voter fraud, and that the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, in which a mob of Trump supporters attempted to halt Congress’s certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, was actually staged by left-wing forces...In the aftermath of the election, there was a rush to understand and respond to the new political power that the MAGA movement represented. The media ran numerous articles and television reports analyzing the development and makeup of the movement. Within the Republican Party, Trump became a kingmaker, his endorsement all but necessary to anyone who wished to win a Republican primary election for a major office (see Republican politicians all over the country have repeated the GRCT USA Today May 2022)...The MAGA movement remains a powerful force in American politics. In late 2022 an estimated 4 in 10 Republicans identified themselves as “MAGA Republicans.” Shortly after the midterm elections of 2022, Trump declared his candidacy for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. In view of the strength of the MAGA movement, other candidates for the Republican nomination have been forced to adopt strategies (see Why is Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy doubling down on conspiracy theories? BBC Dec 2023) that limit direct or serious criticisms of Trump and emphasize their acceptance of at least some of the extremist views of MAGA members.

(Edits in bold are duplicate sources I've added that show relevance to the context in the tertiary source)

• As racially conservative whites became a majority within the GOP, the party's primary system and the influence of right-wing media further pushed Republican leaders towards white grievance politics. Donald Trump capitalized on this sentiment, using white identity politics to gain support from Republicans who felt their status was threatened. His presidency further radicalized the GOP, leading to the widespread adoption of his tactics and the marginalization of any of any significant anti-Trump voices within the party. The "great replacement theory", a white supremacist belief that a conspiracy is underway to replace white Americans with immigrants, gained traction with Trump supporters and was amplified by right-wing media figures like Tucker Carlson. This narrative has been linked to acts of white supremacist terrorism and reflects the deep entrenchment of white resentment politics in the Republican party. (bottom paragraph) Tyranny of the Minority by Harvard political scientists Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky in their 2023 NYT best selling book "Tyranny of the Minority"

• NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump is seizing on his party’s frustration with the recent surge of illegal crossings at the southern U.S. border to churn up fears around another top GOP concern — voter fraud. In the final stretch before Iowa’s caucuses next Monday, the former Republican president has repeatedly suggested that Democrats are encouraging migrants to flow into the country illegally in order to register them to vote in the 2024 election. The unsupported claim, which Trump and other Republicans have carted out in past election years, is resonating with voters who agree that security is lacking at both the border and the polls. Experts say it also can be damaging, giving undue traction to false stereotypes and extremist ideologies such as the racist “great replacement theory.” Meanwhile, public confusion around border policy leaves room for false claims to spread, said Jared Holt, a senior analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London-based think tank that tracks online hate, disinformation and extremism. He said false noncitizen voting claims over the years have helped build support for a more sinister conspiracy theory about a grand plot to diminish the influence of white Americans by replacing them with minorities. “It’s sort of a tongue-in-cheek way of pushing the great replacement theory, but in a way that has been understood to be less morally repugnant or perceivably more defensible,” Holt said. “I don’t think you have to scratch very far below the surface to understand what is really being said.” AP News Jan 2024

• Joel Rose The word invasion has a long history in white nationalist circles. For years, it was used widely by supporters of the "replacement theory" — the false conspiracy theory that says Jews or elites are deliberately replacing white Americans with immigrants and people of color. Until recently, you rarely heard it from Republican officeholders or candidates. In this election cycle, it's moved squarely into the mainstream..."Before these ideas might have been seen as outliers. But now, it is really troubling," said Vanessa Cárdenas, the deputy director of America's Voice, an immigrant advocacy group that's been tracking political ads. It's found dozens of ads that use the word invasion by Republicans campaigning all over the country. NPR Aug 2022

• Republican lawmakers claiming immigrants are part of a “great replacement” of White voters has been in the news for months. “Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), the No. 3 House Republican, and other GOP lawmakers came under scrutiny . . . for previously echoing the racist ‘great replacement’ theory that apparently inspired an 18-year-old who allegedly killed 10 people while targeting Black people at a supermarket in Buffalo,” reported the Washington Post (May 16, 2022). “The baseless conspiracy theory claims that politicians are attempting to wipe out White Americans and their influence by replacing them with non-White immigrants.” The immigration group America’s Voice has tracked election-year ads and found inflammatory rhetoric about immigrants from Republican candidates. “Almost all the Republicans running statewide in Arizona have made ‘replacement’ and ‘invasion’ conspiracies a central part of their campaigns,” according to an America’s Voice report. Forbes Oct 2022

• Dr. Sara Kamali: The “great replacement theory” is one such baseless belief that is playing a role in the anti-immigration rhetoric that is central to the 2022 strategies of many Republican candidates who are running for seats at all levels of government. The Conversation Sept 2022

• A fear of an “invasion” of people of color has also been a longtime Republican talking point that has gained prominence during the Trump administration. The New York Times analyzed right-wing media—including Fox New shows like Tucker Carlson Tonight—and found “hundreds of examples of language, ideas, and ideologies that overlapped with the mass killer’s written statement.” President Trump and officials in his administration have used it, and Republican members of Congress have used similar racist language. Below are some examples we found. Mother Jones Aug 2019

• Versions of the theory have been promoted by Fox News' Tucker Carlson and Republican members of Congress, most notably House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York. Most frequently, arguments about replacement theory are framed in terms of voter power, with Republicans arguing that Democrats want to use immigration to dilute Republican votes. Business Insider May 2022

• As majorities of Republicans express belief in the tenets of the far-right white nationalist "great replacement" theory and Democrats fail to lead on immigration, analysts and voters said worries over surging prices, gun violence and more are crowding out a vital issue for much of the country. USA Today June 2022

• It may not be immediately obvious how the fight over abortion rights is tied to the “great replacement” theory — the debunked conspiracy theory promoted by some Republican politicians who claim that Democrats support more immigration to “replace” white American voters. But the explanation for, say, an alleged gaffe that overturning the constitutional right to an abortion is a “historic victory of white life” or a concern that not enough white babies are being born in the U.S. can be found in the history of the anti-abortion movement. Fivethirtyeight July 2022

Please notify me if there is any duplication of previous citations, so I may strike. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Republican Party (United States)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Completely Random Guy

Reviewer: Tamzin (talk · contribs) 06:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• @Completely Random Guy: Since you nominated this, an NPOV tag has been added to the Immigration section. Given that it pertains to an ongoing RfC, this probably makes this a quick-fail under criterion 3. I'd be open to trying to find a way around that, however, if not for a different criterion, #1: It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria. One of those criteria is Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. In addition to the NPOV tag addition, I see a 16kB removal from the article yesterday, a failed verification tag addition two days prior, a big change to how factions are handled in the infobox the day before that, edit-warring on the 6th and 7th, and an endless drumbeat of additions of developments about the party.
  I'll be frank, stability here is something beyond your or my control, and I don't think this article will be close to passing that criterion until... well, until either American politics becomes a lot calmer, or until the Republican party ceases to exist. It's a noble effort to get this to GA, but I'm not sure it's in the cards for you. I'm going to leave this open for a little bit in case you have any questions, comments, or concerns, but I do intend to fail this under quickfail criteria 1, 3, and to a lesser extent 4 (edit-warring). But again, thank you for your effort, and sorry to be the bearer of bad news here. Happy editing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 06:31, 18 March 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.

Remove claim that the party supports laissez-faire economics and deregulation and add citations for other policy claims

The article claims that "the party supports laissez-faire economics, deregulation, and increased military spending while opposing labor unions, universal health care and tuition-free higher education" without citation. I think this is incorrect with regard to laissez-faire economics and deregulation, and requires citations regarding the other policies. I propose removing laissez-faire economics and deregulation first and then looking for citations for the party's support for increased military spending, opposition to labor unions, universal health care and tuition-free higher education. 81.234.111.171 (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

81.234.111.171, per MOS:LEADCITE, it is not always necessary to include citations in the lead section of an article. The fact that there is no source listed in the lead for the Republican positions on the various issues you mentioned is not necessarily a problem, so long as the body of the article contains sourced information supporting these statements.

I would discourage you from removing the references to laissez-faire economics and deregulation in the lead. The body of the article does contain a little bit of support for these assertions, although it tends to reference free markets rather than using the term "laissez-faire" term. Also, I believe that the GOP still largely supports these ideas. I will try to find some more sources indicating the GOP's position on these issues.

I have removed the mention of tuition-free higher education, which has no basis anywhere in the article and which I do not believe is a major Republican agenda item.

There is nothing in the article body supporting the claim that the GOP stands for increased military spending. I am not sure whether it's a better idea to find sources for that statement, to remove it, or to change it to say that the GOP supports a strong national defense.

The body of the article does mention GOP opposition to unions and to universal health care, but this information could be better sourced than it is. MonMothma (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

On second thought, I am pulling the information on increased military spending out of the lead. There is no basis in the article body for it and it is included in a sentence about economic issues; I don't think it belongs there. MonMothma (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

81.234.111.171, I take back one piece of what I wrote earlier. I have been looking around for sources for the language about the GOP supporting laissez-faire/free-market economics and deregulation. I'm not finding much (at least not much that is current). I have gone ahead and removed those two statements from the lead, which is what you originally called for. The larger problem I am running into is that there has been, and continues to be, a significant shift in the party's ideology since a certain orange someone came down the escalator; the result is that I'm finding a bunch of sources that say "Republicans used to stand for x, y, and z, but now...", etc. MonMothma (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The GOP perspective on unions seems nuanced. See [5] and [6], for example. I have pulled the statement about union opposition out of the lead. MonMothma (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

"Republicans have taken a more favorable view of labor unions in recent years, but that hasn’t stopped the party from attacking unionized teachers at the recent GOP presidential debate, with one candidate vowing to “break the back” of the teachers’ unions."

"But several leading GOP presidential candidates — like Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley — have criticized union influence, a reflection of the predominant Republican view."

These citations are not evidence the GOP no longer opposes unions. I am reverting back to the longstanding version of the lead until we find consensus with citations that are more conclusive. DN (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I added deregulation to the lead. That is mentioned several times in the lead. Cortador (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, it is mentioned, but I see only one source supporting it in the entire article. MonMothma (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim is supported by a fairly recent academic source. That is sufficient. Cortador (talk) 06:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Darknipples, as I stated above, the Roll Call source does indicate that the Republican position on unions is nuanced. Also (and more importantly), I see no sources cited anywhere in the article in support of the assertion that the GOP opposes unions. MonMothma (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This might be OK in a different part of the article, but I disagree that it is worthy of the lead. The GOP has a long history of generally opposing unions, most notably since Reagan ended the PATCO strike in the 1980's. News reports aside, the expert and academic consensus seems to also say that while some GOP party members may court union leaders from time to time, GOP legislation has a history of consistently undermining union power with right-to-work laws being a prime example.118th Congress (2023) (February 27, 2023). "H.R. 1200 (118th)". Legislation. GovTrack.us. Retrieved March 20, 2024. National Right-to-Work Act{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Since you mentioned this information seems to be missing in the body, I have added a number of RS with context.

• David Leonhardt "Many Republican officials treat organized labor as their political enemy. When Republicans gain power in a state capital, they often try to pass “right to work” laws meant to shrink unions. And these laws have their intended effect: They reduce the number of workers who belong to unions, reduce Democrats’ share of the vote in elections and reduce the number of working-class candidates who run for office, academic research has found. NYT March 2023
• “Right to work” is the name for a policy designed to take away rights from working people. Backers of right to work laws claim that these laws protect workers against being forced to join a union. The reality is that federal law already makes it illegal to force someone to join a union. The real purpose of right to work laws is to tilt the balance toward big corporations and further rig the system at the expense of working families. These laws make it harder for working people to form unions and collectively bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions." (According to) AFLCIO on RTW "Donald Trump told us in 2016 he would stand with workers. He lied. The difference now is that he has a record he can’t hide from. And that record was catastrophic for workers. Former President Trump spent four years in office weakening unions and working people while pushing tax giveaways to the wealthiest among us. He stacked the courts with judges who want to roll back our rights on the job. He made us less safe at work. He gave big corporations free rein to lower wages and make it harder for workers to stand together in a union." (According to) AFLCIO Sept 2023
• Steven Greenhouse "As politics grew more polarized over the past quarter-century, the Republican Party, pushed by wealthy donors like the Koch brothers, grew more anti-union (and more opposed to regulations on business). In state after state, Republicans have moved to hobble unions, especially through right-to-work laws, enacted in recent years in Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, West Virginia and Wisconsin." "In recent decades, Republicans in Congress have opposed not just pro-union measures, but many pro-worker ones." "Trump invited construction union leaders to the White House, but he utterly failed on delivering what they wanted most: his promised $1 trillion infrastructure plan that would have created hundreds of thousands of construction jobs. Infuriating union leaders and many workers, the Trump administration has refused to adopt any regulations requiring employers to take specific steps to protect workers against Covid-19. Many labor experts say the Trump National Labor Relations Board has taken myriad steps to make it harder to unionize. Mr. Trump has tweeted out attacks against the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s president and several union presidents." "Most Republican voters support a higher minimum wage — referendums in red states like Missouri and Nebraska approved a higher minimum — but Republican lawmakers generally oppose such a move." NYT Sept 2020
• Joseph A. McCartin "More than any other labor dispute of the past three decades, Reagan’s confrontation with the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, or Patco, undermined the bargaining power of American workers and their labor unions. It also polarized our politics in ways that prevent us from addressing the root of our economic troubles: the continuing stagnation of incomes despite rising corporate profits and worker productivity." "Reagan’s unprecedented dismissal of skilled strikers encouraged private employers to do likewise. By 2010, the number of workers participating in walkouts was less than 2 percent of what it had been when Reagan led the actors’ strike in 1952. Lacking the leverage that strikes once provided, unions have been unable to pressure employers to increase wages as productivity rises." "But the impact of the Patco strike on Reagan’s fellow Republicans has long since overshadowed his own professed beliefs regarding public sector unions. Over time the rightward-shifting Republican Party has come to view Reagan’s mass firings not as a focused effort to stop one union from breaking the law — as Reagan portrayed it — but rather as a blow against public sector unionism itself." NYT Aug 2011
• "But the Republican Party today remains anti-union, especially when considering what General Dwight Eisenhower told the American Federation of Labor when he was running for president in 1952. Independent Jan 2024
• After years of struggle, America’s labor unions enjoy greater public approval than at any time in more than 50 years. Yet even as the Republican party seeks to rebrand itself as the party of the working class, its lawmakers, by and large, remain as hostile as ever toward organized labor. It doesn’t look like that situation is about to change. With the midterm elections approaching, and many polls indicating that the Republicans will win control of the House, nearly all Republican lawmakers in Congress oppose proposals that would make it easier to unionize. One hundred and eleven Republican House members and 21 senators are co-sponsoring a bill that would weaken unions by letting workers in all 50 states opt out of paying any fees to the unions that represent them. And at a time when many young workers – among them, Starbucks workers, Apple store workers, museum workers, grad students – are flocking into unions, Republican lawmakers often deride unions as woke, leftwing and obsolete. The Guardian Oct 2022
• So it should be no surprise that Republicans, who appear to stand a good chance of winning control of the House, are signaling that they plan to push bills and strategies to undermine labor’s political clout and its ability to grow. “Republicans are likely to pursue a version of what Samuel Gompers often said: ‘Reward your friends and punish your enemies,’ ” said Joseph McCartin, a labor historian at Georgetown. A Republican-led House or Senate is expected to be more eager than a Democratic-controlled one to approve free trade agreements that unions oppose, and to be more reluctant to enact stimulus plans that unions have supported, like the recent bill that gave states $26 billion to help save the jobs of teachers, police officers and other government employees. A Republican-controlled House or Senate would probably block a labor-backed bill that would give firefighters and police officers in every state the right to unionize. Professor McCartin said, “I suspect the Republicans will target these policies by trying to make the case that they waste taxpayer money by promoting higher wages on projects that taxpayers pay for.” NYT Nov 2010
• John Cassidy (journalist) "Politics is politics, but the sight of senior Republicans posing as the true friends of the union workers is so outlandish as to be almost comical. From Trump on down, the G.O.P. has spent decades siding with employers and seeking to frustrate union efforts to organize workplaces and raise wages. Even as it has sought to rebrand itself as a workers’ party, the G.O.P.’s actions have made a mockery of this claim. New Yorker Sept 2023
• National Bureau of Economic Research However, the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, better known as the Taft-Hartley Act, allowed states to introduce “right-to-work” laws under which covered workers cannot be legally required to pay union dues. These laws can create a “free-rider” problem in union membership, undermining unions’ financing and ability to organize workers. Some states passed right-to-work laws before 1980. Six additional states have adopted these provisions since 2001. In Right-to-Work Laws, Unionization, and Wage Setting (NBER Working Paper 30098), Nicole Fortin, Thomas Lemieux, and Neil Lloyd find that these laws significantly reduce unionization rates and wages. NBER

Cheers. DN (talk) 22:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, Darknipples. I have just removed the inline tag I had placed in the lead, and I have added the following sentence to the article body: "The Republican Party is generally opposed to labor unions."

Darknipples, do you think any of the other sources you found should be added to the first paragraph of the "Labor unions and the minimum wage" section? It still needs more sources. MonMothma (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Not especially, just that they might be considered acceptable for consideration on those topics. I would do a search for commentary on the GOP by notable experts such as Melvyn Dubofsky, Nelson Lichtenstein, Herbert G. Gutman, David Montgomery, David Brody, and Alice Kessler-Harris. DN (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The party certainly supported deregulation of certain industries in the 1980s. But when has any Republican leader supported laissez-faire, freedom from "any form of economic interventionism (such as subsidies or regulations)"Dimadick (talk) 06:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

The Times states that the GOP support laissez-faire policies. BBC Bitesize states that they did this dating back to at least the Coolidge era. The NYT states that this was also their policy from the Regan era to the arrival of Trump, but that this is changing. The Economist agrees that now the GOP, or at least parts of it, reject laissez-faire economics, but traditional conservatives support it. Cortador (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, thank you for that information. I think it would be good to work that information into the article, to the extent that it isn't there already. The nuances in the GOP's position, together with the fact that the Trump-era GOP has shifted somewhat, reinforce my belief that there should not be a blanket statement--in the lead or anywhere else--that the GOP supports laissez-faire/free-market economics. MonMothma (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I saw this coming after the COVID-19 pandemic started. I am under the impression that we will have to completely rewrite this article after the RNC this summer. Scorpions1325 (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Support mentioning that the Republican Party is pro-business, generally opposes labor unions, and increasing military spending. It does best among White voters without a college degree (Trump won them 67-32 in 2020), which could explain why it generally opposes tuition free university and student loan forgiveness. Also the Republican Party is strongest in the Southern United States, a region that has always supported property owners over workers (i.e. pro-slaveholders, pro-landlords, and now pro-business). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

References

"nationalists, who tend to sympathize with Palestine"

Do they though? I highly doubt it. After all, the same paragraph cites Pat Buchanan as the biggest example of a "nationalist republican", and you can go read his article and see the man has a long history of antisemitism. So, what am I saying here? That declining GOP support for Israel does not come from "sympathy for Palestinians", that is RIDICULOUS, it comes from the influence of antisemitic conspiracy theorists like Buchanan, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, etc. I mean, let's not forget Trump dined with Nick Fuentes...

In conclusion, that paragraph should really mention that, at least mention that MAYBE the decline in support of Israel has something to do with the documented rise in antisemitism in America in the past few years.

Oh, one last thing. The part of the article I've been discussing focuses too much on some random comments made by Trump about Israel to doubt his support for it. That's stupid. Trump says A LOT of things and let's be real here, he doesn't really mean most of what he says, he is not a very honest guy. Let's not judge Trump for what he says, let's judge him for what he does, what he did as president. He was the most pro-Israel president America ever had, certainly a lot more than Obama and Biden. When it comes to the Iran nuclear deal, the Golan Heights and his ridiculously one-sided peace plan, Trump trumps every other president. What Trump says about Netanyahu is clearly just interpersonal drama, as is usual with Trump. Bibi recognized Biden's election, that made Trump mad, end of story. That doesn't hold a candle to Obama's fight with Netanyahu, which was actually over policy, the Iran deal. Guyermou (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

What you doubt doesn't matter - what reliable sources state does. If you think that the source doesn't represent all relevant viewpoints on the topic, feel free to cite additional sources regarding that. Cortador (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Support changing the wording on such statements. The Republican Party has never supported Palestine over Israel, but has sometimes supported non-interventionism and isolationism. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Political position

I feel like the position “right wing” on the infobox is a fair and unbiased position to give it especially since the source mentions center right and far right factions while saying it’s only factions and not the majority. but my question is will it stay? Because whenever positions are added it tends to be removed however I am in favor of keeping the political position in the infobox 2600:8801:1187:7F00:355E:943C:4E4A:C550 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because the Republican Party is a big-tent party. Most members of it can be described as having right wing political views, but it also has members with far-right views (i.e. Marjorie Taylor Greene) and centre-right views (i.e. governors Joe Lombardo and Phil Scott). Because the Party has officeholders in a wide variety of jurisdictions and positions, the party's position on the political spectrum is not uniform. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your definition of big tent, ie, "a political party having members covering a broad spectrum of beliefs." What other beliefs take precedent over Trumpism in the current GOP? Which sources even still call it a "Big tent" party, currently? While I agree that's true of the past, lately though, not so much. Since Trump won in 2016 it's seemingly continued to become a party belonging to the MAGA movement, even despite his loss in 2020 the Trump family gained more control, specifically over the RNC.

1. The Atlantic 2022

2. The Hill 2022 by Glenn C. Altschuler

3. NYT 2021 by Nicole Hemmer

Cheers... DN (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"What other beliefs take precedent over Trumpism in the current GOP?" I would argue that Creationism and anti-intellectualism have a wider support among the party members. Dimadick (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Are there any creationist or anti-intellectual factions according to citations? DN (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

That's already what the infobox states: the GOP is a right-wing party with centre-right and far-right elements. And as DN pointed out, if you want to remove the political position on the basis that the GOP is a big tent party whose position is too broad to be defined, you need RS that say so, and those need to outweigh sources that attribute specific positions to the party. Cortador (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Was there a talk page consensus for adding this to the page? It was added just 10 days ago and I don't see that it had a clear consensus for inclusion. Why isn't this part of the Democrat page is a good question. Additionally, why make the change now and why ignore/fail to notify participants in past discussions. Springee (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There's no specific requirement for additions to get prior approval. What the article on the Democrats does or doesn't have doesn't matter; whoever edits that article can decide that. Cortador (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

You are correct about prior approval. But once challenged we should show explicit approval. Yes, what we do on the other topic does matter as the two should have some level of parallelism. Springee (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with this. The current formatting for the infobox on this page is pretty much perfect — the GOP is undoubtedly a right-wing party with centre-right and far-right elements. This is backed up by numerous sources included in the article. For the Democrats, however, things seem to get a bit more murky. While scholars and commentators agree that the Democrats are, at the very least, not right-wing, there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus beyond that. Withholding information on this page simply because there isn't a consensus on the other page does nothing but disservice the reader. Loytra (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

When compared with other western democracies, the Democrats ARE right wing, but I know we'll never get that reality into Wikipedia. As for the Republicans, we have a party endorsing Donald Trump for President, so his political philosophy has to be a major part of the Republican Party political position. I cannot be simply ignored. We have a Trumpism article, where it is described as authoritarian, right-wing populism, national conservatism, neo-nationalism, and neo-fascism anti-immigrant, xenophobic, nativist, anti-minority groups, conspiracist, isolationist, Christian nationalist, protectionist, anti-feminist, and anti-LGBT. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I actually quite strongly disagree, at least with the first part. Right now, I'd argue the Democrats are a pretty firm centre-left party, with current Democratic lawmakers governing even to the left of similar international parties such as the Australian Labor Party or the German Social Democrats. With economically progressive bills such as the Build Back Better Act (which was endorsed by the Democratic establishment yet rejected by the party's two conservative Senators), the Biden admin's policies of student loan relief and taxing billionaires, and the party's overall strong endorsement of progressive social issues such as transgender rights, I don't think the idea that the Democrats are right-wing holds much water these days.

If I were to unilaterally write the Democrats' infobox (simply based on my original research), I'd probably put something like 'Center to center-left' with '(center-right to left-wing)' under a 'factions' tag.

I fully agree with your second point, however. Under Trump the GOP has most definitely endorsed an almost far-right agenda, with all the policies you listed now being main tenants of the party. Loytra (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I think more of a consensus should be added on a political position in the infobox. Not listing a position has been consensus for as long as I can remember. But it doesn't seem like very many people voted on the issue. Completely Random Guy (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If there was a lot more disagreement I'd agree, but there doesn't seem to be. I really can't see how anyone would have valid disagreements about the GOP being a right-wing party, especially with the amount of citations given to support such a position. Listing a position (especially with how undisputable the party's is) greatly aids the reader, while withholding it for the sake of a vague "consensus" does nothing but harm the page.

This page is almost certainly the first place anyone wanting to access information about the GOP would visit, and knowing that the party is "right-wing" is perhaps the most basic and important factoid one should know. Loytra (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I haven't seen many arguments against inclusion e.g. the GOP being a Big Tent party that can't be described as right-wing isn't backed up by sources, and whether or not then Democratic Party article states an ideology doesn't matter. Cortador (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

In terms of stability, there will be much fewer users/editors complaining that the republican party article's political position is right wing...I can't recall the last time anyone came to this talk page complaining that this article wasn't reflective of RS saying the republican party was accepting or welcoming to "left wing" political positions...Not in years... DN (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

To add to this, the article did include a comment for a long time about a supposed "longstanding consensus is not to include a political position" in the infobox. However, when I asked about that a while ago, nobody was able to determine when this alleged "longstanding consensus" was actually formed, and the prior discussions I could find on the topic were about adding a position. The assumption that there is no census for adding a position is either faulty, or it happened so long ago (15+) that I don't think we should cling to that. Cortador (talk) 06:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

There's not a reason to add this, and frankly the note as it was was insufficient. Explaining the party is a conservative party with a bunch of factions is the best way to do this in a two-party system where both parties broadly represent the left and right, respectively. Toa Nidhiki05 06:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The United States is not the only two party system with parties that have a so-called "broad tent". I don't understand the American exceptionalism behind all this, when largely speaking the GOP is right-wing. Every party has factions but if said factions are small enough (i.e. the center-right in the GOP), it doesn't change the overall political position of the party. Aficionado538 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Request for page protection added

I have added a WP:Request for page protection because of the ongoing edit war. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 10:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In which order should the article and infobox list the party ideologies and factions?

Since this is apparently contentious: in which order should the GOP factions and ideologies be listed in the article and the infobox?

Tagging people involved in this and the previous the discussion: @BootsED @Darknipples @Springee @Completely Random Guy @The Four Deuces @JohnAdams1800 @EvergreenFir @Endwise Cortador (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear that Trumpism is even a legitimate faction vs a recent term of convince. Putting it on top, over things like conservative is absolutely giving it undue weight. Certainly an experienced editor shouldn't need to be reverted several times to realize there isn't consensus for this change. Springee (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding Trumpism has consensus. Trumpism was never on top in the infobox - JohnAdams1800 moved it below conservatism and stated so in their edit summary. If you reverted the change because of that, you did so under a false premise. Cortador (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you point out where that consensus was established? I recall a discussion in the past where it was noted that Trumpism is simply a recent name/manifestation of populism. At best as a recent named faction is shouldn't be considered the most prominent. Additionally as a questionable long term faction, as opposed to say a populist faction, will this really be a true faction in 10 years? Springee (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Stay on topic. If you want to remove Trumpism as a faction, feel free to start another discussion regarding that. Cortador (talk) 12:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If a faction's inclusion is questionable it certainly isn't a stretch to think putting it in the most prominent location on the list would be questionable. Can you point to the talk page consensus you mentioned? Springee (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It's the discussion I already linked to. Can you tell me when Trumpism was ever at the top of the list, the supposed reason for your revert? Cortador (talk) 13:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I see you pinged editors but I don't see that you have provided a link. Your question about list order doesn't make sense. It was moved from down list to the top. I reverted that change. You reverted my edit so clearly it was at the top of the list recently. Springee (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It was move below conservatism, which you can see if you look at the edit you reversed and if you read the edit summary. I also linked to the discussion in the edit summary. You should actually look at the edits and their summary before your revert them. Cortador (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I simply added them based on the order of how the factions were listed in the factions section. I put conservative on top for obvious reasons. If it is really contentious we can just do alphabetical order. BootsED (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I would omit both fields. The purpose of the info-box is to provide concise unambiguous information. However, this cannot be done in these two cases.

Neither major U.S. party has an official ideology and both are categorized in comparative politics as "liberal" parties. Their disagreement is on the interpretation of liberal principles such as property rights, rather than disagreement over the principles themselves.

The only real formal faction in the party is the relatively small Liberty Caucus. Otherwise, there are shifting informal alliances over various policies. TFD (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

What official factions or ideologies the party has doesn't matter - we should stick to what sources define as factions. Using an self-description should in fact be avoided entirely without pointing out that it is one. Cortador (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I support putting Trumpism at the top of the factions in the infobox because it is the dominant faction of the GOP, with conservatism as the dominant ideology. Trumpism has its own article, Donald Trump has been the GOP presidential nominee--presumptive for 2024--in 2016, 2020, and 2024, and the article states that "Trumpists are the dominant political faction of the GOP." (I didn't include the citations because many are tagged and just use their tagged name).

Trumpism is associated with ideologies such as right-wing populism, national conservatism, and protectionism (compare Trump's ideology on trade to his predecessors going back to Reagan) that began to feature prominently in the GOP after Trump won the nomination in 2016. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I support that as well. Trump has had the party in his grasp for almost a decade now, and has transformed it significantly. Should that change, we can revise the article, but as of now, there's no end in sight. Cortador (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have sources saying it's the dominant faction? Consider this source [7] describing the current (not long term or stable) fractions of the house GOP. What could be called Trumpism in their report is the "Pro Trump insurgents" and are the loudest but not the biggest. They are presented last on the list suggesting they are a vocal minority vs any sort of majority. They have power because they are leveraging the thin party majority to get what they want. Springee (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for including me in the discussion! I'll be honest, I do think that Trumpism is extremely significant, as in he and his supporters within the party have remodeled the party from more of an establishment catch-all party, to a more anti-establishment populist party. Now whether Trumpism should be the first listed faction or last listed faction, to me I would say it should be listed last. My justification being it is the newest grouping/faction within the party. I am okay with wherever it is listed, as long as it IS listed. But I can't say I necessarily agree with it being the newest listing and automatically placed on top in prominence over the long preceding factions. Completely Random Guy (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to ask the community at Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes, and see what they suggest? I'm somewhat indifferent, but the MAGA movement is currently the faction most prevalently found among reliable sources to be redefining the modern day GOP. Right-libertarianism, Centrism, Christian right, Neoconservatism, all seem to be taking a back seat. That being said, I'm unaware of any standard info-box procedure as it relates to this question, aside from finding consensus. DN (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox consensus discussion to resolve editing dispute

The following discussion 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.

---

What are the views for how to arrange the factions for the Republican Party in the infobox? There appears to be widespread support for keeping Conservatism (American) as the party's dominant ideology.

It appears the two main positions are:

A: Alphabetical order-- Centrism; Christian right; Neoconservatism; Right-libertarianism; Trumpism

B: Trumpism at the top, due to being widely described as the dominant faction of the party. The others in some other order, likely alphabetical--Centrism; Christian right; Neoconservatism; Right-libertarianism

Are there other proposals for the ordering, such as potentially including no factions in the infobox?

I personally support option B, for reasons stated in the prior discussion post. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I would go with none if that is the long term stable version of the article. If they are included then the long term factions first and the recent/newer ones later. Do note that the 538 source I provided in the previous section doesn't support the view that "Trumpist" is the largest faction, only the loudest. Springee (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

As many RS in the lead state, "As of 2024, Trumpists are the dominant faction within the GOP.". Unfortunately, it's not clear that which faction being the "largest" or "dominant" is the distinction that is what determines the order. The suggested order should provide stability to the article, and I believe that's what the info-box project community would suggest, but I could be wrong. DN (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

They don't need to because nobody has claimed that Trumpists are the largest faction. Cortador (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Making it alphabetical seems the easiest and least troublesome solution. DN (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Option A as it's the most neutral and will cause the least talk page bickering. I also worry option B runs afoul of WP:RECENTISM. — Czello ^(music) 07:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Option A for reasons stated above by User:Czello. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Option A because it just makes more sense. It's also how we order the Democratic Party's factions. Completely Random Guy (talk) 20:32, 2 May 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.

Note claiming that there is "longstanding consensus" not to include a political position for the party

@Toa Nidhiki05 You restored the note claiming that there was "longstanding consensus" not to include a political position for the party in the infobox. We recently had a discussion about that, and nobody was able to show were this alleged "longstanding consensus" was formed. In even more recent discussions, a number of users (Credmaster 20, Ray522, DN, Loytra, Monito rapido, Schestos, Aficionado538, two IP users, and myself) have supported the inclusion of a position. Even if there, at one point, had been a consensus not to include a position, which again, nobody has been able to demonstrate, that consensus is clearly no longer a present. If you claim that there is really no consensus, you need demonstrate that. Cortador (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia falls back to previous consensus when there is no new consensus reached. I think a lot of people are happy to let things linger, particularly on controversial topics.

I'd support a well thought out change here though. The reasons for the previous consensus are very weak imo. US parties should not get special treatment without a very compelling reason, and being "big tent" is not compelling to me. Carlp941 (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I have yet to see the discussion where that consensus was supposedly formed. All we have is a single comment (which I removed months ago) with an unsubstantiated claim that there is such a consensus. Cortador (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Should the GOP article only include the party's political position in its infobox if the article on the Democratic Party does as well?

The Democrat article doesn't have this information in it's box. Will you support adding it so the info box there as well as here? Springee (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

If there's a consensus to include one in that article, sure. I don't really understand how that affects this one, though? Loytra (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support it. DN (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

As the GOP is the right-wing of US two party system I think adding this to both articles make sense or it should be off both. Otherwise I don't have a strong feeling beyond if there was a previous consensus the involved editors should be contacted. Springee (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

More specifically, the GOP encompasses the entire right of the spectrum, and the Democrats the entire left. Toa Nidhiki05 00:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"the GOP encompasses the entire right of the spectrum" The concept of right-wing politics groups together Conservatism, Christian democracy, Classical liberalism, Nationalism, and Fascism. Does the GOP attract voters from all the right-wing ideologies? Dimadick (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick currently, or for a specific time period? DN (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

For the last decade or so. Else I would ask if did attract them in the past. Dimadick (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@[[User:Dimadick| , The Trump era of the GOP is somewhat of a turning point into new territory for the GOP, in some respects. It seems the two party system isn't necessarily just about attracting voters, it's also about complacency and compulsion IMO. How does a society of hundreds of millions manage to fit all their needs into 1 of 2 categories? DN (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I really don't understand that argument. There's a clear position that the GOP holds (i.e. "right-wing"). As of now, I don't see that there's one for the Democrats. Why would that stop us from adding "right-wing" to the GOP article? Why withhold vital information to the reader just for the sake of parity? Loytra (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by right-wing, which is the problem in deciding what would go into the field. Historically, the right was been associated with absolutism, fascism and dictatorship and no sane people actually self-identify as right-wing. So when I see someone described as right-wing today, I think of Meloni, Lepen, Orban and Bolsonaro. The Republican Party at least pays lip service to the U.S. constitution. TFD (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the Democrat article talk page it seems that article also has debates about this. [8] ("same reasons as given in GOP talk. Both parties are too big and unique to give them labels for position. Furthermore, it does not get clear to me at all why, as the user above me does, one should adjust the position of American parties to European standards")[9],[10]. It seems this discussion comes up quite a bit and no one has ever come up with a good compromise. Those against, rightly, argue that both parties cover quite a range of positions and thus it's not easy to narrow them down to a simple left-right[11]. However, I also get the idea that the Dems and Repubs are often referred to, even by themselves and on the left or right. Personally I don't think the change is needed but I wouldn't oppose doing a simple "left-wing", "right-wing" so long as there is consensus that this should be consistent across the two articles and is based on the idea that the left and right reflect their relative position with respect to one another. Springee (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should go one at a time and try to develop consensus in one page first. Carlp941 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The article on the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team currently has a list of all players with their height (Harlem Globetrotters#Current roster), since height is significant to playing basketball. Now suppose we decided to add a field for shortness/tallness. Their heights range from 4'6" to 7'1" and they are on average significantly taller than the average population.

How can we agree how tall is tall or whether average means for basketball players or for the general population? We would rely on our subjective interpretations of the information already provided.

It's the same here. The info-box provides the party's ideology. We do not need to show where we believe those ideologies fit along the political spectrum.

TFD (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not about what "we" believe. It's about what reliable sources state. And reliable sources quite consistently state that the party is right-wing with center-right and far-right elements.

This comparison is unwarranted. To omit a political position based on your personal views that this information is "subjective" is original research. We go off what reliable sources say, not what you think. Loytra (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources use the terminology in different ways. For example, books about the Weimar Republic refer to the Christians democrats, liberals and social democrats as centrists, but their successor parties are described as right, center and left respectively. The same sources may use the terms differently depending on context. For example, David Cameron's conservatives could be described as center right, and the Lib Dems as center left, but together they formed a center-right coalition.

The terms are only meaningful when context is provided.

Note while countless books have been written about the Left and the far right, there are no books about the center right, the center left or the center. That's because those terms are ambiguous. TFD (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really understand your point. What "context" are you talking about that changes things? How are the Democrats or Republicans not center-left or center-right "in context"?

And you cannot legitimately say that there "are no books about the center right, the center left or the center." That point in itself is just a bit ridiculous. Loytra (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Instead of providing an evidence free ad hominem argument, can you provide examples of books about the center right, the center left or the center? TFD (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone could say that both parties are centrist, that the Reps are the the right and the Dems the left, that the Dems are center-left, that their membership ranges from center to left. While all these statements are true, are use of them would depend on context. For example, if we were comparing U.S. politics to the Weimar Republic, we would say U.S. parties were centrist. If we were comparing it with the UK, we would say the two parties are the left and the right. If we were comparing the parties with political parties generally, we would center-left or center-right. TFD (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Loytra I tend to agree, but which sources provide the most authoritative evidence? DN (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This bit about "center-right" and "far-right" elements is fairly wrong too, because sources actually talk about centrist elements - not center-right ones - as the furthest extent of the party. On the flip side... the "far right" wing are not, say, literal nazis, any more than the far-left wing of the Democratic Party are communists. The parties themselves also have effectively no control over who can join, or who can run for office; in many states, non-party members can vote in primaries. Europe is not a valid comparison. Toa Nidhiki05 20:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The "far-right" faction of the GOP aren't Nazis, but they are fascists. Fascism is a far-right ideology. Reliable sources describe the Trumpist faction as far-right. Therefore, a major faction of the GOP is far-right.

Loytra (talk) 06:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an extremely bold claim, and one that is ultimately incorrect. Toa Nidhiki05 12:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That's it. I can take the first result on a Google books search for "the far right in europe" which is Far-right Politics in Europe" (Harvard University Press 2017) It provides a definition of the far right, its history and a list of far right parties, all well-sourced and written by experts. As an academic source, the authors are expected to report how well accepted their conclusions are. It's like using a biology textbook as a source that felix catus is a species of cat or that humans can be classified as primates.

There is nothing comparable in this case. TFD (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples what do you mean? Loytra (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean which sources are we using to define the political positions, and how authoritative are they. Since this is an opinion, it will help to gain consensus if it is an opinion that is proven to be shared by close to a majority of experts. DN (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

See Radical right (United States)#Terminology, which is part of an article you recently edited. It begins, "Among academics and social scientists, there is disagreement over how right-wing political movement should be described, and no consensus over what the proper terminology should be exists." It is sourced and you can read more about the topic in two of the books used as sources for the article by Sara Diamond and Kaplan & Weinberg. TFD (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

That article is about Radical right, and the section refers to the right-wing. Does it mention the GOP? DN (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

We were discussing whether or not there is consensus in academic sources in the use of left-right terminology. As reliable sources point out, there is none at least for groups on the right.

Categorizing parties by ideology is straightforward. The Liberal Party of Canada is a liberal party, the Conservative Party of the UK is a conservative party, the Communist Party of the United States is a communist party. We even know that conservatives are to the right of liberals who in turn are to the right of communists. But there is no consensus about where specifically these ideologies fall along the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but I don't see an answer to my question. DN (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If it doesn't mention the GOP, and only refers to the radical right, then it shouldn't be used to make a case for omitting a political position for the Republican party. DN (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You wrote, "which sources are we using to define the political positions?" Why does a source that defines the political positions of right-wing, far right etc., have to mention the GOP? These terms should have the same meaning whether we are referring to the GOP or any other political group.

Note that I provided the source not as part of an argument that the political position should be omitted but in reply to your request for sources on what these terms mean. TFD (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I've no objection to including or excluding political positions, as long as both political parties-in-question are consistent with each other. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think the two articles should be connected. We cover things the way the sources do; if sources tend to describe the Republican party along the left-right axis more often than they do the Democratic party, then our articles need to reflect that, rather than putting our thumb on the scale and overriding the sources for the sake of WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's not a given that both political parties are equally defined by left-right politics, which means we can't simply set a requirement that they be treated the same way without regard for the sources. --Aquillion (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of this? Is there a particular reason and what is the context in your examples? Springee (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Evidence for what? TFD (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The American articles are odd balls that they excluded this easily sourced basic info. I think most understand its complicated....but no mention of any political comparison leaves our readership in the dark. Consider what the best way to inform our readers, a well sourced section about the many political scales can lead our readers to more reliable information then a search engine can. It would be better to confront and explain problems. Don't leave our readers without any information on subjects of notability even if its hard to explain.Moxy🍁 16:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

No information is omitted. The article currently has the ideology of the party and major factions. That is far more useful than an arbitrary "political position". Toa Nidhiki05 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Currently the info-box lists the ideologies as majority Conservatism with factions: Centrism, Christian right, Libertarianism, Neoconservatism and Trumpism. Where we place the party in the political spectrum depends entirely on how we place these ideologies. If I am wrong, can you explain what additional information it provides? Is there any danger a reader might think they were a left-wing party? TFD (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Because not all readers are going to read the entire article, and follow all the links. Not all readers come from an already strong knowledge base. Not all readers are American. I was once a teenager, trying to understand the politics of my country and why it was planning to send fellow Australians, and maybe me, to fight a war in Vietnam. This inevitably led me to want to understand the politics of the country we were following into that war. I started with zero knowledge, and it took me quite a while to get my head around the very different politics of that foreign country. Today, Wikipedia is a primary source of such information, on millions of topics, for readers all around the world. New readers will come to this article with very little basic knowledge. They won't read the entire article. They will look to the Infobox for summary information. I do that myself on new topics every day. If the Infobox avoids basic information, such as the party's raw political position, it is failing. This article needs to be as good as it can be. In deciding what that means, it's irrelevant what the article on the Democratic Party says. (Although it too should be made as good as it can be.) This isn't a competition between two parties in one country. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe an arbitrary "political position" is essential, especially when it relies on synthesizing sources. Toa Nidhiki05 02:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Toa - You have positioned your comment as a response to mine. After the thought and effort I put into my comment, with thorough reasons behind my position, I find your comment both frustrating and very unhelpful. You seem to have ignored everything I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand you're frustrated with my response. However, you've not actually established why a listed "political position" is essential. The page already lists the party's ideology and factions. Do you genuinely, honestly believe someone could read that list and think "this is a left-wing party"? I don't think so. Clearly, there's a lot of contention about this - but it's impossible to be confused, in my opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 03:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You either didn't properly read or didn't understand my comment. I wrote about the reader who is not already an aficionado in American politics. One who won't read long lists, and is looking for information in summary form. That list is NOT a summary. It probably doesn't belong in the Infobox in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05 Are political positions only arbitrary for parties in the US, and the GOP in particular? Which sources are being synthesized and how, exactly? DN (talk) 07:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If as you say readers look to the info-box for information, it already says the party's main ideology is conservatism. What additional information is provided by saying where in the political spectrum it is?

I don't know how the political spectrum helps to analyze Australia's role in the Vietnam War. Both major parties supported the war, as did both parties in the U.S. It's not clear how one would describe their position in the spectrum.

The Vietnamese communists of course were left-wing, but that's by definition and doesn't help us understand the conflict. Labor could also be described as left-wing by definition even though they were much closer to the Liberals.

Note that liberals, conservatives and labour parties in most other countries did not support joining the war. TFD (talk) 03:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

None of that was my point. I figured things out back in the 60s. I don't need you to try to explain it to me now. To perhaps reinforce my point, one of Australia's two major parties is the Liberal Party. Now, are you clear where it sits on the political spectrum? HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. In Australia, the word "liberal" has a different meaning. Clicking on any of the links would elaborate on that, but the infobox also mentions conservatism, too. There's no real way to be confused. Toa Nidhiki05 04:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

A different meaning from the U.S. perhaps, but most Democrats and Republicans could easily fit into its two wings. What makes the Liberals different from other countries with liberal parties is that their only major opposition comes from the left, whereas most liberal parties have opponents on both sides. But even though some liberal parties may at times seem left-wing, when they have to choose, they almost always align with the right. TFD (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That's why there is a box for "political ideology." The Liberal Party info-box says it is Liberalism (Australian), Conservatism, Liberal conservatism, Economic liberalism, with Factions: Pragmatism, Right-wing populism.

Can you explain why given the ideologies listed, what additional info the position in the political spectrum adds? Do you think anyone would confuse it with a left-wing party?

The info-box places it Centre-right to Right-wing. Someone else might place it far right to center left, since it has both right-wing populist and social liberal elements. It all depends on where Wikipedia editors place its constituent ideologies. TFD (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of the Centrism Ideology

I think we should remove the centrism label, or relegate it to a "historical" subsection. The source linked is from 1996 - a nearly 30 year old source. Additionally, the source is bemoaning the demise of centrism in the Republicam Party.

Any sourced I've found do the same - noting the death of centrism in modern american politics.

https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1744&context=student_scholarship

I find that, while the number of centrists has declined precipitously their ideology does not at least at the broadest level predict their effectiveness in passing legislation. Future research will dig deeper into the underlying question of when centrists are more or less effective, looking at particular Congresses and speakerships to analyze the extent to which centrists' declining numbers result in declining (or perhaps enhanced) effectiveness

https://news.northeastern.edu/2023/06/05/four-party-system-us-politics-progressives-far-right/

For several decades now, political scientists have been carefully documenting the disappearance of the “political middle” among the ranks of both the Democratic and Republican parties in Congress.

https://news.virginia.edu/content/democrats-becoming-more-liberal-and-cohesive-party-gop-more-conservative

The middle ground of American politics is growing more difficult to find as the nation’s two major political parties organize around their ideologies and move further from the political center, according to a senior columnist with Sabato’s Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. Carlp941 (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Centrism isn't an ideology, it's the midpoint of the political spectrum which itself isn't defined. TFD (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces, then you're okay with me removing it? I think that's yet another strong reason to remove it. If it's not an ideology, and reliable sources say the centrist faction is dead - including the source referenced - i see no reason to keep it. Let me know if I am off base! Carlp941 (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I added moderate conservatism but someone deleted it and added centrism again. Can i please request to restore my version. I also changed a few of the redundancies like faction history and added it in the main page Guotaian (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"Moderate conservatism" is not a thing, at least in the context of American politics, and it's not what that source says, either. Please stop making major changes without explanation and then reverting without explanation. Your edits are actually breaking formatting on many of these pages, and straight-up importing content from other pages is generally frowned upon. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean? there is a wiki page for it and it makes up a large portion of the republican governance group. There is also a section for the united states in the Moderate conservatism page. Please look closely at the edits and tell what else is "wrong". Guotaian (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

"Moderate conservatism" is not a term used in American politics. Moderate Republicans are generally referred to as centrist, or referred to (somewhat confusingly and anachronistically) as "liberal Republicans". Introducing terms to this article that not only aren't what the sources say, but that aren't even used in American politics, is at minimum an WP:ENGVAR violation, and at most WP:Original research. Toa Nidhiki05 18:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Many also disagree with the use of centrist because it is not a political ideology. Also besides that is there anything else you disagree about? Guotaian (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, what does " breaking formatting" mean because the page works as it should. Additionally, I am just using the democratic party page as a reference (where they just list all factions without history) and it makes it confusing for readers to read too much. Guotaian (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

On the Democratic Party page, your changes to headers actually removed those headers from the table of contents. Toa Nidhiki05 18:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Which headers? can you please specify Guotaian (talk) 18:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

If you are talking about factions it is because the majority of democrats are liberals while only a minority are moderates/progressives. So it is meant to point out the majority faction (liberals) Guotaian (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This kind of editing is really disruptive. Please don't take agreement between two editors about a proposed edit as license to make major changes that are mostly tangently related. It erodes good faith and makes consensus harder, particularly on a page that covers a very contentious topic. I am proposing the removal of a single line under the ideology subhead in the infobox - I am not asking for the changes you are attempting to make. Carlp941 (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I am new to wiki so i'm unfamiliar with the rules. I apologize for my misunderstanding. Guotaian (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Also since you are planning to remove the centrist label, are you planning to remove the moderate faction below? Guotaian (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd contest removing centrism as a faction. The House Freedom Caucus - which gets a ton of weight in the article, undue I'd argue - has roughly the same number of members as the Republican Governance Group, which is the centrist grouping. Pretending this faction doesn't exist isn't helpful to readers. Toa Nidhiki05 18:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I also Support keeping moderate conservatism and/or centrism. The Republican Party has state-level officeholders who can be considered centrist/moderate (i.e. Charlie Baker, Phil Scott, and Larry Hogan in the Northeast, and Joe Lombardo in Nevada) as mentioned in the article. They are still a faction, though shrinking over time. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I can be on board with keeping it, but only if can we find a better source. A 30 year old source that bemoans this faction's demise surely isn't the best.

Give me a day or two and I'll try to find one! Carlp941 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Why not just list the Republican Governance Group as a faction of the party? TFD (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's some sources:

• Centrist Republicans warn far-right tactics could backfire in government funding fight - NBC News: Uses centrist and center-right interchangeably
• Scoop: House centrist groups eye bipartisan policy partnership - Axios: Uses center-right and center-left as synonyms for centrism
• GOP centrists prepare to ‘flex our muscles’ - POLITICO: "centrist Republican Governance Group"; also mentioned 90-member strong Main Street Caucus
• House GOP elects Blake Moore as vice chair, replacing Speaker Johnson - The Hill: "Moore is a second-term lawmaker who sits on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, as well as the House Budget Committee. He is also vice chair of the Republican Governance Group — formerly known as the Tuesday Group — a more centrist House GOP caucus."
• Centrist Dems and McCarthy’s allies are in secret talks to strike a deal - POLITICO: Centrist GOP and Dems in same grouping.
• Centrist Democrats Cling to Hope of Deals With Divided House GOP - Bloomberg: "Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), a member of the both the centrist Republican Governance Group and the Problem Solvers Caucus"
• Reps. Moore, Curtis join centrist GOP push for McCarthy speakership bid - Standard-Examiner: Refers to group as centrist
• Republican feud over 'root canal' spending cuts raises US government shutdown risk - Reuters: "the 42-member centrist Republican Governance Group."

This was from a two-minute scan of the front page of Google for centrist Republicans. Toa Nidhiki05 16:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

These are news sources - the current source is academic. I'd prefer an academic one to replace it, not what you found on a two minute google search. I'm in no rush! I'll dig in later and I'm hopeful I'll find something. Carlp941 (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's a more recent one from Brookings with some numbers backing up the centrist faction as an existing faction. Cool with me replacing the current source?

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/will-the-republican-party-return-to-normal/ Carlp941 (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Any summary sources? DN (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Adjusting factions in the lead

I'm wondering if Libertarianism and Christian Right actually should remain. The source for Christian Right is from 1981 - extremely outdated - and its not really a term used as much today. It might be better to replace it with the more common social conservatism - which does encompass the Christian Right, but also other groups outside of that.

As for Libertarianism - is this actually a faction? The Liberty Caucus, as far as I can tell, has eight members at most, most of whom overlap with the Freedom Caucus or Trumpists. This is on par with the Blue Dog Caucus in terms of relative irrelevance. There are maybe two prominent libertarian Republicans as of right now: Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, neither of whom hold any sort of leadership position. I feel it might be undue weight to highlight such a small faction. Toa Nidhiki05 14:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. Also, maybe we should work toward a general guideline for reporting factions in info-boxes. Do we just list organized groups competing for influence or list every possible ideological position held by members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs)

It seems like it's just listing every view held by members. If we're going by actual factions, there's maybe three or four:

Moderates

• Republican Governance Group (43 Reps.)
• Republican Main Street Partnership (5 senators, 70 Reps.)
• Climate Solutions Caucus (6 senators, 29 Reps.)
• Problem Solvers Caucus (30 Reps.)

Conservatives

• Republican Study Committee (179 Reps+1 delegate)

Right-wing populists/hard-right/anti-establishment conservatives

• Freedom Caucus (~42 members)

These aren't really firm groupings - a lot of members overlap between any of the moderate groups and the Study Committee. If it were up to me, I'd make the Ideology section look something like this sample.

Republican Party
Ideology	Fiscal conservatism Social conservatism Factions: Centrists Conservatives Right-wing populists

Right-wing populism and Trumpism are fairly interchangeable, of course. You could also make an argument for Fusionism or Movement conservatism as more specific ideologies.

Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There are additional sources in the article body. Also, I don't see why ideology or factions should just be listed along caucus lines. Ideologies and factions should reflect the party, not just their delegates. Cortador (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an extremely Eurocentric perspective. American political parties are extremely weak. They have no control over nomination - that belongs to the people via popular vote - and some states (like California and Louisiana) don't even have partisan primaries. Party membership is meaningless - you pay no fee, and in a majority of states, you don't even need to register with a party to vote in a primary (in semi-open states, all registering with a party does is preclude you from voting in any other primaries). Some states lack partisan registration at all. The actual party structures themselves have no authority to do anything other than fundraise and issue non-binding platforms (the GOP platform, for example, has long supported Puerto Rican statehood - something most Republican officeholders oppose). State level parties are especially powerless. For all intents and purposes, elected officials are American political parties. Toa Nidhiki05 22:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, the two parties are organized independently in each state. Each state sends delegates every four years, selected in a manner of their choosing, to pick a presidential ticket and platform. So there could only be state-wide or city-wide factions. While the supporters of the various candidates may form factions at the convention, they do not last past the convention. TFD (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not convincing. If the party was only it's delegates, the GOP wouldn't have turned into the Trumpist mess it is now. Cortador (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Where are the sources that say there are only these two ideologies and three factions? DN (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Cortador (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Define “Trumpist mess” - are you saying Republican voters are Trumpists? What evidence do you have for this - outside of who is elected in primaries, and to Congress? And I’m also going to insist that if you’re arguing here about American politics, you use proper terminology - “delegates” means something else entirely, so I’m honestly not sure what you’re referring to here. Again, applying European party organization standards to American parties (which, quite literally, have essentially nothing in common operationally) just doesn’t make sense. Toa Nidhiki05 12:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Trumpists are the dominant faction of the party. We had this discussion twice already recently. If you want to change the current state of the article - like the ideology and factions you outlined above - back it up with sources. Cortador (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question. Are they the dominant faction of elected officials? Voters? "Delegates"? Please elaborate. My proposal includes them, so I'm frankly not even sure what you're on about. Toa Nidhiki05 13:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I've already answered the question, and I don't see Trumpists in your infobox proposal. Trumpists aren't interchangeable with right-wing populists; they include far-right Republicans as well (which is what that section was called originally). Cortador (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Except you haven't. What are you referring to - voters? "Delegates"? Please explain. Toa Nidhiki05 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

That Trumpist are the dominant faction doesn't appear to be true per the 538 link I found earlier [12]. Springee (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Certainly not among elected officials, at least. That's why I'm curious to hear what Cortador has to say - maybe he'll elaborate more on what these "delegates" he's talking about are. Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, in fact the federal party has turned into the Trumpist party in the sense that its leader is Donald Trump, he choses the head of the RNC and picks their platform and is their candidate for president. However, it has no control over the state parties, including the nomination of members of Senate or Congress.

Basically, both federal party organizations exist only to select and support their nominees for the presidency. TFD (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Poll: Should the article include a political position for the Republican Party in the infobox?

The following discussion 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.

---

Issue: We've had a number of discussion about whether or not to include a political position in the infobox - at least four this year alone (1, 2, 3, 4). The position was recently removed again. Before having a formal RfC, let's have a poll on whether to include a position instead of a bunch more discussion with no clear consensus. A lesser question is what position that should be. The article previously stated that the position was right-wing, with parts of the party being centre-right or far-right (see here). I didn't see many (if any) objections to that specific position, only objections to including a position in general, regardless of what that position is, so I'll go with that for now. If someone objects to that, we can modify the poll, or just state in your reply what you prefer.

Tagging editors involved in the previous discussions: @Monito rapido @The Four Deuces @2600:8801:1187:7F00:355E:943C:4E4A:C550 @JohnAdams1800 @Darknipples @Dimadick @Springee @Loytra @HiLo48 @Completely Random Guy @Toa Nidhiki05 @Aficionado538 @Credmaster 20 @Khajidha @Ray522 @174.89.12.70 @Straykat99 @Carlp941 @GoodDay @Aquillion @Moxy

Question: Should the article infobox state that the GOP's political position is right-wing, with parts of the party being centre-right or far-right?

Poll and discussion:

Cortador (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't see why the political position is excluded, and the infobox is not that useful in simply listing names of party officials. Dimadick (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• If you're going to make a proposal, can you at least do so in American English, per ENGVAR? For what it's worth - I object to both the addition, as well as framing the far edge of the party as the "centre-right" (sic) when the far edge is, in fact, centrism, per reliable sources. At that point, you're saying the party stretches from the center to the far right, which is... also true of essentially every right-of-center party. Toa Nidhiki05 14:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Support because the Republican Party is now much more ideologically right-wing than many other conservative political parties worldwide--i.e. compare it to the Conservative Party (UK), the CDU/CSU in Germany, etc. It is similar to parties like Law and Justice in Poland, Fidesz in Hungary, or maybe the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) (a big-tent of the right). The comparison isn't exact, because most countries use multi-party systems, but many mainstream Republican positions cannot be described simply as center-right. Side-note: This is not about my personal political views, but how reliable sources describe the party.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly support adding something for the ideology of this party. I feel right wing is the most fitting, but am happy to add positions for the factions as well.

I am not persuaded by arguments of American political uniqueness - it doesn't stop reliable sources from describing the party's position, and I do not think it should stop us. I would need to see many reliable, academic sources that explicitly say something like "America's political system is so unique that their political parties defy any political positioning on the left-right axis, and no serious scholar would do so."

I am not persuaded by the argument that the GOP is a big tent party - we have labelled plenty of big tent parties in other countrues and it is widely known that the GOP is a sort of big tent of the right wing.

I am not persuaded by the idea that political positioning is highly contextual - that hasn't stopped us from labeling the political position of parties in countries we don't live in. Carlp941 (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

So if one reliable source refers to Churchill as right-wing and another refers to Hitler as right-wing, do you think they are using the terms in the same way? Ditto with sources referring to Stalin as left-wing and others referring to FDR as left-wing, TFD (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

"right wing politics" covers a broad set of ideologies, i don't see how "being a different kind of right wing" means this page should abandon the label of right wing. i hope it's clear that i'm not proposing roping in the GOP with the Nazi Party. they're both right wing, but obviously different kinds of right wing.

Carlp941 (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of the info-box is to convey information to readers and we should not expect them to know anything about the Republican Party before accessing the article. What information does saying they are right-wing, without context, convey to the reader? They could be neo-Nazis, fascists, neo-conservatives, One Nation Tories, Klansmen, liberals or even social democrats. Thanks Wikipedia for narrowing that down! At least we know they are not revolutionary socialists or communists! TFD (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. The ideologies would be listed close by, it would be quite clear what kind of right wingers the GOP is. No one is advocating removing the ideologies and replacing it with the spectrum position.

This argument makes your objection less clear to me. Is your position that political parties should not have their position on the left-right spectrum in their infobox? You'd have to make a stronger argument to convince me of that. Carlp941 (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose If by right-wing, you mean position in a bipolar spectrum where all parties are either left or right of the mean,then it is right-wing. If by center-right, you mean the mainstream of parties to the right of the mean, it is center-right.

If by far right, you mean groups that have been historically to the right of mainstream parties to the right of the mean, then parts are far right. If by far right, you mean the furthest right of the political spectrum, such as neo-Nazis, the no parts are far right.

However, the term "parts" can mean two or more people who voted in a primary, in which case any ideology could be considered part of the party. Per WEASEL, we shouldn't be using terms like this unless they can be quantified.

Also, are you talking about the federal party or the fifty plus state parties that send delegates to the federal party?

Whatever your answer, it requires too much nuance to be reduced to a couple of words in an into-box.

TFD (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You will be pleased to hear that we won't include a position based on what I think, but what reliable sources think (which the last addition of a political position that was recently removed did include). Cortador (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Since reliable sources differ, you will have to base the decision on which reliable sources you agree with, which is the same thing. TFD (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

that is plainly not the same thing, and you're making an argument against the basic foundations of wikipedia. Carlp941 (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The same level of nuance applies to any other political party in the world. Why should United States political parties be the only ones that are exempted from having their infobox show a position in the political spectrum? BTW, to assert that there are no parts of the Republican Party that are at the furthest right of the political spectrum is simply incorrect. Given that some Republican candidates literally are neo-Nazis. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

And some Democratic candidates are literally communists. Neither party actually has any control over who they nominate! Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Because the two parties AFAIK are the only two parties that have no members and no control over who runs under their banner, except for the president and VP. Ever wonder why the U.S., which has more consumer choice than any other country, has only two parties? Because both parties allow candidates across the political spectrum, from actual fascists to actual communists. TFD (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

At one point, lunatics from the LaRouche movement managed to claim the Dem nominations for key offices in Illinois. Would we say that the LaRouchers was the party's ideology? Of course not. Toa Nidhiki05 00:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support political position for the party-at-large as simply "Right-wing", oppose labelling specific parts of the party (centre-right, far-right, etc), also oppose labelling factions within the party. I think the party being on the "the right" is indisputable. Quibbling over anything more specific I think will result in endless debates, is likely to result in WP:UNDUE labels, and could be subject to WP:RECENTISM, so a broad stroke is best. — Czello ^(music) 16:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support for "right-wing" in the infobox, because by any fact-based standard that's exactly what the party's position is, and there is no lack of reliable sources saying so. There should be no difficulty in having United States political parties be treated the same way as parties in the rest of the world are. — Red XIV ^(talk) 17:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador Strongly in Favour I think it is really important that any party irrespective of the country that they should specify their political position, and the Republicans are not exempt from that. stating one's political position helps the people to understand more about the ideologies of a certain party, Be it the Republicans or the Democrats. Thank you for having a poll on this matter. Credmaster 20 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Should be the same setup at both GOP and Democrat page I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Those who oppose are making sound arguments. In context of the US two party system the Republicans are on average to the right of the Democrats and often they are labeled by sources as the right while the Democrats are labeled the left. Note I don't think it is valid to say "compared to the world" as that isn't a realistic measure in a two party system. However, the argument that they often swap sides is also valid. 50 years ago the Democrats were the free speech party. Now the reverse is true. Those arguing against are correct in saying the issue is complex (per NPR [13]). If there is a consensus to make this happen to both articles at the same time I would weakly support it. If the idea is only do it here then maybe someone else can argue about it at the Democrat page, then I would oppose it. The two party pages should have a large degree of common structure and information. Springee (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Isn't it ambiguous if the reader doesn't know whether the party is being compared with the other major U.S. party or with other parties? Wouldn't it be better to state what you have said in the text of the article? TFD (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Cortador Support There seems to be majority support, and for reasons previously stated. DN (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be best to wait a few days before deciding. It would also be better if all views agree a consensus had been reached. Springee (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I will note, it does look like a consensus to include will form. Springee (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Conditional - Only if the Democratic Party includes one at its own infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Including a position is useful, and no sources have been brought up that sufficiently support that the GOP's position can't be defined. Tying the position to the Democratic Party's position is pointless; we should go by what sources say about the GOP, regardless what they say about other parties. Cortador (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  No, we should keep the two articles aligned. I would also note that the NPR source I linked above does show cross over between GOP and Dem groups even as it shows the majority of people who lean towards either party are mostly on the side NPR views as left vs right. This again supports the idea that it's both complex and something that should be part of either both or neither article. Springee (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. The articles should be aligned, and symmetrical. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with Cortador here (I know, first time for everything). Every article should have its own censensus (unless overidden by policy or a Wikiproject), and I think adding a position to this article being conditional on the Dem article having the same is effectively WP:FALSEBALANCE. If the community decides the Dem article should have a position, fine – but it shouldn't affect this article. It also creates an arbitrary barrier to decision-making: we shouldn't need to seek consensus at a different article first in order to make a change to this article, and if the same condition is applied there then we're stuck in a loop. (FWIW, I think the Democratic article should also have a position listed.) — Czello ^(music) 07:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Good point about the barrier. This condition would make the barrier unreasonably high, as it would require a consensus on both article talk pages to go with this method of inclusion, and on top of that consensus on both positions to actually include. Also, if sources don't agree on the position of either party, this would gate off information in the other article for basically no gain. Cortador (talk) 08:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

  Since political position is a relative concept, logically if one of the two parties can be placed on the spectrum, the other should as well. And even though historically there was ideological overlap, to the extent that there were communist Republicans and fascist Democrats, the Republicans were always to the right of the Democrats. TFD (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• Potential support as per what @GoodDay said, I would only support adding a position to the Republican Party if we do the same for the Democratic Party, it's only fair. Though I understand @Czello's point. It should be taken on a case by case basis. However, giving one party a position and not also trying to establish a consensus on the other's may come off as biased, I can foresee potential debates and edit wars coming out of that that. Given the current political climate, and the fact that it's an election year, we should try to establish consensus for both pages. Completely Random Guy (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support for adding 'right-wing' as a majority position and 'center-right to far-right' as factional ones. I support this regardless of whether or not the Democratic Party page lists a position, per Cortador's comments. Not adding a position to this page because a consensus hasn't been decided for the other one is purely unhelpful. It'd be withholding vital information from the reader for essentially no reason. If reliable sources state the GOP is right-wing but can't seem to agree on a position for the Democrats, who are we to intentionally hide the former information from the reader?

I've seen arguments that the two articles would have to be aligned because the party's political positions are relative to each other, but I simply don't agree. The party's political positions indicate their allegiance to certain ideologies. The GOP's main ideological current is conservatism and it espouses inherently right-wing policies. This is the case no matter what policies the Democrats are in favour of.

In Australia, the two major parties are the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. Relative to each other, one is left-wing and the other is right-wing. But Wikipedia, instead, correctly identifies them as 'centre-left' and 'centre-right', respectively. This is because both parties espouse support for a capitalist, market based economy — positions that are nearly objectively centrist in the realm of political science. Under Nazi Germany, the Nazi Party was the only existing political party. As there was no other party to compare it to, did this make it a centrist party? Did it not hold a political position at all? Of course not, it was still an objectively fascist, far-right party, and reliable sources accurately describe it as such.

Ultimately, the Republicans are right-wing, no matter what position we list for the Democrats.

Loytra (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sourcing to back your claims up? And of course, more specifically, you can't compare the "political spectrum" in a dictatorship to one in a democracy, so I feel like what you're saying simply doesn't make sense. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do I have a reliable source to back what claims up, exactly? Numerous, numerous sources have been provided to show that the GOP is a right-wing party (around 10 were included in the edit that added a position to the infobox in the first place).

Additionally, I'm not really sure why a dictatorship vs a democracy matters in this case. The specific argument I was referencing makes a point that a party's political position can only be ascertained if there's another party to compare it to. Under a single-party state there are simply no other parties to make such a comparison. Therefore, you shouldn't be able to figure out a position.

Of course, if you'd be comparing it to other political movements in general, that's a different story (and also shows that you don't have to directly compare parties to figure out one's position; hence we can include the GOP's without including the Democrats'). Loytra (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It depends on what your definition of right-wing is. If you mean right of center, then both the Reps and Libs are right-wing. If by center right, you mean somewhere between social liberalism and fascism, then both are center-right. If by centrist, you use Schlesinger's definition as being between communism and fascism, then both are centrist. And there are rs for all these descriptions,

What is your definition of right-wing? TFD (talk) 14:05, 19 May 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.

Objection to removal of Whig party from the info box

See edit...

I'm unclear in regard to the particulars of the objection in the edit summary "A direct lineage from the Whig Party singled out is not accurate, at least without the other parties mentioned." To my knowledge the Whig party was the dominant opposition to the Democrat party at the the time and is commonly referred to as a kind of "predecessor" to the Republican party, for lack of a better term.

To quote a Professor of American History, Michael F. Holt... "Republicans carried eleven of sixteen free states in 1856, thereby establishing themselves as the successor to the Whigs" Northern Illinois University

If you are unfamiliar with Holt, there are other sources, but I haven't bothered to count them all.

Daniel Walker Howe "Republican spokesmen were concerned to define their cause as the party of the victorious Union, not merely as the successor to the Whigs" University of Michigan

As it stands, the article mentions the Whig party several times, with no correlation to the info box. Perhaps we can come to a consensus on a way to revise it without reverting?

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

My objection is less to including the Whigs and more to only including them and not others, like the Free Soil Party, where essentially everyone shifted to the GOP. If that's changed, I'm fine re-adding it. Toa Nidhiki05 05:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

They are already listed in the info-box under the pretense of Merger of, which is not incorrect as far as I can tell. It would help if you had some sources to bolster your objection, and help us find consensus. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

So, do we have any quality sources that dispute this successorship from the Whig party as historians call it, or include these other parties as primary predecessors? DN (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Your own sources don't even display a clear successorship, which is why it had to have "de facto" as a disclaimer. As for the Free Soil Party - here's a few:

• [14]
• [15] (also notes that Whigs split off into the two parties based on slavery, and the GOP had absorbed most of the Know-Nothings as well)
• [16]

Basically, there's a much clearer tie between GOP and Free Soilers than GOP and Whigs. Toa Nidhiki05 22:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There were also Democrats and independents (including elected politicians) who joined the new party. The origins of the party are too complex to distill into a brief entry in the info-box. Bear in mind that unlike other countries, the two major parties in the U.S. never had underlying ideologies, but were shifting coalitions based on the issues of the day. TFD (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Your own sources don't even display a clear successorship"

You mean, aside from the explicit quotes I provided? DN (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Your objection closely resembles the Alternative History Wiki. Alternate history (also referred to as alternative history, allohistory, althist, or simply AH) is a subgenre of speculative fiction in which one or more historical events have occurred but are resolved differently than in actual history. Here's historian Steven Mintz... "As late as 1850, the two-party system seemed healthy. Democrats and Whigs drew strength in all parts of the country. Then, in the early 1850s, the two-party system began to disintegrate in response to massive foreign immigration. By 1856 the Whig party had collapsed and been replaced by a new sectional party, the Republicans." DN (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I gave sources, and your response is to call it "alt history". What? That's not even a response worth glorifying.

Regardless, your source said replaced, but it does not say it was a successor party - which is what you are claiming. Take the first source you mentioned - you chopped out the bit of the quote after where it also noted that the party had no support in the South (where the Whigs had, in fact, existed); effectively, the Republicans began as a regional party, not a national one like the Whigs had been. I think "successor" is very clearly referring, as it was framed at the start of the section on the party, to the place the Whigs had in the system - not to the Whig Party itself. The second source is more straightforward, but the bit about being a successor is literally a passing mention. Whereas the sources I provided say outright that the Free Soil Party membership did, in fact, all move over to the Republicans. That is a clearer claim to succession. Toa Nidhiki05 05:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Since you are commenting on my actions, I also "chopped out" this bit from my first source, under the section aptly titled, The Republican Party...You may have missed it.

• "The Republican party was one of two new parties to emerge between 1854 and 1856 to challenge Whigs for their role as primary opponent of Democrats." - historian Matt F. Holt

None of your sources seem to say "there's a much clearer tie between GOP and Free Soilers than GOP and Whigs.", or dispute that the Whigs was one of the primary parties at the beginning of America's two-party system. Now the discussion has turned into a semantic argument in search of some meaningful difference between the terms replacement and successorship, and into a hunt for red herrings about regional and geographical political support structures.

Perhaps I shouldn't assume that the argument now also seems to be that we can dismiss explicit quotes by three historians that don't all work for the same privately funded institute that's part of the State Policy Network, yet still all essentially say the same thing.

I'll have to give it some thought. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the biographies of leadership of the new GOP all emphasize the central role of many years of Whig activity--as compared to a matter of months for the other short-lived parties. Lincoln is the best example. Rjensen (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of Lincoln as a prime example as well, but you beat me to it. DN (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Darknipples, again, what in the bit you just cited says the Whigs were the predecessor party? You can take over a party's position without taking over the party. You have not responded to my point about the Whigs yet either - Southern Whigs, in the national party, did not become Republicans, whereas Republicans did absorb the Free Soil Party's membership - and most of the Know-Nothings, too. Even after the Whigs died, the Republicans were not a national party because they only absorbed northern Whigs into the fold; southern Whigs went their own way, forming an opposition to Jefferson Davis, but did not become Republicans and ultimately became Democrats. The Constitutional Union Party is also regarded as a claimant to much of the Whig legacy (xEgerton (2010), pp. 99–100)

Rather than dismissing what I'm saying out of hand and just generally being rude about it, I would prefer if you'd actually make substantive responses to it. I am not arguing the Whigs did not have some role in the GOP. What I am arguing is that they did not absorb the Whig Party (which is true), and that they absorbed the greater part of several other parties. Toa Nidhiki05 18:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Accusing me of being rude seems a bit off topic. DN (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems the issue is getting conflated by which party "absorbed" the other, or which party had more "in common" with the other, rather than focusing on what RS explicitly tells us. As you mentioned earlier, the term "de-facto" was used in the description, which I think is still a fitting way of conveying what seems to be your point. You have yet to offer a better option, and it's utter removal does not seem like an improvement. DN (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't read the source that says the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the same way. There was a two party system that drew support from all parts of the country. Slavery became the major issue and the party system "disintegrated." Of the two new sides, one regrouped in the Democratic Party, the others regrouped in the new Republican Party.

In the UK, the liberal-conservative dichotomy collapsed and the Labour Party replaced the Liberals as one of the two major parties. I wouldn't consider them the successor party, not only because the Liberals continued as a minor party, but because there was a realignment as the Tories became the party of big business and Labour the party of the workers. In a sense most Liberals regrouped to both parties. TFD (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a really good example. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats are the successors to the Liberal Party, because the party merged into the Liberal Democrats. Toa Nidhiki05 20:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Support restoring the GOP was a Whig Party successor. There's enough high-quality sources supporting just that. Cortador (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, both the Whig & Republican parties, co-existed for two years. Each had their own candidates in the 1856 US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Good point. The Republicans therefore succeeded the Whigs as one of two major parties, just as Labour succeeded the UK Liberals. That's actually clear in the sources presented. But I believe that the box is for a name change or resurrection. TFD (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not opposed to a change other than total omission of relevant and factual info. DN (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I am also opposed to the total omission of relevant and factual info. However, that does not mean that I think all relevant and factual info about the Republican Party should be in the info-box.

I am particularly opposed to including information that is ambiguous, misleading or nuanced. Obviously, if we need a footnote explaining why the Whig party belongs there, it defeats that purpose.

In this case, the Whig Party was not the "predecessor" party of the Republicans, since it continued to exist after the Republican Party was founded. In the aforementioned 1856 election for example it got 21.5% of the vote, while the Republicans got 33.1%.

By predecessor, most readers would assume that the two parties did not exist at the same time and that Whigs had joined the Republicans en masse. In fact there was a realignment with one group moving to the Democrats and the others joining a new party.

The Republican Party was a new party based on opposition of slavery in the western territories. The issue had been ignored by the main parties until then. It definitely was not the official position of the Whig Party, but had crossed party lines.

Indeed, the Republicans replaced the Whigs as one of the two major parties of an essentially two party system. But I think it's better explained in the article. TFD (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly, I'm not suggesting that all relevant and factual info should be in the info box.

This longstanding edit is the type of context that is consistently located in the info box for most articles such as this.

Speaking of letting the article explain it, as it currently stands, the Free Soilers and Anti-Nebraska movement are still in the info-box. If historians generally agree that those groups are more central to the party's overview than the Whigs, and therefore worthy of mention in the box, while the Whigs are not, where does this article make that point?

Conversely, no one here, including the editor responsible for this change, has suggested anything other than just intentionally leaving it blank, which readers might also find confusing, ambiguous, misleading or nuanced.

For example, Abraham Lincoln, a former Whig Party leader, was the Republican party's first president, but there's not even a mention of this connection, and up to this point I wouldn't have considered it remotely necessary.

In the history section it says...

• They (Republicans) denounced the expansion of slavery as a great evil, but did not call for ending it in the Southern states. While opposition to the expansion of slavery was the most consequential founding principle of the party, like the Whig Party it replaced, Republicans also called for economic and social modernization. (George H. Mayer, The Republican Party, 1854-1964 (1965) pp. 23–30.)

The terms replacement and successor are consistently used by historians and RS in describing the relationship between the Whigs and the GOP.

If this edit stands as is, are Wikipedia readers to assume it is unnecessary or inaccurate context at the History of the Republican Party (United States), and all other articles that mention that connection?

Since historians and most RS do place emphasis on the successorship or replacement of the Whigs by the GOP, how are we improving this Wikipedia article by removing it in this singular instance, and nothing else? DN (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by the statement that the GOP replaced the Whigs? Do you mean merely that the U.S. transitioned from the two party system dominated by Democrats and Whigs to one dominated to Democrats and Republicans? If so, is that what you think the average reader would conclude from the info-box? If not, is there any reason the article should leave the readers with false views? TFD (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears to be the general consensus stated by historians, including ones already cited in the article, not I. I've already expressed my concerns about what readers will gather from the sudden omission of this longstanding edit that used to be consistent with every other article referring to this topic on Wikipedia. The onus is on the editor that made the change. DN (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I have not explained myself clearly so I shall try again. Let me break my argument down:

Premise 1: There is consensus that the Republicans replaced the Whigs as one of the two major parties.

Premise 2: There is consensus that there is no direct lineage from Whigs to Republicans.

Premise 3: Calling the Whigs the predecessor of the Republicans falsely implies that there is a direct lineage, unless we explain that there is no direct lineage.

Premise 4: Info-boxes should not contain false or misleading information.

Premise 5: Info-boxes should not contain information that requires clarification.

Conclusion: The info-box should not say the Whig Party was the predecessor of the Republican Party.

Do you (a) disagree with any of my premises or (b) disagree that the conclusion is supported by the premises.

Please do not say that you have sources because I have already agreed to that in Premise 1. TFD (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I would likely disagree with (a-2&3), as there appears to be some direct lineage, with Lincoln being a prime example, as Rjensen mentioned earlier.

For the sake of clarity, I'm adding what Toa removed from the info box, here.

• The Republican Party was formed as a northern party dedicated to antislavery, drawing from the antislavery wing of the Whig Party ("Conscience Whigs") and combining Free Soil, Liberty Party, and antislavery Democratic Party members.

DN (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think the sources you provided say there is a direct lineage. Also, I don't see how there can be a direct predecessor/successor relationship between two organizations that overlapped in existence. TFD (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

In March 2009 you said that "the predecessors were the Federalists (1792-1816), National Republicans (1825-1833) and Whigs (1833-1856), (all dates approximate)", and recently told GoodDay (above) that "The Republicans therefore succeeded the Whigs as one of two major parties". How do you reconcile what you are now telling me, that because two organizations overlap in existence, they cannot have a predecessor/successor relationship? DN (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

See: CONTEXT: "the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect." Example: "You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context." (Dictionary.com)

In this case you misinterpreted my remarks and created a strawman argument. As I said above, the Republicans were the successors to the Whigs in some contexts. In other contexts they weren't. As I observed in my posting of 15 years ago, which for some reason you looked up, the Whigs "ultimately failed because of the narrowness of their base or the fragility of their coalitions, especially as new wealth emerged and the vote was widened."

See also "Fact check: Clip of Biden taken out of context to portray him as plotting a voter fraud scheme."[https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN27E2U7] (Reuters Oct. 29 2020) Taking sources out of context is misleading,the opposite of what articles are supposed to do. TFD (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Clearly I was asking you to clarify your statements, not attacking them. Let's at least try to clarify what you are arguing. Creating a strawman wasn't my intention, but we still need some clarification here.

Would you agree at this point that your argument consists of at least these two points?

(a) That two organizations that overlap in existence, cannot have a predecessor/successor relationship.

(b) The sources provided don't say there is a direct lineage

Cheers. DN (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

How does the "failure because of the narrowness of their base or the fragility of their coalitions, especially as new wealth emerged and the vote was widened." disqualify the Whigs as the Republican party's predecessor, as reliable sources put it?

predecessor: "something succeeded or replaced by something else." Dictionary.com DN (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln is indeed a Whig that became a Republican. However, he did so two years after the Republican Party was founded. I don't consider this convincing. Toa Nidhiki05 23:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, the onus isn't on me. The onus is on you, and TFD as well now, I suppose. DN (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please explain your two year deadline for lineage, theory. DN (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It's actually any time. Most people view events sequentially, so that successive organizations follow preceding ones in time. They don't coexist on the same timeline. TFD (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• "It's actually any time. Most people view events sequentially, so that successive organizations follow preceding ones in time. They don't coexist on the same timeline."

Toa Nidhiki05, do you agree with the above explanation by TFD? DN (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That a party can't succeed another that still exists as a major party? Yes. Morover, as I said before, the northern Whigs generally fractured into the Republicans, but southern Whigs did not. Toa Nidhiki05 12:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources seem to ascertain that the Whigs were no longer a major party because they either joined the Republicans or the Know Nothings etc... So I'm not clear on what the point of this argument is. Perhaps we can clarify this by asking...

• Which RS says that because the southern Whigs did not join the Republicans, it had no relation to them, or, that it disqualified them in some way as predecessors.
• Is your point that RS states it was a merger? If so, please point out the RS.

DN (talk) 05:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

What do you think the expression "Preceded by" means? TFD (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

That's not the issue here. This issue is there's no RS backing up your argument. Let's not make this personal...again. DN (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It is the issue because you want to put "Preceded by: Whigs" in the info-box. It may be that you have a different understanding of what the term means. What do you think the expression "Preceded by" means? TFD (talk) 20:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't make it any clearer.

The ONUS is not on me.

The ONUS on YOU and TOA to keep this change.

I'm following what RS says, not what I "want", or what I "think". DN (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Try explaining how the "failure because of the narrowness of their base or the fragility of their coalitions, especially as new wealth emerged and the vote was widened." disqualify the Whigs as the Republican party's predecessor, before you move on to your next question. DN (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Restoring a previous version

I have added to the Whig party back to the merger of section because leaving them out seems likely to be an NPOV issue.

The arguments thus far appear to be...

A. The Republican party only absorbed northern Whigs, therefore the Whig party is not the predecessor to the Republican party. B. Because both parties existed at the same time, the Whig party is not the predecessor to the Republican party. C. There is no direct lineage of Whigs into the Republican party.

Of the sources Toa provided...

1. BRI "The failure of the Wilmot Proviso was a landmark moment because it convinced some members of the Liberty Party, the Barnburner Democrats, and the Conscience Whigs to create a new political organization. In the summer of 1848, they came together in conventions in Buffalo, New York, and formed the Free Soil Party, nominating Martin Van Buren as their candidate for president"..."The new party also lost the support of many antislavery Whigs when it nominated Van Buren, the former Democratic president who had been one of the leading organizers of the party of Andrew Jackson – the very party they thought had done so much to expand the power of slavery." 2. PBS "The Republican Party absorbed anti-slavery Whigs and most Know-Nothings." 3. Britannica "Disappointed by the ambivalent position of the Whig Party toward slavery, “Conscience” Whigs held a convention in August 1848 at Buffalo, New York. There they were joined by delegates from 17 states drawn from the Liberty Party and the antislavery faction of the New York Democrats, known as “Barnburners.” The Free-Soilers’ historic slogan calling for “free soil, free speech, free labor, and free men” attracted small farmers, debtors, village merchants, and household and mill workers, who resented the prospect of black-labour competition—whether slave or free—in the territories."

I have not found any context in sources 1, 2 or 3, that supports these claims. If I missed something, please point it out, preferably with explicit quotes and not personal "interpretations".

The RS I have quoted, as well as pre-existing sources in the Republican party article, explicitly use the terms successor and replacement. D.Michael F. Holt E.Daniel Walker Howe F.Steven Mintz

The above RS contradicts claims A, B, C (some example quotes are provided near the top of this section).

Regardless of whether there is a logical explanation or evidence that proves a predecessor and successor cannot "coexist" at the same time in various contexts, unless it specifically applies in the context of a reliable source on the subject of the relationship between the Whig and Republican parties, the point is moot. This evidence has not been provided.

In the same vein, a theory that the split within the Whig party over slavery somehow disqualifies their connection does not reconcile this edit without existing RS.

Lincoln is only one example of a former Whig that not only joined the Republican party, but helped shape it. William H. Seward, another former Whig turned Republican, may also be considered instrumental in helping to shape the Republican Party’s ideology and policies.

The original edit summary, "A direct lineage from the Whig Party singled out is not accurate, at least without the other parties mentioned.", incorrectly claims that the other parties were not mentioned. They were, in fact, mentioned and included an additional citation confirming the lineage from the Whig party to the Republican party. Most sources, including ones provided above by Toa, state that the Republican party absorbed northern Whig members.

See edit...

• The Republican Party was formed as a northern party dedicated to antislavery, drawing from the antislavery wing of the Whig Party ("Conscience Whigs") and combining Free Soil, Liberty Party, and antislavery Democratic Party members.

Previous edits over the last 15 years have all included the Whigs in the info-box in some form. In early March 2024 they were condensed from the original format before Toa removed it, which included multiple parties as either "a merger of" or "predecessor(s)", presumably to save space in the info box. The original editor also meant to differentiate the Whig party, as predecessor, in their edit summary.

Leaving out the Whig party from the info-box gives the other arguably less notable parties UNDUE WEIGHT and perceivably over-represents, at best a minority view that has yet to be backed up by sources, that implies Whigs either didn't become part of the Republican party, or that they were not the generally accepted previous main counterpart to the Democrats, i.e. the predecessor.

As a result, this likely put's Toa's edit in the realm of violating NPOV. Any claims that the Whig party connection to the Republican party is somehow misinformation must be proven with explicit sources, not just personal opinions, theories and or correlations.

If an editor interprets sources differently than others, as to give weight to a seemingly minority view, it still does not negate the common mainstream interpretation of RS, especially without explicit sources to back it up.

If anyone still takes issue with this, it will go to NPOVN. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

While the facts you present have not been disputed, it is misleading to describe the relationship as the Republicans were preceded by the Whigs. Could you please explain what you mean by preceded by? TFD (talk) 01:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Cortador Rjensen GoodDay

Toa, you and TFD are the only editors here that seem strongly in favor of the previous edit out of six editors including myself. You removed it for the issue of being under predecessor, and now your agenda seems to be to keep the Whigs out of the info-box entirely, with no sources...Your revert will be noted in my forthcoming post at NPOVN. This has gone on for about 2 weeks with no explicit sources provided by you or TFD. Go ahead and enjoy the rest of your holiday. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I understand you clearly seem very passionate about this. However, I think you're extremely misguided here. Your edit now claims the party was founded by a merger of the Whigs and two other parties - which is demonstrably untrue, as the Republican Party and the Whig Party existed at the same time and contested elections, including the 1854–55 United States House of Representatives elections. I would be fine with removing this part of the inbox altogether, but I am not fine with incorrectly claiming the Whigs as the predecessor party - or, even more incorrectly, as having merged - with the Republican Party. This is misleading because not only did this not happen, southern Whigs - as I cited in sources - did not join the Republican Party. Unlike the other two movements - who did, in fact, broadly collapse entirely into the Republican fold - the Whigs did not.

To reiterate: I am fine with any solution that does not claim the Whigs were a predecessor party (which is untrue, as they existed at the same time) or merged into the GOP (which is untrue, as southern Whigs did not join the GOP, and the Constitutional Union Party also had a credible claim to Whig succession). Toa Nidhiki05 22:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where this fits, but I'll point it out again. The Whig & Republican parties co-existed for a few years. Thus the question - Was the Whig Party merely re-named the Republican Party. There were members of the Whig, Free Soil & (Northern) Democratic Party, which joined the Republican Party. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe the term "predecessor" is defined as "re-naming" something. I've always understood the qualifier to be defined as a "replacement".

It seems fairly common for predecessors and successors to exist at the same time. When using the term to refer to an office or position, or a person, there is no requirement that states they may not exist concurrently, that I'm aware of. DN (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't need sources to exclude material, we need sources to include them. So far you have not provided persuasive sources that the Republicans were preceded by the Whigs. It's not even clear what you mean by preceded by, and it would be helpful if you provided your definition. TFD (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The onus isn't on me. DN (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

No, the onus is absolutely on you given this is content to be included in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 19:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It was already in the article. You removed it.

Your edit summary explains why you removed it claiming "A direct lineage from the Whig Party singled out is not accurate, at least without the other parties mentioned.", which was false.

The infobox said "The Republican Party was formed as a northern party dedicated to antislavery, drawing from the antislavery wing of the Whig Party ("Conscience Whigs") and combining Free Soil, Liberty Party, and antislavery Democratic Party members." DN (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

References

The strong majority of Republicans, especially local state and national leaders, had been immersed in Whig Party for years--it was far more experience than anything else. I think Whiggery shaped the policies, rhetoric, newspapers, campaign styles and local organizational structure. When a Republican candidate gave a speech (or editor wrote a story) they relied on all their experience before hundreds of Whig audiences and tailored their words & policies accordingly. -By far the weakest impact came from the Know Nothing element. Rjensen (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

But were the Whigs uniformly joing the Republican Party? No. The two parties existed at the same time for several years. Southern Whigs - this was a national party, after all - did not join the Republican Party. As it is currently, the page misleadingly suggests to readers that the Whig Party merged into the Republican Party, when this is demonstrably untrue. Toa Nidhiki05 12:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

What sources say/prove it's demonstrably untrue? DN (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I cited them earlier in the discussion, but since you didn't notice, here's a few + more:

• [17]
• Britannica - "Formed in 1859 by former Whigs and members of the Know-Nothing Party, the party nominated John Bell for president and Edward Everett for vice president."
• [18] - "In May 1860 a group of former Whigs, whose national party had collapsed during the previous decade, organized the Constitutional Union Party."
• PBS - "The Republican Party absorbed anti-slavery Whigs and most Know-Nothings... The Constitutional Union Party was the anti-extremist party, absorbing Southern Whigs who didn't want to vote Democratic and Northern Whigs who felt the Republicans were too radical. They united in order to block a Republican victory."
• Encyclopedia Virginia - "The Whigs were too hopelessly split and, as a result, disappeared. Into that void, at least in the North, stepped the new Republican Party, which, in 1860, nominated for U.S. president Abraham Lincoln, a former Whig."
• University of Michigan - "Northern and Southern Whigs promptly parted company and fled either to the Democrats or to new fusion parties like the Republicans"
• Green, Don (Summer 2007). "Constitutional Unionists: The Party that Tried to Stop Lincoln and Save the Union"

There is also a wealth of sources on both the Whig and Constitutional Union party pages that recount how the Whigs fractured. Toa Nidhiki05 00:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Identifying the term, "uniformly", as your additional qualifier, shines a better light on the perceived issue.

The longstanding edit did reference the Northern anti-slavery Whigs as "Conscience Whigs".

These quotes and sources don't seem to claim the Republican party wasn't also successor to the Whig party, or that the Constitutional Union Party, which quickly dissolved after a year, disqualified the Whig party as the predecessor to the Republican party.

The University of Michigan source says "The onset of the Kansas-Nebraska controversy in 1854 was the death knell of the Whigs, but not necessarily because (as is commonly assumed) Northern and Southern Whigs promptly parted company and fled either to the Democrats or to new fusion parties like the Republicans. (Actually, Southern Whigs were ready to join with Northern Whigs in denouncing Kansas-Nebraska as reckless expansionism until the famous Appeal of the Independent Democrats cast Kansas-Nebraska as a litmus-test issue on one's loyalty as a Southerner to slavery)"

Britannica says the Constitutional Union Party was a by-product of the same ideological and sectional antipathies that had led to the formation of the Republican Party in 1856.

However, with or without the qualifier, "uniformly", I don't see the quote or claim in this RS that "Republicans did not replace the Northern and Southern Whigs as the successor to the national stage, due to either the Whig party fracture, existing at the same time as the Whigs, because of the Constitutional Union Party, a lack of Whig party lineage, or as a result of the party split between North and South.

There may be consensus for qualifiers such as Northern, Conscience, or perhaps anti-slavery Whigs. DN (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Support mentioning the Whigs in the "Merger of" part of the infobox. Sufficient sources have been provided to support the Whig Party as a predecessor to the GOP. Cortador (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• What does "predecessor" mean here? Toa Nidhiki05 12:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  There is a dictionary definition. If someone disagrees with it, Wikipedia should still refer to the dictionary. DN (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  What is the dictionary definition? TFD (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  A dictionary is a listing of lexemes from the lexicon of one or more specific languages, often arranged alphabetically (or by consonantal root for Semitic languages or radical and stroke for logographic languages), which may include information on definitions, usage, etymologies, pronunciations, translation, etc. It is a lexicographical reference that shows inter-relationships among the data. IOW the opposite of a fictionary. DN (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  What is the dictionary definition of predecessor? TFD (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  In simple terms, something that precedes and is replaced. DN (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's a tautological definition. Obviously a predecessor is something the precedes, just as a writer is someone who writes, or a singer is someone who sings. But what does "to precede" mean? TFD (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why? DN (talk) 18:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  There's a proposition below, to proceed past this issue. DN (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Cortador, did you mean to revert to the original version with predecessor listed? Your edit changed it back to my recent edit, not the longstanding one. DN (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Darknipples My bad. It should be restored to the long-standing version until the matter is resolved. Cortador (talk) 06:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Neutral - I'll leave it up to the rest of yas (include/exclude), to decide. That being said, I recommend ya'll split the difference & use "Northern Whigs", as a predecessor. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with this. As long as it's clear it wasn't the entire Whig Party. Toa Nidhiki05 22:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  • I agree if we have a consensus. Which sources do we want? Four seems a bit much. Cheers.

  DN (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Should we count "leaners" as members?

I've noticed some content being added to this article that includes data from surveys of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. I don't think it would be appropriate to regard "leaners" in the same camp as party members - at least for statistical purposes, but I'd be interested to see how others think. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I would just include the number of registered republican voters (35,739,952). Also the info-box should not refer to them as members. Party members are expected to pay dues, attend meetings and support both their party and its ideology. For someone unfamiliar with U.S. politics, it would seem odd that both U.S. parties had higher membership levels than their counterparts in totalitarian countries, and many times more members than parties in other liberal democracies. TFD (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I have major issues with using party member data at all. Each state has different rules on party membership, and some have none at all. Toa Nidhiki05 02:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, state parties are a incontiguous patchwork or rules and classifications. DN (talk) 22:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Libertarianism and neoconservatism as factions

Can these really be considered factions at this point? The article cited is about voters, not politicians, but there's not really any organized, large grouping of libertarian elected officials in the party. As far as I can tell, the Liberty Caucus has, at most, eight members, almost all of which overlap with the Freedom Caucus. There are certainly libertarian Republicans (Rand Paul and Thomas Massie, most notably), but I'm not sure this really qualifies as a faction - just like the Democratic Party infobox doesn't include mention of the similarly-sized Blue Dogs.

The same applies to neoconservatism. That has always been a nebulous term, mostly used in the Bush era to refer to a specific type of national security-focused Republican. This barely qualified as a faction then, and it certainly doesn't now.

I'd strongly consider removing both of them - or at least trying to clarify what we mean by "faction". Toa Nidhiki05 14:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources describing GOP libertarians as a faction: 1 2 3 4

Sources describing GOP neoconservatives as a faction: 1 2 3 4

Both factions have probably shrunken in favour of Trumpists/far-right Republicans in the last decade, but they have been described as factions over the last 20+ years. Cortador (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Going to review these sources piece by piece:

• The Week piece is seemingly an op ed that uses the word "libertarian" once, broadly claiming Ron Paul and Rand Paul were gaining momentum, while referring to non-elected Tea Party organizers.
• The Washington Examiner piece is an opinion piece from a paper we don't tend to use as an authoritative source of facts. The "faction" it refers to refers to is, even in the article itself, called "small and enduring" - and it notes less than a half-dozen elected members - Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Justin Amash, and Denver Riggleman - as well as a few who lost either primaries or generals - Mark Sanford, Eric Brakey, and Dave Brat. Is this really a faction?
• US News and World Report (1) is an opinion piece. It does indeed refer to a "libertarian faction". This sole member of the faction this article mentions is Rand Paul. The actual Christie quote mentioned is not about libertarians, but Republicans skeptical of expansive national defense measures.
• Fortune appears to be an opinion piece from 2016. It does indeed refer to a "reemerging neoconservative faction containing both Lindsay Graham and Jeb Bush". Graham dropped out before the primary, and Jeb! received 0.2% of the vote in the 2016 primary.
• The Atlantic article is an opinion piece from 2012. It does refer to a "neoconservative faction is willing to expand budget deficits without apparent limit if it means they can insert the American military in Syria or Iran or whatever is next on their list." No members of this faction are named, aside from Rubio.
• The Center for the National Interest piece is actually a foundation originally founded in the name of Richard Nixon that advocates a "realist foreign policy" and has strong partisan ties to the GOP.
• The Nation piece is an opinion piece from a left-wing outlet written by a Bernie Sanders advisor. It does indeed refer to a "neoconservative faction" and the pejorative "neocon" - a lot - but it uses them broadly to refer to any Republicans who support military intervention. This source is unusable.

So basically, we have six op-eds here that don't actually back up either as being real factions. I'm not convinced. Toa Nidhiki05 13:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that these are all opinion pieces. Cortador (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Because they are. And you've not dealt with any of the substantive concerns, either. Toa Nidhiki05 21:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw that was a huge removal. Were you copyediting any of it? Which of the sources Cortador provided are ones used in the article? There seems to be quite a few in the article. DN (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've provided sources that state that these factions are indeed factions. Claiming that all sources are "opinion pieces" doesn't change that. Cortador (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It actually does matter. Opinion pieces aren’t really reliable sources for statements of fact - they’re just that, opinions. If the author is a subject matter expert, that changes things. But as I’ve explained - your sources here are utterly insufficient. Toa Nidhiki05 23:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of those, there seemed to be an awful lot of non-opinion pieces in that edit. Some of the citations needlessly overlap. The Rolling Stone citation probably isn't necessary. DN (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

And how many of those refer to a “faction” or actually back up the claims given? Toa Nidhiki05 01:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

They don't become "opinion pieces" because you say so. Cortador (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the absolute low point of rhetorical debate - they’re not opinion pieces because I say so, they’re opinion pieces because they’re opinion pieces. Find a better argument because this is a waste of my time. Toa Nidhiki05 04:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Which of the articles are labelled as "opinion piece" or "commentary"? Cortador (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be charitable and assume maybe you haven't actually read the.m. However, the fact you're hyperfocused on them not being opinion pieces (they are) rather than responding to a single of the additional substantive complaints and issues I mentioned is unfortunate.

• The Week - Listed as a "feature". You're welcome to take a look at other Features on the website.
• Washington Examiner - The url literally tags this as "opinion" piece. If you actually read it, the tone is also clearly opinion as well.
• US News and World Report - Literally tagged in URL as "opinion". If you actually read it, the tone is also clearly opinion as well.
• Fortune - Style is short and clearly author opinion.
• The Atlantic - Typical long-form opinion piece; the headline ("Marco Rubio's Imaginary Republican Party Is Fiscally Conservative") and writing style (use of "I", clear examples of personal political views ["the notion that Romney will govern as a limited government constitutionalist is laughable fantasy", "the sooner Tea Partiers learn to mistrust him the less likely they are to feel hurt and surprised when he betrays them", "He's the kind of "constitutionalist" that doesn't give a damn about the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments, so long as there's a religious extremist somewhere who wants to do us harm"] and are clearly that of author opinion.
• The Nation - Clearly written as author opinion. Frequent use of negative, perjorative political labels ("neocon", use of "I", etc.)

I'm not going to debate the obvious fact of what these sources are. You haven't responded to a single one of my points, and if that continues, I will no longer be engaging with you on this, as doing so would be a waste of my time.Toa Nidhiki05 14:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless these six pieces (which you originally stated were all opinion pieces before moved on to some being in the "style" of op-eds) are actually labelled as such (which is not the case for the majority of them), declaring them "opinion pieces" based on them e.g. using words like "neocon" is original research. Cortador (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you... believe a piece can only be an "opinion" piece if it's explicitly labeled as such, and otherwise it's obviously news? Are you actually serious right now?

We're done here. You're obviously unwilling to actually engage on my substantive complaints, so I'll be starting an RfC shortly on removing both of these "factions" from the lede. Toa Nidhiki05 15:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There are enough libertarian or at least libertarian adjacent Republican voters and politicians that it would make since to describe it as a faction. I strongly suggest adding it back. 14 percent of Republican voters describe themselves as libertarian-conservatives. (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/17/upshot/six-kinds-of-republican-voters.html) CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

They didn’t describe themselves as such. The NYT did a survey of voters and then split them into different camps based off an algorithm. Toa Nidhiki05 16:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me (I'll actually go and correct what it says in Libertarian Republican) however, the point still remains that while a relatively small faction, it is still worth noting. There are certainly more libertarian leaning Republicans than there are libertarian leaning Democrats. CalvinCoolidge228 (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

14% isn't a lot, and that's with a generous grouping at that. Realistically, libertarians have very little impact in either party. They do have some organizations within the GOP, but those ones are tiny and tend to overlap with other movement conservative groups - a "libertarian-leaning" conservative might be anything from someone who loves Russia to someone who is okay with gay marriage to someone who likes weed. There's not really any full-spectrum libertarians. Toa Nidhiki05 17:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Social conservatism/Christian Right section is problematic

Out of the eight sources cited in this section, the use of the term "Christian Right" - or even labeling this as a faction - seems unfounded"

• Divided We Fall - Uses the term, but website seems borderline unreliable.
• Western Illinois Historical Review - Uses "Christian Right" to refer to Falwell-era politics. Paper itself may be unreliable; it "showcases the best student work produced in History classes at WIU each academic year"
• The Atlantic - Uses the term once to refer to a specific movement that popped up in the 1970s]
• Make America Christian Again: Christian Nationalism and Voting for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election - Does not make any reference to a "Christian Right" faction, or even talk about much at all beyond voting patterns.
• AP- Does not refer to the "Christian Right" or a "faction". Article is nebulous about "Christian nationalism", and notes that under some definitions, Joe Biden could fall into that category. Very insufficient for claims a substantial chunk of Republicans support "Christian nationalist" policies.
• POLITICO - Polls of voters on whether the United States is a Christian nation (it isn't, but that's besides the point). Does not use "Christian Right", does not refer to a "faction".
• Mediations of Social Life in the 21st Century - Refers to "social conservatism", not "Christian Right". No mention of a faction.
• NBC News - Uses "Christian Right" and "white evangelicals" interchangeably. Does refer to "white evangelicals" as a "faction"

In short - this section is really problematic at the moment. Not only is the framing of the section itself off - most sources don't actually refer to a "faction", those that do refer to a specific time period in the 70s and 80s, and sources for claims that Republicans want to "to declare the U.S. a Christian nation, enforce Christian values, and overturn the separation of church and state" are based on opinion polling of voters. Only one of these sources is an academic resource, and that one seems to be homework from a History class. This lack of usage of "Christian Right" falls into my understanding, where the term really isn't commonly used today, with "social conservatism" being more common - and said politicians broadly being part of a conservative wing, rather than a separate faction of their own.

Frankly, the entire "factions" section likely needs an overhaul. I'm convinced similar issues and errors exist in the other sections, too, and I might start a review of those soon. Toa Nidhiki05 13:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I recall a consensus among sources that the Republican party was more controlled by Christian right than other voting blocs aka factions, in the late 80s. The Reagan years. I haven't read the context of that section recently, but I'll take a look.

Here are some sources to consider.

1. Harvard Political Review 2021

2. Wapo 2021 via Steven M. Gillon

3. Vox 2019

4. Bill Moyers.com 2012 Timeline: The Religious Right and the Republican Platform

5. Kimberly H. Conger The Christian Right in U.S. Politics 2019

Cheers. DN (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

But would you describe them as factions? Trans activists have influence on the Democratic party, but I wouldn't describe them as a faction.

Who are the leaders of the Christian Right faction, what do they call their organization, what is its address, how many members does it have, which presidential candidate did they put forward? TFD (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It was the Moral Majority, which stopped being a relevant political force in the 1980s. Think Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Anita Bryant, etc. The closest thing you'd probably get today is the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is a legal advocacy group that doesn't have any formal ties to the GOP or endorse/field candidates. Toa Nidhiki05 04:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

That's how RS seem to describe them, in addition to a spectrum of fringe to moderate leaders and groups. Trans people are still fewer than 1% of the world's population. Sources may refer to voting blocs, wings, coalitions, caucuses and movements also in lieu of the term faction. After conservative evangelicals left Carter's Dem party, some eventually went to Reagan, both had noted religious movements backing them.

1.Axios 2024

2.NPR 2024

3.Time 2024

4.CNN 2024

Current House speaker Johnson and Trumps support among evangelical republicans are likely considered notable candidates/endorsements. I didn't grab any citations for Mike, cheers. DN (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The only source here that uses the term Christian right is the Time piece, which refers to a "Christian right circuit". Toa Nidhiki05 04:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• OAH mentions it several times. The sources I listed earlier can go at length, in particular Kimberly H. Conger seems to be an expert that wrote a book on CR, along with Marty Cohen, who wrote "Moral Victories in the Battle for Congress".

DN (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't get too hung up on the term "Christian right" specifically e.g. a number of sources also describe the faction as evangelical (1 2 3 4 5) or Christian conservative (1 2 3 4). Cortador (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

we absolutely should be caught up on it, because it's the term used on this page. I suggested "social conservatism" as an alternative, which broadly incorporates the same movement without using language that is heavily tied to a movement from the 1980s. Christian right, religious right, social conservatives - it's all referring to the same thing, so why use the most antiquated language for it? We don't call fiscal conservatism "Reaganomics" on this page, for example, even though the two really are part of the same movement. Toa Nidhiki05 12:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Social conservatism is not necessarily religious in nature. Some of the ideologies under this umbrella support variations of nationalism, or are in opposition to various social changes which they perceive as having negative effects. I think there is some overlap with declinism, in their glorification of the past. They envision a return to their perceived glory days. Dimadick (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

In the United States, it absolutely is. I mean, I can't say they don't exist, but I've never run into an... agnostic social conservative politician here. Toa Nidhiki05 20:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

DN, only one of the sources you provided describe the Christian Right as a faction of the GOP. Nor do any of your sources describe the Christian Right as what most people would consider to be a political faction, i.e., and organized group that fights for power. Notice that it is rare for an incumbent president in either party to have a major challenger. Even when that happens, their following doesn't last beyond their candidacies. TFD (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Is that including the five I listed earlier? DN (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"Article is nebulous about "Christian nationalism", and notes that under some definitions, Joe Biden could fall into that category." That is a much different topic. Christian nationalism typically refers to people or factions in support of the political influence of Christianity, in topics such as legislation. "A study which was conducted in May 2022 showed that the strongest base of support for Christian nationalism comes from Republicans who identify as Evangelical or born again Christians. Of this demographic group, 78% are in favor of formally declaring that the United States should be a Christian nation, versus only 48% of Republicans overall. Age is also a factor, with over 70% of Republicans from the Baby Boomer and Silent Generations supporting the United States officially becoming a Christian nation. According to Politico, the polling also found that sentiments of white grievance are highly correlated with Christian nationalism: "White respondents who say that members of their race have faced more discrimination than others are most likely to embrace a Christian America. Roughly 59% of all Americans who say white people have been discriminated against ... favor declaring the U.S. a Christian nation, compared to 38% of all Americans." Dimadick (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a different topic. It the definition is so broad that Joe Biden could qualify, it's hardly a useful one. And if you read the article - "Evangelical or born-again Christians — a category that crossed denominational lines, said Telhami — were most likely to support the idea of the U.S. becoming an officially Christian nation. Among Republicans, more than three-fourths (78%) of those who identified as evangelical or born again favored declaring the United States officially Christian. Among Democrats, 52% of those who identify as evangelical or born again agreed." Does this mean Democrats have a faction of Christian nationalists? Of course not.

More to the point: what "Christian nationalist" faction - distinct from any other - exists in the House? Honestly this doesn't even make a ton of sense. Toa Nidhiki05 13:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Do reliable sources describe Biden as a Christian nationalist? Unless that's the cause, this is a pointless comparison. Cortador (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

From the AP article: "Six in 10 U.S. adults said the founders intended America to be a Christian nation, according to a 2022 Pew Research Center survey. About 45% said the U.S. should be a Christian nation. Four in five white evangelical Protestants agreed with each assertion. By some measures, Democratic President Joe Biden might be seen in that category, citing the importance of his Catholic faith and calling for God’s blessings on America and its troops". And like I mentioned, the source above notes that a majority of Democratic evangelical/born again Christians agree with declaring the United States a Christian nation. Of course, the reasonable solution here is not to say Democrats have a "Christian nationalist" faction, but to simply acknowledge that surveys of voters are weird, and maybe we shouldn't be declaring party factions off of them. Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

So no source actually describes Joe Biden as a Christin nationalist then, and this comparison is indeed pointless. Cortador (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The source actually does. And it mentions evangelicals in the Democratic Party having a majority viewpoint on this too. Again - the rational response here is not to say Democrats have a christian nationalist wing, it's to question the wisdom of relying on opinion polls to determine partisan factions. Toa Nidhiki05 19:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not. All it does state that Biden "might" be seen as someone advocating the US to be a Christian nation. Cortador (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If it's an opinion worth noting, it can simply be attributed. DN (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Religous nationalism is a term that can mean different things according to context. It's most common meaning is applied to countries where ethnicity is identified with religion, such as in Northern Ireland or Lebanon. The person doesn't have to be particularly religious. The best example in the U.S. was nativism, where Protestants saw themselves as the only true Americans. For anyone who watched Gangs of New York, Bill the Butcher (who was a Republican) was a prime example. TFD (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I haven't seen Gangs of New York, but the New York-based Democratic organization Tammany Hall consisted primarily of Irish Catholics. The Democratic Party has a centuries-old connection to Catholicism in this region. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

My point is that the U.S. has a long history of religious ethnic nationalism including nativists, Know Nothings and Klansmen. Basically they were mostly descended from older immigration waves and resented never immigrants from Ireland and Southern and Eastern Europe. But they expressed these ethnic identities in terms of religion: Protestant and Catholic. Their nation IOW was white, Anglo-Saxon (and Scottish) Protestant America. Anyone else wasn't an American. But they didn't have a religious agenda, any more than Tamany Hall did. TFD (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not in those days, but following the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision, the Republican platform called for “a position on abortion that values human life.” It also asserts that “Our great American Republic was founded on the principle: One nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.”

1980. A year after Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority, the Republican platform contains only one reference to God, but an entire section on abortion.

1988. This was the year that right-wing televangelist Pat Robertson was a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination.

1992 The year of Pat Buchanan’s infamous “culture wars” convention speech, the party unveils a platform with four references to God and seven references to “family values.” This is the first Republican party platform to address sexual preference, opposing the inclusion of sexual preference as a protected minority, rejecting any legislation which legally recognizes same-sex marriage and supporting the continued exclusion of homosexuals from the military.

1996 This platform goes a step further, endorsing the Defense of Marriage Act.

In 2007, the year Time Magazine declared “The Religious Right’s Era Is Over,” the Republican party platform contains two references to God and reaffirms its past positions on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and gays in the military but does not expand on them.

2016. Trump returned the White House to the Republican party along with a wave of Christian nationalism and the end of Roe V. Wade. DN (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Roe V. Wade wasn't repealed until 2022, not 2016. Unless I am misunderstanding the context and your meaning is that Trump and the Republican Party rose among a wave of Christian nationalism with the "intention" to repeal it. Completely Random Guy (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have specified, "eventual" end of Roe. DN (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Support changing Christian Right to social conservatism, as yes the Republican Party is very strong in the Bible Belt (the South), the Mormon Corridor (Utah and neighboring areas), and the less religious and more diverse Great Plains & Mountain States. The Republican Party does strongly among Whites without college degrees, who tend to be more socially conservative and live in rural areas.

But Republicans also support the secular issue of gun rights, which is part of social conservatism. The Republican Party could be described as socially conservative on say abortion and LGBT issues, but its social conservatism also extends to areas like illicit drug laws (i.e. marijuana) and gun rights. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Request for comment: Infobox ideologies

Should the infobox include "libertarianism" and "neoconservatism" as ideologies? Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Tagging Cortador and Darknipples from previous discussion.

Poll

• No - Neither is a substantial faction of the Republican Party on the same level as say conservatism, the Christian Right, Trumpism, or even centrism/moderates. Neoconservatism is mainly about foreign policy, and the Republican Party's Liberty Caucus is tiny at just 9 members (out of 435).
• No - While elements of either ideology overlap with the existing conservative faction, neither group has any real organizational prominence within the Republican Party. Existing sources clearly do not place them on the same level as conservatives or social conservatives, and the only explicitly libertarian faction in the House - the Liberty Caucus - has less than 10 members, almost all of whom overlap with other hardline conservative caucuses. Neoconservatism lacks any caucus in either house, or any organizational prominence in the party. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily disagree with this view of current trends, nonetheless the history of these factions within the Republican party and their impact still has weight and should remain in some form. DN (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• No American conservatism is defined as a mix of libertarianism, traditionalism and anti-communism, with each person placing a greater or lesser emphasis on each of the three aspects. Also, neoconservatism is merely a term to refer to a group of people who began as liberal Democrats, became conservative Republicans and now appear to have moved back to the Democratic Party. TFD (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• No. For the same reasons stated above - no evidence has been brought forwards as to their relevance.Carlp941 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• No. (Summoned by bot) For such a long-established party, the 'core' defining ideologies should be what is in the infobox. No evidence is provided that these are 'core' beliefs now or in the past. As others say, this doesn't prohibit coverage of these aspects within the article. Also broadly agree with the other reasons offered above.Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Yes for neoconservatism, No for libertarianism. I'm not sure why the existing voters seem to ignore that there's still a lot of neocons in the GOP. John Bolton, Liz Cheney, Tom Cotton, and Nikki Haley all have neoconservative tendencies and/or supported by neoconservative organizations; even if they do not identify themselves as neoconservatives, given the political causticity of the term. Individuals who are described as neoconservatives absolutely still exist in substantial electoral and official presence in the GOP, regardless of whether or not they are the defining force of the Republican party.

I will concede that the libertarian presence in the GOP is almost certainly minimal at this point, however. Not a label anyone of power or popularity uses for themself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Both would apply during certain periods historically, but they have been less active relative to other groups recently. Senorangel (talk) 03:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Pointless RfC: There's consensus for the ideologies from the article in the infobox, and no evidence has been brought forward that this consensus has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs)

The consensus was about including an ideology section, not about which ideologies are to be included. Toa Nidhiki05 17:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is about including those from the article body in the infobox. Changing the infobox is against that consensus. Cortador (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change. I suggest you actually engage in the process here rather than getting bogged down in a procedural debate. Toa Nidhiki05 19:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You have not provided evidence that this consensus has changed. Cortador (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Souces for "right-wing"

Per discussion, "right-wing" has been added. However, this consensus is pending reliable sources. I have removed the sources just added by Cortador for the following reasons:

• Dictionary.com - Does not back up claim; it says Republicans are associated with the "right" and Democrats with the "left", but also that "politics is always far more complicated than the labels we give to it—and each other".
• Pew Research - Survey of voters, not a discussion of the party. Does not use the word "right-wing" once.
• New York Times - Source does not back up claim, as it says that "right-wing Republicans" are a minority in their party, not the majority.
• Crikey - Does not even refer to the Republican Party as "right-wing"
• NBC News - Refers to both "center-right", "hard right", and "far-right" factions; does not use "right-wing" once or refer to the party as such.
• Democracy Journal - Opinion piece. Source does not refer to the Republican Party as "right-wing", and is in fact an advocacy piece for proportional representation.
• NBC News - Source does not refer to Republicans as "right-wing", but does refer to a "right-flank that is more than willing to play hardball to bend the rest of the conference to its will". This implies the right is a minority, not a majority. It also mentions a centrist faction.
• Vox - An opinion piece from Zack Beauchamp, a writer most known for believing there is a bridge between Gaza and the West Bank. Vox itself is likely not a sufficient source for a major claim, but Beachamp certainly is no subject-matter expert.

None of these sources back up the claim, so I've removed them. In fact, many seem to suggest the "right-wing" is a minority - this needs to be considered in the future. At this point, we have a talk page consensus in search of sources, which is never a good thing. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes need academic sources that go into detail and explain things... and not connected to the United States directly..like...Arhin, Kofi; Stockemer, Daniel; Normandin, Marie‐Soleil (2023). "THE REPUBLICAN TRUMP VOTER: A Populist Radical Right Voter Like Any Other?". World Affairs. 186 (3): 572–602. doi:10.1177/00438200231176818. ISSN 0043-8200. Moxy🍁 04:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why do they need to be not connected to the United States? That's silly, and I'm fairly certain we don't apply a smilar standard to Europe. And I'd also question the idea of trying to pin any American party based on voters - that's an extremely Eurocentric view of how political parties function. Toa Nidhiki05 05:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Just better to get internatinal experrts that study this on a world level. There are many more but I suspect it will never fly anyways as there is an odd disconect in US politcal articles here on Wikipedia. Moxy🍁 13:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There's not really a “global spectrum”, though, and both US parties evolved out of liberal movements, not the socialism or conservatism of Europe. Not saying international sources don’t matter, but they don’t have a special perspective to offer or anything - judging either party by, say, German standards makes as little since as judging French political parties by American standards. Toa Nidhiki05 14:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I would expect in reading info-boxes that the words for ideology and political position would mean the same thing, regardless of country. It's odd to say that because both U.S. parties are liberal and centrist, that we should use different terminology in order to distinguish them, even if the terms we use are not comparable to politics in the rest of the world. TFD (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

These are the sources the article had when it last included a position. If you believe that sourcing wasn't strong enough, the time to bring that up as the now-closed discussion above. Cortador (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can and does change, and I reject these specific sources being a consensus. But more importantly, no amount of consensus can demand sources be used if they don’t back up the cited claim. Toa Nidhiki05 19:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was established less than three days ago. You have not demonstrated that it has changed. Cortador (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

As several have mentioned (and the closer has confirmed[19]), the consensus you keep pointing to does not rule that that these refs support the text.The WP:V policy is not over-rideable by local consensus. The WP:BURDEN on anyone wishing to include content is to have sources that support the content, not just that many people would like the content included. There is a legitimate dispute about sourcing. Go find sources. DMacks (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion was based on a previous addition of the position to the article, which did include sources. If someone thought the sourcing was insufficient, they could have brought it up. Cortador (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Support right-wing, with center-right (i.e. Republican Governance Group, Problem Solvers Caucus) and far-right (i.e. Freedom Caucus). Also the Republican Party is affiliated with the European Conservatives and Reformists Party, which is also described--on its article--as right-wing with center-right and far-right factions.

[20]https://ecrparty.eu/about/#parties JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Isolationism and non-interventionism

In the lead section, the article says the GOP "supports isolationism and promotes non-interventionism". That seems like a generalization, as there is a pretty substantial hawkish wing of the Republican Party, as the article itself discusses below. I think this should be changed? User136596 (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s absolutely a generalization, and a poor one at that. It’s certainly not an even split, like the article currently implies. Toa Nidhiki05 03:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Support removing that sentence, as the Republican Party is a big-tent and there is a divide among its members, particularly Congress--states can't conduct foreign policy. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Clarification regarding factions, ideologies, and the infobox

There seems to be some confusion regarding the ideologies and factions section of the infobox. When I edited this page a few months ago, I made sure that the ideology simply listed "Conservatism" while the factions were linked to the Factions in the Republican Party (United States) page. Over time (I have not been looking at this page for a while now), it appears that some factions have been removed and now link to ideologies rather than the factions page itself.

I think a big confusion on this and other pages is that the specific section of the infobox we are debating is itself called "Ideologies," however, there exists a sub-section within "Ideologies" called "Factions." Ideologies that the Party follows should be listed above the line that lists "Factions." As of the time of this post, only conservatism is, and the rest are not. I am also seeing confusion in other comments over the exact definition of what factions are within the Party (which is reasonable), but also some confusion regarding terminology and using the terms faction and ideology interchangeably which complicates the debate.

For a refresher, there are multiple factions of the Republican Party, of which each faction has a multitude of ideologies within it. For example, the Christian right (a faction) ranges from social conservatism to christian nationalism (ideologies). However, as listing all ideologies followed by each faction in the infobox would be overkill, it was my intention to simply list the major ideology of the Party, that is, conservatism, while the factions would all link to the established factions listed on the factions page, where more granular detail about the range of ideologies within these factions could be discussed. BootsED (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree the articles need more consistency. DN (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)