Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Majority Ideology

The current majority ideology for the Republican Party is “conservatism”, however, there’s a recent consensus within political conversations that generally the Republicans party has shifted mostly, if not completely, to right wing populism. It’s not too distinct from conservatism and both are very vague terms, but it should be something we could discuss. AmericanPromise (talk) 03:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. It has been said that American political party articles seem to be treated with a notable Exceptionalism compared to other similar articles about other countries. If you look through the archive you will see many discussions about this very topic as it relates to the info box (also see discussion and straw poll above). In my most recent memory of this I believe there were claims that certain changes would be too confusing for readers, based on differences in the way specific terms are defined and interpreted by different cultures and regions. For example, far-left in America may be considered moderate or even conservative in, say, France. Then there is also the fact that many countries have more than 2 parties. Perhaps using the political compass, or similar approach would help resolve this almost CONSTANT issue of talking about this same topic all the time. Editors tend to want to see articles treated equally, especially if they are of a similar nature, let alone if it reflects on said editor in even the slightest way, such as one's nationality. DN (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I do agree, though good luck finding support this. That said, I think white nationalism and/or right-wing extremism should be included as a GOP ideology. There's sources to back up that they have such a wing:

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003182962/white-nationalism-republican-party-john-ehrenberg

https://www.amacad.org/publication/bipartisan-origins-white-nationalism Cortador (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

While certainly there are some sources who would make such a claim, to include it in this article it would have to be something that sources all but universally agree is part of the party. Plenty of individuals publish a book making various arguments but we would need to show that those arguments are widely accepted across the various groups that look at the topic. For example, it's widely accepted that religious fundamentalists are more likely to be Republicans and that they represent a significant population within the voter base. Absent some perverted definition of "white nationalist" the same can't be said of white nationalism. Springee (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources I provided do agree that white nationalism is part of the GOP. If you have doubts about these sources, voice them. If there are dissenting books published on the topic, bring them up instead of some vague "plenty of individuals". Also, why this standard now? Look at the other ideologies and how they are sourced. "Conservatism" has a single specific source. "Christian right" has two newspaper articles. "Paleoconservatism" has a single article from 20 years ago. Name a reason why only white nationalism/far-right extremism has to meet this high threshold. Cortador (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The GOP certainly opposes illegal immigration and a pathway to citizenship for unauthorized aliens currently residing in the United States, but there doesn't appear to be any consensus within the party on whether or how to decrease legal immigration in my view. For example, while former President Trump proposed decreases in legal immigration (i.e. the RAISE Act), such bills went nowhere. The GOP prefers to focus on border security, not say decreasing family-based immigration. I would categorize this as more nationalist and "law and order," not racist or espousing "replacement theory" (excluding some extremists) though perhaps xenophobic. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:41, 08 April 2023 (UTC)

Because white nationalism/far-right are far more contentious labels. The idea that the GOP is conservative isn't the least bit controversial; this can't be said for extremist ideologies. — Czello 13:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Contentious" according to whom? You? Do you have sources to back up that claim? Cortador (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Do I really need to explain why terms like "white nationalist" are more contentious than "conservative"? Yes, you absolutely need more rigorous sourcing for such a precedent to be set on this article. — Czello 13:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Back up your claims. "I think so" isn't a source. Cortador (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Conservative" is a broad descriptor, encompassing a variety of right-of-centre ideologies, that has been associated uncontroversially with this party for decades. It's not on the same level as extremist ideologies, and per WP:EXTRAORDINARY it will require more robust sourcing. You're free to open an RfC on this if you feel you have that level of sourcing, however, as I see you keep returning to this subject - and it would be good to nip this in the bud. — Czello 14:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently not uncontroversial enough to include "centre-right" as a party alignment in the infobox. Also, none of the red flag bullet points listed under WP:EXTRAORDINARY even fit here.

"Nip this in the bud" because of what? Are you going to come after me with threats again? Cortador (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The "centre-right" label isn't synonymous with "conservative", and even holds its own levels of contention given the current state of the GOP; this is a separate debate. I've never threatened you other than to urge you to follow the WP:BRD process and not to alter the infobox without consensus, which shouldn't really need to be said in the first place. And it's for that reason now that I'm suggesting that if you truly want to make the case (again) for extremist ideologies to be in the infobox then you should simply start an RfC and finally put this matter to rest. — Czello 14:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, which one is it then? Is it uncontroversial or does it comes with its "own levels of contention" now?

You threatened me with reports of a WP:3RR I never did in the first place, and then with admin action even though you aren't even an admin. Stop pretending otherwise. Cortador (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm saying "conservative" is uncontroversial. "Centre-right" comes with its own levels of contention. As for 3RR - I'm not going to go through this with you again. WP:BRD is not a difficult rule to follow, and all I've done is urge you to adhere to it. It took until me posting that on your talk page to actually do so. I'm not sure what me not being an admin has to do with anything - admins aren't the only ones who can raise issues like this with other users.

I do notice you've avoided my query about an RfC, though. Are you seriously suggesting that "far-right" or "white nationalist" or any other extremist terms should be added to the article? If not, why not actually start an RfC so you can finally get an answer? — Czello 14:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic

You specifically threatened a block, something that isn't your decision. You say rules aren't difficult to follow, and yet you threatened to report me for a WP:3RR that never happened in the first place. And I don't owe you updates on what discussion I'll start when. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC) No, I said that you would likely have been blocked if I took it to EWN - I never said I had that ability. Once more, I'm not going through this with you again. But, fine - if you want to keep opining the far-right label, you can - but it's unlikely to change anything without a formal discussion. I suspect I know why that discussion isn't forthcoming, however. — Czello 15:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Yes, you did, and that was after you had to admit that the WP:3RR wasn't even one, and just a hollow threat from you. "But, fine - if you want to keep opining the far-right label, you can" - Oh, how generous! I didn't know I needed your permission for that. Cortador (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC) No, I never said I had the ability to block you. Happy for you to provide a diff of the contrary, though. Anyway, it seems you're behaving yourself where edit warring is concerned, so whatever I said seems to have sunk in. You can maintain your bitterness about this, but ultimately Wikipedia requires you to seek consensus for your edits. If you want to add extremist labels, then the article waits on that. — Czello 15:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I think it's much simpler: you remembered this: "When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Cortador (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I'm well aware of WP:BOOMERANG, and am more than happy to be scrutinised. Maybe if you find yourself at EWN we can do it then. Until then, I see that you're less interested in discussing the topic at hand and more interested in vendettas, so I'll instead wait for serious discussions around this article's ideologies. — Czello 15:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC) I don't doubt you are now, which explains why you backpaddled after your false accusations. Cortador (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Alrighty, if that's what you wish to believe. As I say, I'm happy to put your theory to the test if/when you find yourself at EWN. Until then, I see you took my advice and started the discussion below, so instead of this useless off-topic thread, let's resume there. — Czello 16:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Maybe take that time to learn to count properly, so next time you throw a petty accusation around, it actually has some substance. Cortador (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Maybe don't edit war in the first place. — Czello 17:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Why me? You're the one hellbent on shutting down contributions to the article.Cortador (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Asking you to get consensus first (which is required by the hidden note in the infobox) is not shutting down contributions. It's just how Wikipedia works on controversial articles. — Czello 08:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC) In fact, instead of continuing the off-topic last-wordism, can I make a suggestion? One that might actually help you in your drive to change the ideologies of the party? If you're pushing to try to make it far-right or white nationalist, you're almost certainly not going to have any luck. It's far too controversial. Might I suggest you find an alternate term to push for inclusion? In one of the links below you mention Christian Nationalism. While you'd still need robust sourcing for that, you're probably going to have more luck than you would far more extremist ideologies. You could also try for Trumpism (though I think that's been debated and rejected before). You might find other, similar ideologies you might have more success with. — Czello 08:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Take that to the dicussion below if you want to. Nobody's forcing you to post here.Cortador (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC) I am trying to help you here. It's not needed in the discussion below as it's not really part of that debate. It's more a suggestion for you. But now that you've read it, that's enough. — Czello 08:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC) If it doesn't relate to the discussion below, open a new comment thread about it.Cortador (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• One potential solution that has been discussed before could be to create an article about the modern Republican party. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure that justifies an entire article, but maybe a section on recent (post-2015) developments? Cortador (talk) 16:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

  • "create an article about the modern Republican party" The suggestion may have potential, but where would we draw the line of modernity? Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone object to "social conservatism" being added to the info box, and has good reasons to object to it?

"Social conservatism", which is used throughout the article, is currently (alongside paleoconservatism) the only ideology listed in the "Ideology" section but not mentioned in the info box. Does anyone object to it being added, and has a good reason for their objection? It's already sourced, and there's no reason why it would be listed in the body but be omitted from the info box, especially considering that it is used a number of times in the rest of the article. Cortador (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I object to any simplistic attempt to describe ideology in the Infobox. It can rarely be done properly. Leave it to a more thorough description in the text. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

in my opinion it's accurate with respect to the article and to the actual facts; it is not simplistic--it is the terminology used by experts and historians. Rjensen (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It's simplistic because it is only one of many possible descriptors of the party. The reality is quite complex. Two words in an Infobox is simply misleading. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

HiLo48, how do you feel about the existing ideologies in the infobox? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The fact that we already have several ideologies listed covers that. The proposal isn't for social conservatism to be listed solely. As Firefangledfeathers asked, what is your rationale for the other ideologies being mentioned but not social conservatism? Or do you propose for the other ideologies to be removed as well? Cortador (talk) 08:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove them all. What's in the Infobox will always be an incomplete list of inevitably abbreviated descriptors a far more complex situation. HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't agree that having nothing in the infobox is somehow an improvement. — Czello 09:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

The info box is not supposed to replace the article proper. It not being comprehensive isn't an argument - it is not supposed to be comprehensive. Cortador (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think inclusion is wise. It's refreshing to see an infobox proposal that's based on body content. I understand the infobox bloat concerns; I'd put up the Youth wing and Overseas wing parameters as ones that could be removed, since they're less relevant and less covered in the body (zero coverage) than social conservatism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I support the inclusion because it does appear to be well-sourced and accurate, and lines up with academic viewpoints that I am aware of of what the modern ideological bent of the party includes. Andre🚐 23:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Are these meant to be factions within the party or an overall ideology. If factions I think inclusion makes sense. If an overall description then probably not even though clearly true for a faction of the party. Springee (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Faction, obviously. Cortador (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• I concur with HiLo48: The Infobox is simply a tool poorly fit to the purpose of covering a concept like ideology. I'd rather not see it there at all, especially where it does a poor job of handling nuance and complexity. --Jayron32 17:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

As per straw poll below, there is fairly broad support for including the ideologies mentioned in the article body in the info box. Cortador (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Straw poll: infobox ideologies

Trying to get a sense of where editors are so we can move forward on the general question of what to put in the infobox.

• Option A: Remove all ideologies from the infobox
• Option B: Mention only Conservatism (linked to Conservatism in the United States)
• Option C: Include a short list of ideologies that are mentioned in the article

Feel free to add more options. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

• C > B. I'm sympathetic to the argument that parties are complex and ideologies can be read too simplistically. That said, the point of both the infobox and the lead is to summarize the body of the article, and I don't think we should abstain from doing so just because it's hard. I would oppose, for example, removing the lead sentence "Presently, the Republican Party contains prominent conservative, centrist, populist, and right-libertarian factions" which is no more nuanced than an infobox list. I do think the list in the lead and infobox should match, and I'd prefer to see us base which ideologies are included on which are given a solid treatment in the body of the article. Failing all of that, I'd take just "Conservatism" over total removal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• C Wikipedia is simplicity personified, and let's not pretend otherwise. We do not publish scholarly research articles that explore complexity (journals do that)--Instead we publish short surveys that non-experts can easily understand. Rjensen (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• First choice "B", second choice "A". The infobox is not the place to cover nuance, complexity, or go into too much detail. Choice B is sufficient. I am also fine with leaving ideology out of the infobox, for the reasons noted above. --Jayron32 18:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
• C, though I think further debate will need to take place on what those ideologies are. Strong oppose to A. — Czello 18:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

C - We just need to find a consensus. It may take a while (just look at how long it took the Democratic Party of Korea page to find a consensus. Which it seems they finally have). B is also far too vague, and the GOP is a big tent party (as is both major parties in the US), so only mentioning 1 ideology is just nonsensical. And A would just make this page a lot less useful. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

C We already have a list of ideologies (in the article body). There's no reason to have it there and exclude it from the info box. Regarding simplicity: just having "Conservative" is too simplistic as well. Cortador (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

C The infobox is useless without the ideologies, and "Conservatism" is meaningless without context. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A - the infobox is not suited for this use. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

C - It's an important part of understanding the party, and, therefore, an article aimed at people trying to understand the party.—chbarts (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

C > B per OP. DN (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

A Unlike other countries, the two parties divided over many issues so that they never had clear ideologies. In modern times of course there has been a left-right division, but neither party has adopted a distinct ideology. TFD (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

C > A. I don't like B given the two party's are big tents and the article's first main section is on factions in the party. Either include it with some of the most important factions of conservatism, or just don't in my view. You could narrow it to just fiscal conservatism and social conservatism & the Christian right. Views on matters like foreign policy or trade (i.e. protectionism, neoconservatism, etc.) are relatively minor, and libertarianism is a small faction given the GOP opposes say decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana or legal abortion. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

A - Parties' ideologies are always difficult to pin down. Official policies are daily overridden by those who actually wield power. And here we have a global encyclopaedia. Perspectives differ on even what things such as left and right mean around the world. Some in the US describe the Democrats as leftists, while to most of the world they are closer to mildly right wing. That of course pushes Republicans towards the extreme right. Describe ideological actions and statements of a party's leaders in the detail of an article, and leave readers to turn that into simple labels in their own minds if they choose. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible removal of centrists as a GOP faction, as it is poorly sourced

Centrists were recently removed as a GOP faction from the infobox. I had a look at what the article has to say about centrist and/or moderate Republicans. Right now, the "Factions" section mentions that the GOP has a centrist faction, but no source is given. Three somewhat notable GOP officials are named, but the sources only describe them as individuals. No comment is made about notable centrist GOP factions. The article about Hogan mentions moderate Republicans in a broad sense, but doesn't iterate whether this refers to GOP members, office holders, or voters. The section "Social policies" mentions "dissenting centrist and libertarian factions", but once more with no source.

The section "Ideology and factions" does offer a source. However, it is an article by NPR titled "Meltdown On Main Street: Inside The Breakdown Of The GOP's Moderate Wing". It is four years old and if anything provides evidence that the GOP's moderate/centrist faction has collapsed in the wake of its recent radicalisation. The article does mention the Main Street Caucus, which describes itself merely as "conservative"[[1]] - though self-description have to be taken with a grain of salt, of course. I looked up some articles on the Main Street Causus, but they aren't consistently described as centrist and/or moderate, like here.[[2]] Lastly, the article mentions moderate GOP voters and members a few times, but that is in parts where people self-identify in surveys, and is about politics and positioning, not explicitly about factions. Other mentions about centrism/moderates is historical, not about the current GOP.

TLDR There's little to no properly sourced information that the GOP actually still has a centrist/moderate wing. I'm not going to start a poll at this point, but I suggest that the mentioning of current a centrist GOP faction is removed if no one can provide better sources. Cortador (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The info-box should avoid ambiguous terms. Since by most definitions both parties are centrist then it makes little sense to say they have centrist factions. TFD (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The Republican Party is centrist by most definitions?

? SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that the GOP is primarily centrist at this point. Maybe they were in the past, but they have shifted to the right steadily. If we do include centrist/moderates in the article, I suggest to pick up where the current only source [[3]] on centrist Republicans in general left off and note that the GOP's moderate/centrist wing has imploded. There's a number [[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]] of articles on that topic. Cortador (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Which RS call both or either parties centrist? DN (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, there are various definitions of centrism. One is as an alternative term for liberalism broadly defined, which covers both U.S. parties, and stands between toryism on the right and socialism on the left.

Arthur Schlesinger's wrote in his 2017 Introduction to ''The Vital Centre'': ""Vital center" refers to the contest between democracy and totalitarianism, not to contests ''within'' democracy between liberalism and conservatism, not at all to the so-called "middle of the road" preferred by cautious politicians of our own time. The middle of the road is definitely not the vital center: it is the dead center."

Centrism is not an ideology and there is no literature about it. Basically it is a description of a position between left and right. But there are no criteria for where the center ends and the left and right begin. It can only be known from the context in which it is used, which isn't possible in an info-box. It's like saying someone lives in a medium priced house. Unless we know where the person lives, it doesn't tell us much about what it is worth. TFD (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's my 2c: you can't bring a gun to a knife fight. When journalists or political pundits say "centrist" they mean "moderate" for that party. Under the logic that Dems are left-ish and Republicans are right-ish, a centrist Dem is a right-leaning Dem, a centrist Republican is a left-leaning Republican. I agree that there are precious few moderates or centrists in an era of polarization, but we just need to say what RS say. It doesn't matter if there is a hard and fast definition. Most things have multiple definitions depending on the context. So we shouldn't treat political and social sciences like hard science. Stuff is and will be blurry. Andre🚐 20:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't find that describing the Liberal Democrats in the UK as liberals or the Italian Fascists as fascists is open to multiple definitions. Liberal and fascist have clear definitions, even if they have a variety of sub-groups within them. While the ideology of most parties is clear from their names (Communist Party of the USA, Social Democratic Party of Germany), sometimes they aren't (Free Democrats of Germany, New Democrats of Canada) and that is where giving the party ideology in the info-box is useful. But if anyone wants a detailed explanation, that's what the body of the article is for. TFD (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"Liberal" does have a clear definition at all. In American politics, it mainly just means "mainstream but not conservative" at this point. In other countries, liberal is used differently e.g. the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan and the UK Liberal Democrats aren't comparable at all.

That said, this isn't about what a centrist or moderate is, exactly. As Andre said, there's GOP politicians that scholars and journalists label as moderate or centrist. Apparently they are in decline, and the question is whether they should still be mentioned in the article and if yes, in what form. Cortador (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

My take is that the moderates in the GOP are becoming less relevant, and becoming relegated to a narrower scope of visibility within the party such as other small minority factions, such as liberal republicans. While there is RS that supports this, I have yet to see a consensus among RS that supports what you are suggesting ie a removal of mention of them entirely. Please correct me if I accidentally misconstrued the intention here. DN (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that the sources I linked above are sufficient to include that GOP moderates are in decline, and may not exist as a significant faction any more. Regarding their removal: I don't think we need census among sources for that - we need consensus among sources to include them in the first place, and right now, we don't have that. Their inclusion hinges entirely on a single source. Unless someone can source it better, mentioning of moderate GOP members as a faction should be removed. Cortador (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Indeed the U.S. decided to ahistorically adopt the terms liberal and conservative to describe the two major wings of American liberalism. That's why in the info-boxes of the two parties they link to Modern liberalism in the United States and Conservatism in the United States. But no one would question whether countries ouside the U.S. practiced U.S. liberalism and conservatism. While the Liberal Party of Japan may be misnamed, parties can call themselves whatever they want and the purpose of the info-box is to tell readers what their actual ideologies are. What make comparative politics possible is that the great majority of parties in the world can be classified into broad ideological groups, such as communist, left, socialist/social democratic, green, Christian democratic, conservative, far right, nationalist and agrarian. We don't throw that out because popular usage in the U.S. differs. TFD (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

It's laughable to suggest that in 2023, mainstream RS refer to the Republican Party as "liberalism broadly defined" respecting exchange of ideas, due process etc. The GOP is described as embracing authoritarianism, subversion of democratic elections, and intolerance within the party. This article is about a far broader topic than the current day Republicans, but citing a Schlesinger book from 75 years ago (btw he was long departed by 2017) does not address the description of the current day GOP. What current day RS describe the GOP as small-l liberal? SPECIFICO talk 01:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

See Contemporary Pary Politics, Robin T Pettitt, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014, p. 76-77, which explains why most political scientists classify both U.S. parties as liberal. Since most comparative studies are limitied to Western Europe, I don't have one written since the day the world changed forever on Jan. 6.

It's worth knowing however what liberalism means. It does not necessarily mean democracy, but it does mean individual freedom, particularly to own property and pursue profit and freedom from control by hereditary aristocracy.

Democracy is not part of core liberalism and indeed U.S. founding fathers owned slaves, Various administrations have carried out massacres of aboriginal people and have carried out imperialist actions. Okay, that's not what Hillary Clinton liberals believe, but they are only a subset of liberalism.

This reminds me of arguments among Christians about whether competing sects are Christian. Sure, they have a range of beliefs, but as a group they are distinguishable from Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists. Of course you can argue that David Koresh and various religious extremists are not true Christians, but they broadly come under that category. TFD (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

A source from a decade ago - pre-Trump, pre-election denial, pre-January 6 - is entirely insufficient to make broad claims about the current GOP. Cortador (talk) 06:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on you to show that any of that has had any effect on the party's classification. You should find a more recent comparative study of political to show that the Republican Party has changed its ideology. Your comments about 1/6 etc. are just OR.

Some political parties change ideologies, such as the Swiss People's Party and Brazil's Social Liberal Party and there are sources for this.

Ironically, your argument is frequently made in articles about far right parties, such as the BNP and Swedish Democrats. Some editors claim they are no longer far right parties because of changes they have made since the sources were published. TFD (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The source you mentioned, Contemporary Party Politics, is not used in the article. The one and only source about there being a centrist/moderate GOP faction is the single news article from a few years ago that mentions said faction's decline. The onus is not on me to find sources that contradict a book from a decade ago not even used as a source in the article, or find sources that confirm virtually unsourced claims in the article. If you (or anyone else) want there being a centrist/moderate GOP faction to be included the article, find RS for that claim. Otherwise I suggest for it to be removed. Cortador (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between there being a centrist faction in the Republican Party and the party being centrist? TFD (talk) 02:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand that neither claim is sufficiently backed up by RS in the article right now? Cortador (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Schlesinger 1947 is not the most recent available source. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

As wrotre above, it was what Schlesinger wrote in his "2017 Introduction" to his 1947 book My mistake, it was 1997, but still more recent than 1947. TFD (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

An introduction from the Clinton years to a book from the start of the Cold War is insufficient to make statements about the modern GOP on the basis that it was written well before that. The article currently describes the modern GOP as that party from 2010 on, and I've provided sources above backing up at that said GOP's moderate wing has atrophied since. Cortador (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that says anything has changed since 1997? Meanwhile, I'll look for more recent sources that the sky is still blue. TFD (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Verification must be positive and affirmative. Like, we don't need to find a source that the GOP elephant is really a very big aardvark. SPECIFICO talk 15:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

So if the Republican Party no longer adheres to liberal ideology, when did they abandon it and what did they replace it with and do you have any sources? TFD (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

See Kipling, for the origin story. We do not need to document everything that is not true. Did you see my previous reply to you? It said "verification is positive and affirmative". Do you have a source that states the Republican Party is not a women's clothing store? SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not have a recent source that Reitmans is a women's clothing store, although per OR it appears to be one to me. If you claim that since I last walked past it yesterday, it is now a bowling alley, I would expect you could provide a source. In any case, if no sources have presented your opinion that the party's ideology has changed, why do you insist it has? This isn't a blog where we exchange opinions but we are supposed to provide sources for what goes into articles and accept academic consensus even if we disagree. TFD (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I have. I literally said that in the comment you replied to. You. on the other hand, haven't even provided any citations from that book. That said, if you truly think that the assumption that the GOP has remained unchanged to a degree that statements about the current GOP can be inferred from its state in 1997 falls under WP:BLUE, I can't help you. Cortador (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The lead is quite long

The lead currently spans 903 words and ~6K characters; it's quite long. I'm thinking that it would be possible to condense the lead to not be as long while still serving its purpose of providing a concise summary of the article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The lede should be more like a summary but currently there's way too much filler that simply belongs in the body. Here are portions I think that could be trimmed or removed. While albeit relative details, they don't really do much in the way of summarizing and may be a bit redundant, too specific, or narrow in scope IMO...

Presently, the Republican Party contains prominent conservative, populist, and right-libertarian factions. The Republican Party's ideological and historical predecessor is considered to be Northern members of the Whig Party, with Republican presidents Abraham Lincoln, Rutherford B. Hayes, Chester A. Arthur, and Benjamin Harrison all being Whigs before switching to the party, from which they were elected. The collapse of the Whigs, which had previously been one of the two major parties in the country, strengthened the party's electoral success.

It had almost no presence in the Southern United States at its inception, but was very successful in the Northern United States where, by 1858, it had enlisted former Whigs and former Free Soil Democrats to form majorities in nearly every state in New England. While both parties adopted pro-business policies in the 19th century, the early GOP was distinguished by its support for the national banking system, the gold standard, railroads, and high tariffs.

In 1912, former Republican president Theodore Roosevelt formed the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party after being rejected by the GOP and ran unsuccessfully as a third-party presidential candidate, feeling that William Howard Taft had betrayed the values of the Republican Party and calling for social reforms similar to those he had enacted during his presidency.

The Republican Party is a member of the International Democrat Union, an international alliance of centre-right political parties. It has several prominent political wings, including a student wing, the College Republicans; a women's wing, the National Federation of Republican Women, and an LGBT wing, the Log Cabin Republicans.

DN (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think trimming those is fine as long as that information is still present in the article body. Cortador (talk) 11:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget -- if it is not in the article body, it should not have been in the lead to begin with. So it's possible such material, if significant, needs to be added. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. Cortador (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding far-right extremism/white nationalism and/or supremacism to the ideology section

The GOP has - at least in parts - shifted far towards the right in recent years, both representatives and members. That should be reflected in the article. There's plenty of sources to back up that the GOP has such a wing:

Discussion of the GOP's embrace of white nationalism: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003182962/white-nationalism-republican-party-john-ehrenberg

On the history of white nationalism for the GOP and Dems, and the GOP's recent drift towards it: https://www.amacad.org/publication/bipartisan-origins-white-nationalism

Source on far-right Republicans and their long goals: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/04/us/politics/mccarthy-republicans-rebellion.html

On the GOP no longer shunning far-right extremists: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/1/far-right-movement-grows

This source is on Christian nationalism in general, but also confirms that a significant subsections of those Republicans believes in the (white supremacist) great replacement theory: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/feb/09/most-republicans-sympathetic-christian-nationalism

A piece by a professor for political science on the GOP's history with far-right extremism: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/11/08/far-right-extremism-dominates-gop-it-didnt-start-wont-end-with-trump/

Lastly, and article on the GOP's failure to keep white supremacists at bay, which also named a number of prominent GOP figures falling into that category: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/04/gop-extremism-473806

There's more sources than this, but I believe that the sources above are sufficient to warrant far-right extremism and/or white nationalism as GOP ideologies. However, the questions is also whether to include them under one banner, or to split far-right extremism and white nationalism. White supremacy can be rolled into white nationalism, as I don't think the two are distinct enough in the context of the GOP. Cortador (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No. You need a wide range of sources that say this is an ideology of the party as a whole. A few cherry picked sources isn't going to do it. Sources that try to make an association or suggest the GOP is more tolerant etc than they should be isn't going to do it. Additionally, in your sources you need to show that they say this is one of the ideology's of the party vs just say some members or extremists in the party or what ever. For example, what passage in the Taylor Francis published book supports inclusion? Just pointing at the book isn't sufficient. You would also need to show that the claims in question aren't challenged by other sources directly or indirectly. Springee (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Why does it need to be "of the party as a whole"? The other ideologies listed in the article don't fulfil that standard, unless you are suggestion that paleoconservatism or neoconservatism are also ideologies "of the party as a whole". Cortador (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If you gather a few peer reviewed sources from reputable journals that verify this shift in party ideology we'll have a lot more to work with. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's some specific quote from the sources above (I decided not to edit the original post as people have already replied to it). I'll focus on academic sources, and take publicly accessible quotes if possible (i.e. abstract or article body if the article is public).

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781003182962/white-nationalism-republican-party-john-ehrenberg ("White Nationalism and the Republican Party")

Specific quote from Ehrenberg's book (taken from the end of the preface): "This book analyzes how Trump used, changed, and profited from the Republican Party's long flirtation with racial animus. Its focus is broader than a single individual, for the GOP has moved from a conventional racial conservatism to an implicit white nationalism." John Ehrenberg is a Senior Professor of Political Science and Department Chair at the Brooklyn Campus of Long Island University.

https://www.amacad.org/publication/bipartisan-origins-white-nationalism ("The Bipartisan Origins of White Nationalism")

Specific quote from Massey's publication(from the abstract): "Until 2016, this cultivation relied on a dog whistle politics of racially coded symbolic language, but with the election of Donald Trump as president, White nationalist sentiments became explicit and White nationalism emerged as an ideological pillar of the Republican Party." Daedalus is a peer-reviewed journal.

https://academic.oup.com/book/36900 ("Hard White: The Mainstreaming of Racism in American Politics")

Specific quote from the abstract: "Changes in the “political opportunity structure,” as witnessed by the rise of the Tea Party Movement, enabled the mainstreaming of white extremists into the Republican Party and established the basis for an electoral politics focused on giving voice to white people more generally acting on their outgroup hostility." Further down, about this not being a Trump-specific phenomenon: "Providing extensive empirical evidence, this book documents how the mainstreaming of racism today began before Trump started to run for the presidency but then increased under his leadership and that it is likely to be a troubling presence in U.S. politics for some time to come." Fording and Schram are professors for political science.

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.14318/hau7.1.030

Specific quote that, as with sources above, claims that the GOP has implicitly embraced white nationalism in the past, and that this became explicit now: "But Trump garnered more support from disgruntled Republican voters precisely because he was the most brazen in elaborating an antiglobalist, anti-immigrant, white nationalist–friendly stance. His politics are thus noteworthy for their overt articulation of white racial resentments that have long been exploited, sub rosa, by the Republican Party but that Trump has, for his convenience, made explicit." HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory is a peer-reviewed journal.

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S2415-04792022000300004&script=sci_arttext ("Populist nationalism in the age of Trump")

Specific quote regarding the GOPs' shift towards white nationalism via Trmup: "Trump energised the Tea Party and white nationalists into a political force with populist hegemonic aspirations that were distinct from mainstream Republicanism." However, as with other sources above, and assessment that this is the new direction for the party, not exclusive to Trump: "Thus, conservative Republicans, who used to have a majoritarian electoral strategy that involved attracting Latino and Asian American voters, are increasingly being pulled toward the populist hegemonic direction favouring white nationalism and voter suppression in order to entrench (white) minority rule." The paragraphs above that elaborate on that, but I don't want to copy-paste entire pages here. Acta Academica is a peer-reviewed journal. Cortador (talk) 09:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Your Guardian article is WP:OR and wouldn't justify the inclusion of an extremist ideology. — Czello 17:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

In fact I think the Al Jazeera article would also be if you're trying to argue there is an actual far-right faction in the party. — Czello 21:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The article directly links the GOP to the far right movement, citing Greene as a prominent example. No original research needed. Cortador (talk) 06:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to say it's a faction, it needs to be clearer than that. I grant you, though, that the Al Jazeera article is somewhat clearer than the Guardian article, which requires far more interpretation. — Czello 08:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's a faction. I said "at least in parts", and didn't at any point claim that this applies to the entire party. Cortador (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I know what you're trying to say; I'm saying that the article needs to also be explicit in saying this, too. Presently it seems to say these views are emerge in a couple of GOP politicians, but I don't find that clear enough to be interpreted as saying there is a definition far-right or white nationalist faction in the party. — Czello 08:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think it's not explicit enough, we can drop it. I've provided enough other sources to back up my claim. Cortador (talk) 07:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Reckon you'll need good reliable sources, for such additions. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I added more academic sources (in addition to the ones above) in a reply to FormalDude. Please have a look. Cortador (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to show this is something that is widely accepted as true, not that some academics argue it's true. In effect, show there is a consensus among academics. Springee (talk) 10:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Academic consensus is not a requirement for inclusion in an article. Furthermore, virtually none of the sources for any of the other GOP ideologies claim academic consensus, and many of them are merely news articles, not academic sources. There's no reason to hold inclusion of this ideology to a unique standard. And if you think it's too "controversial", feel free to back up that point (i.e. with reliable sources that state that this is contested). Cortador (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to include a controversial claim like white nationalism is a faction of the GOP, yes, you are going to have to show this is widely accepted among scholars, not just that some argue for it. Springee (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You personally claiming that something is "controversial" doesn't make it so. As it stands, there's plenty of sources agreeing that the GOP has a white nationalist/far right wing, including assessments by political scientists. If you think there's too many sources claiming the opposite (which would actually make the claim controversial i.e. there being a prolonged dispute), feel free to bring them up. Cortador (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If you don't think adding "white nationalism" is a controversial claim then I would suggest asking at NPOVN. Regardless, there isn't a consensus for this and I don't think you could get one without a RfC. Springee (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You are the one who claimed that this is "controversial" without backing that claim up with anything. The burden is on you here; I'm not going to open that discussion for you. Cortador (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I would support adding white nationalism to the party's ideologies, as it represents the key ideology of Ronald Reagan and his supporters. What the heck is "far-right extremism"? The article on far-right politics lists "right-wing extremism", as a synonym, but there is no such thing as an extreme version of the far right itself. Dimadick (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

White nationalism being a "key ideology" of Reagan is WP:FRINGE. — Czello 09:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Extremism in the sense that it is the extremism of the far right, not that it is an extreme version of the (already extreme) far right. That said, "white nationalism" is probably the better term, as more sources attribute that term specifically to the GOP. Cortador (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not to go off topic, but do most political party articles include extremist ideology sections? If not, it seems a bit odd to suggest one here. DN (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

What "most parties" have in their articles has no relevance. If reliable sources state that a party has a extremist wing, it belong in an article; if they don't, it does not. Cortador (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

According to the SPLC, white nationalist activists "want to build alliances with Republican elected officials, create their own political parties and institutions, and, especially, cultivate a cohort of young, radical activists within the GOP."[9] But there is no claim they have become a major factor and Pat Buchanan left the party in 2000. The most one could say is that they frequently appeal to racist views, but then so do Democrats sometimes. TFD (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The SPLC also wrote this [10]: "The extreme far-right margins of the political spectrum broke into the mainstream of the Republican Party when Trump first ran for president, and Jan. 6 appears to have pushed that trend further along the path of extremism. Six years ago, the Republicans treated Trump and his extremist adviser Stephen Miller as a sideshow. Today, a significant number of mainstream Republicans continue to fall in line behind Trump, even after his supporters called for the execution of his vice president while roaming the halls of Congress." Not only is there an extremist element in the GOP, but it's one that has moved from the fringe to the party's mainstream. While this was written earlier than the article you cited, the later article doesn't refute the older one. This is also in line with the academic articles I cited above, which came to the conclusion that Trump made the GOP's far right/white nationalist element mainstream, and that it has been retained post Trump.

Lastly, what the Democrats say or do isn't relevant for this article. Cortador (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It is indisputable there has been a significant surge in far-right extremism/white nationalism and/or supremacism in the party in recent years, including a significant element of Christian nationalism. Many in the party believe "their" America has been "stolen" from them and they are facing their last chance to "take America back," increasingly employing the term "war." This has become an increasingly pervasive theme of the party and should be included in the article. soibangla (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

"increasingly employing the term "war." "They are referring to their vision of the Second American Civil War, like the Boogaloo movement. There have been calls for rebellion and violence for the last 15 years or so.: "Many conservatives had come to express perceived grievances against the government, which they viewed as tyrannical under Democrats such as President Barack Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi." ... "A national discussion of a second civil war can be traced back to the election of Barack Obama in 2008, and increased in frequency and seriousness after the election of Donald Trump in 2016." Dimadick (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I would agree, with Obama's election came a dramatic increase in constitutional hardball and far-right politics, you could cite How Democracies Die by Stephen Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt. For some examples: the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, voter suppression and gerrymandering enabled by the Supreme Court (before and after Trump too), the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, the Supreme Court nullifying Roe v. Wade in Whole Women's Health v. Jackson months before even the day of oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization much less the decision leaking or being released, etc. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course not, this is a blatant violation of NPOV. If the Republican Party was actually far right (which it unarguably isn’t) then you would already have found someone would have made this edit before. It’s not far right, it’s not white nationalist. People accusing Reagan of being a white nationalist - he opposed racial segregation and invited two young black people to his home. To think we’ve even come to such a point is ridiculous - Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopaedic, not propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Hammering Hammer (talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You really need to get out more, and look at American politics from the perspective of the other 95% of people in the world. It would be very difficult to find a major party to the right of the Republicans anywhere. Remember that this is a global encyclopaedia, not just an American one. HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It would also be hard to find politicians like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have identified as democratic socialists…parties like the Labour Party are social democratic, NOT democratic socialists. The point is, if you’re going to suggest the Republicans are somehow a "far right", "white supremacist" party (which they are not) you’re also going to have to indicate the Democratic Party has shifted to a farther-left stance, too. That’s not mentioning the Democrats, even back when liberals like Wilson were in charge, adhered to a policy of racial segregation. I understand they don’t do that now, but it’s so clear why this is being done - to apply to a leftist point of view. If we don’t call communism far left, but rather left wing to far left, then why are we calling Republicans far-right? Even looking globally, the Republicans’s policies do NOT go with worldwide, European, far right parties. As a person who considers to be a Republican myself, this seems more like a hit job than anything else. The Hammering Hammer (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

You are a difficult person to discuss this with. You have misrepresented me appallingly. I said nothing about the Republicans being a "white supremacist" party, so why did YOU mention it? You have chosen to talk about the Democrats and communism, neither of which is the topic here. And, assuming you noticed my use of the word "major", your comment on Europe is simply wrong. Your comments here are quite unhelpful. HiLo48 (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

In fact the Labour Party self-identifies as democratic socialist Its constitution, as amended in 1995 says, "The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party." Both the Labour Party and the Democratic Socialists, to which AOC belongs, were until recently members of the Socialist International. TFD (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

So what? I suspect that comment is yet another example of words meaning something different in American English from what they mean in the rest of the English speaking world. When an American says "socialist" they tend to mean something totally negative and evil. Elsewhere it's just part of the acceptable political spectrum. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I was replying to The Hammering Hammer, who wrote, "It would also be hard to find politicians like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who have identified as democratic socialists…parties like the Labour Party are social democratic, NOT democratic socialists." I think their argument was that the Democrats are to the left of mainstream social democratic parties such as Labour and are therefore far left. But the Democrats are to the right both in policy and ideology. TFD (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

someone would have made this edit before if not for the unrelenting resistance of some who seem they may be party loyalists soibangla (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not hard to prove that the Republicans have appealed to racism, but the fact is that so have most if not all mainstream parties throughout the world. That's politics. You tell people what they want to hear. Bill Clinton's three strikes you're out, welfare reform and the "end of big government" were all racist policies designed to defeat Republicans. He also brought in "don't ask, don't tell." And most of the recent complaints about police racism occur in cities that have been under Democratic control for decades. So if anything is added, it should provide the context. Specifically, Republicans appeal to racism more than Democrats, but are not outliers among center-right parties. TFD (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we should wait until there's a specific proposal before we start debating its merits. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

But this isn't "yeah, but what about the other guys?" Do you deny the GOP has taken a very radical turn in recent years relative to itself? soibangla (talk) 03:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the article could do a better job outlining the increase in certain far-right ideologies within the party over the past 20 years or so; but I also don't think that saying that "far-right ideologies have increased among party membership in the past 20 years" is the same as adding it as a core philosophy or ideology to the infobox. The party platform continues to lie in the center-right of the American political spectrum. --Jayron32 11:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

What specifically are the far right ideologies? We need to be able to outline them in order to support such claims. Springee (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that's adequately covered already above by the sources and analysis done by Cortador and others. --Jayron32 11:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing claims in the quotes but nothing of substance at this point. I would like to know what policy changes etc would be "far-right". Springee (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

None, actually. See, when I said "The party platform continues to lie in the center-right of the American political spectrum." what I actually meant by that was "The party platform continues to lie in the center-right of the American political spectrum." I'm not sure why you decided to argue against me when I already pre-agreed with everything you were about to argue with me about. --Jayron32 14:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am less interested in what the platform says, as it is essentially an election marketing document, than I am in what the most prominent voices in the party are saying, and where the momentum is. This has been exhaustively reported in countless reliable sources for several years now. soibangla (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This has veered far away from the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page in to WP:FORUM disguised as WP:OR. nableezy - 15:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. I contend that the resistance to inclusion of this content comes from (a) party loyalists who simply want to be obstructive of things that make them uncomfortable, and (b) those who may not have been paying as close attention to this matter as others have. I'm not sure much can be done about (a) but I think (b) are persuadable, and this is the place to do it. soibangla (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The ideology section of the infobox should reflect the party platform. On the very narrow question of should we put it in that location, the answer is no. However, insofar as the rank and file party members hold and express certain beliefs, that should be covered in the article text. It does not, currently, do so and should. Also, please see WP:ASPERSIONS. If you continue to insist that people who disagree with you could only be party loyalists or aren't paying attention, of which I am neither, then you'll quickly find yourself being ignored. Don't, and I can't stress this enough, fucking do that. It's quite possible to not be a party loyalist and disagree with putting "far right" in the infobox. --Jayron32 16:25, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

soibangla has left the chat soibangla (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The ideology section is not about the GOP platform. Right now, it contains information about how Republican identify themselves, how the media describe GOP factions, and a division between establishment and anti-establishment wings. Cortador (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I am likewise neither, and find the comment risible. nableezy - 16:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I've provided multiple peer-reviewed articles that lay out my claims. There is plenty of substance - especially in an article that otherwise relies heavily on news articles as sources. Cortador (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I've provided plenty of sources, including academic sources, that describe the GOP as having a white supremacist/far right wing. If you have issues with these sources, please lay out what your issues are. Cortador (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not the same as saying the ideology of the party includes white supremacy or that it is far right wing. nableezy - 15:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

If the part has a white supremacist wing, it is part of its ideology. That is also what the sources confirm, with someone of them stating that white supremacism has arrived in the party mainstream. Cortador (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

No, that is OR. Find a source that directly says the ideology of the party includes white supremacism. Not evidence you feel meets that, but a source that actually directly supports what you want to put in. As a statement of fact, not an argument or opinion. Preferably several, since that is going towards the base definition of the party and should be well supported. nableezy - 16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I've already done so above at length (see 09:56, 21 March 2023). Cortador (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, lets look at those. The article by Massey is an essay (see where he describes it as an essay and gives his personal opinion repeatedly, eg some policy was unwise), and thats the one that comes closest to what you are arguing. There is a difference between viewpoint and fact. Yes, several political scientists argue that the Republican party has engaged with white supremacy to such an extent that it is now functionally a part of the party's ideology. That has not carried over in to a wide agreement that as a fact that this is the party's ideology. I dont see the support for that in the sources you brought. nableezy - 18:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that there is not wide agreement, or is that your OR? Provide some academic RS that do not agree that white supremacy is now part of the party's ideology if that is the case. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Mostly the absence of evidence for it? The closest anything above comes to saying it is a part of the Republican party's ideology is one essay that makes that argument. But sure, sources disputing it. Handbook of Racism, Xenophobia, and Populism. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2022. p. 34. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-13559-0. ISBN 978-3-031-13558-3. Compare here, for example, the deeply repugnant behavior of right-wing Republican politicians in the USA in the aftermath of the electoral defeat of Donald Trump in the 2020 elections—from the perspective of ethics, the U.S. constitution, democracy, professionalism, and general decency—as they vie with each other to outdo Trump in their demagogy. (As a result, tragically for the United States, they are pushing the Republican Party even further down the path to a right-wing extremist but politically dangerous outfit from the perspective of democracy, though it is a process with deep historical antecedents in which such figures such as Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Patrick Buchanan, and Sarah Palin, as documented by Peters, 2022, loom large). Now while that certainly is not positive towards the Republican Party, saying that there is a process pushing the party down the path to being a right-wing extremist party says that it is not there yet. But it is exceedingly difficult to prove a negative, especially so when the argument is not all that widely discussed. Which is why the best source offered so far is an essay (opinion). If you had sources that say this matter of factly then you might have a point. But what has been offered has been a collection of opinions and inferences made from things that do not directly support what has been offered here. nableezy - 01:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Please elaborate what makes the source I have provided "opinions and inferences" compared to the single quote you have provided. Cortador (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The only quote you provided that flat out says what you are proposing is an essay, ie an opinion. The rest of the proposal is based on sources that support things that you are saying supports the conclusion, but they dont reach that conclusion themselves. My source is not an essay, it is a book focused on racism and populism. And it says that the Republican Party is going further down the road to being this extremist right-wing party, which means it is not there yet. nableezy - 23:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If you, for some reason, think only books are good enough, look at "Hard White", which I have cited above as well. Cortador (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I think other things are fine. That quote doesnt support what you would like to include. enabled the mainstreaming of white extremists into the Republican Party and established the basis for an electoral politics focused on giving voice to white people more generally acting on their outgroup hostility. Is not the same as claiming that the party's ideology is white nationalism. And if we are going to use anecdotes, Im rather shocked at the idea that the mainstreaming of white extremists into the Republican Party began with the Tea Party. But that is neither here nor there, the quote does not directly support what you are proposing. nableezy - 05:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

What else do you call a claim that white extremism and racism are party mainstream? Cortador (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

soibangla, similar claims were made when Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush were presidents. And Republicans have portrayed Clinton, Obama and Biden as dangerous leftists. This vilification of the other side goes right back to the earliest days of the Republic, when one side called the other royalists and in turn were called Jacobins. While it may make partisans feel better about themselves, it's just polemics. TFD (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I've b

I've provided sources that back up the GOP has a white nationalist/far right faction. If you think this is just "polemics", feel free to provide comparable sources that state the same about the GOP under Bush, or ones that identify the Dems as hard left. Cortador (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

You have provided some quotes that claim the GOP is appealing to the far-right but what is the evidence that supports the claim? What facts? What policies/proposals are "far-right"? Is this just that the far-right feels they can have a voice? Is this just that the policy objectives of the far-right and GOP happen to align this time? What are these far right things? Using a historical example, some people claim that the GOP's opposition to school bussing was an example of a racist policy. However, that assumes that people are opposed to the policy for racist reasons. Many people who opposed school bussing weren't opposed due to racism. They were opposed because it broke the link between the school and the local community. It was certainly politically expedient for GOP opponents to say school bussing opposition was just racism as this allowed them to take a moral high ground vs actually addressing real issues with the program. It is possible some who opposed bussing were truly doing it for racist reasons but that doesn't mean that the GOP's opposition was actually based on racism. In the end bussing was considered a failure so does that mean everyone who reached that conclusion was ultimately siding with racists? So bringing this back to the modern discussion. If we are going to say there is a far-right faction then we need more than just some opinions, even academic opinions, we need the actual evidence. They are far-right because the GOP has X goal and X goal can only be explained by wanting something that is far-right. Plenty of people, even academics, can make a living claiming the "other side" is really bad but that doesn't mean it's true or proven. Those are just opinions. Please set up and provide the supporting evidence, not just "X says it so it must be true" links. Springee (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I have provided peer-reviewed academic sources that lay out the GOP's shift towards white nationalism. These are not "opinion pieces", they are pieces that lay out research people have done on this topic as well as their conclusions, and that were reviewed by other experts in their field before being published.

If you truly think this doesn't meet the threshold of a reliable source to be used on Wikipedia, explain to me what type of source does. I'm not going to scramble to meet some absurd threshold you personally set in an article otherwise largely supported by simple news articles. Cortador (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That comment is likewise entirely OR based. No, we do not need evidence, we do not prove or disprove claims here. We need sources making the claims. Maybe Im just new here and AP2 is a place where OR is how things are done, but as far as I am aware our content rules still apply in this topic area. nableezy - 23:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Then you should have no trouble telling us what evidence they provide. Also, for a claim like this you would need to show academic consensus, not just claims by some. Springee (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Academic consensus is not needed. That is a requirement you made up. A

Academic consensus is not needed. That is a requirement you made up.

I have provided evidence above, specific quotes included. This is the third time I'm pointing this out to you, and all you have to say is an unconstructive "It's opinions!" repeatedly. Cortador (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If you can't show that academics agree then this contentious POV is just a claim by some, a fringe claim who's evidence isn't widely accepted. An academic could claim the GOP are actually communist but absent some sort of consensus from other academics I don't think we would accept that either. Regardless, consensus is something your arguments also lack. Springee (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

If you think there's widespread disagreement among academics regarding this issue, you prove it. I'm not doing that for you. The fact that you had to make up some hypothetical about someone claiming the GOP is communist shows how weak your case is. Cortador (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The ONUS is on the person who wants to include it. Springee (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No. It is not my job you satisfy your personal demands. Cortador (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I cannot agree with you there. Imagine how chaotic it would be if every opinion presented in a reliable source could be used as facts in this article? TFD (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

'vee provided plenty of sources that aren't opinions pieces.y Cortador (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You certainly have brought sources that back up that there is a far right faction within the GOP, and that should definitely be included. I remain of the view that these sources do not support that far-right or white nationalism is a part of the ideology of the party, as opposed to that faction. nableezy - 23:35, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

How would a party have a white nationalist wing without that being part of their ideology? What other measure are we supposed to use to define what constitutes as party ideology?

The beginning of the article currently mentions four ideologies: conservative, centrist, libertarian, and populist. Only conservatism is spelled out as an ideology in the sources, the other three don't mention that term. Cortador (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as your first line, WP:OR. We dont draw conclusions the sources dont directly make. As far as your second, anything that isnt directly supported by the cited sources should be tossed out. I doubt youd have trouble finding support for at least one of them (libertarian), and more recently probably two of them (and populist). nableezy - 05:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a source for that - Massey calls white nationalism an "ideological pillar" of the Republican Party. That said, few of the other ideologies fulfill this standard at the time, even the ones in the article body. Do you suggest all of that to be removed? Cortador (talk) 08:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Massey is an essay. And yes, whatever isnt supported by sources should be removed. nableezy - 09:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to a Wikipedia policy regarding the exclusion of essays as source? I can't find anything on the page regarding reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSOPINION. nableezy - 18:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No mentioning of essays whatsoever. Cortador (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok? An essay is an opinion piece. nableezy - 19:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't have to be. It's a broad term that at most can be boiled down to containing an argument, which is not the same as an opinion piece. Cortador (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all to me. An argument is not advancing one's view now? nableezy - 02:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

If you consider every source advancing an argument as an opinion piece, we'll never use anything such as a research paper ever again on Wikipedia. Cortador (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The journal is not peer-reviewed and the author is not an expert on the topic, hence it fails rs. It appears to be cherry picked anyway because the author blames both parties for the growth of nativism and racism and I don't see you wanting to add that to the Democratic Party's article. TFD (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Daedalus is peer-reviwed, and the author is a professor for sociology and public affairs. He is also the current president of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

Lastly, what you do or don't want to include in a different article doesn't matter for this article. Cortador (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The Republican Party is currently strongest in most of the former Confederate States and the sparsely population, heavily-White Mountain States and Great Plains states. The party has gained support from working-class Asians and Hispanics, but that's not a silver bullet or cop-out in my view as African Americans continue to overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party. Also, consider the Democrat-dominated 2022 Los Angeles City Council scandal, where Hispanic members of the city council used racial slurs against the adopted Black child of a White city council member and sought to racially gerrymander district boundaries. Neither party is a paragon of racial equality, but Trump condoning white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 or the GOP refusing to reauthorize the voting rights act is still noteworthy. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Further infobox clean-up

I understand that there are many discussions about the infobox here, but I wanted to create a new thread to specifically address a few minor points. Specifically, the mention of 'centrism' in the lead but not the infobox, and the addition of fiscal and social conservatism.

Firstly, if consensus is to remove 'centrism' from the infobox due to it being poorly sourced, it should also be removed from the lead, and vice-versa.

Secondly, why are 'fiscal conservatism' and 'social conservativism' mentioned as factional ideologies? They are clearly both the core of the party and held by a majority of party leadership, representatives, and members. However, is there much of a point of having in the infobox at all when they are both just different components of conservatism? Imo having all three in the infobox is somewhat redundant, and while it would be an improvement to list them as majority ideologies rather than keep them as factional ones, it would be preferable to just remove them altogether. Readers don't need to be told that a party believes in conservatism, but also in fiscal conservatism and social conservatism — it's just redundant and protracted. RoadSmasher420 (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

We had a discussion about what to include in the infobox, which the consensus being that all ideologies mentioned in the article body should also be in the infobox. There's also an ongoing discussion about the centrism bit.

That said, you will need a source for social and fiscal conservatism being core ideologies. Just assuming that a conservative party is always socially and fiscally conservative as well isn't sufficient. We currently have sources identifying social conservatives as a specific GOP faction. If you want that removed, you will need other sources, and lay out why the current sources aren't suitable. The same goes for fiscal conservatism, especially considering the GOP's shift away from fiscal issues towards culture war issues instead (see here[[11]]). Cortador (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This page itself states "since Ronald Reagan's presidential election in 1980, American conservatism has been the dominant faction of the Republican Party.[4] Most modern conservatives combine support for free-market economic policies with social conservatism and a hawkish approach to foreign policy."

Conservatism as an ideology —both in general usage and in this page — denotes both a specific economic and social outlook; using the term without denoting either 'fiscal' or 'social' automatically implies a combination of both. I think this is more than enough of a reason to either add fiscal and social conservatism to the majority ideology or remove them altogether. RoadSmasher420 (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That entire subsection seems ill-sourced. The second source (26) is an article from The American Conservative, a magazine whose apparent goal is to promote conservatism - completely unsuitable as a source. The third one talks about classic liberalism. Not only is it is dated (it's from from 2001), but the quote doesn't back up the sweeping statements (limited government, individualism etc.) in the slightest. Unless we assume that "classic liberalism" means all of that, which IMO is just OR. Cortador (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Your tag seems undue (not UNDUE). Remember that the nature of the claim dictates the type of source needed. You are treating rather common claims about conservatives (fiscally conservative etc) as if they are red flag claims. To be honest it comes off as POINTY. It reads as though you are unhappy that people are requesting high quality sourcing for your red flag claim thus you want similar sourcing for claims that are closer to blue sky than red flag. Springee (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have something to add to the discussion other than bad faith accusations? Cortador (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I think my addition was clear. Your tag is not needed as you seem to be saying relatively benign claims need strong sourcing. You may disagree with how I think your tag comes across but please confuse how I think your edits come across with a claim regarding your intent (ie, a claim you are acting in bad faith). It's not at all uncommon that we are acting in good faith but we fail to see how our actions can reasonably come across to others. Springee (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't claim that the section needs "strong sourcing". Right now, the last two sentences aren't properly sourced at all. Both sources simply do not back up what is stated, ignoring that a magazine self-described as pro-conservative is a dubious source for statements about a conservative party.

You can hide behind "Well, I didn't say that you are acting bad faith, I just said it may seem so", but that won't change that you are making backhanded WP:POINTY accusations. If you honestly believe that, take it to the mods, otherwise stop the accusations and stay on topic. Cortador (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Roe V Wade in the lead

Seems like an edit war brewing here [12] - [13] - [14] - [15] - [16]. The republican party's stance on abortion carries much WP:WEIGHT, especially in regard to the recent actions by the current SCOTUS majority created by TRUMP (R). Let's hash out what is WP:DUE, and what is not. DN (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

It's undue for the lead, which already says the party supports "restrictions on abortion." What that means can be fleshed out in the article. I note that the Democrats also support restrictions on abortion, but to a lesser extent. It's not amazing that justices appointed by a party that supports restrictions on abortion would vote to allow state legislatures to enact legislation restricting abortion. TFD (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with TFD here. Also, while I will withhold judgement on the material added to the article body, the topic in general clearly should be in the body and at first blush the new content could be a reasonable addition to the body. However, it is not DUE in the lead as added. Finally, I'm not sure the it's reasonable to accuse AnomieBOT (the author of the second edit) of engaging in a possible edit war... :/ Springee (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure when the content was added or if there was talk page consensus for it when it was added. All I can tell is there is currently no consensus for it's removal at this time. DN (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it was added by KlayCax around April 7th. I didn't see a TP discussion about it in the archive at that time, please correct me if I'm wrong. DN (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you are correct that the content was added on 7 April and I don't see a discussion prior to this one. Based on that I think consensus to add would need to be shown in this case. Springee (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you here. I think we should examine how much of what is in the body is summarized in the lead to determine what may or may not be missing, DUE, UNDUE etc...DN (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Christian right or religious right?

Hello everyone! There is no doubt a Christian right grouping within the party, I don't think anyone would deny that, however I would like to attract attention to the Muslim right within the party, as it appears to be becoming more outwardly prominent. According to Pew Research, about 13% of Muslims support the Republican Party, and it appears to be slowly growing as in 2011 the number was 11%. According to Pew about 2/3 of Muslims support the Democratic Party but that number appears to be more unsteady and in fluctuation than the Republican numbers which show small but steady increases over time. This became better known when Dr. Oz launched his Senate campaign as the first Muslim to be nominated for the Senate, of a major party in the US. I am wondering and eager to hear opinions, on the not so exclusively Christian anymore, right within the party, as it seems to be becoming generally more universally religious in nature. We can see similar trends with Jews, where according to Pew, in 2007, 24% of Jews identified as Republican and 66% identified as Democrat, and in 2014, 26% of Jews identified as Republican, and 64% identified as Democrat.

To me it seems as if the Republican party is not exclusively Christian in nature, at least not as much as it used to be, and has an increasingly diverse religious background. I am wondering if we can lebel the party as Christian right anymore than we can label the Democratic party as Jewish left for example. Would love some thoughts on it. I am proposing the removal of the Christian right label, at least for the time being, and we can see what the future holds and if the statistics start reversing or trending the opposite way.

[17] Muslim American Party Identification

[18] Jewish American Party Identification

Completely Random Guy (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Your analogy is ridiculous. I haven't heard anyone describe the Democratic party as Jewish. Yet it's obvious the Christian right has a massive influence within the Republicans. The (very slow) growth of another, minor group does not change that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Christian right" is a specific group within the party. It's not a bunch of people who just happen to be Christian and happen to be right. Thus, substituting "Christian" for "religious" here is not appropriate. Cortador (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)