Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 25

Lead issues

The GOP supports lower taxes, deregulation

GOP administrations have traditionally raised taxes on the majority of Americans, from Reagan to Trump. This should be changed to say that the GOP supports lower taxes on less than 1% of Americans, mostly billionaires, who control the party for their own special interests. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Well as it has been pointed out to you before (with data; on another talk page): that isn't true. It is fair to say the GOP's tax cuts do favor the wealthy....but we already make the statement in the article "Many Republicans oppose higher tax rates for higher earners".Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
If that is the case it should be clarified in the lead. Currently it says...

The GOP supports lower taxes, deregulation, increased military spending, restrictions on abortion, restrictions on immigration, gun rights, and restrictions on labor unions. It was strongly committed to protectionism and tariffs at its founding, but grew more supportive of free trade in the 20th century."

If what you are saying is correct, then it should say...

The GOP supports lower taxes for higher earners, deregulation, increased military spending, restrictions on abortion, restrictions on immigration, gun rights, and restrictions on labor unions. It was strongly committed to protectionism and tariffs at its founding, but grew more supportive of free trade in the 20th century.

As it is now, the lead is misleading...It should be changed to reflect what sources say. DN (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

[1] Due to the high visibility of this particular error I have tagged it appropriately...DN (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not an error. Claiming the GOP doesn't support tax cuts for everyone is ridiculous and incorrect. Toa Nidhiki05 22:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Apparently there are citations that say otherwise. As Rja13ww33 pointed out "It is fair to say the GOP's tax cuts do favor the wealthy". We say what sources say. DN (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
That is not what sources say. What you are proposing would insert partisan political talking points into an article. The GOP's platform and policies are broad tax cuts for all, and this has been passed in their major tax bills (including the bush tax cuts and trump tax cuts). Toa Nidhiki05 22:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I also wouldn't refer to trying to follow Wiki policy as ridiculous. Please AGF and help us move towards consensus instead of using ad hominem, and I will do the same. DN (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is not ridiculous. What is ridiculous is trying to change a lead based off of partisan talking points from a user talking about "billionaires, who control the party for their own special interests", without a single source. Toa Nidhiki05 23:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Tax cuts favoring the wealthy and tax cuts only for the wealthy are two different things. The OP was saying the latter.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
What sources support the proposed change? How authoritative are they? Springee (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Springee, I'm sure the other editors can help move the discussion along, I will be taking the rest of the day due to personal issues. Have a peaceful day. DN (talk) 23:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
To answer your question, Springee, there don't appear to be any sources that say Republicans only want to decrease taxes on the wealthy. Hopefully this answers your question. Toa Nidhiki05 23:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I am aware of no sources that say the GOP supports tax cuts for the wealthy only. It's true that a lot of their cuts have favored the wealthy....but that's a whole different bowl of wax than tax cuts only for the wealthy. Even a (even) across the board cut would favor the wealthy in a progressive tax system.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

No. Lol, it's ridiculous. Not what the sources say, not what the history presents, and not WP:NPOV. Davefelmer (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, our article on trickle-down economics (and dozens of other related articles) demonstrates it’s a fact. Republicans support tax cuts on the wealthy, which take the form of tax increases on everyone else. This is a historical fact based on documented evidence. The lead fails the reader by erroneously presenting this material in a deceitful manner, implying that the GQP supports tax cuts for everyone. Pointing out these lies and fixing them is the responsibility of every Wikipedian. Just like our article on Ronald Reagan, this article is also full of misinformation and half-truths, and we see the same names on the talk page objecting to these corrections of the historical record. NPOV demands that obvious con jobs, grifts and hoaxes be presented accurately, and not be presented entirely from the POV of the grifters. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I suggest you re-read WP:ACTIVIST and take a breather before engaging on these types of articles further if you ever want any of your edits or ideas to stick or carry any weight. Because the irony of you complaining about WP:NPOV while at the same time spilling WP:BADPOV left and right is palpable. I mean, "GQP"??! Good heavens. Davefelmer (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
"GOP administrations have traditionally raised taxes on the majority of Americans, from Reagan to Trump. " We know. They are basically the pro-taxes party, and that is what they stand for. So what? I live in Greece, and our newspapers had plenty to say about the tax-hikes of Reagan and all subsequent Republican presidents. Dimadick (talk) 04:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Sounds great but it's nonsense. From the Tax Policy Center: [2]. If you'll note the total effective Federal Tax rate (which considers all taxes including income, payroll, etc; i.e. the first table) is lower at the end of both Reagan and Bush 43's terms, in all quintiles than it was at the beginning. As far as the Trump cuts go, same thing: cuts across the board. [3] Granted, these cuts do favor the wealthy....but that is unavoidable in a across the board cut. Take for example the Bush cuts: the middle quintile's effective Federal tax rate fell from 15.7% to 11.9% (from 2001 to 2009), at the same time, the top 1%'s tax rate fell from 32% to 28.7. That's almost the same total cut (i.e. across the board). But guess who walked away with more $? So the argument that these types of cuts favor the wealthy is true.....but the stuff about everyone else's taxes going up is just nonsense.Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Viriditas,"Republicans support tax cuts on the wealthy, which take the form of tax increases on everyone else. This is a historical fact based on documented evidence." Some citations and quotes in context will be much more helpful. I am looking at some of the sources myself for the time being. I'm sure it goes without saying, but nonetheless, it's important we make sure this isn't even accidentally venturing into WP:SYNTH. I'm sure you would agree...DN (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Republicans literally support tax cuts for everyone, as demonstrated by both their platform and reality. There's no need for any tags or changes. Toa Nidhiki05 20:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to again suggest that there be a tag on the article page as long as this discussion is ongoing, since we are talking about a possible issue in the lead. Perhaps an NPOV tag would be more appropriate than the one I used? Even if nothing comes of this discussion, I think it would help draw more attention to the issue from other editors that may be able to share some insights. After some examination, I feel that while republican tax cuts do portend to focus on the general public, there is possibly some legitimacy to the question of "to what effect do these tax cuts equal lowering taxes, and how do we measure that?" I would especially like to discuss the citations and the context in which they are used, but for now, I would like some opinions about whether or not to use a tag to increase and ensure responses and consensus. DN (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for the tags at this point. It is already under discussion and this page has over 1600 watchers. I don't see any sources offered yet that contradict what is currently in the article either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out, and should that be the consensus I will support that decision. While I agree there has yet to be an explicit and reliably sourced citation that simply says X, there seems to at least be some current consensus that the wealthy minority do seem to benefit more and that the working class majority benefits less in some way. Whether or not that makes this claim "The GOP supports lower taxes" in WP:VOICE somewhat disingenuous or dubious should be determined by policy, RS and hopefully by consensus. Attribution to the Republican party may also be a quick fix IMO. I suppose an RfC is also always an option but we can focus on that later after we have determined if it is needed. DN (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Republicans literally support tax cuts for everyone, as demonstrated by both their platform and reality. There's no need for any tags or changes. Toa Nidhiki05 20:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I am well aware of, and respect, the position you have taken. I don't necessarily disagree. This discussion is an attempt at consensus and a chance to examine the evidence. Let's work together. DN (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

IIRC, all tax cuts by Republican presidents since Reagan have shifted the federal tax burden onto wealthier individuals. It appears that the wealthy get larger tax cuts than the poor simply because they already pay the most in taxes. I am not sure if the Tax Foundation is a reliable source, but it says the rich saw the least noticeable change in their income after the Trump tax cuts.[4]. I am not sure if enough sources exist to support the proposed change, but my Original research makes me opposed to it. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I've wondered about the Tax Foundation too. In this thread (and elsewhere) I've typically used the Tax Policy Center. It's nonpartisan and a venture of the Urban Institute. So few would call it a conservative think tank/rag. But neither are on our RS list as far as I've seen. However, I've seen RS cite both.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Possible disputed accuracy and DNPOV

In the interest of time, I will add some possible issues I see and believe may be relevant to what the originator of this claim sees. After checking sources etc, IMO it is a somewhat dubious argument in either direction. While the statement does seem to use WP:VOICE there aren't any citations so far, that say "The GOP only supports lower taxes for the wealthy". Many do seem to say that they "favor the wealthy", which is not exactly what it says in the lead. To me, simple attribution seems like the most neutral fix, for example, stating that "According to the RNC, the GOP supports lower taxes, deregulation, increased military spending, gun rights...."...That could conceivably eliminate the possible WP:VOICE issue.

The issues that effectively point to the crux of the ambiguity regarding the disputed statement are that, as it is currently written, it may appear too ambiguous given RS citations that have clarified and offered analysis and evidence that may appear to be needlessly omitted or otherwise censured. In regard to NPOV, it is conceivable this statement, in VOICE, could suggest a particular point of view's accuracy over other equally valid analytic perspectives. Again, however, this claim has yet to produce citations that explicitly state "GOP supports only supports lower taxes for the wealthy"...So, I believe it is possible this discussion is examining the importance of accuracy, verifiability and reliability in this statement, which is in the lead of this article. DN (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Look, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with this given how the discussion above has gone. There is not a single source presented stating the Republican Party only supports tax cuts for the rich. Toa Nidhiki05 23:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
It is beyond dispute that the GOP supports across the board tax cuts (as I demonstrated with data and I can add more if you wish including the platforms of the last 2 or 3 Presidential GOP candidates). I don't see any issue with the LEAD as is. It (in fact) matches what the article says. If we changed the LEAD, we would first have to expand (in the main body) more about the criticisms of across the boards as tending to favor the wealthy.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why adding a simple and neutral attribution is such a big deal. I think I've made it perfectly clear to everyone that the possible concern isn't "the GOP only supports tax cuts for the rich". The possible issue is using WP:VOICE to ambiguously say "the GOP supports lowering taxes" considering the RS explicitly states "it tends to favor the wealthy". Would you prefer that in the lead instead? It's like using WP:VOICE to say that "the Democratic party supports gun rights". Obviously they are for stricter gun laws, and that's what it says in the lead in that article. DN (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
As of now it looks more and more like an NPOV issue. DN (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The fact is that most taxpayers saw lower taxes following the Trump tax cuts, although the major beneficiaries were high income earners. TFD (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Nope - it simply is not true. Let's not fall for the logical fallacies promoted by biased media propagandists. In the US citizens, low income citizens don't pay taxes and receive welfare benefits, so they don't need a tax cut. Middle America benefits most from tax cuts and smaller government (and could probably use more tax cuts & even smaller gvt) whereas the wealthy typically reinvest their gains back into the economy to create more jobs, expand businesses, invest, etc. which increases the country's tax base. It's common sense economics. While I was saddened to see NYTimes sink deeper into tabloid-style news in what appears to be an attempt to discredit a competitor with this exposé, I was pleasantly surprised to see that WaPo has recovered from their death throws now that Bezos is at the helm. What remains to be seen is how long WaPo will be able to stay on course, especially if they're going to keep publishing facts that expose disinformation by the Biden administration? Example headline: Biden’s false claim that ‘congressional Republicans’ want to raise taxes – But, as far as we can tell, not a single other Republican in Congress has embraced Scott’s specific tax proposal. Politico contacted 27 Republican Senate campaigns asking whether their candidate agreed with Scott’s income tax proposal — and none endorsed it. I guess we'll just have to stay on course using sound editorial judgement when determining what to include/exclude in our articles. Atsme 💬 📧 13:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
The wealthy typically hoard their gains and use it to increase their own power base. Reinvesting gains back into the economy would look like paying their employees a living wage and spending money on benefits and services, such as quality health care, that improve their employees economic standing. That's pretty much the opposite of what the ownership class in America does with their money. They generally encourage minimizing wages, decreasing employment to barebones levels via mergers and layoffs, stripping employees of benefits, and other tools that increase shareholder value but do little to improve the economy of workers. The net economy of the nation may grow, but only in the sense that the gains made by the ownership classes are so great that it masks the net losses of the bulk of the population. Many measures of economic growth are meant to mask this disparity. --Jayron32 13:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we've gotten off-topic, so I'll end with some suggested reading: CBS News, and Wealth and Income Inequality: An Economic and Ethical Analysis. The more money one makes, the higher the overhead and actual amount of taxes they pay (not %). Percentages get lowered but even then there's a huge difference between 20% of $1 mil ($200k) vs 20% of $100k ($20k). High income wage-earners pay extraordinarily large amounts, but their use/benefits for the taxes they've paid-in are equal to the use/benefits for what lower wage earners and non-taxpayers receive. How fair is that? In essence, we're punishing success, and demanding that the wealthy pay higher taxes to benefit from the same things others benefit from at a lesser cost. In the interim, Congress has more tax dollars to spend than they know what to do with, so they're pissing it away on pork, pet projects, jetting around the world, enjoying all the benefits that come with serving in Congress (book deals, paid speeches, nice retirement benefits), giving it away to foreign governments, getting their kids jobs that pay millions, and so on. And if we raise taxes on corporations, they'll simply leave the country and go overseas where they get better tax breaks - then what happens to the job market? Davy Crockett had it right. Think about how much money US citizens would save by getting rid of Congress.[stretch] Atsme 💬 📧 15:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
But without Congress, how can the rich business owners funnel public tax funds meant to benefit society at large be funneled into their benefiting their own businesses, to the financial gain of their shareholders? The rich need Congress to help more efficiently concentrate their own wealth. Your statement "Think about how much money US citizens would save by getting rid of Congress.", which is more right than you possibly know, though likely not for the reason you think it is. --Jayron32 16:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Censure of Cheney and Kinzinger

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus on the addition of this text. Supporting !voters commented that there was suitable sources in place, that it was pertinent information. However, opposers were not sure that the information was given undue weight, or that the exact text being suggested wasn't suitable, or in the right location. Additionally, users could not agree if the information was simply news and would not be lasting information. Despite the result, there is no prejudice against further discussion regarding wording in other locations as suggested by several users below. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Should this sentence be appended at the end of Republican Party (United States)#The Trump era?

In February 2022, the Republican National Committee, the party's governing body, voted to censure the only two Republicans serving on the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, asserting they were participating in a "persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse."[5]

soibangla (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. This is clearly important information that is sourced to a myriad of RSP-greenlit outlets. The discussion above—in which editors first made the absurd claim that there's some big distinction between the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party, and then pivoted to the classic WP:UNDUE argument—speaks for itself. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Not as phrased, maybe if done correctly Soibangla's question is not a good one. There are two issues here. First is if this information should, in any capacity, be in the article. The second is if this particular, previously disputed phrasing should be used. The answer to the second question is no. Despite editors telling Soibangla why this phrasing is problematic this is the propose text. This is misleading because it suggests the RNC (which is not the same as the larger GOP) is mad that the Jan 6 committee is going after people who broke into the capitol. However, it is clear the RNC is concerned that the Jan 6 committee is investigating people who didn't break into the capitol and is doing so for political (McCarthy like) reasons. Soibangla didn't include statements that made it clear the RNC was not referring to the people who actually broke the law. It's honestly borderline disruptive editing to ignore all the previous discussions related to the details of what is/isn't relevant then ask about this version of the text.
As for a more impartial version of the text, I'm more mixed. As I asked before, why are we including this? Are we including it because it's notable that the RNC censured members? If yes do we list other times this happened? Is this part of the Jan 6th coverage? If yes do we mention the partisan concerns about the formation and operation of the committee? As suggested a reader could view the text as a purely partisan attack since it falsely suggests something that isn't true rather than actually informing our readers. OK, beyond even that there is the question if this should be in the RNC article instead of the GOP article? As was discussed above, RNC!=GOP, this is the GOP article. Additionally several prominent GOP members were critical of this action. Springee (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment, Suggest changing RfC scope Instead of the specific text we should ask if this content in general should be included and if so where and in what context. Springee (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No. The RNC specifically stated that they did not consider the violence at the capitol to be "citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse". As written, this is untenably biased and seems just about intended to mislead people about what the RNC was saying. Endwise (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, extensively sourced to high-quality outlets as a defining event for the Republican party during that era; it's hard to see how one sentence could be undue, and this is a reasonably accurate summary of what the highest-quality mainstream sources say. The text in question makes the relation that the RNC has to the party clear. The argument that there is an alternative interpretation is not supported by the best sources. The only source that I'm seeing presented above what is plainly an opinion piece from Reason, a WP:BIASED source that mostly publishes opinion - it cannot be used to decide text in the article voice. The objection above essentially says that we should disregard or downplay what high-quality news sources treat as impartial fact because someone writes an opinion-piece at Reason disagreeing with them; this is absurd. If that opinion is due, we might include it separately, with an in-line citation, but we cannot use it to change unattributed text. I would tend to think that that level of digging into back-and-forth culture-war opinion pieces is undue and that this single neutrally-worded sentence about the censure is sufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 04:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    Did you actually read the New York Times article which is going to be used as a source in the proposed text? After the vote, party leaders rushed to clarify that language, saying it was never meant to apply to rioters who violently stormed the Capitol... "They chose to join Nancy Pelosi in a Democrat-led persecution of ordinary citizens who engaged in legitimate political discourse that had nothing to do with violence at the Capitol." Endwise (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    Also worth noting that while this did get a lot of "me too" coverage, this is an article about the Republican Party, one of the two major political parties in the US. As presented this is a factoid in a very long article. This is why I asked, why is this included here? What part of the larger picture is it meant to support? Aquillion suggests that because this is a single sentence it nicely balances WEIGHT. So Aquillion is basically say more than 1 sentence is too much. As was discussed prior to this RfC, summarizing this in a single sentence doesn't work since it doesn't explain to the reader why they should care, what is significant about this event. It also doesn't reasonably summarize the event itself. It fails to properly explain why reasonable people might see the GOP members on this committee as acting in what might be considered bad faith. If the full and proper context is too long (ie gives too much weight) then we shouldn't include a misleading short version instead. Springee (talk) 05:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    It is a strange Gordian knot to find oneself in where a short version like the one suggested above is probably too misleading to be used, and a lengthier version that explains the details might give the saga undue attention. Maybe something short tacked onto the end after a semicolon would suffice? Like ; the RNC later released a statement clarifying that they did not include the "violence at the Capitol" as legitimate political discourse. or something of the sort. Endwise (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    To your point I have previously expressed that it is better if we try to either include both aspects or neither by means of simply stating that... "the RNC received some criticism regarding the language used in the resolution which RNC officials, and certain GOP members have disputed." If the cites say that the RNC and GOP members dispute the interpretation, or misinterpretation as they say, then I don't see why we shouldn't include that along with the fact that this is the first time this type of censure has occurred. DN (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No Springee explains it better than I can, but on top of that there are obvious concerns about WP:UNDUE weight and WP:NOTNEWS even if you do ignore the actual reality of the situation. This is about as clear-cut a scenario as you can get, really - it shouldn't be here. Toa Nidhiki05 13:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No per WP:UNDUE. Utterly fails WP:10YT as people are not going to care about a detail like that in the long term. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    Adoring nanny, Seeing as none of us are equipped with a WP:CRYSTALBALL, could you go into some detail regarding how and why you are seemingly certain that "people are not going to care about a detail like that in the long term"? DN (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. This is a politically significant event, it shows the direction the GOP has been trending in since 2016. Political analysts describe it as an impactful event. It will certainly pass the WP:10YT as it shows how Republicans are becoming more united and pushing out the older traditional conservative generation (RINOS) that used to be its base. Some sources:
––FormalDude talk 17:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes - Well sourced information that offers important insights into the party's inner workings. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes Would be open to changing my vote based on Springee's cmt depending on what the proposed wording is. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes While I feel a consensus should have been more easily obtained, there was a genuine effort on my part to include (IMO) a more balanced version, to obtain consensus, which was again met with repeated arguments of WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE. Seeing as this could likely be an ongoing topic, and more certainly a notable event in the GOP's history, I still haven't seen enough explanation as to how those arguments apply. See NBC news cite added March 16, 2022. DN (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes. What FormalDude wrote seems pretty persuasive to me. This incident received significant coverage as a noteworthy event in the party's history. The phrasing employed above looks like a fair summary of the coverage. IvoryTower123 (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No, per this earlier explanation by TFD, and most recently by Springee in this RfC. To include it as worded is noncompliant with UNDUE, RECENTISM, and NPOV. Atsme 💬 📧 14:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    In regard to TFD's explanation "The article has one sentence on the amendment ending slavery, one mention of Teapot Dome and nothing on prohibition, female suffrage or Watergate, yet we have an entire paragraph explaining that the Republican Party caucus did not join the 1/6 Committee, two members joined anyway, the RNC censured them, the minority leader objected to that and different Republicans have expressed different opinions. The articles needs better focus." I felt it made no actual examination of the content in question, or it's merits, and bared too much resemblance to Whataboutism. I do not see how this takes focus away from the GOP, and there is no policy or guideline I'm aware of that says we are not allowed to include anything that may be construed as criticism, especially with the current amount of consensus among RS that this content continues to receive. DN (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    WP:WHATABOUT (or "What about article x?") is irrelevant here. It says that we cannot make arguments about what should be in this article based on what is in other articles. Obviously we can discuss what is in this article here. We can decide for example that censuring two members of congress for deserves an entire section and also decide that other matters of equal or greater importance, such as abolishing slavery, giving the vote to women or prohibition need to be expanded. (I assume you think they are of equal or greater importance. Please tell me if you don't.)
    To provide an example, if this article were a STUB article, that is, only one paragraph long, and we added a paragraph about the Eisenhower presidency, the article would lack weight because it would give undue coverage to one presidency. But if there were already paragraphs about the other major Republican presidents, it would be UNDUE to leave out Eisenhower.
    TFD (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, I referred to Whataboutism, not WP:WHATABOUT. Kind of like Two wrongs don't make a right. Yes there are other subjects that may be seen as just as important, or even more so, but that is not the current subject of discussion, therefore it has the potential to act as kind of a Red herring, not that I'm accusing you of using a Straw man, just pointing out the differences. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    If you think that Due and undue weight is wrong or a red herring because of whataboutism, then get it changed. The origin of the term, according to the linked article, was people defending the IRA by pointing out what their opponents did. But weight would require us to mention both the IRA and its opponents when discussing the Troubles in articles. That is not because we are defending the IRA, but because sources routinely mention all parties when discussing the Troubles. Incidentally, two of the things I mentioned as just as important as or more important than censuring the members of Congress - prohibition and Watergate - were arguably worse. TFD (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    I'm in agreement that those OTHER subjects could also be expanded upon or included, but how is the lack of inclusion or expansion of those OTHER subjects an argument against inclusion or expansion upon the CURRENT subject via UNDUE? Wouldn't those OTHER subjects be vulnerable to incurring the wrath of UNDUE as well if an editor found that yet another subject should take priority? It seems to run the risk of becoming a Catch-22 (logic), in which the article never seemingly improves. DN (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    Neutrality means giving equal weight to things of equal importance. If for example you picked ten negative things about the party and ignored positive things that had greater coverage in reliable sources, then the result would be a biased article. It you gave weight that reflected coverage in reliable sources, whether that coverage was positive or negative, then the result would be an unbiased article.
    The way to avoid bias is to read the relevant sources, read the article, and ensure that it has the same weight as the sources. The way to make an article biased is to seek to add either positive or negative information, depending on your political orientation. If your goal is to make the party look as bad as possible, then you might achieve a reliably sourced article, but one that is biased. I assume you are aware of that, but correct me if I am wrong.
    Pretend to yourself that it is the year 3000, neither major party still exists, and the parties are no more relevant than those of ancient Rome. Then ask yourself whether Cheney's censure is still more important than freeing the slaves, prohibition or Watergate.
    OTOH, if you think that those other topics are more important, why not concentrate on them first? Surely you objective should be to develop a balanced article.
    TFD (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    In the year 3000 your great, great, great granddaughter will be pretty fine. ––FormalDude talk 05:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    TFD I will pretend to be in the future, as you put it, if you can answer my previous question for you on how this qualifies as UNDUE and isn't running the risk of a tautological issue. I would also like to remind you that WP:DUE says "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    If the censure was the tangible sign of the party's extinction, I would think they'd be mentioned even on spaceships and other planets. We do still study the fall of Rome. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    If the party disappeared due to the RNC censuring these two people, then a book about the party published in 3000 would have a chapter about it. But we cannot assume that will happen. In fact, the party has long had a division between Main St and Wall St Republicans, with the first group dominating the congressional caucus and the second providing the presidential candidates. Sometimes these two groups collide with disastrous results: 1912, 1924, 1964, 1976, 1992 and 2020. It's just wishful thinking that this time will spell their doom. TFD (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    It's funny how the left and the right share that same problem, yet can't seem to stand each other long enough to work on that together. Imagine what would happen if they did. Oh no...I've said too much...THEY'RE HERE! HEELLLPPP!!! DN (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    TFD, that is not a Repbulcian divide. It's just a reflection of the way Reps and Senators are chosen and elected. It's always been roughly like that in both parties. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No, per WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. Some1 (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    Hi Some1, would you mind going into some detail as to how and why this content qualifies as WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE, please? Thank you. DN (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    You don't need to respond to every no vote. Toa Nidhiki05 12:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    I haven't, but since you mentioned it, how else would you propose I get different perspectives on how certain policies and guidelines apply from comments that just cite said policies and guidelines without context? I'm not trying to be impolite, but if it makes you nervous or uncomfortable I will try to limit my questions to just those types of responses and any direct questions etc... DN (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    I would suggest you read WP:BLUDGEON. Generally speaking, the more times you repeat an argument, the less effective it is. Toa Nidhiki05 13:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
    Nidhiki05 Since I have been, for the most part, just asking people to put their policy claims in context and not just expounding my positions, I would suggest you read it as well. Or, perhaps you could ask Springee to explain it for you? DN (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No (would support inclusion in Republican National Committee, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger). There's really no ideal place to put this in the article. At this point, the material is too tangential to DJT for it to be put under "The Trump Era" (kinda of an odd subsection name now that I think of it).Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No per WP:RECENTISM. Definitely belongs in other articles (such as on the people themselves) but not necessarily in such a broad historical article such as this. --Jayron32 12:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Hmmm - It would be a little awkward tacked onto the end there. At first I was leaning "yes" (and if pressed, that's where I'd land), because while only one cite is provided, it has been covered by every major news source in some depth, the coverage is specifically about the party rather than individuals, and connects to other actions/events in this paragraph. I'm not quite supporting, however, because it just doesn't sound right placed at the end of this big, sprawling, paragraph. I'm not against including the underlying content, but there must be a way to more succinctly mention it along with the storming of the capitol. Really, though, the place it would be most at home is in a section about how effective the Republican Party has been at punishing members who go against the party (through acts like this, primary challenges, using conservative media dating back to Limbaugh, etc.). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    I tend to agree with this, the article is a bit of a mess (see composition section) and this may be stemming in part from disagreements over how to prioritize. Little things getting in the way of big things. DN (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    Rhododendrites I think a section on the RNC and its actions, including censures etc. would be prudent in this case. Would you agree? I honestly think this would be good place to start at this point. Thanks. DN (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No per failing WP:10YT and WP:RECENTISM. Put it somewhere more suitable. Iraniangal777 (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment McConnell sidesteps question on Jan. 6 call from Trump by Mychael Schnell 03/29/22 About 2 months since this event first broke the news, The RNC censure and "LPD" language largely seems to continue to receive mention in related news stories regarding the January 6th attack by Trump supporters. "One of the latest spars between the two came after the Republican National Committee censured GOP Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) for their criticism of Trump and involvement in the panel probing the January riot. The censure resolution characterized the Capitol attack as “ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse,” which drew bipartisan criticism." DN (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    That appears to be a mention in context of the Jan 6 Commission, not the GOP in general. I don't see that really helping with the lasting significance claim. Springee (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
    Seriously? "Republican National Committee censured GOP Reps."...I believe we need to have another discussion on your talk page regarding WP:Battle. I am busy for the rest of the evening, but considering we have already talked about this, I am going to let your comment sit here for a while, and let you think about it.DN (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC) DN (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, the article you linked is taking about Jan6 and the commission (specifically the recently turned over phone records). It was not mentioned outside of that context. Please note that dropping a comment about battle, one that appears based only on me not agreeing with you, isn't ok. If I didn't make my point sufficiently clear (it wouldn't be the first time) then ask me to clarify. If you think I'm wrong, say as much and tell me why. Dropping "battle" to civil disagreements isn't helpful. You are welcome to discuss that further on my talk page. Springee (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes This is a minimal NPOV indication of the core position of the current Republican party -- that it stands with Trump and promotes his personal interests. That this position is likely to change in the future will not cause the current stance of the party fail the ten-year test, any more than the Republicans' having freed the Southern slaves has been invalidated due to the party's current stance on racial matters. SPECIFICO talk 19:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No - Largely per Springee's well thought out response. Lacks a demonstration of broad impact on the party as a whole, as such it would be a clear NPOV violation giving undue weight to something insignificant. No comment on inclusion for other articles that might be more focused on this event specifically. PackMecEng (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes - Answering Springee's two questions, this is clearly information which should be included in the article as (as noted by SPECIFICO) it mentions a core position of the party, and its wording is sufficiently NPOV - could be made even more so (without losing too much meaning) by removing the 'only'. Hentheden (talk) 11:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
    • How is this a core position of the party? Wouldn't a core position be something like the position on national policy type questions (for example, reducing regulation)? Springee (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No It is certainly not WP:UNDUE, but I am not sure whether it violates WP:RECENTISM. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
I have changed my vote after reading WP:10YT. Scorpions13256 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No for the time being, as per the above comments. It can always be revisited in future. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • No I'm seeing more wrong with this proposal than right. First, I would like to say I concur with Springee's analysis above. The specific phrasing is problematic since it's not providing the full context of the situation about what the Republicans are concerned about. Furthermore, this situation could very well just be a bleep in the history of the Republican Party, which raises concerns over WP:RECENTISM. I also agree with those who say that it's just a bit awkward being tacked on to the end of that paragraph. It's probably just best to err on the side of caution and not include this text, at least this text. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2022 (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.

Specific Discussion Around Sourcing a Political Spectrum Label

It's worth having a specific place to discuss reliable sources for how to describe the GOP in terms of the broad political spectrum if we do decide to use a relative label, such as "centrist" or "far right" (which I personally oppose, but I don't know what will happen). It's easy to find news pieces in terms of television productions and the like lately (this MSNBC piece comes to mind, describing the party clearly as "far right"), but I hope to find academic citations as well as discussions in print inside published books. Magazine articles would also be great. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, this was what I originally attempted to accomplish earlier, but the discussion that followed seemed off-topic and unproductive. I will try and find some quality RS to help with the discussion here. I would also suggest trying to avoid youtube links, and look for some scholarly articles or studies from universities etc. per WP:RSAGE. It is important to find sources that are as neutral and academic in nature as possible. Cheers. DN (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't unproductive, there's just a general lack of interest in what you are wanting. Toa Nidhiki05 03:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Addition of some sort of political position.

There is not yet a political position listed in the profile of the republican party. I would conclude my self that due to the paleoconservative and populist views of the republican party, the position should be considered “Right Wing”. JSPolitic (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I support this change. The American political parties have been exempt from the "political position" label for some reason. The "right wing" classification is accurate when comparing it to other political parties that have this tag. Pdequation (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
No. There is a massive text section discussing the political position of the party. Trying to summarise all that into one or two words in the Infobox will never provide anything satisfactory. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Support. The suggestion of adding the classification "Right-wing", or better yet, "Right-wing to far right" has hitherto been rejected on the grounds that it would be insufficient to describe the Republican Party in light of its long history and ideological evolution.
This, to me, seems to evince a clear Americanocentric double standard. Wikipedia has no problem with adding a classification like this to other old political parties whose ideologies have drifted over time or who encompass a large tent of differing ideologies, such as the UK's Conservative and Labour parties, India's INC and BJP, Argentina's Radical Civic Union, Namibia's SWAPO and many, many more. The idea that these terms are somehow uniquely insufficient to describe the two main American political parties to me seems like pure American exceptionalism.
The only seeming reason for this reluctance to classify the GOP as a right-wing party, if not a far-right one, is a fear of alienating American conservatives by branding the mainstream American right-wing party as something other than "center". TKSnaevarr (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Right wing populism is currently listed among the ideologies. DN (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
It is, but only as one of its ideologies. "Conservatism" is currently listed as the GOP's prime ideology, but the source for that is from 2009/1995, and woefully out of date. The current GOP is primarily right-wing populist. Cortador (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Cortador Is there a consensus among RS that the Republican party's political position is objectively "right wing populist"? Please note, I have also created a section below for discussing and sorting out any reliably sourced citations that show consistent views and consensus on this subject. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I support this. It makes perfect sense to at least give them centre-right to right-wing, as I think anyone who knows about politics knows they’re right wing. For a party like the Democrats I can almost understand but I agree that the only reason it seems to be absent here is American exceptionalism. gurnechnaz (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
This has been discussed extensively. The main objection to including political position is that while there is little dispute about how to order ideologies along the left-right spectrum, there is no agreement about where each one lies. For example, from left to right the historically major parties in the UK are Labour, Lib Dem, Tory. But would we describe them as left, center, right; left, center-left, right; or center-left, center-left, center-right; or say they are all centrist. All answers are correct, because they are meaningful in context. But the info-box does not have context. Besides, if we say that the Republicans are conservative to right-wing populist, isn't that enough info for the reader? Does it help them to know where Wikipedia edtiors place these ideologies on the political spectrum? TFD (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I support the suggestions of either right-wing, or centre-right to right-wing. Yes, describing the UK's major parties in the ways that you described could be correct in different contexts. The difference is, however, all of those parties have had a position listed for years, and generally reflect how the parties are viewed. The Republican Party is one of the largest parties in the world, and it makes no sense at all that a political position is not listed. Simply having conservativism listed as an ideology is insufficient. It does not say enough about the position of the party within the American political landscape, or in comparison to other countries. Conservatism is not necessarily always a right-wing position in every country since there are some economically centrist or centre-left parties that are ideologically socially conservative. And with right-wing populism listed as an ideology in the infobox, the opposition to positioning this party on the political spectrum like other parties is inconsistent. Ray522 (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Ray522, conservatism is right-wing by definition. Political parties in Europe typically sit from right to left: Far right parties, conservatives, Christian Democrats, liberals, greens, socialists, left parties, communists. Of course conservatives can support more welfare or less welfare, more interventionism or less interventionism, but they are always the Right. So it provides no additional information to say that a conservative party is right-wing. A problem arises however in the middle parties, including conservatives. Are Republicans best described as far right, right-wing, center-right or centrist; are Democrats right-wing, center-right, centrist, left-wing or far left? My advice is to tell the reader what their ideology is and allow them to place it on their own map ot the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
TFD, you are not wrong in a European context. I was just thinking more nuanced. My advocacy for adding a political position to this page is mostly out of wanting better consistency for major parties. I was trying to make the point that parties with ideological varieties of conservatism, including social conservatism, may not always be considered right-wing parties in countries that may be generally more conservative than a European country. For example, Chile's Christian Democratic Party is listed on here as being ideologically socially conservative, but centre to centre-left on the political spectrum. The Cambodian People's Party is listed as being conservative, but also as a big tent. There are many parties, like the UK's Conservative Party that have conservative in its name, conservatism listed as an ideology, and centre-right as a position. I just think the Republican Party 's infobox should be similar to others. Ray522 (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why those articles benefit from adding position. Basically, the only information it provides is where Wikipedia editors place their ideologies on the political spectrum. For the Cambodian party, big tent probably should be in the ideology field. It's big tent because it allows different ideologies. Incidentally, the ideology of the Republican Party links to Conservatism in the United States, which is is usually seen as a from of liberalism. TFD (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I propose removing these overly simplified tags from the infoboxes of all political parties. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
That is something I would wholeheartedly support. They are not useful. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
I support "right-wing". The center-right faction is collapsing in weakness this year. Rjensen (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death before, and any addition of a political position is something I oppose. Toa Nidhiki05 12:12, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I support adding "center-right to right-wing." Any decently-informed American knows that the Republican Party represents the right of the political spectrum, at least within the American context. Since the United States is primarily a two-party system, and both parties are big tent, there's going to be a spectrum of beliefs within the major parties. Center-right to right-wing encapsulates this well. I also think it is worth adding a Far-right to the factions section: it seems fairly obvious to me and most political observers the far-right has been increasing in strength and prominence, especially during the Trump era.[1][2] Wikipedia also describes some Republican politicians, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene as far-right. --LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Far-right means nazism/fascism. We already cover the Freedom Caucus with right-wing populism. Toa Nidhiki05 17:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
That's a pretty restrictive definition of far-right. Far right politics also include racist political views or ultranationalist views as well, and the articles make clear a sizable section of Republicans believe resorting to violence is acceptable and a not insignificant number of candidates with dies to racist organizations and other groups labeled far right on Wikipedia (such as the Oath Keepers). Marine le Pen is neither a Nazi nor openly Fascist, yet she is also described on Wikipedia as far right. Right wing populism is not the same as far right, and these groups are distinct from the Freedom Caucus. LongIslandThomist914 (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I would oppose designating the GOP "center-right to right-wing" on the grounds that the modern GOP has no centrist faction with any meaningful infuence on the party's policy. The designation "right-wing to far-right" would be more apt, especially considering that the GOP has quite openly signalled that it is ideologically close to European political parties that are near-universally considered far-right. (see [6] and [7] as examples). TKSnaevarr (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
I support adding "right-wing", but not "center-right", and make it clear that there are center-right and far-eight factions. Right-wing to Far-right would accurately describe the Constitution Party. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd say right-wing (with center-right and far-right factions). I don't see anything far-right within the national organization, although some state Republican parties and individual members do have some. Also, there aren't any real centrist to center-right operations in the national party. There are definitely far-right components in the GOP (talking to you, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Paul Gosar!) but there are also some much closer to the middle. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support addition of "right-wing", but nothing else (no centre-right / far-right etc). The fact they're right wing is the least controversial position to have here, and I while I understand why it was left blank, I don't find that a solution. — Czello 07:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support addition of political position(s) per consensus. DN (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose (For Now) - The core problem is that by international standards the U.S. Republican Party is a far-right / right-wing populist / ultranationalist organization with limited, mixed right-wing and center-right elements thrown in (the leadership being held by the far right in terms of neo-nationalist Donald Trump), and this has been well-documented by all sorts of commentary analyzing the party lately (this comes to mind from Dissent). Describing the Republican Party as only "right-wing" would be dishonest because it would be lying by omission, making it look as the GOP is similar to something like the German Free Democrats or the British Tories when it's far, far more radical in terms of everything from its opposition to LGBT rights to its condemnation of labor unionism to its embrace of white ethnic nationalism to its denialism about global climate change and more. Even Maragret Thacher would be considered too centrist for the modern GOP, were we doing person-by-person international comparisons. The worst outcome is whitewashing in which the GOP gets described as being "center-right" (or, God forbid, "centrist"), so I'd prefer we just not even enter the debate in the first place. And, honestly, there'd probably still be a problem to me even if we just only said "far right" because there'd still be lying by omission for the minority of the GOP who're regular conservatives and not neo-nationalists (the Mitt Romneys and Liz Cheneys of note). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
CoffeeWithMarkets..Just to clarify, the original issue posited in this discussion (at the top) was "There is not yet a political position listed in the profile of the republican party." and that "the position should be considered “Right Wing”...not just "far right"... as posited by some editors here...If a consensus for this change continues to build, I agree with you that it should probably include the various positions in some manner that makes sense in terms of RS (see section below named "Consensus among RS of the Republican party's political positions"). We have many opinions here, but if we want it to be a productive discussion/consensus, we should all try to focus on what the consistent views among RS say. Would you agree? DN (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Previous consensus

Looking through the archive it's hard to tell the last time there was a consensus to not include anything in the info-box of this nature. Can someone please point it out so we can see the arguments made and hopefully avoid covering some of the same ground? I went back as far as archive 11, and there were brief discussions here and there, but I didn't find anything seemingly concrete. Did I miss it? DN (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

My reading of the numerous discussion threads is that there is no consensus to add the field. While the field existed, there was no consensus what it should say. The reasoning is that the terms suggested take on different meanings according to context. Furthermore, the categorization depends on how we classify the party ideology, which is already in the info-box. All the positions field would do would be to tell readers how Wikipedia editors classify these ideologies, at least for the moment. The fields provides no useful information to readers but takes up endless hours of editor discussions across dozens if not hundreds of articles. TFD (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
"The fields provides no useful information"...That kind of seems to be a matter of opinion. I mean, most other political party articles seem to use it. "....takes up endless hours of editor discussions..."... The lack of one seems to be doing the same thing here. Might you agree? "All the positions field would do would be to tell readers how Wikipedia editors classify these ideologies"... If it is applied correctly with WP:RS and with consensus, it wouldn't be editor's opinions, it would just reflect what sources say. Isn't there some consensus among WP:RS already? If there is no previous consensus, perhaps an RfC might help. Obviously, this will likely continue to be raised as an issue until we find some definitive RS that we can agree on, as per usual. Just a thought/suggestion. DN (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
It's patronizing and passive aggressive to quote what I just said and mocking my comments is no substitute for providing arguments. Why do you want this fields other than that other articles have it? The field was removed following a 2011 RfC at Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 6#Request for Comment, 'Center-right' or not. There was no consensus, several editors agreed to delete the field and no attempts to restore it have received sufficient support.
What information do you think this field conveys to readers that is not already in the ideology field? Currently the field says: "Majority: Conservatism" and adds factions including centrism, neoconservatism, libertarianism, Christian right and right-wing populism." Do you think any readers will read that and wonder whether it is a far left party?
If you reply to this, please don't re-quote me. I can see what I wrote.
TFD (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
It was not my intention to be patronizing or passive aggressive, I was simply trying to make my answers to your arguments as clear as possible. I do not understand how what I wrote could be perceived as mockery, none the less, I genuinely apologize for offending you or hurting your feelings. I do not see a response from you to my point that we seem to still be dealing with discussions regarding this subject in spite of exclusion, which makes it appear as though it did not solve the problem it was intended to solve. I cannot currently speak to how many times this may have been brought up since 2011, but since there was no consensus or closure to the issue, it seems logical that 10 years later it might still be a cause for questions and debate.
It seems feasible that there may be many readers that may not have the time or desire to read through the article searching for clues as to the political positions of the Republican party on Wikipedia. It also stands to reason that readers expect a certain level of consistency with other articles about other political parties. This article and the Democratic party article may or may not be exceptions, as other editors here have claimed. I am unaware of that if that is actually the case, but I will choose to WP:AGF. I would also point out that I am not the one that originally raised this issue for discussion. I joined the discussion to help examine how this alleged issue came to be, and hopefully help find possible solutions. It isn't uncalled for to look into the validity of arguments, sources and claims, but it can easily be done while assuming good faith. For the duration of this discussion, if you feel I am crossing any lines with you, you have my permission to address me on my talk page if necessary, as not to distract from the discussion at hand. I will strike any unproductive comments I may make. Cheers. DN (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, I’m going to recommend you disengage and chill out. You were patently incorrect on the consensus and then insulted TFD. That’s hardly the way to start a productive discussion. Toa Nidhiki05 08:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the recommendation, however, that's not how the discussion was started. DN (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
I would also respectfully ask that you address any personal criticisms on my talk page, as to avoid distracting from this discussion. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus among RS of the Republican party's political positions

If we are to include political positions, we will need to agree on what the consensus among Wikipedia:Reliable sources is. It will help to focus on the consistent views among relatively current scholarly works, per WP:RSAGE. DN (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, the terms used only have meaning in context. Depending on context, the party could be described as centrist, center right, right-wing or none of the above. It doesn't mean there is a disagreement. By comparison, imagine that the info-box for Barack Obama said he was 6'1" tall. Imagine we add a second box for position on the heightness scale. Is he high average height, tall, very tall or something else? What additional information does this add if we already say he is 6'1" tall? All it would tell readers is where editors placed 6'1" on the heightness scale and we could have the same discussion across thousands of articles. TFD (talk) 02:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi TFD, this section is meant for discussing the consensus among RS regarding the political positions of the Republican party for use in the info box, not for discussing whether or not there should be one. As you can see above, there seems to be somewhat of a consensus forming in favor of inclusion, so I would suggest redirecting your arguments to that group of editors (above) directly, as I am merely trying to help guide a possible consensus for inclusion after the fact, here. Cheers! DN (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Lol. Toa Nidhiki05 11:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I said nothing about whether there should be a consensus, but whether there could be one. That's because these terms are defined by context. To get back to my example, there is consensus that Obama is 6'1", but no consensus about where that falls in the heightness scale. The discussion will go faster if you avoid misrepresenting other editors, forcing them to repeat what they already said. TFD (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I think the limited input here is enough to suggest there is a new consensus. I think it is correct to leave it out. That appears to be the same consensus which governs the Democrat page. Springee (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Springee, and seriously doubt either party would agree with what politically biased sources have to say about who/what their respective parties represent/comprise. We publish what the parties publish about themselves in their infoboxes, and then add in the body text what RS claim, taking political prejudices into consideration by using in-text attribution. And that is how best to comply with NPOV. Atsme 💬 📧 13:52, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I also agree with Springee. The United States is a strongly two-party country where Republicans broadly represent the entire right and Democrats the entire left. It’s far more useful to explain what left and right mean through the ideology section. Other countries with a multi-party system have a far stronger case for a “political position” section, but the longstanding consensus here is correct. Toa Nidhiki05 14:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Lol DN (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Springee. This section is not meant for this kind of discussion, as it is clearly titled. Regardless, it seems like you and others here are suggesting we ignore the editors showing support for inclusion above. I don't believe that's how consensus works. I will see if we can get an uninvolved administrative take on the best way to proceed. Black Kite, would you mind offering us some advice here? DN (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
You still haven't explained what additional information you think the field adds. All it tells us is where you believe the listed ideologies belong on your personal left-right spectrum. TFD (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Moreover, I think it's very clear that no other editors agree with DN's interpretation of this section's function. Toa Nidhiki05 19:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I suggest a hat for a majority of the discussion above as it is clearly off topic from "Consensus among RS of the Republican party's political positions" I'm not going to entertain it any further, however I am willing to address these questions in the appropriate sections above. Cheers! DN (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant to the discuss whether any such sources exist. Can you explain why you decided that we should have this field before you knew whether any sources exist? TFD (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
At this point I am only focused on researching RS to see what sources say in order to find some consensus. I suggest you engage with some of the other editors that support this change, perhaps even the one that originally raised this issue. Cheers. DN (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I support the choice to add Right-wing under the GOP's politcal position. However, I would disagree with putting centre right. For the sake of accuracy Right-wing to far-right is most ideal. Comrade Toaster (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lowndes, Joseph (November 8, 2021). "Far-right extremism dominates the GOP. It didn't start — and won't end — with Trump". Retrieved April 27, 2022 – via Washingtonpost.com.
  2. ^ Olmos, Sergio (2 February 2022). "Republicans to field more than 100 far-right candidates this year". Retrieved 27 April 2022 – via theguardian.com.

Republican Party political position

The Republican Party is a right to centre to far-right party Produda (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The contemporary Republican Party is definitely far-right. Comrade Toaster (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Political position

Where does this party site on the left or right? Why is this not listed like every other party in the world?204.237.50.240 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

We have had long discussions about this in the past. Where the party lies along the left-right political spectrum is subjective, which depends on how observers place their underlying ideology and how they interpret the left-right spectrum. The only agreement is that they are for the most part to the right of the Democratic Party, although in the past both parties had members across the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
To answer your question, it is a right-wing political party. It is not listed as such because politics in the US are considered skewed according to some editors, so we end up having to answer this question over and over, in perpetuity, until the end of time. Fun, isn't it? XD DN (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2022

John Roberts' correct title is Chief Justice of the United States, not Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Eoldroyd (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's meant to be his formal title. 331dot (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 Not done for now: Per 331dot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not include the fact that the Republican Party is now a Fascist organization in the Parties ideology section on the infobox?

It really should be included MappedTables (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sure you would require consensus on this point, as it would else be probably defamatory.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
To the fascists? Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Far too controversial (and hyperbolic) a claim to include at this juncture. Not nearly enough sources that describe the GOP so thoroughly in this way. — Czello 09:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
At the very least, we could make "right-wing populism" the majority ideology. PBZE (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
The majority of the party believes in the "Great Replacement Theory"*, which is a white supremacist ideology**. The majority are also anti-democracy/democratic***. These things are very much sourced and reported on by multiple sources, both in the news media & science journals. There's no more dog whistling within the party & its voter base, and it's time to stop beating around the bush with this Wiki page with the ideology of the Republican Party of the United States.

JanderVK (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The Republican Party is undeniably a party of Fascists. There are so many signs of fascistic tendencies within the party and many scholars of Fascism like Robert O. Paxton have asserted that it is a party of Fascists. The party checks off almost all of the marks on Umberto Eco's 14 points of "Ur-fascism". To deny the extreme fascistic elements within the contemporary Republican Party is either a sign of blatant cognitive dissonance or simply ignorance. Comrade Toaster (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Paxton was referring to Trump, not his party, and no other fascism scholars have come to his defense. Paxton himself has not submitted his interpretation to academic publication. TFD (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
It's rather widely discussed. Please familiarize yourself with current academic and journalistic analysis. See, e.g. the widely disseminated views of Yale Prof Snyder.. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of “centrism” faction.

How many elected Republicans today would even fit into this faction? Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are the only two federal officials who come mind, while others such as Liz Cheney would fall into the neoconservative faction. Perhaps certain Republican governors would fall into that faction, but again, only two names come to mind here, Charlie Baker in Massachusetts and Phil Scott in Vermont. Also, the only citation for this faction is a news article from 2018 on a single legislative proposal that was being worked on, and the use of the word “centrist” in that instance was merely subjective. If this faction is kept, it needs a new citation that isn’t just some headline. Psherman122 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the removal of Centrism should probably be considered. Comrade Toaster (talk) 13:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I also agree we should consider removing it. It certainly doesn't belong first on the list of factions, as it obviously isn't as large as the right-wing populism faction, which is at the bottom. Putting it first carries the message that it is more important than the other factions. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Support Complete nonsense, unsourced, does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Altanner1991 (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose This is an article about the party overall. It includes the party's position over recent times (think post 1992 American politics) as well as state and local level politicians. That much of the press focuses on the wings doesn't negate the centrist, especially outside of the federal level. Springee (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Springee's statement is spot on. I added a more reliable source for the existence of centrist GOP factions in the recent past. I think YttriumShrew's point about order is a good one, and I'd support a reordering of the list. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose It would be utterly ridiculous to remove centrists, let alone keep paleoconservatives at the same time. Toa Nidhiki05 12:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

There are no official centrist coalitions or factions in the party, only voters who lean centrist. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Main street caucus? Please. That is not at all noteworthy. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
If edits removing centrist Republican get deleted than edits on Democratic Party (United States) adding libertarian Democrat and conservative Democrat should stay. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
WP:Disinfoboxes Article must reflect the weight given to content in the infobox and not add dubious information based on single sources. Since when does lenient votership get named a so-called "centrist faction"? Altanner1991 (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Centrism cannot go first or second in the lists unless it is sourced and in the article.

The current reliable source is not enough to give weight to the centrist claim; so it will need to go last in the infobox and related body paragraph unless article can also show due weight. Altanner1991 (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I've rearranged them in alphabetical order. Toa Nidhiki05 18:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes that is fine, thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Contemporary Demographics "Southern"

In the section on contemporary demographics. It states the partys demographics are white, christian, rural, evangelical, and southern.

The point I question is "southern". it is a national party and it receives votes from all over the nation. I understand over the past 50 years the party has recieved lots of electoral success in the south, particularly in presidential elections. I dont think the partys overall success in the south is any more overwhelming than any other part of the country.

I think the divide is more urban/rural and race. Not southern/northern. There are large Democratic populouses in the south, whether you look at cities like Atlanta or Austin or Nashville or Miami. And the large black populations of the south generally don't vote republican. I believe to say the party has a regional bias is misleading. Can anyone really say the Republicans have anymore support her compared to the Mid-west or Great planes.

I just think the geo tag on the party is misleading especially. Is there any consensus to remove it. BreezewoodPA (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Also its worth noting that the Republican political leaders have not really been overwhelmingly southern. With the exception of the Bushs none of the presidential nominees have ever been from the south. The republican senate leader for the past 30 years has been southern, but I would contend that McConnell being from Kentucky isn't really deep south.

For the past 30 years in the House only Newt Gingrich was a southerner. And he served 4 years BreezewoodPA (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

(A) No one cares what your or I think, we only care what about what is said in what Wikipedia considers to be WP:reliable sources.
(B) Despite trying, I could not figure out what text you are specifically suggesting we need to change or delete.
Please elaborate? If the text is not supported by the references you can include Template:Failed verification to test consensus on necessary changes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Newsandeventsguy i dont know if you have reading comprehension issues with my query however, there is a claim that the Republican party is mostly has an outsized support in the south. This claim is cited with pew polls that do not regard geographic locations and NYT articles that also do not cover geography. These citations are about the religious, educational, and racial demographics of the Party. NOT THE GEOGRAPHIC demographics. I do not think would need to provide citations that the last previous Republican president was from NY or the past 2 Speakers of the House were from Wisconsin and Ohio, and the current republican house leader is from California. I could also provide citations that the Republicans have had much more electoral success in the rocky mountain state and the American west than any other regions of the country. But this all is common sense. The Republican party is a National party, not a party that is based in the south or has outsized support from the south.

So since the claim that the Republican party is "In the 21st century, the demographic base skews towards ... people living in the South" lacks any citation i will remove it 


BreezewoodPA (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Add Log Cabin Republicans as the LGBTQ+ wing

The log cabin republicans are the definitive LGBTQ+ wing of the GOP, they should be mentioned 100.2.125.184 (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is why they already are. They are mentioned several times in the article, and especially in the section titled "LGBT issues" --Jayron32 17:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I think they may want to add it to the infobox, which I'd oppose. I'd favor removing some of the "wings" from the infobox, as it's quite bloated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Add National as an ideological position in the the GOP

Trump himself said that he is a Nationalist. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I meant nationalism, not "national", it was a typo. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm repeating a point made above: please work on building the content in the body of the article before focusing on the infobox. Right now, nationalism is only mentioned in one attributed NBC quote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2022

This page has an incorrect domain listing for the GOP. gop.com is incorrect, The link for the House Republicans is https:///www.gop.gov., and the website for the Republican National Committee is https://www.rnc.org 47.156.60.49 (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed on both the GOP's page and the Republican National Committee's. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 17:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)/Archive_18&oldid=1115938611"