Talk:Republican Party (United States)/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Protected because of the edit warring

Too much edit warring. I have fullprotected the article. It seems a little ridiculous to have to do that to this big ole article over something so small, but I hope it will get you guys started on trying to resolve it. If nobody will bend and nobody else will weigh in in the section above, I suggest using WP:3O, which is reasonably cheap and quick. Please let me know when the article is ready to be unprotected. Bishonen | tålk 19:39, 23 May 2023 (UTC).

Thanks! Andre🚐 19:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"Liberal" republicans

The linked article does not support Hogan being liberal. It also refers to Scott and Baker as moderate but does not refer to them as unqualified liberal Republicans. Andre🚐 18:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It does refer to Scott and Baker as liberal republicans. Do you have a source for "centrist" that also does not say "liberal" or "moderate"? Chances last a finite time (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So you admit it does not refer to Hogan, therefore this isn't usable to change the section heading. It, again, does not refer to them as liberal republicans unqualified. Actually, it refers to them as moderate, "even liberal," suggesting that the term liberal's usage is a stretch. They are liberal "for a Republican," but moderate and centrist are more commonly used and appropriate terms, so we can't just change it to liberal because that would be misleading and isn't supported. There are many sources that refer to Baker[1][2] and Scott as centrists. Scott even describes himself as a centrist.[3] Andre🚐 19:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Let us call them "moderate republicans" as a compromise. Chances last a finite time (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. @Bishonen :-) Andre🚐 20:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

So if I return the protection to semi now, one of you will change it to "moderate republicans"? OK. Done. Bishonen | tålk 20:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC).

who owns the Republican Party?

The Republican Party is an organization. Does it have employees? If so who provides the money to pay them? Who pays for its offices, etc. How much money does the Republican party as an organization 'make' every year? What are its expanses? And so on. Is it funded entirely by donations or does it have some other source of income?

These questions can of course also be asked about the Democratic Party and any other political party. Ken M Quirici 23:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kquirici (talk • contribs)

Centrist/moderate republicans as a factions in the current GOP

Piggybacking off the previous discussion: the article lacks sources that, in the current GOP, moderates or centrists are an actual faction. One sections only mentions specific GOP politicians. One calls them "oddities in the Republican Party of Donald Trump", indicating that moderates are the expection now. The main source is about the collapse of the centrist/moderate GOP faction. I suggest that centrists/moderates are removed as a factions, and instead we add that they used to be one until recently. Cortador (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

When discussing factions, which are organized groups within a party that compete with one another, we should name them. In this case it is the Republican Main Street Partnership. TFD (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

There are "five families" https://newrepublic.com/article/171386/house-republicans-five-families-mccarthy-marjorie-greene-mob https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2023/house-republican-five-families/ https://timothynoah.substack.com/p/your-guide-to-the-five-gop-families https://www.npr.org/2023/05/24/1177704765/low-key-louisiana-lawmaker-tapped-to-help-lead-gop-debt-negotiations Chances last a finite time (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Undue Weight in LGBT sub-section?

@Springee, your last edit to include
"In the early 2020s, numerous Republican-led states proposed or passed LGBT related laws. These included bans on gender transitions, bans on public performances of drag shows".
This seems to not exactly reflect the majority of journalistic coverage of these bans. Doesn't WP:IMPARTIAL mean that Wikipedia presents these viewpoints with impartial tone, not equal weight?

In other words, the three sources [1][2][3] cited in that sentence all note the policies as either anti-trans or attacking those communities. Perhaps instead of "proposed or passed LGBT related laws", we could write "proposed or passed laws which have been regarded to be anti-LGBT in nature"? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Zorblin (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I do think your proposed sentence works. Would you be opposed to "proposed or passed laws which have been regarded to be anti-trans in nature"? Anti-LGBT in particular is often problematic since what people are often discussing is specific to trans. For example, a law against gender transition procedures for minors isn't really LGB related. If the sources don't have examples of non-trans related laws then I think we should be more specific. Springee (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'd just edited when I saw the talk page. I concur with OP that "LGBT related laws" is watering it down severely in pursuit of equal weight, but I also think "regarded to be anti-LGBT in nature" falls short on WP:WEASEL. When a wide range of reliable sources determine that these laws are anti-LGBT, it's surely correct to describe them as being anti-LGBT. The sources cover a wide range of issues on sexual orientation (the Don't Say Gay bill), gender (the bans on gender transitions) and LGBT culture broadly construed (the anti-drag bills). ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ser!, your edit restores content that fails IMPARTIAL. We shouldn't be saying "anti-LGBT" as the laws are mostly related to trans issues or questions of sexual content targeting minors. For example, the "Don't Say Gay" bill doesn't mention LGBTgay at all. It applies to sexual related topics. The same is generally true of anti-public drag show laws. As this is an encyclopedia, we should prefer precision vs persuasion/emotional language. Springee (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC) corrected, I was typing too quickly Springee (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't fail IMPARTIAL to say what reliable sources are saying about these bills. The language isn't emotional or persuasive, it is factual - if you pass laws that remove rights from LGBT people as the sources have reported these bills do, you are passing anti-LGBT laws. If you want to propose some other wording that doesn't water it down to "LGBT related", I'm all ears. Also, the "Don't Say Gay" bill doesn't mention LGBT at all - huh? The bill refers to sexual orientation and gender identity by name. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 17:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't have to use the language of the source if it conflicts with IMPARTIAL. This is a problem with many culture war related issues. Some publications will use emotive terms (anti-LGBT) when the scope of the law in question is narrower ("anti-drag show" laws that are a prohibition on public displays of sexual related content inclusive of both drag and non-drag content). Springee (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Anti-trans and anti-drag seem to be appropriate. It doesn't contradict IMPARTIAL, which is about tone. We should try to portray what is the media consensus on these laws, not what is the middle ground. A judge is impartial, but they still deliver a verdict, no?

Also, "that are a prohibition on public displays of sexual related content inclusive of both drag and non-drag content)" clearly displays bias. Regarding teaching gender and sexuality in schooling, it is not "sexual content" to state that men can be attracted to men, yet that is banned in early ages. From the toddler age, kids see married heterosexual couples and understand them, it is explicitly discriminatory to regard homosexual couples as inherently sexual when heterosexual couples are not. Drag is also a performance act, and not a sexual thing (at least not when kids are involved).

Could it be that your application of IMPARTIAL is in fact partial? I caution you to reevaluate. Zorblin (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Also NPOV states: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. How can we apply this here? Zorblin (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at how the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act handles the "Don't Say Gay" aspect. The article don't treat the label as fact, rather it say the bill is described as. Saying these bills are viewed as "anti-LGBT" would be impartial. Saying they are is picking a side. Like I said, we can come up with better terms but we need to be careful that we don't pick a side even if sources do. Springee (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Would "proposed or passed laws considered by the New York Times and Washington Post to be anti-trans." be free of weasel words and impartial? If so, could I make that edit? Zorblin (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should specifically cite those sources as I'm sure they aren't the only ones and certainly some of the opponents of the bills have described them as such. What about laws "described as" or "viewed as"? Springee (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, the whole point is that we are basing this off of information cited here. We can add more outlets, but the three sources cited are from NYT and WaPo. All three describe the laws as anti-trans or anti-LGBT. Zorblin (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources are now Reuters, WaPo, CCN, and NYT. There appears to be consensus among reliable sources that this is anti-LGBTQ legislation. We should not include "considered by [source] to be anti-LGBTQ", because that implies that this is a specific wording used by select sources, as opposed to language widespread among reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The better way to decide if there is a consensus among sources would be to find the specific bills in question then see how a range of sources characterize those bills. The problem here is the claim is vague since it doesn't refer to specific laws. As such we only have the characterization offered by those who share the same opinion. We don't get the view of those who don't agree. This is a prove the negative type issue that's common when people object to applying a characterization in wiki voice. These Time and USA Today articles [4][5] don't address this exact editorial question but do show that this is a complex issue. Some of the things that are labeled as "anti-trans" such as restricting trans athletes in female sports have majority public support. Thus labeling that as "anti-trans" does become an impartial issue even if many RS's might suggest the public is wrong on the subject. Springee (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We article doesn't make claims about specific bills, it makes a broader statement about GOP states releasing anti-LGBTQ laws, which is what the sources report. It's not complex at all. Cortador (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

But the question is if the characterization by the source is impartial. That we can find a number of sources that agree doesn't mean that there is a consensus that these bills individually and by extension as a collective should be described as anti-trans. Springee (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Then make a case for that. You have thus fair failed to establish that the sources aren't impartial. Cortador (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Ser!, while we discuss this, could you refrain from further editing as per WP:BRD? @Springee, what do you think of the current revision? Zorblin (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh? I haven’t edited this article beyond the one edit today and my subsequent talk page edits. Unless you’re preemptively asking me not to edit. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 20:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the latter. I just realized that the edit I was talking about was before you even saw this thread. Zorblin (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

First, Zorbin, kudos for seeking to discuss this rather than editing. Ser!, I also appreciate that you are doing the same.

As for the text, I think the view that these are "anti-LGBT" laws should be attributed rather than in Wiki-voice. Take a law prohibiting transition surgery for minors. Some will call that anti-trans while others will view it at protecting minors. Both views can be valid. In such a case we shouldn't describe the law as one or the other in Wiki voice as that is taking sides. These are not topics where we have a long shadow of history and a consensus among scholars to decide what is correct in retrospect. As for the current text, I see two issues. The first is describing the laws as anti-LGBT in wiki voice. The second is what is specifically being referenced when talking about teaching kids about LGBT topics. What specific laws are being discussed and is the source for that claim being loose with their language when referring to a law? Springee (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with Springee in the broader sense that we should maintain a neutral POV and sometimes attributions are needed, I would refer to what the mainstream academic consensus is, in regard to describing something as anti-LGBT. If the mainstream consensus confirms it, then putting it in Wikivoice seems reasonable IMO. DN (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we have something that says this is a consensus description? I do agree with you but normally this sort of consensus description would take either an objective study or historical hindsight. I don't think we have either of those. Springee (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I prefer to remain neutral here, however upon first glance it is quite possible. Here is a quote from the American College of Physicians... "A growing number of states are banning gender-affirming health care and pursuing anti-LGBTQ+ legislation..." There are already other articles that discuss this such as LGBT rights opposition which lists "access to assisted reproductive technology, and access to sex reassignment surgery and hormone replacement therapy for transgender individuals." and 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States in which the lead says "The 2020s anti-LGBT movement in the United States is a conservative political backlash against LGBT people which has included bathroom use restrictions, bans on gender transition, "don't say gay" laws, laws against drag performances, book bans, boycotts, and conspiracy theories around grooming."DN (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

While I support neutral tone, wording such as "regarded to be" seem to violate Expressions of doubt. There's no support for the legislation in reliable sources and no question they are "anti."

I accept the legislation is anti-T, not anti-LGB, but it's part of an anti-LGBTQA+ (if that's the latest term) position. Basically, they chose to focus on the least popular segment of the LGBTQA+ community.

It would be helpful if we had sources that explained the latest actions in context and explain how this relates on their LGBTQA+ position in general. Incidentally, I think that "targeted" rather than "anti" might be better in terms of neutral tone without violating doubt. TFD (talk) 15:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Two recent sources about the JBS and its effect on the GOP

How the John Birch Society Won the Long Game and The John Birch Society broke the GOP’s brain — and laid the groundwork for Trump. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

So, the usual hoops here would be, which portions do you want to add, are they NPOV, where in the article would it go, how/why is it Due/Notable etc...etc...By the way, I've always been fascinated by the JB movement as well as the Federalist Society...Cheers. DN (talk) 16:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I just found them interesting, when I have time for serious editing again it’ll be on pseudoarchaeology. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain what information in those articles is relevant to this one? TFD (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I just added these in case anyone found them useful. I'm out of this discussion now. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The logo

The logo in the article is incorrect. The stars are upside down. 2600:1700:7DF0:6350:39FF:A5B7:C64C:CF72 (talk) 03:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The stars are the same direction here, but then they're flipped here. I would assume the latter is correct also. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:24, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The former example with the downward-pointing verteces is from a 2016 pdf, while the live web version is current.

Trudging through the web archive, one sees the GOP flip-flopped on stars in 2021. [6] —RVJ (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Political position

I don’t see why the U.S. parties shouldn’t have political positions listed. I’d say the Republican Party could be listed as “center to far-right,” as they have centrist politicians such as Charlie Baker, center-right politicians such as Lindsey Graham, right-wing politicians such as Kevin McCarthy, and far-right politicians such as Marjorie Taylor Greene. 167.206.66.211 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, editors decided at one point that this article about a political party shouldn't feature the party's political stance in the infobox. Feel free to open a RfC to change that, but prepared to editors to bend themselves into pretzels to fight this. Cortador (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There were several reasons for excluding this. The first is that U.S. parties do not have official ideologies or any control over their membership. Therefore they have both been broad tent parties spanning the political spectrum although they have become more polarized in recent decades.

Another is that the terms are unclear. What they mean depends on the speaker and is only clear from context. The Republicans could be described as right-wing, center right or centrist and they would all be accurate in different contexts.

Also, it supplies no additional information. Presumably we would adopt these terms based on how we position the various ideologies already presented. It would be like like having a list of people and their heights then adding whether they were short, medium height or tall. TFD (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Political position (again)

I think we can possibly solve the position issue by putting "Right-wing" as the ideology and then a note explaining that there are centre-right and radical right factions within the party, similar to the article about the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan), which describes the ideology as "Right-wing" (which forms the majority of both the (federal) US Republicans and the Japanese LDP) and then has a note explaining factionalism in the party. I guess a similar thing could be also used for the Democratic Party (United States) article but it would be harder for the Democrats because while they have centre-left majority they also have centrist, left-wing and even somewhat centre-right factions within the party.

Any thoughts? QLDer in NSW (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll support this if you can dig out sources that confirm that the GOP is primarily right-wing. I don't doubt that they are, but we need some good sources to outright state it. Cortador (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

At this point I'm curious to see how many times this has been requested, and, shot down with claims of what I assume amounts to good old fashioned American exceptionalism. I'll let you know if I ever find time to dig through the archives and get the total count myself...Cheers. DN (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

We have at least one additional discussion above, and I recall two more just from last year. I have yet to see any reason not to include a position. E.g. an editor above mentioned that "U.S. parties do not have official ideologies" which doesn't matter because we shouldn't primary sources i.e. descriptions of the party itself anyway, and that GOP and Dems have "been broad tent parties spanning the political spectrum", in which case we should not mention that (ignoring that I don't buy that for a second - the GOP was never a home for, say, socialist or communist, or at least not in the last two centuries). Cortador (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Position in the political spectrum is a subjective decision based on where editors place the party's ideology. Relative position only has meaning if context is provided. Without context for example, most people would take "right wing" to mean extremist.

Socialists and communists originally supported the GOP. just as Klansmen and Birchers supported the Democratic Party. It was only after the Reagan revolution that the left-right dividing line of the two parties clarified.

The significance of no official ideologies is that the two parties do not enforce party discipline. In any other country, individuals who depart from the official ideology are routinely expelled. In that sense the U.S. is an exception. The former Klan leader, David Duke, for example, has belonged to both major parties and never faced expulsion. TFD (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't have to worry about "official ideologies" of the party, as we should not use whatever label they give themselves. We should use the label that reliable sources use. If that label happens to be "right wing", so be it - it's not appropriate to omit information provided by reliable sources because someone may interpret it in one way or another.

Regarding the Regan era: Regan became president more than 40 years ago. That's plenty of time. Also, I don't buy that communists only dropped whatever support they may or may not have had for the GOP with Regan. Both GOP and Dems have been anti-communist throughout the entire Cold War. Cortador (talk) 13:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

McCarthy himself was a Republican. He literally was the face of anti-communism (see McCarthyism). QLDer in NSW (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What are the strongest sources that discuss the position of the modern GOP? Discussing this without diving into the sources is unlikely to be productive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's a few sources:

This article from the American-German Institute labels the GOP as centre-right.

This paper discusses the rise of the Tea Party and the shift the GOP has undergone, labelling the GOP as right-wing and the Tea Party as far right.

NPR cites a study from 2012 describes the GOP as being at "the right end of the ideological spectrum".

Dionne argues in Why the Right Went Wrong: Conservatism--From Goldwater to the Tea Party and Beyond that the GOP didn't drift right because of the Tea Party, but that the Tea Party is a cumulation of a drift that started in the 60s, with the GOP now having few moderates left and being a right-wing party overall.

The Economist labels the GOP as "now more similar to Europe’s most right-wing parties", which I think is sufficient for the "right-wing" label.

People's World reports that the GOP's right-wing fringe moved into the party's mainstream. That site likely has a left-wing bias, though the article is written by two journalists from Associated Press.

In this paper, Berlet argues that the GOP has shifted to the right during the 2016 election.

There's a case to be made here for the GOP being right-wing to far-right, but I'll open that particular can of worms another day -the sources are, in my opinion, sufficient for the label "right-wing", however. Cortador (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The first source is pre-Trump era (2015), but while it may lack a current perspective that would include the last decade or so, that doesn't make it any less credible. Is Alan Abramowitz pretty notable? The citation is, again, pre-Trump era (2011). The NPR cite is from 2012 but it does refer to work by Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal (political scientist), which seems promising. E. J. Dionne & Chip Berlet's opinions may be notable in the aggregate as well, though I'm not sure if they are definitive in any meaningful way. The Economist article seems promising but I don't have an account so I couldn't get very far with it. I agree that the People's World source is probably on the lower end of the quality spectrum of sources listed here. I will toss a few more possible sources in the pot for discussion...

• Norman Ornstein - PBS Frontline interview
• Larry Bartels - The deceptive politics of populism: Review of ‘Democracy Erodes from the Top
• Paul Pierson & Jacob Hacker - Let them Eat Tweets

Cheers...DN (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Using reliable sources, you could describe the party as right-wing, centre-right, centrist, centrist to far right, centre-right to right, etc. All these descriptions would be accurate but would only be meaningful if context were provided, which an info-box doesn't do. TFD (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, use a note like the article Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) does!

There is a difference between the Republicans (well the majority at least) and other major conservative parties in other Western countries, like the Conservatives in the UK and Canada, the Liberal/National Coalition in Australia and the National Party in New Zealand, just to name a few. When same-sex marriage was legalised in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, centre-right/liberal conservative governments were in power, whereas in the US most of the Republican caucus still opposes same-sex marriage and abortion.

I will note that there are centre-right factions of the Republican Party. Such individuals include Vermont Governor Phil Scott, Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo and many others. QLDer in NSW (talk) 02:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. DN (talk) 04:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I would only add that the diminishing number of centre-right factions you speak of are quickly becoming more and more of an outlier in the republican party's continued movement to the far-right. Opinions from certain academics and experts may end up confirming this.

• Nicole Hemmer - WaPo - Politico
• Thomas B. Edsall - NYT
• Richard Bensel - NYT

DN (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

LGBT issues

See this revert. I find this section somewhat dated and in need of changes, and this seems like a good place to start. Should current information be placed at the top of the section? DN (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

No. Any section like this should start with a high level introductory paragraph which the one in question is not. After that the content should be in some type of logical, summary presentation style. Ideally something that talks about historical and current positions on the topic. Also, that paragraph has an IMPARTIAL issue as it presents a fact (laws about X) but doesn't provide the rational for those laws. Yes, RSs can dispute the rational but failure to include isn't a good solution. The article should be written in a way that doesn't suggest to the reader the POV of the writer. Springee (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The position of that paragraph can be debated. However, I restored the change to "limiting or banning", as that is actually what the source states. Cortador (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Demographic change

I just added a demographic Saturdaze23 (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Allegations that there is a large-scale change among Republican evangelicals on Israel

Hi, @Pbritti:. The Barna Group poll was:

• 1.) A singular poll. Other polling has shown conflicting results.
• 2.) Wasn't about evangelical Republicans. It was about evangelicals in general. While I suspect both have declined it's likely overstates the opinion of young individuals within the religious right. (Young evangelicals are also more Democratic.)

For what it's worth: support among political elites and among the general evangelical Republican electorate seems higher than ever.

The current wording seems to have several WP: Crystalish implications in an already overstuffed article. KlayCax (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You have to provide polling that suggests otherwise, not just say Other polling has shown conflicting results. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

There has been widespread criticism of the survey. It's a WP: Undue and WP: Weight issue to imply a massive change in evangelical attitudes when information on the matter is significantly conflicting. KlayCax (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Beyond this, it isn't measuring Republican evangelicals. It is measuring evangelicals as a whole. (Of which, younger evangelicals appear to lean more Democratic.)

It stacks a methodological issue (counting all evangelicals as Republicans) upon another (a limited snapshot of time in which evangelical attitudes would likely dip, a flawed sample, among other factors) issue.

There's strong evidence that evangelical Republicans are overwhelmingly supportive of Israel still in the United States. Spending more time on "anti-Zionism" is clearly disproportionate. KlayCax (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Evangelicals as a whole skew overwhelmingly Republican. Andre🚐 00:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, the cited criticism of the poll is from an ordained minister and someone else of dubious capacity for criticizing polling data. They even admit as much: "While we are not sociologists". Their criticism reads as far more CRYSTAL than anything the article states using the polling . ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If this is a single pole was it widely reported? This is already a very long article so I'm not sure why this particular fact is due. Per ONUS it would seem we need consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As you know, we always need consensus for inclusion, but thanks for that reminder. I agree that one poll, absent any other reasoning or analysis, might be a bit much. Andre🚐 00:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Recent polling shows overwhelming Republican support on Israel. It's massively undue to report a similar divide on the Israel-Palestine conflict as the Democrats have. The opinion situation is utterly, radically dissimilar.

Basing it on a single poll — critiqued for methodological flaws (the wording in 2018 and 2021 had different wording) — is a question of WP: Weight. This clearly does not meet it. KlayCax (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion,These trends offer the best look. For the first time, I have actually noticed that Democrats are more sympathetic towards Palestine than Israel. I have been paying attention to the polls for years. Polls on evangelicals in general have no place in an article about the Republican Party. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

New snapshot polling has indicated a change in Democratic opinion during the 2023 Hamas-Israeli war.

White evangelicals favor Israel over Palestine 80-11%. The highest of any group. There isn't significant opposition towards Israel; at least, not any to warrant half of the text about evangelical opinion. KlayCax (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Scorpions1325 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed it, @Scorpions1325:. KlayCax (talk) 06:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2023

Change:

[...] conservative outlets, including the The Daily Wire and Blaze Media.

To: [...] conservative outlets, including The Daily Wire and Blaze Media.

(the "the" before The Daily Wire) is removed. 115.188.126.180 (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done William Avery (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Consensus to not mention a political position in the infobox - based on what?

I'm spinning this off the discussion above. The infobox currently states that "Longstanding consensus is not to include a political position here. Do not change without talk page consensus." However, I combed through the archive and was unable to find where this consensus was established. Discussion about the GOP's political position pop up regularly, with the last significant discussion I could find being from January 2022. In that discussions, most editors supported that the position should be right-wing and/or centre-right. In a much older discussion from 2011, editors also supported to use right wing or centre-right as the position. In yet another discussion from 2017, positions were split between including and not including a position in the infobox. There's a bunch of other, smaller discussion as well.

That said, I still can't find wherever that supposed "longstanding consensus" was formed. If anything, the most recent discussion that did include some form of polling had a majority of editors agree that a position should be included, and that the position should be "right wing". Cortador (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree that we should include the position and that it should be simply "right wing". — Czello ^(music) 19:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

As Firefangledfeathers pointed out in the previous section, it would help to pull any useful RS from those discussions. A productive start will be to include citations from quality RS to encourage participation. I will add again, as I have previously, this issue will keep coming up until it is fixed, and solid RS will make a good catalyst. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

If some editors thought it should be right wing, others center right, others center right to right wing and others think it should be blank, there is no consensus to put anything in. TFD (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Some editors probably also think the Earth is flat. "Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote." Cheers. DN (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Your statement that some editors might think the Earth is flat is offensive and I would remind you to abstain from personal attacks and other disruptive behavior.

The fact is that editors who want to include a description cannot agree on what it should be.

My position is that adding the position merely reflects how Wikipedia editors view the ideologies of the party. In that case, why not show the ideologies in the info-box and let editors decide where in the political spectrum they want to place them?

Can you explain what additional information listing the political position provides that listing their ideologies does not? If you can't then there is no reason to add it. TFD (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In January 2022, editors agreed that the position should be "centre-right" and/or "right wing". That already narrows it down significantly, and the specifics can be ironed out in discussions. It's inaccurate to paint this as something unachievable or even undesired, as so far, nobody could point me to that alleged "longstanding consensus" to not add a position to the infobox. Cortador (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Some vandals would believe the Earth is flat or at least put that in their edit summaries and/or vandal edits (it's actually round by the way, guys).

My proposal is to put this as the position:

[[Right-wing politics|Right-wing]]{{efn|The Republican Party is a big tent conservative party, with a majority of the caucus being right-wing. However, there are also factions which have been described as [[Center-right politics|center-right]], [[radical right]] and occasionally [[Far-right politics|far-right]].}}

This may be modified if necessary. QLDer in NSW (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, just to clarify. Is that what you want the article to say or is that what you want in the info-box? TFD (talk) 08:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

In the infobox. QLDer in NSW (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I would support an WP:RfC if anyone is so inclined. DN (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. That's a good summary of the party as a whole. Maybe remove the "occasionally" before "far-right"; that makes it sound like those factions are a notable minority relative to the others, which I'm not convinced we have sourcing for. Loki (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me as well. Cortador (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain what additional information the field would convey to readers beyond what is already presented in the ideology field?

The way this discussion normally goes is for example, "the Social Democratic Party of X is a social democratic party." We then discuss whether social democray is centrist, centre-left etc. But at the end of the day, how Wikipedia editors place ideologies along a left-right spectrum is of no value to readers. They can decide in this example where they place social democracy. TFD (talk) 07:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The infobox won't contain our interpretation of the GOP's ideology, it will contain that of reliable sources. Cortador (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@QLDer in NSW I definitely support adding the political position to the infobox, however I think that some changes ought to be made to this proposal. The first is that I don't believe that there is any reliable sources for centre-right factions of the republican party (not in many decades at least); Obama was centre-right, and the modern republican party is mostly far right. I think we should do Majority: Far-right and Minority: Right-wing, or, we could also do Right-wing to Far-right, which is done in other political party articles such as Greek Solution, Brothers of Italy, Freedom and Direct Democracy, Finns Party, National Alliance (Latvia), etc. Thoughts? A Socialist Trans Girl 06:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There is no doubt in my mind that the Republican Party is right wing, it's just really a matter of how right wing it is, whether center-right or far-right. These labels are in the American context of course. In a European context Republicans would be considered center-right for example and Democrats center-left. If we were to place a label, and add a position to the infobox, I would say "Right-wing" "with center-right to far-right factions". Furthermore, to prevent accusations if bias and actual bias, I would also treat the Democratic Party the same and label it "left-wing" "with center-left to far-left factions". However if we want to be less controversial (and more realistic/honest in my opinion), we can simply put "Center-right to right-wing" for the Republican Party and then "Center-left to left-wing" for the Democratic Party. I believe people, organizations, media and corporations label ideologically opposed people as far-right or far-left out of spite, ignorance or even hatred. In reality how far right or left are they? My personal "far" threshold is when an individual or group promotes or uses violence to achieve a goal. For example the Proud Boys on January 6th, or BLM and Antifa during summer 2020. But the threshold for when someone will deem something as radical or "far", can be different for everyone in the end. Completely Random Guy (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Your personal perspectives on the alignment of political parties are not helpful. Back it up with a reliable source, or kindly keep it to yourself.

According to the Manifesto Project Database, the Republican Party leans much farther right than most traditional conservative parties in Europe and Canada, and conversely the Democratic Party is positioned closer to the center than their European peers. [7] ––FormalDude (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

1. You haven't provided any sources.

2. The Democratic Party has consistently resisted left-wing politics. The GOP has embraced it.

3. Read WP:BIAS. This wouldn't constitute it.

4. Your opinion is irrelevant without citations.

5. My personal "far" threshold is when an individual or group promotes or uses violence to achieve a goal. No, it's to do with the extent to which an individual group supports left-wing or right-wing politics.

6. For example the Proud Boys on January 6th, or BLM and Antifa during summer 2020. The latter is absurd. The BLM movment was mostly composed by centre to centre-left liberals, with some far-left people. Antifa (short for anti-fascism) does not even have a formal organization, it is merely an opposition to fascism, and it has resulted in 0 deaths.

7. See WP:NOTFORUM.

You haven't provided any basis in Wikipedia policy or RS for this, so as such this cannot be deemed a "legitimate concern" for the purpose of consensus. A Socialist Trans Girl 05:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

To sum up what you and Trans Girl have said, the Republicans can be placed along the political spectrum, we just cannot agree where. And apparently the spectrum for the U.S. and the set of countries that are not the U.S. place ideologies in different positions in the spectrum. It is too complex for the info-box.

The other problem is that the use of these terms is contextual. I might describe the Republicans as right-wing, center-right, centrist, right-wing to centre-right or far-right to center-right. Historically, I could call them center-left to far right, far left to far right, etc. You would understand what I meant by context. But the info-box has no context.

TFD (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I did not think that anyone was making an argument for including historical positions of the Republican Party. Most sources that have been offered have been from the 2010s and 2020s. Bringing in historical positions of a party that has existed for over 150 years is side-tracking the conversation unless you are advocating for including historical positions. Additionally, it is a personal opinion that the info-box offers no context. In my opinon, the context is everything in the info-box, especially the list of ideologies and the inclusion of the International Democrat Union. For additional context, under Political position (again) QLDer in NSW suggested adding notes like the info-box for the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) when you previously made this claim. However, you did not respond to this suggestion for how additional context could be added. Ray522 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

By context, I mean "the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning." (Merriam-Webster) Obviously a single term in an info-box has no context. If as you mentioned the info-box already has ideology and international affiliation, all that political position adds is how you and I place the ideology.

Both parties in the U.S. are centrist. The Republicans are the right-wing party in the U.S. The Republican Party is center-right. The Republican Party ranges from centrist to far right. All these statements are true, but context provides different meanings to the terms used. Which of these true but conflicting descriptions should we use?

Also, what benefit do you think the description provides readers? Do you think that they will understand what you mean by whatever terms you select? TFD (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have RS supporting the republicans being centre-right, and not being right-wing to far right? A Socialist Trans Girl 05:23, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

You still have not addressed the suggestion that QLDer offered. QLDer was demonstrating that there is precedent for doing this on Wikipedia, and was trying to satisfy the context issue that you raised, which could have progressed this conversation. Now, you have made the claim that the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party, are centrist parties without any sources. Then, that claim was supported with another claim that the statement is true, along with other claims about the political position of the party, with no sources.

The addition of a political position would not and should not add what I think about the party's ideology, nor should it add what you think. It should be what is found in reliable sources. And other editors have responded this way recently; we should rely on reliable sources. When editors present reliable sources, like they have above, there has been persistent diversion to steer the conversation towards unsupported claims, personal opinions, or claims that editors would only be selecting or choosing terms when editors have repeatedly advocated for relying on reliable sources. None of this has been helpful in finding a consensus.

I do not know how other readers understand information, and political science terms, nor can I predict what any reader will understand.

There has been, for some reason, an effort to treat this article differently from other articles. Which seems to compromise the neutrality of this article: WP:NPOV, and possibly an issue with WP:UNDUE. A significant view in reliable sources, that has substantial research behind it, as demonstrated by many of the sources provided by other editors above, like the Manifesto Project Database[8], or in research from other places, like the V-Dem Institute, is being excluded - no matter how many reliable sources are offered. Ray522 (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

By European standards, the Republican party is more aligned with the far-right, while the Democrats are broadly centre-right, as per many reputable sources. 80.5.9.24 (talk) 07:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No, they would be considered right-wing and the Democrats centre-left. Same as by Australian standards. There's no way in hell that Joe Biden and Gavin Newsom would be considered "centre-right" when their social policies are left-wing. QLDer in NSW (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

However, Barack Obama is centrist or centre-left. QLDer in NSW (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Got a reliable source to back that up? If not, nobody is going to take you seriously. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure:

• The Guardian (a left-leaning news site)
• News.com.au (although owned by the normally right-leaning News Corp, leans more to the left; this source discusses the major differences between Australian and US politics, one sentence saying "Every four years, politically inclined Aussies swap the traditional attire of red for Labor [the centre-left Australian major party] or blue for Liberal [the centre-right Australian major party] to the opposite colours of Democrat (blue, left wing) or Republican (red, right wing), as the US presidential election approaches.")

QLDer in NSW (talk) 23:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Should we add the number of House delegations to the infobox?

The number of House delegations is relevant if the Presidential election ever goes to the House, where the vote is by state delegation. Although that hasn't happened for two centuries, any time a discussion comes up, the number of state delegations controlled by either party is relevant. It would be handy to have a quick reference.

Currently, the GOP controls 26 delegations, the Democrats control 22, and 2 are tied (Minnesota and North Carolina): https://projects.propublica.org/represent/states

Obviously, those numbers could change in the 2024 election, but it's still helpful to have some quick idea of the standings of the two parties in the House for presidential election purposes.

I would suggest adding that info to the infoboxes for the Republican Party and for the Democratic Party. The infobox template allows for 11 seat templates; 8 are currently in use, so the delegations could be added. I would suggest adding them under seats2, and then re-numbering the other entries from the Governors on down:

For this page, it would be:

seats3_title = House of Representatives delegations

seats3 =

26 / 50

For the Democratic Party page, it would be:

seats3_title = House of Representatives delegations

seats3 =

22 / 50

I'll add a note to the Talk page for the Democratic Party, but suggest that we keep the discussion here. I don't know if a formal RFC is needed? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

A week went by, with no comments, so I've added the delegations to the infobox Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

No & I've removed them. US presidential contingent elections are extremely rare. Therefore pointing out how many delegates would vote in such a rare election, seems out of place. GoodDay (talk) 06:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternative demographic paragraph for readability

"As of the 2020s, the party's strongest political support is among Americans who live in rural, ex-urban, or small town areas; are married, men, or White; are evangelical Christians or Latter Day Saints; or who are without a postgraduate degree. While it does not receive the majority of the votes of most racial and sexual minorities, it does among Cuban and Vietnamese voters"

I think the above paragraph does well in stating some core GOP voting groups but doesn't necessarily have a smooth read. I'm recommending a neutral, smooth sounding explanation that borrows much from the previous answer, but incorporates a more flowing, readable paragraph for the reader.

"As of 2020's, the party wins Americans who geographically reside in ex-urban, rural and small towns, while the suburbs have proven competitive between both parties. Demographically, the party draws largest support from White Americans, particularly White men but also majorities of White women, along with Cuban and Vietnamese voters while also winning married voters, religious Christians such as Evangelicals or Latter Day Saints, military veterans and voters without a college degree"

I did add "military veterans" as part of the GOP coalition. They are 10-13% of the electorate of any given election and a core voter group.

Exit polls for Midterm Election Results 2022 | CNN Politics (2022 Exit polls, Veteran section)

National Results 2020 President Exit Polls (cnn.com) (2020 Election exit polls, Veteran section)

Trump draws stronger support from veterans than from the public | Pew Research Center (2019)

Veterans’ support for Trump strong, poll shows | PBS NewsHour (2018)

Exit Polls 2016 (cnn.com) (2016 exit polls, Veteran section)

Veterans are voting Republican. And that’s not likely to change. - The Washington Post (2014)

Military Veterans of All Ages Tend to Be More Republican (gallup.com) (2009)

Veterans Solidly Back McCain (gallup.com) (2008)

Poll Finds Strong Support for Bush in U.S. Military - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (2004)

I wanted to share this and hopefully come to a consensus! Thanks Sufficient half (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It needs further revision in my opinion:

1. I oppose the phrase "religious Christians," as Catholic voters are split, as a majority voted for Trump in 2016 and Biden in 2020 for example. I would stick to just saying evangelicals and mormons (LDS church).

2. I don't think the suburbs need mentioning, as this is about the Republican party's core voting blocs, not swing voters.

3. I would split the sentence on race & gender--White Americans (especially men), Vietnamese & Cuban voters--from the one on other characteristics--married voters, religion, military veterans, and voters without a college degree. I would make that two sentences. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would do it this way: "As of the 2020s, the party derives its strongest support from rural voters, evangelical Christians, men, and white voters without college degrees". I would take out the first sentence of the final paragraph of the lead, which begins, "The Republican coalition comprises..." That sentence is questionable at best. I would also take out the final sentence of that paragraph. The Log Cabin Republicans are hardly mentioned in the article body, and the College Republicans and the NFRW are not mentioned in the article body at all. MonMothma (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I would cite the following sources: [9], [10], and [11]. MonMothma (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Veterans Helm Removal

If you ctrl+f “veterans” the Republican Party of the United States has a single line with the community mentioned as being giving to them. Historically, this is changing. Firstly, a good sum of Republicans voted in a landslide against the Honoring our PACT Act of 2022 and continue to be anti-cannabis despite publications such as the Disabled American Veterans releasing articles that specifically state that Veterans need Cannabis available to them. The article is here: https://www.qgdigitalpublishing.com/publication/?i=795007&p=7&view=issueViewer

In addition to this, Matt Gaetz is (on paper) the politician from the Republican Party that was pushing for legalization but 3 times voted for speakers that were against the medicine/plant. This and Vivek’s recent vote against Ohio legalizing, puts the Republicans and Veterans at odds, not in friendship.

Did the Republicans develop a “VA” in the 80’s? Yes. Do Republicans like to use the word Veterans? Sure do. But, I when they vote, they hurt Veterans. Please reflect this in the article. Twillisjr (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Twillisjr It's difficult to respond to "please do something about this". See WP:SOFIXIT. Do you have specific changes you would like to see to this article? 331dot (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

331dot: Lots of ways to go about this. I brought it to the talk page so other editors could discuss. Twillisjr (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I would just remove such content if necessary, because Wikipedia is not a place to right wrongs and the purpose of this article is to cover the Republican Party in general, not specific laws or contemporary political issues--there are plenty of other articles for that.

For example, there are numerous articles on cannabis/marijuana, including medical marijuana and its benefits for veterans. There is an article from the "Honoring our PACT Act of 2022" on that specific law. There are articles on the VA (veteran's affairs) and the U.S. military (including veterans). If it's not broad enough and can't be written from an NPOV (neutral point of view, I believe it shouldn't be included. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:14, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"can't be written from an NPOV" NPOV means to accurately summarize what the sources say on a topic. We can not claim NPOV when we have not even identified relevant sources. Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

The final paragraph of the lead includes two questionable sentences. The first sentence of the paragraph reads, "The Republican coalition comprises business interests, affluent voters, and religious traditionalists". A recent journal article is cited, and it is behind a paywall, so I cannot access it to see whether it supports this characterization. In any case, the sentence is outdated and incomplete. Given the recent tension between the GOP and big business (see [12] and [13]), given the well-documented blue-collar support for the GOP in recent years, and given that the 2020 presidential election exit polls show affluent voters having split 44%-44% between the Democratic ticket and the Republican ticket, I question the accuracy of stating that business interests and affluent voters are part of the Republican base. I would replace the sentence with the following: "As of the 2020s, the party derives its strongest support from rural voters, evangelical Christians, men, senior citizens, and white voters without college degrees".[14][15][16][17] This sentence is up to date and is far more complete.

I would also edit the final sentence of the last paragraph of the lead, which reads, "The Republican Party is a member of an international alliance of centre-right parties and has several prominent political wings, including a student wing, a women's ring, and an LGBT wing." The Log Cabin Republicans are hardly mentioned in the article body, and the College Republicans and the National Federation of Republican Women are not mentioned in the article body at all, so I would end the sentence after the word "parties".

Per the hidden text above the final paragraph of the lead, I am seeking consensus before making these edits. MonMothma (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The journal article is accessible through the Wikipedia Library. Other than that, your proposed change seems fine to me. Wow (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I have made the edit set forth above in regard to the Republican Party's base. MonMothma (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Republican Platform NPOV (Neutral Point of View) in the Header

I revised the paragraph in the header on the Republican Party's platform, because it clearly violated the NPOV policy--neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not a place to right wrongs or advocate for social change, but instead to provide information from a neutral point of view. I moved this section to a paragraph on the Republican Party's platform on labor unions & the minimum wage for now, so a consensus can be found on whether to include this information from a neutral point of view. I particularly deleted the following sentence--

"[The Republican Party] opposes labor unions, universal health care, universal child care, and paid sick leave."

It's one thing to cite the Republican Party's opposition to such policies, but to put it in the header with a non-neutral point of view and tone so as to stoke outrage and denigrate the Republican Party is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Regardless of how one feels on such issues, and whether or not the Republican Party's platform is say plutocratic (benefitting the rich) or not doing enough for average Americans, this is not a neutral point of view.JohnAdams1800 (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Opposition to labor unions, same-sex marriage, and universal healthcare are central tenets of the Republican platform. What aspect of it is a violation of NPOV?

I removed the "paid sick leave" and "universal child care" parts, however. KlayCax (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll support leaving labor unions and universal healthcare, while excluding same-sex marriage, paid sick leave, and universal childcare.

The Respect for Marriage Act was signed in 2022 and received partial Republican support, and polling indicates a majority or near-majority of Republican voters support same-sex marriage.

I'm not sure whether even Democrats support universal childcare--does that mean government funding for all families to receive childcare, the government providing childcare itself (i.e. Head Start) to all families that can't afford it, etc.? If you have citations, you can add that. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Saying what the GOP opposes is not denigrating if they openly campaign on their opposition to them. TFD (talk) 10:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have citations for them? The only citation after the sentence is a biography on Karl Marx (added here): .

If so, I could support adding them, but the Republican Party doesn't campaign on them so much as focusing on other issues (i.e. immigration control, abortion, gun rights, etc.). I added two citations on the Republican Party focusing on "culture wars" rather than their opposition to such policies (added here): JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead i.e. the part of the article that you edited, is a reflection of the article body e.g. the part about labour unions stems from the section titled "Labor unions and the minimum wage", emphasis mine. If you aren't aware of that, and since you do not seems to understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I suggest you inform yourself about Wikipedia's practices before doing further edits. Cortador (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

The Republican party has campaigned on right to work, ending Obamacare and marriage is between one man and one woman. TFD (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

"it clearly violated the NPOV policy" Have you even read the policy which you cite? It does not mean that we have to present a positive image of the party. Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

• • "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." Dimadick (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  OP seems to be (yet another) editor who assumes that NPOV means "nice and not nice things equally" instead of "include stuff based on its focus in reliable sources about the topic". Cortador (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I provided reliable sources about the Republican Party, especially its elected officeholders, supporting policies that mainly benefit the extremely rich (top 1%) and the Republican Party's evolution from the time of Lincoln to Trump (1860-2020). I don't think the Republican Party needs to be portrayed favorably, but I also don't think its economic platform needs to be viewed as inherently worse compared to the Democratic Party (see that article), unlike on issues such as voting rights or attempting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

  For example, there are numerous polls this year showing that a majority voters believe the economy pre-COVID was better under Trump than the post-COVID economy under Biden. There is also the 2021–2023 inflation surge, which many voters believed Biden and the Federal Reserve were late to pick up on and the rise in interest rates has led to higher rates for mortgages and other loans. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Look at the Democracy one, I find this inconsistent

Above as I want to mention. 2001:EE0:4BC3:23D0:74A5:B633:51B2:265D (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead do not suit the style written in the Democratic Party. 2001:EE0:4BC3:23D0:74A5:B633:51B2:265D (talk) 12:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

This article isn’t obliged to reflect the Democratic Party article, instead it must reflect whatever the sources say. — Czello ^(music) 14:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

One of two major, not one of the two major or vice versa as consistent as Democratic Party (United States). 2001:EE0:4BC7:AB30:B58E:E5C:90B0:54BE (talk) 10:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I apologise, I misunderstood what you were saying. However, I don't think there's an issue with the lead saying "one of the two major" – again the articles don't need parity. — Czello ^(music) 11:56, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

No, the article 'Democratic Party (United States)' says: One of two major..., look carefully at the lead of that context. 2001:EE0:4BC7:AB30:74A5:B633:51B2:265D (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed this by adding "the" to the lead of the Democratic Party page. "One of two" implies that there are other major parties in the US. There aren't. Whether there should be is a separate question. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding Trumpism to the ideology section of the infobox by putting it in parentheses next to Right-wing populism

Trumpism has been described as the "American version of the far-right" or "right-wing populism." The page for Trumpism itself lists sources for how Trumpism has "became the largest faction of the Republican Party in the United States." I find it a bit odd that Trumpism is not mentioned as an ideology in the infobox. I would suggest potentially by putting it in () so it will say: Right-wing populism (Trumpism). BootsED (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

"became the largest faction of the Republican Party" There are other faction in Trump's party? That would be newsworthy. Dimadick (talk) 11:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Listing it as Right-wing populism (Trumpism) would be appropriate imo. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Best to not add, as that's not the history of the political party. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi GoodDay, this is for the ideology section of the infobox. I'm not sure what you mean by it's not the history of the party. The ideology section should list all the ideologies within the current GOP, and Trumpism is a large one currently. BootsED (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

we already have a long history article, with coverage of centrist GOP leaders & voters. As of Dec 2023 they are a small group rapidly vanishing. Experts now use "Trumpism" as a standard term to characterize the party Rjensen (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I still disagree with the addition, but I won't revert again. GoodDay (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I also don't agree with "Trumpism" as a reasonable description. It seems like a very RECENT description and likely a term recently applied to a faction that was part of the party before Trump and will be around after Trump as well. Springee (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Trumpism = Recentism??? he was just as controversial in 2015-2016 when he defeated 16 or so opponents. That's history and here are some old scholarly articles on the topics: (1) Rojecki, Andrew. "Trumpism and the American politics of Insecurity." The Washington Quarterly 39.4 (2016): 65-81; (2) Brownstein, Ronald. "The Appeal of'Trump-ism'." National Journal 9 (2015). (3) “He offers a barking carnival act that can be best described as Trumpism: a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the... (Texas ex-Governor Rick Perry quoted on ABC News and POLITICO on .July 22, 2015) Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Roughly the last 8 years, in a nearly 170-year old political party. Seems quite recent, to me. GoodDay (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe because it isn't an ideology but as your link says "consists of the political ideologies or political movement associated with 45th U.S. president Donald Trump and his political base." Trumpists IOW belong to a variety of ideologies. TFD (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Republican National Committee does not have much power and does not govern

Who claims the RNC has any power?? Start with Cornelius P. Cotter, and Bernard C. Hennessy, eds. Politics without Power: The National Party Committees (1964). "to quote Republican National Committee RNC "is the primary committee of the Republican Party of the United States. It is responsible for developing and promoting the Republican brand and political platform, as well as assisting in fundraising and election strategy. It is also responsible for organizing and running the Republican National Convention. When a Republican is president, the White House controls the committee. According to Boris Heersink, "political scientists have traditionally described the parties' national committees as inconsequential but impartial service providers." [Boris Heersink, "Trump and the party-in-organization: Presidential control of national party organizations." Journal of Politics 80.4 (2018): 1474–1482.] Rjensen (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The Republican National Committee governs the Republican Party, as the Democratic National Committee governs the Democratic Party. The Republican National Convention occurs only once every four years. GoodDay (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

false and unsourced--According to Boris Heersink, "political scientists have traditionally described the parties' national committees as inconsequential but impartial service providers." what expert rejects that consensus? Rjensen (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that Its members are chosen by the state delegations at the national convention every four years.[source: "At the national convention, each of the parties formally chooses a national committee, elected by the individual state parties." Steffen W. Schmidt, Mack C. Shelley, Barbara A. Bardes, American Government and Politics Today (Cengage Learning 2021) p 167.] Rjensen (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

A Republican National Convention is not the govern body of the party. That event is only put together & held about four days, every four years. PS - Why (after all these years) are you suddenly pushing to replace or delete the RNC from this page's infobox, while not attempting the same with the DNC at the Democratic Party's infobox? Not to mention the national committees at the other US political parties' infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

the GOP national convention chooses the membership of the RNC-- it also selects the party nominee, and writes the party platform. The RNC does none of that, but it runs workshops for candidates for lower office. It has lost many of the functions to the House and Senate GOP campaign committees, and in terms of $$ raising is far less important than Super Pacs. The RNC makes no major decisions, unlike the national convention. Rjensen (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, on this topic, that we should treat the Republican Party differently from the other US political parties. If this is the only party, you're pushing to make the change on? We can have an RFC on the topic, right here. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen on this. The RNC does not "govern" the Republican Party. Furthermore, other political parties don't have this box, but instead have a "Headquarters" field. And party presidents of other parties typically have the authority to appoint candidates or expel members. TFD (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If you or Rjensen want to open up a discussion (in the appropriate area) about whether or not the parameter should be changed or deleted from all US political parties infoboxes? Then find the place to do so. PS - The Democratic, Libertarian & Green parties, do have this parameter & all list their national committees as governing bodies. GoodDay (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As for the Democratic Party I think the National Convention makes the important decisions, and the DNC has declined in importance steadily as Super Pacs and other organizations dominate financing and recruiting candidates for major offices. I have seen no reliable independent sources state that the DNC governs the Dem Party. As for the little minor parties I have not looked into the reliable sources on their governance--has anyone here done that? Rjensen (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Intriguing, you've sparked a notion within me. Would you consider (via a discussion in the proper location) the option of leaving the 'governing body' parameter 'vacant', in all the American political parties' infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

the consensus of experts if that the national convention governs the 3 main decisions of the GOP and Dems [ie (1) presidential nominee 2) party platform 3) composition of national committee)] . As for the minor parties they can be left vacant. (I have been paying MUCH more attention to power fights in GOP in recent years as have all the media--eg GOP in House 2023; role of Trump 2021-23) Rjensen (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you consider opening up a discussion (in the proper place) about 'not' showing anything in the infobox's governing body parameter, of the Republican & Democratic parties? GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

a blank suggests that reliable experts don't know the answer. But they all agree :: 1) the national committees are weak and getting weaker; and 2) agree the president governs his party while he is in office; and 3) the national convention governs when party does not have White House. Rjensen (talk) 03:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, I should open up a discussion in the proper place & bring up your suggestion of replacing the national committees of the two major parties, with their national conventions, which occur only once every four years. GoodDay (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I've contacted Wikipedia:WikiProject United States for more input. GoodDay (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Though the Democratic Party calls the DNC the governing body of the party, the word "governing" is very debatable. While the importance of the RNC and DNC have declined, they are still charged with the day to day management of both parties. It is somewhat a cyclical relationship between the National Committees and the National Conventions. Decisions are made and written down during the National Convention, and members are elected to the National Committee; the convention disbands and ends, the decisions are carried out by the National Committee until the National Committee organizes the next National Convention in four years where the process restarts.

Outside of the conventions, there are important decisions that are made by the RNC and DNC. For example, the committees set parameters for who can participate in presidential primary debates [18][19], and set the primary election schedule. This has recently caused controversy on the Democratic side [20][21]. In 2008, the DNC blocked Michigan from sending delegates to the Democratic National Convention for holding an earlier than sanctioned primary [22]. This resulted in most Democratic candidates removing their names from the ballot in the Michigan Democratic Primary since Michigan would not be able to vote on a presidential nominee. Many months later, after the primary happened, the DNC reversed their decision and allowed Michigan delegates to attend the convention. As previously mentioned, Presidents take control of their party's National Committee as the committee is the lasting functioning body that exists beyond the conventions, and the President appoints the chair of the committee [23]. Ray522 (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

governing the candidate debates? Not this year. The leader--by far--Trump--not only refuses to participate but ridicules them and holds competing events at the same time. The RNC proposed all candidates should attend if they meet cutoff points, and their proposal did not take effect. Their governance was rejected by Trump -- and the consensus of experts is that the 2024 GOP convention will ignore the rules made by RNC and nominate Trump despite his defiance of those rules. Rjensen (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I did not write that the RNC governs, nor does the RNC claim to govern. The Republican Party rules say that the RNC is responsible for general management [24], not governance. Yes, they did set qualifications for who could be involved, not demand who must show up. And yes, Trump has decided to not participate in debates. This affected candidates who did not meet the criteria. Which experts? I guess it is very possible and likely. However, they would not have to wait for the convention to change the rules. I did not see anything in the rules that say that candidates must participate in debates. But there is a part about in which debates candidates are allowed to participate, "All presidential primary candidates shall also agree in writing to appear in only sanctioned Primary and General Election debates. Any presidential primary candidate who does not agree in writing or who participates in any debate that is not a Sanctioned Debate shall not be eligible to participate in any further Sanctioned Debates" [25]. But the RNC has waived this rule for now and has released candidates to participate in unsanctioned debates [26]. So, it appears that the RNC does not need the Republican National Convention to happen to change rules. Though an argument can be made that the RNC has stopped caring about all the other candidates, so what they do does not matter. Ray522 (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Folks, we are spending a lot of time and verbiage arguing about whether three words should be included in the infobox. The issue doesn't seem to be getting resolved. If we need an RfC, we should do it and get it over with. MonMothma (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Contemporary Demographic

The contemporary demographic paragraph in the lead needs to be sourced or it should be removed. Elvisisalive95 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Citations in the lead are discouraged. Everything in there appears to be sourced in the Composition section. — Czello ^(music) 14:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Czello You don’t know how many citations I have dug up to source lead paragraphs in the past. Thank you.

Elvisisalive95 (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2023

I'm offering to change the phrase "loosening gun laws" to "defending gun rights", as that's what most reliable sources and news outlets say. For example Udehbwuh (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We shold avoid phrasings that support either side of the issue as much as possible. Simply state that the Republican party generally opposes restrictions on firearms sales and possession, including carrying them in public. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 03:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)